| Forside | | Indhold | | Forrige | | Næste |

Study of Information, Attitudes and Behaviour among Parents by Use of Moderatey Contaminated Sites

2 Summary and conclusions

2.1 Background and aims

For many years, lead was used as an additive to petrol and it is now found widely distributed in the soil in most major cities. Likewise, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are found at varying concentrations in the soil as a result of traffic, as well as industrial use.

Lead is known to affect learning abilities, depending on dosage, and potentially to cause neurotoxicity of a more general nature. Children are among the most susceptible to the toxic properties of lead. Lead is therefore one of the soil contaminants that have received the highest attention from health authorities.

The Danish National Board of Health regards 40 mg Pb/kg soil as the highest acceptable concentration of lead in soil. Large areas of Copenhagen exceed this concentration. For practical and economic reasons, an agreement between the environmental and health authorities was made. It accepted lead concentrations in soil up to 400 mg Pb/kg soil, provided that citizens and users of areas with lead concentrations in the range from 40-400 mg Pb/kg soil were informed about relevant preventive measures to reduce exposure to the contaminated soil. Thus, the prerequisite for this agreement was that citizens received, read, understood, and acted appropriately according to the given advice. This is termed ’guidance on behaviour’. This project aimed at evaluating if these prerequisites were fulfilled.

The focus was on information, attitudes, and behaviour among parents of children aged 3-5 years living in central or suburban Copenhagen. The study was a combination of qualitative interviews with a smaller number of parents and questionnaires to a larger group of parents. The qualitative approach illustrated the thoughts of families with smaller children regarding pollution, while the questionnaires elucidated whether these thoughts, attitudes, and behaviour were actually more generally representative for parents with young children living in an urban environment.

2.2 General attitudes and actions towards pollution

Results from the qualitative study

• To most families pollution was an unavoidable part of living in the city. Pollution is smog, noise, and dirt. Pollution is directly visible. Soil contamination with lead is different. It is not directly visible and therefore not what families immediately thought of when asked about pollution.
• Two kinds of pollution apparently existed. One that is uncontrollable (e.g. an accidental emission from a nuclear power plant close to Copenhagen), and one that parents regarded as controllable (e.g. food contamination).

Results from the questionnaire study

• Close to 80% of the parents frequently or occasionally thought about pollution in their daily lives – slightly more parents from central Copenhagen than from the suburban areas.
• About 50% of the parents mentioned air pollution as one of the two most significant environmental risks to their children.
• Soil pollution was rated among the two most significant environmental risks to children by 20% of the parents.
• A higher fraction of parents from the Copenhagen and Frederiksberg municipalities (central Copenhagen) rated air pollution as one of the two most significant environmental risks to children, than parents from the suburban municipalities. This compares with a higher rating by parents from these suburban areas of soil pollution as one of the two most significant environmental risks to children.
• A large majority of parents were actively avoiding or reducing exposure of their children to environmental risks (serving organic food, avoiding tobacco smoke, cleaning vegetables and fruit before serving them).
• Approximately 60% of the parents reported that their children always washed their hands before eating.
• There was a clear agreement between the general focus and attitude towards pollution and specific actions to reduce child exposure to pollutants (e.g. serving organic food, washing hands before eating).
  

2.3 Sources of information on pollution

Results from the questionnaire study

• Parents primarily obtained information on pollution through newspapers, radio, and television.
• Only 18% of parents from the Copenhagen municipality recalled having received information on pollution from their local authorities. This was the case for 52% of parents living in the Rødovre/Glostrup municipalities. This finding was in agreement with the information strategy used in these latter municipalities, where information was distributed as brochures from the municipalities to the citizens.

Conclusion

• The data indicate that information from the local authorities was read and remembered by many parents. A few parents suggested that this kind of information should be sent to the families as personal letters to avoid it disappearing among the large amount of circulars in the mail.
  

2.4 Soil pollution of parents’ own gardens

Results from the qualitative study

• Families tended to define their own garden as clean, even though it was located in a polluted area. This is a consequence of the garden being defined or classified as an integral part of home, which by definition is clean.

Results from the questionnaire study

• Among the 140 parents with a private garden, 25% reported that the soil in their garden was contaminated.
• Among parents regarding their garden as contaminated, 60% had taken measures to reduce exposure of their children to soil contaminants. This was three times as many as among parents not living (or not knowing that they lived) on contaminated soil.
• Among parents stating that their garden was contaminated, 40 % answered that they had not taken any precautions to reduce the exposure of their children to soil contaminants. The questionnaire did, however, not allow us to analyse whether some gardens might have been totally covered with grass or concrete, thereby explaining the lack of effort by some of the above 40 %.
• The two dominant factors determining whether parents had taken action to reduce exposure of their children were the degree to which they thought about pollution during their everyday life, and their awareness of soil contamination in their private garden. The more general and attitude-based factor was thus quite important and must not be ignored.

Conclusion

• It will be an important task to decrease the fraction of parents not taking precautionary actions to reduce their children’s exposure to soil contaminants, despite perceiving their garden as contaminated from the current 40%. Otherwise, the prerequisite for accepting the use of “guidance on behaviour” etc. instead of soil remediation disappears.
  

2.5 Soil pollution and public playgrounds

Results from the qualitative study

• Apart from faeces from cats and dogs, parents did not consider public playgrounds as polluted. Contamination of the public playgrounds only becomes visible when the municipality puts up signs indicating pollution.
• Parents expected the municipalities to deal with soil contamination of public playgrounds.

Results from the questionnaire study

• It seemed possible to increase the number of parents who took precautions to limit their children’s exposure to soil pollution in public playgrounds from 10% to 40% by means of information. This means:
  
  • that information works, and leads to preventive measures among 40% of parents.
  • that 60% of parents do not take preventive measures despite information.
• Half the parents had no knowledge whether the soil of the public playground they used was contaminated and did not take any precautions in relation to their children’s exposure to soil contaminants.

Conclusion

• A potential problem is that only half the parents are aware of soil contamination on public playgrounds, and that 2 out of 3 parents do not act as advised in the guidelines issued by the authorities.
  

2.6 Soil contamination in daycare centres

Results from the qualitative study

• Soil contamination was dealt with in different ways by the parents. Those who had experienced first hand the remedial measures on playgrounds in daycare centres were shocked by the sheer amount of soil that was excavated. They felt uninformed and were worried about approaching the management of the institution in case they were to give an impression of being “difficult” parents.
• Those parents with children in daycare centres that were scheduled for later renovation described that they had attended an information meeting. However, the only information they recalled was that the soil had to be changed. If their daycare centres was not first in line, this was interpreted as indicating that the pollution was not that severe after all.

Results from the questionnaire study

• This study indicated that in cases where the soil at a daycare centres was or had been contaminated, two out of three parents recalled receiving information from the institution, and two out of three parents remembered that preventive measures were taken to decrease the children’s exposure.

Conclusion

• It is not satisfactory if one out of three daycare centres neither informs nor takes preventive measures. An explanation could be that the parents were either misinformed when they thought that the soil in their institution was contaminated, or that they did not remember information that was actually given. Irrespective of explanations, this indicates that information between the institution and the homes can be improved.
• The majority of the parents wanted to be informed early on and play a role in cases of potential or actual soil contamination.
• To avoid misconceptions about contaminated soil, it should be considered whether information to parents with children in kindergartens that are not polluted might also be useful.
  

2.7 Concluding remarks

• A precondition for using the guidance interval (40mg Pb/kg –400mg Pb/kg), and ensuring that the prescribed level of protection is kept, is that advice is given to and followed by all parents.
• This investigation demonstrated that neither in relation to public nor private playgrounds was this condition met, as half the parents did not act as prescribed.
• The routes chosen for distribution of information by the municipalities of Copenhagen and Rødovre/Glostrup (via institutions or directly to the individuals) seemed well chosen, but the effect of the information given was not satisfactory, neither in relation to private nor public playgrounds.
• An important point is that pollution was perceived differently by experts and lay people. The parents wanted to be informed, and not solely by the institution. Several parents asked for personal information to be mailed to them at home, describing the pollution, the potential consequences, and how to deal with it.
• Provided authorities do not want to compromise the health-based level of protection that forms the basis for the guidance interval, authorities will have to reconsider their present information strategy and its effect.
• The advisory authorities will have to re-evaluate the physical as well as intellectual availability of their information material, and how often information should be repeated. Especially when daycare centres are used for distribution, one must acknowledge the rapid change within this population of parents.
  

| Forside | | Indhold | | Forrige | | Næste | | Top |