In creating a society that has solved the most significant environmental problems for following generations, hazards to human and environmental health must be minimized. Remediating contaminated areas and sites is part of the Swedish environmental quality objective for a ‘Toxin-free Environment’. In reaching the goal, contaminated soil must undergo post treatment and the amount of substances that does not belong in the environment reduced to safeguard human and non-human health. By the end of 2015, over 2,900 areas had been partially or completely remediated. Early industrial sites are the primary source for toxic substances in soil and water. While industries such as wood impregnation, paper and pulp mills, and glass works in the past led to economic development, today the remains impact on ecological and human health but may still be interpreted as important to local economy and cultural heritage.
Besides reducing and preventing chemical impact on water, sediment and soil, the remediation projects does also need to prevent residential uncertainty. Central to the remediation efforts is therefore risk communication, which needs to be designed in such a way that potentially damaging public response to the remediation process can be avoided. This paper explores risk communication approaches taking place before, during and after the remediation of contaminated sites. Through interviews with planners and managers involved in two different remediation projects, the aims of this study is to: (1) identify organizational, policy and communicative factors influencing risk communication in post treatment of contaminated sites, and (2) identify and analyze actors’ way of conceptualizing and construing the role of knowledge and legitimacy in risk communication. These steps will contribute to closing the gap between desired outcome and current practice. Understanding how different actors understand and motivate their selection, formulation and implementation of communication strategies, sheds light on the contextual and temporal dimensions of risk communication and how these challenge new directions in risk communication practice.