Dirty Soil and Clean Consciences: Examining Communication of Contaminated Soil

Abstract

The identification and remediation of contaminated sites in Europe is a continuous undertaking that includes different aspects. There are many variables to take into consideration such as the nature of the contaminants, the risks they pose, the location of the site and possible future usages. Also, possible negative effects on the local residents or the environment have to be considered. Within this context, it is necessary to establish a communication between different actors, such as industry, authorities and municipalities, as well as with the surrounding public. This can be done in a variety of ways, where some are more useful and constructive than others. In the present study, eight different construction companies and municipalities were interviewed in order to elicit their views on and experiences of risk communication. The results show that even though most actors were seriously committed to involve and respond to the local populations' concerns and fears, there is certainly room for improvement in many areas. Concluding remarks call for an increased exchange of experiences with all actors involved in risk research and to develop better official guidelines for communicating risks that are specific for contaminated soil.

Fight, Flight or Freeze: Assumed Reactions of the Public During a Crisis

“…In risk communication, before a crisis has occurred, the decisions of what information to communicate is in some cases based on the preferences of the individual communicator and where the goal of the communication can be to calm the local population. In fact, communicators can feel that there might be an outbreak of panic in the community if certain information, or the wrong information, is released (Wiséen & Wester-Herber, 2007). There seems to be a widespread assumption among officials that citizens are helpless in an emergency, dependent on the intervention of official agencies, prone to loss of self-control and panic stricken (Perry & Lindell, 2003;Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004;Sheppard, Rubin, Wardman, & Wessely, 2006).…”

Cause and Consequences of Crises: How Perception Can Influence Communication

“…It has been noted that providing people with detailed information concerning the events leading up to a crisis can cause them to believe that the risk could have been better managed or that the crisis could have been altogether avoided (Coombs, 1999). Also, some evidence suggests that risk managers see a danger in opening up the risk assessment process to larger scrutiny, as it may invite discussions of overall risks rather than those controlled by the individual company, leading to delays or costly processes (Gouldson, Lidskog, & Wester-Herber, 2007;Wiséen & Wester-Herber, 2007). However, these observations cannot provide support for a 'less is more' attitude in crisis communication practices, because purposely withholding information can have far more damaging consequences.…”

“…Traditional media such as television and radio seem to be important sources (Mileti & O'Brian, 1992). Keeping on good terms with representatives from the media is thus recommended (Reynolds & Coombs, 2005;Seeger, 2006;Wiséen & Wester-Herber, 2007). Media is most often seen as a good way to get the desired message across to a large audience, but the information that is released must be verified and controlled in order to avoid confusing information.…”