Biosolids are wicked to manage: Land application regulations in Sweden and B.C. Canada

Abstract

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Characterizing and Comparing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Commercially Available Biosolid and Organic Non-Biosolid-Based Products

“…Land application of biosolids is a widespread practice, but the percentage of biosolids that are land-applied varies with region. For example, in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Europe, on average, more than half the biosolids are reported to be land-applied, although the actual percentage is region-specific within a country, e.g., from <1% to >70% in different European states . In Sweden, approximately 25% of the biosolids are land-applied, whereas in China, <3% is reported to be land-applied for agricultural purpose but >80% is improperly dumped .…”

“…For example, in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Europe, on average, more than half the biosolids are reported to be land-applied, although the actual percentage is region-specific within a country, e.g., from <1% to >70% in different European states . In Sweden, approximately 25% of the biosolids are land-applied, whereas in China, <3% is reported to be land-applied for agricultural purpose but >80% is improperly dumped . To contextualize how this translates into the mass of biosolids applied, consider that over 7.18 million tonnes of dry biosolids were reported in 2004 to be produced annually for the United States alone…”

Exploring Scientists’ Values by Analyzing How They Frame Nature and Uncertainty

“…Wastewater management (WWM) is a field that has a technical framing and where decisionmakers expect experts like scientists and engineers to give objective and evidence-based recommendations. When the experts disagree, this type of controversy can become heated (Mason et al, 2015;Öberg & Morales, 2016;Sarewitz, 2004). Science studies scholars claim that value-judgments play a role in scientific controversies and caution that a purely technical framing risks obscuring the influence of scientists' values on their decisions and the implications of those decisions (Douglas, 2017;Elliott, 2017;Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990, 1993.…”

Science for Policy: A Case Study of Scientific Polarization, Values, and the Framing of Risk and Uncertainty

“…Science for policy related to sewage management is particularly interesting for studying embedded values in scientific controversies and their effect on policy advice, as the challenges are typically framed as only technical in nature. We propose that the technical framing hides the embedded values and worldviews, and argue that ethical aspects need to be transparently identified to avoid increased polarization, which leads to intensified conflicts and political impasses, resulting in high social, economic, and environmental costs (Mason-Renton et al, 2017;Mason-Renton & Luginaah, 2016;Morales, Harris, & Oberg, 2014;Oberg & Mason-Renton, 2018;Oberg & Morales, 2016). A recent assessment of the literature (Spruijt et al, 2014) suggests that research examining the role of science-based policy advice has remained primarily theoretical at higher aggregate levels, with little attention to empirical investigation.…”

“…Yet, an evidence‐based consensus is at times unachievable as experts commonly disagree about what solution poses the smallest risks to human and environmental health while maximizing benefits (Oberg & Mason‐Renton, ). Due to the technical framing of sewage management (Chong & Druckman, ), it might come as a surprise that the field is infused with scientific uncertainties, and that it carries all the characteristics of a “wicked problem,” where all solutions have unexpected consequences and result in an unequal distribution of risks and benefits (Balint, Stewart, Desai, & Walters, ; Oberg & Mason‐Renton, ; Oberg & Morales, ; Rittel & Webber, ). Concerns related to policy, planning, and management of sewage are increasing due to a variety of factors: urbanization; climate change response; heightened awareness of the social and economic costs of poor sanitation; increasing demands for equitable service provision; improvements to aging infrastructure; and increased household flushing of potentially toxic chemicals (Gandy, ; Lofrano & Brown, ; McFarlane & Rutherford, ; Nilsson, ).…”