Report No SR 97(02)F

Nov 1997

The implementation of Section 57 of the Environment Act 1995 creates a specific legal regime for contaminated land in the UK which will be administered, primarily, by Local Authority and Environment Agency staff. The objective is to ensure that land in the UK is "suitable for use" and does not pose a threat to human health and other environmental receptors. Section 57 will make detailed reference to the use of risk assessment in determining: 1) whether land is "contaminated " and 2) what should be done in the event that it is. While the use of risk assessment to regulate contaminated land is generally regarded as appropriate, it has created a need for a strategy for communicating "risk" issues in the context of potentially heightened public sensitivities and perceptions of risk.

This review extracts from the relevant literature on risk perception and risk communication, those insights and guidance which may be of potential assistance to the future management of risk associated with contaminated land in the United Kingdom. A brief description of the methods used to identify and extract material is followed by an overview of recent trends in the risk perception and communication literature. The review focuses on available insights into processes of risk perception and communication on the one hand, and into the content of risk communication on t11e other. In particular, the review notes a fundamental perspective offered by Paul Slovic in 1987.

"Lay people sometimes lack certain information about hazards. However, their basic conceptualisation of risk is much richer than that of the experts and reflects legitimate concerns that are typically omitted from expert risk assessments. As a result, risk communication and risk management efforts are destined to fail unless they are structured in a two-way process. Each side, expert and public, has something valid to contribute. Each side must respect the insights and intelligence of the other."

(Science 236, 280-285)

Public participation is often acknowledged as the enemy of efficiency. However, it is also true to say that participation procedures often generate fuller and better information - residents often know more about the history of their neighbourhood than o fficial records may provide. The risk communication literature in both North America and in Europe suggests that avoidance of conflict and confrontation may not always be possible - particularly given the complexity of risk perceptions in relation to contaminated land issues - but nevertheless by paying attention to the processes by which residents and their representatives may have access to regulators and their skills and information there is sufficient evidence to suggest that progress can be made in terms of improved risk communication and thereby environmental protection and public safety.

Prior to the implementation of the Guidance it is possible that public concerns may develop regarding the possible existence of unaddressed "risk". The literature would suggest the need to consider public risk communication activities - "outreach" - to attempt to create an increased level of awareness (or even consensus but this may be overly ambitious) around the fundamentals and objectives of the new regime prior to local site - related communication activities being required and attempted. The following procedural issues are also recognised as important from a risk communication point of view:

• The wording of the Act and Draft Guidance makes explicit reference to harm and risk while the latter provides details of possible adverse effects. There is a possibility that this will heighten public sensitivities to the possible dangers of contaminated land which are likely to be extremely low at most sites. Consideration should be given to a wider information and awareness raising programme of communication to resolve or at least to air such matters prior to their emergence during a site-specific issue;
• The iterative nature of the investigation and risk assessment process may lead to a suspicion that a site is studied and studied until the "right" answer is found (i.e. an excuse to not remediate). Processes of communication and public involvement would therefore need to be geared to specific steps in the site assessment process with a consideration of the type and format of communication or involvement linked to the relative importance of the decisions likely to be involved at each step;
• The initial inspection strategy (focusing on contaminative uses) prepared by the Local Authority may become public and could easily be viewed by the public as a register of contaminated sites - possibly amplifying public perceptions around an issue be>>ond what might otherwise be anticipated;.
• Planning blight (loss of property values) in the area surrounding a site could result throughout the process from initial listing through inspection remediation and even post-remediation (especially if the contaminants remain in situ) Hence the need for all participants in the process to recognise the interplay between the technical assessment of risk and the social and economic context within which that risk must eventually be evaluated;
• Site investigation activities are sometimes conducted by individuals in protective clothing - this can cause alarm in neighbouring communities potentially amplifying local worries and concerns;
• The consultation process of up to 3 months duration could lead to accusations of foot dragging and inaction in the face of serious potential 11arm or risk There will be a need to maintain close control and compliance with agreed and published consultation schedules - deviations from which will have the potential to create alarm;
• It is clear that the potential for 11eightened perceived risks of contaminated land is substantial Given the value placed on contaminated land issues by affected communities it is unlikely that at the site level there will be major dissension about excess costs more likely there will be demands for greater expenditure with clear outcomes.

There are no "hard and fast" rules with regard to the appropriate content of information in communicating about contaminated land risks However it is possible to point to a number of general guidelines:

• Quantitative information will be asked for and should be provided in as transparent a manner as possible;
• Care should be taken to ensure that assumptions and uncertainties are clarified;
• Care should also he taken to explain terminology which may be familiar and meaningful to the risk analyst - but which may either have no meaning or worse entirely different meanings for members of the lay community;
• Comparisons of contaminated land risks with other risks should be approached with extreme caution so as not to trivialise the contaminated land issues;
• Recognition should be paid to the fact that residents will inevitably be primarily concerned with risk outcomes or consequences as opposed to probabilities;
• While noting that there is no such thing as zero risk: it is also important to note that publicly acceptable levels of risk are highly contextual and are as much driven by local perceptions of who is culpable the effectiveness of local regulation and control levels of trust in local officers and access to information and independent advice;
• Presentational considerations are important - data in graphical form or the use of charts diagrams and colours can all help - but care must be taken to be accurate and not distorting when presenting information content in this way;
• Contaminated land issues arise within a local setting and will be highly influenced by local environmental conditions - some but not all of which will be familiar to residents. Using this knowledge to present data in the most accessible manner should be the guiding principle.

In conclusion potential heightened public concern around contaminated land risk issues requires attention not only to the content of risk information but also to what are the appropriate procedures at the relevant stages in the decision - mak7ng process for contaminated land. At the same time the choice of these procedures should be based upon sound criteria which address:

1. the need for two-way communication and empowerment of a disenchanted public;
2. transparency to create trust in the regulatory role;
3. access and ability to challenge information in order to underpin the increasingly shaky foundations of the role of the expert; and
4. openness to enhance the legitimacy of the overall process in the public mind.

Risk communication therefore needs to address the strategic issues in order to gain public and stakeholder confidence in the new approach and procedures prior to site - related issues falling under detailed local scrutiny. In due course, risk communication for site-related issues:

• should follow the general guidance in terms of content, briefly set out above;
• needs to be flexible in terms of procedures, as indicated above;
• should pay careful attention to, acknowledge and where possible, respond to local perceptions; and
• should reflect the local context and history around particular contaminated site problems when both content and procedures are being determined.

Given this overall guidance, it is suggested that a menu - based risk communication manual approach has a great deal to offer Local Authority and Environment Agency staff and there is both sufficient and relevant research and empirical experience available to make this a practical option.

Key Words:

Risk, Communication, Perception, Contamination

Copies of the report are available from FWR, price £15.00, less 20% to FWR Members.