Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 689–706 | Cite as

Achieving attainable outcomes from good science in an untidy world: case studies in land and air pollution

  • Gary Mahoney
  • Alex G. Stewart
  • Nattalie Kennedy
  • Becky Whitely
  • Linda Turner
  • Ewan Wilkinson
Original Paper

Abstract

While scientific understanding of environmental issues develops through careful observation, experiment and modelling, the application of such advances in the day to day world is much less clean and tidy. Merseyside in northwest England has an industrial heritage from the earliest days of the industrial revolution. Indeed, the chemical industry was borne here. Land contamination issues are rife, as are problems with air quality. Through the examination of one case study for each topic, the practicalities of applied science are explored. An integrated, multidisciplinary response to pollution needs more than a scientific risk assessment. The needs of the various groups (from public to government) involved in the situations must be considered, as well as wider, relevant contexts (from history to European legislation), before a truly integrated response can be generated. However, no such situation exists in isolation and the introduction of environmental investigations and the exploration of suitable, integrated responses will alter the situation in unexpected ways, which must be considered carefully and incorporated in a rolling fashion to enable solutions to continue to be applicable and relevant to the problem being faced. This integrated approach has been tested over many years in Merseyside and found to be a robust approach to ever-changing problems that are well described by the management term, “wicked problems”.

Keywords

Land contamination Contaminated land Air pollution Public involvement Public health risk assessment Wicked problems Environmental public health Applied science 

References

  1. Atkinson, R. W., Kang, S., Anderson, H. R., Mills, I. C., & Walton, H. A. (2014). Epidemiological time series studies of PM2.5 and daily mortality and hospital admissions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax, 69(7), 660–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, T. C. (1960). Pilkington brothers and the glass industry. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, T. C., & Harris, J. R. (1954). A merseyside town in the industrial revolution St Helens 1750–1900. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2006). A health map for the local human habitat. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Public Health, 126(6), 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, S. M. (1997). Psychosocial assistance after environmental accidents: A policy perspective. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(Suppl 6), 1557–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth, C. A., Shilton, V., Fullen, M. A., Walden, J., Worsley, A. T., & Power, A. L. (2006). Environmental magnetism: Measuring, monitoring and modelling urban street dust pollution. In J. W. S. Longhurst & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), Air pollution XIV (pp. 333–341). Southampton: WIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141–B142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa, L. G., Cole, T. B., Coburn, J., Chang, Y. C., Dao, K., & Roque, P. (2014). Neurotoxicants are in the air: Convergence of human, animal, and in vitro studies on the effects of air pollution on the brain. Biomedical Research International, 2014, 736385.Google Scholar
  9. DEFRA. (2008). Guidance on the legal definition of contaminated land. London: Crown Copyright. PB 13149.Google Scholar
  10. Denys, S., Caboche, J., Tack, K., et al. (2012). In vivo validation of the unified BARGE method to assess the bioaccessibility of arsenic, antimony, cadmium, and lead in soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(11), 6252–6260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giles, L. V., Barn, P., Kunzli, N., et al. (2011). From good intentions to proven interventions: Effectiveness of actions to reduce the health impacts of air pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillispie, C. C. (1957). The discovery of the Leblanc process. Isis, 48(2), 152–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gowers, A. M., Miller, B. G., & Stedman, J. R. (2014). Estimating local mortality burdens associated with particulate air pollution. Public Health England. London: Crown Copyright. PHE publications gateway number 2014016.Google Scholar
  14. Grunig, G., Marsh, L. M., Esmaeil, N., et al. (2014). Perspective: Ambient air pollution: Inflammatory response and effects on the lung’s vasculature. Pulmonary Circulation, 4(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart, J. E. (2014). Invited commentary: Epidemiologic studies of the impact of air pollution on lung cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(4), 452–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 2013, 0095399713481601.Google Scholar
  17. IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2013). Environmental decisions in the face of uncertainty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, D., Moore, H. M., Fox, H. R., & Elliott, S. (2003). Stabilisation of Galligu. In Land reclamation: Extending the boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the international affiliation of land reclamationists, Runcorn, UK, 1316 May 2003 (pp. 151–158). Leiden: AA Balkema Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, B.-J., Kim, B., & Lee, K. (2014). Air pollution exposure and cardiovascular disease. Toxicological Research, 30(2), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lippmann, M., Chen, L. C., Gordon, T., Ito, K., & Thurston, G. (2013). National Particle Component Toxicity (NPACT) initiative: Integrated epidemiologic and toxicologic studies of the health effects of particulate matter components. Research Report (Health Effects Institute), 177, 5–13.Google Scholar
  21. Lozano, R., Naghavi, M., Foreman, K., et al. (2012). Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859), 2095–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet, 365(9464), 1099–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marmot, M., Allen, J., Bell, R., Bloomer, E., Goldblatt, P., on behalf of the Consortium for the European Review of Social Determinants of Health and the Health Divide. (2012). WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet, 380(9846): 1011–1029.Google Scholar
  24. Miranda, A. I., Valente, J., Costa, A. M., Lopes, M., & Borrego, C. (2014). Air pollution and health effects. In G. Cao & R. Orru (Eds.), Current environmental issues and challenges (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Redford, K. H., Adams, W., & Mace, G. M. (2013). Synthetic biology and conservation of nature: Wicked problems and wicked solutions. PLoS Biology, 11(4), e1001530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reid, J. R., Jarvis, R., Richardson, J., & Stewart, A. G. (2005). Responding to chronic environmental problems in Cheshire & Merseyside—Systems and Procedures. Chemical Hazards and Poisons Report, 4, 33–35. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/202984/rep_CHAPR4May2005.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2015.
  27. REVIHAAP. (2013). Review of the evidence on health aspects of air pollutionREVIHAAP: Final technical report. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/193108/REVIHAAP-Final-technical-report-final-version.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2014.
  28. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stewart, A. G., Luria, P., Reid, R., Lyons, L., & Jarvis, R. (2010). Real or illusory? Case studies on the public perception of environmental health risks in the North West of England. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(3), 1153–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart, A. G., Worsley, A., Holden, V., & Hursthouse, A. S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of interdisciplinary networking in environmental geochemistry and health: Reviewing SEGH conferences and workshops. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, Special edition, 34(6), 653–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. US EPA. (1985). Superfund health assessment manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  32. Vedal, S., Campen, M. J., McDonald, J. D., et al. (2013). National particle component toxicity (NPACT) initiative report on cardiovascular effects. Research Report (Health Effects Institute), 178, 5–8.Google Scholar
  33. Wragg, J., Cave, M., Basta, N., et al. (2011). An inter-laboratory trial of the unified BARGE bioaccessibility method for arsenic, cadmium and lead in soil. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), 4016–4030.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Mahoney
    • 1
  • Alex G. Stewart
    • 2
  • Nattalie Kennedy
    • 3
  • Becky Whitely
    • 4
  • Linda Turner
    • 1
  • Ewan Wilkinson
    • 5
  1. 1.Sefton Metropolitan Borough CouncilMerseysideUK
  2. 2.Public Health EnglandLiverpoolUK
  3. 3.St Helens Metropolitan Borough CouncilMerseysideUK
  4. 4.AMEC Environment and Infrastructure UK LimitedNorthwichUK
  5. 5.Faculty of Health and Social CareUniversity of ChesterChesterUK

Personalised recommendations