Sustainability and Remediation - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 910

included in the national sustainable development policy, for example in the UK
(Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2005a , b ) and, at a European
level, is included in the Public Participation Directive.
Sometimes different opinions within a group of stakeholders on how to remedi-
ate are evident from the start of the process of remediation. Sometimes, different
points of view only become apparent in the course of the reclamation project.
Decision analysis tools are often used to help provide common ground in these
efforts. Decision making requires a shared responsibility of stakeholders (Bardos
et al. 2002 ). Therefore communication about risks triggering remedial action is a
crucial aspect in the process of sustainable restoration of contaminated sites. This
communication needs to take place with all stakeholders.
There have been a number of theoretical studies on risk communication (e.g. Orr
2001 ; Petts et al. 2003 ). Experiences from consultants and problem-owners show
that there are a lot of successful examples of risk communication from which impor-
tant lessons can be learnt (e.g. Hazebrouck and Ledrans 2005 ;NICOLE 1999 ). The
key issues for the communication on risk in contaminated land management are:

• Both technical assessments of risk and perceptions of risk need to be addressed. A

good understanding of both technically identified risk and perceived risk requires
good communication between experts and other stakeholders. The risks that need
to be considered may well encompass risks/impacts from the remediation project
itself that are of concern to stakeholders, for example: cutting trees, odour, noise
or heavy traffic, which can generate objections to a remediation project.

• If the discussion becomes emotional, issues far beyond technical details of the

land contamination might govern the eventual outcome, or the dialogue between
stakeholders may simply break down.

• Sometimes concerns about financial disadvantage, for example for householders

on affected sites, or other issues might determine the process of decision making,
and other issues are given less weight.

• If stakeholder groups struggle to converge on acceptable strategies, separating the

decisions about what sustainability appraisal tool, from the selection of which
indicators or metrics need to be considered can simplify finding practical and
acceptable compromises.

• Pro-activeness pays off. Communication about the contamination problem and

possible remediation measures in advance creates trust. In dynamic situations, the
availability of experts who answer questions on demand helps to keep a dialogue
open and avoid critical situations. However, for this strategy to be successful it is
important that the experts can communicate in clear terms and avoid the use of
jargon when talking with lay people. Visualisations such as figures and diagrams
can be particularly helpful, as can a shared glossary of technical terms, where
these are unavoidable.

Risk-based strategies can have important benefits if the approach is broadly
accepted by all stakeholders. In order to achieve this acceptance, the strategy should