Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 202–208 | Cite as

Sediment and society: an approach for assessing management of contaminated sediments and stakeholder involvement in Norway

  • Amy Marie Patrin OenEmail author
  • Magnus Sparrevik
  • David N. Barton
  • Udaya Sekhar Nagothu
  • Gerald Jan Ellen
  • Gijs D. Breedveld
  • Jens Skei
  • Adriaan Slob
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN NORWAY • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Introduction

Management options for large-scale contaminated sediment remediation projects can be challenging with regard to competing stakeholder interests. This has become apparent during the Oslofjord sediment remediation project (2005–2009) which caused considerable public discussion.

Background

To learn from this project, the ‘Sediment and society’ project was initiated to develop a collaborative approach that will incorporate local and scientific knowledge in order to achieve mutual gains, win-win outcomes for the stakeholders, in the management of contaminated marine sediments.

Method development

The project focuses on two Norwegian harbours: Oslo Harbour and Bergen Harbour. The Oslo Harbour case has been analysed ex-post, using elements of risk governance: participation, communication, information/knowledge and risk perception. The Bergen Harbour case is focused on the establishment of a citizens' jury as well as a stakeholder panel in Bergen Harbour.

Preliminary results and observations

Thus far, the results suggest three important commonalities or challenges for stakeholder involvement: (1) how to include people who have important management information and local knowledge, but not much influence in the decision-making process; (2) how to secure resources to ensure participation and (3) how to engage and motivate stakeholders to participate early in the sediment remediation planning process.

Keywords

Contaminated sediments Multi-criteria analysis Sediment management Stakeholder participation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We kindly acknowledge the Norwegian Research Council as project funding is provided through their ‘The Oceans and Coastal Areas (HAVKYST)’ research programme. For the Bergen Harbour case, we are particularly grateful for the assistance we have received from Per Vikse (Bergen kommune) and Haakon Kryvi (Hordaland County).

References

  1. Barton DN, Navrud S, Bjørkeslett H, Lilleby I (2009) Economic benefits of large-scale remediation of contaminated marine sediments—a literature review and an application to the Grenland Fjords in Norway. J Soils Sediments. doi: 10.1007/s11368-009-0158-x
  2. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanely N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. A manual. Department for Transport, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers R (1997) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. ITP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornelissen G, Harp HPH, Hauge A, Breedveld GD (2008) Assessing PAH and PCB emissions from the relocation of harbour sediments using equilibrium passive samplers. Chemosphere 72:1581–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edelenbos J (2005) Process in shape. Lemma, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Edelenbos J, Schie van N, Gerrits LM (2009) Organizing interfaces between government institutions and interactive governance. Policy Sci 1–22Google Scholar
  7. Ellen GJ, Gerrits L, Slob AFL (2006) Risk perception and risk communication. In: Heise S (ed) Sediment risk management and communication. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellen GJ, Duijn M, Sparrevik M (2009) Sediment & Society. Report on Work package 1: Oslo harbour sediment remediation project. TNO report TNO-034-DTM-2009-02922Google Scholar
  9. Gerrits L, Edelenbos J (2004) Management of sediments through stakeholder involvement. J Soils Sediments SS 4:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Heise S (2007) Sustainable management of sediment resources: sediment risk management and communication. Elsevier, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Heise S, Apitz SE, Babut M, Bergmann H, den Besten P, Ellen GJ, Joziasse J, Katsiri A, Maaß V, Oen A, Slob A, White S (2004) Sediment risk management and communication. Synthesis of the SedNet work package 5 outcomes. J Soils Sediments 4:233–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommes S, Vinke-de Kruijf J, Otter HS, Bouma G (2009) Knowledge and perceptions in participatory policy processes: lessons from the Delta-Region in the Netherlands. Water Res Manage 23:1641–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joziasse J, Heise S, Oen A, Ellen GJ, Gerrits L (2006) Sediment management objectives and risk indicators. In: Heise S (ed) Sediment risk management and communication. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Kim J (2008) Integrating comparative risk assessment with multi-criteria decision analysis to manage contaminated sediments: an example for the new York/New Jersey harbor. Human Ecol Risk Assess 14:495–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laws D (2004) Building consensus on policy choices. In: Laws D, Podziba S (eds) Negotiation and mediation—workshop readerGoogle Scholar
  18. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Yatsalo B, Tkachuk A, Kiker GA, Kim J, Bridges TS, Seager TP, Gardner K (2007) Comparative assessment of several multi-criteria decision analysis tools for management of contaminated sediments. In: Linkov I, Kiker G, Wenning R (eds) Environmental security in harbors and coastal areas—management using comparative risk assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 195–215Google Scholar
  19. Magnussen K, Bergland O (1996) Valuation of contaminants in water (in Norwegian). Stiftelsen Østfoldforskning. Report OR 51–96Google Scholar
  20. Murray M, Greer J (2002) Participatory planning as dialogue: the Northern Ireland Regional Strategic Framework and its public examination process. Policy Studies 23:191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Navrud S, Barton DN (2006) Benefit-cost analysis of ‘Project Clean Fjord’. Report to Project Clean Fjord Remediation plan for contaminated sediments in Telemark—Phase 2 (in Norwegian). Telemark County CommisionerGoogle Scholar
  22. NRC (1997) Contaminated sediments in ports and waterways: cleanup strategies and technologies. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Oen AMP, Cornelissen G, Breedveld GD (2006) Relation between PAH and black carbon contents in size fractions of Norwegian harbour sediments. Environ Poll 141:370–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pretty J, Guijt I, Scoones I, Thompson J (1995) A trainer's guide for participatory learning and action. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. SFT (2000) Contaminated sediments i Norwegian fjords, levels of ambition and strategy for further work (in Norwegian). SFT report 1774/2000. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, OsloGoogle Scholar
  28. Slob AFL, Eenhoorn J, Ellen GJ, Gómezc CM, Kindd J, van der Vlies J (2007) Costs and benefits of sediment management. In: Owens P (ed) Sediment management at the river basin scale. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Slob A, Gerrits L, Ellen GJ (2008) Sediment management and stakeholder involvement. In: Owens P (ed) Sediment management at the river basin scale. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Soldal O, Oen A, Kibsgaard A, Uriansrud F, Lindholm O, Godøy O, Jartun M, Ottesen RT (2005) Feasibility study for Bergen Harbour, Phase II (in Norwegian). COWI report 114863Google Scholar
  31. Soma K (2010) Framing participation with multicriteria evaluations to support the management of complex environmental issues. Environmental Policy and Governance (submitted)Google Scholar
  32. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Suedel BC, Kim J, Clarke DG, Linkov I (2008) A risk-informed decision framework for setting environmental windows for dredging projects. Sci Total Environ 403:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Syme GJ, Sadler BS (1994) Evaluation of public involvement in water resources planning: a researcher-practitioner dialogue. Evaluation Rev 18:523–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yatsalo BI, Kiker GA, Kim J, Bridges TS, Seager TP, Gardner K, Satterstrom FK, Linkov I (2007) Application of multicriteria decision analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies. Integr Enviro Assess Manage 3:223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yin RK (2003) Case study research-design and methods, 3rd edn. SAGE publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Marie Patrin Oen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Magnus Sparrevik
    • 1
  • David N. Barton
    • 2
  • Udaya Sekhar Nagothu
    • 3
  • Gerald Jan Ellen
    • 4
  • Gijs D. Breedveld
    • 1
  • Jens Skei
    • 2
  • Adriaan Slob
    • 4
  1. 1.Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)OsloNorway
  3. 3.Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental ResearchÅsNorway
  4. 4.TNO Built Environment and GeosciencesDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations