Premium
From ecological risk assessments to risk governance: Evaluation of the Norwegian management system for contaminated sediments
Author(s) -
Sparrevik Magnus,
Breedveld Gijs D
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
integrated environmental assessment and management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1551-3793
pISSN - 1551-3777
DOI - 10.1897/ieam_2009-049.1
Subject(s) - norwegian , corporate governance , process (computing) , ambiguity , environmental resource management , environmental planning , stakeholder , business , risk management , risk analysis (engineering) , computer science , environmental science , political science , philosophy , linguistics , public relations , finance , programming language , operating system
Managing of contaminated sediments is a complex process that will naturally have to balance scientific, political, and economic interests. This study evaluates the Norwegian system for managing contaminated sediments toward a generic system for risk governance encompassing both knowledge, legally prescribed procedures, and social values. The review has been performed examining the management plans for 17 prioritized contaminated fjord systems in Norway. The results indicate a strong focus in the Norwegian management system on ecological risk assessment. This facilitates selection of local sustainable remediation measures, but may also complicate the balance toward other relevant interests in a decision‐making process. The Norwegian system lacks management tools to identify and handle ambiguity through concern assessments and stakeholder involvement, and the decision‐making process seems to a large extent based on ad hoc decisions, making it difficult to incorporate and document multicriteria evaluations into the management process. To develop a sustainable management system, encompassing environmental, economical, and social interests, a stronger focus on concern assessment and multicriteria evaluations is required. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2010;6:240–248. © 2009 SETAC