Klimatanpassa marksanering : Förbättringsförslag för ökad tillämpning av biologiska marksaneringsmetoder

Sammanfattning: Purpose: In Sweden, there are area that are polluted and in need of remediation. However, soil remediation processes have a negative secondary impact on the climate. There are various soil remediation methods to apply, of which dig and dump are the most frequently used. The method involves although high emissions of carbon dioxide. By increased use of alternative soil remediation methods, such as biological soil remediation methods, can lead to reduced impact on the climate. When choosing a remediation method, sustainability is increasingly integrated, but most decisions are still based on other factors. Psychological, social and institutional barriers are considered to have counteracted the assumption of a sustainable behaviour. Therefore, further research on stakeholder attitudes may promote the implementation of such behaviour. The aim of the work is to present suggestions for improvement on how the climate impact can be reduced in soil remediation projects. Method: The study was performed as a qualitative survey. Empirical data was obtained in verbal form through the methods literature review, document analysis and interview. From an available group, six respondents were selected who represent significant stakeholders in soil remediation projects. Stakeholders were private and public clients, contractors, consultants and regulators. Analysed documents were reports from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency that is about the post-treatment of contaminated areas in Sweden. Findings: The study indicates that biological soil remediation methods have a lower impact on the climate than dig and dump. Furthermore, it appeared that the main factors in choosing a soil remediation method was type of contamination, time for remediation and when contamination is detected in projects. According to this background, biological methods are less applied than dig and dump. However, the study presents suggestions for improvements of how biological alternatives can be encouraged, for instance are more reference objects needed where biological soil remediation methods have been applied. Implications: One conclusion from the study is that existing regulations should be changed to make landfill more difficult and to facilitate re-use of polluted masses, and the fees for landfill should be increased. In addition, more reference objects need to be generated in Sweden that validate that biological soil remediation methods achieve acceptable levels of pollution. Furthermore, stakeholders in soil remediation projects should cooperate more, even across national borders, and together venture to try biological soil remediation methods. Limitations: The result is only valid for biological soil remediation methods and dig and dump for organic pollutants in soil. The study includes few respondents from av geographic limited available group, which means that the result cannot be generalized with certainty. Therefore, the study should be regarded as exploratory and the results thereafter.