ISO 23882:2026

International
Standard
ISO 23882
First edition
Sludge recovery, recycling,
2026-09
treatment and disposal —
Beneficial use of biosolids land
application — Guidelines for risk
communication and management of
public perception
Valorisation, recylage, traitement et élimination des boues —
Utilisation bénéfique des biosolides (boues) sur les terres —
Lignes directrices pour la communication des risques et la gestion
de la perception du public
Reference number
© ISO 2026
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii
Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Risk management, assessment and communication . 4
4.1 Risk .4
4.2 Risk management .4
4.3 Risk assessment .6
5 Public attitudes to biosolids . 7
5.1 General .7
5.2 Perception in communications.7
5.3 Misconceptions about biosolids .7
6 Real hazards and risks surrounding beneficial use of biosolids . 8
6.1 General .8
6.2 Biosolids and risk .8
6.3 Understanding and communicating acceptable risk .8
7 Risk communication . 8
8 Most effective practices in risk communication and managing public perception . 9
8.1 General .9
8.2 Information provided .10
8.3 Sociocultural values and perspectives .10
8.3.1 General .10
8.3.2 Social sustainability .10
8.3.3 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples .11
8.3.4 Engagement and consultation with Indigenous Peoples . 12
8.4 Learning styles . 12
8.5 Generational considerations . 12
8.6 Timing of communications . 13
9 Tools to communicate risk . 14
9.1 General .14
9.2 Digitized communication tools . 15
9.3 Key messages .16
9.4 Appropriate spokesperson(s) .17
9.5 Media toolkits .17
9.5.1 General .17
9.5.2 Fact sheets and question and answers .17
9.5.3 Media holding lines (responses) .17
9.5.4 Standard responses .17
9.5.5 List of spokespersons .18
10 Trust and credibility .18
Annex A (informative) International evidence on public awareness, perception and acceptance
of biosolids. 19
Annex B (informative) Applied case studies of biosolids communication, stakeholder
engagement and program delivery .22
Bibliography .24

iii
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through
ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee
has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations,
governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely
with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described
in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the different types
of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the editorial rules of the
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use of (a)
patent(s). ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of any claimed patent
rights in respect thereof. As of the date of publication of this document, ISO had not received notice of (a)
patent(s) which may be required to implement this document. However, implementers are cautioned that
this may not represent the latest information, which may be obtained from the patent database available at
www.iso.org/patents. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions
related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 275, Sludge recovery, recycling, treatment and
disposal.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.

iv
Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) describes risk communication as the “exchange of real-time
information, advice and opinions between experts and people facing threats to their health, economic
[11]
or social well-being”. This definition highlights the importance of timely, transparent, and two-way
1)
communication between technical experts and affected stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples in situations
involving potential or perceived risks.
2)
The beneficial use of biosolids produced from industrial and municipal sludge, as well as biosolids-
derived products (e.g. composts and growing media), is widely practiced across many jurisdictions as
part of resource recovery. International standards, including ISO 19698, provide guidance on the safe and
sustainable use of biosolids. These standards support consistent approaches to biosolids management by
addressing key aspects such as characterization, handling, treatment, and land application.
Beneficial uses of biosolids are associated with varying levels of public interest and concern. Public
perception in this context is shaped by multiple interacting factors, including levels of understanding, prior
experience, trust in responsible authorities, and broader social and cultural values.
Effective risk communication is therefore an essential component in supporting transparency, informed
decision-making, and meaningful stakeholder and Indigenous Peoples engagement. It plays a key role
in addressing concerns, contextualizing risks and benefits, and strengthening confidence in the safe and
responsible use of biosolids.
1) In some jurisdictions such as Australia the term “Aboriginal Peoples” or “First Nations” is used to refer to residents of
an area prior first contact. In Canada, Latin America, the Philippines and Africa the term “Indigenous Peoples” is used in
various contexts. The same term is used by the United Nations. In this document, the term “Indigenous Peoples” is used for
consistency with the United Nations and international law and standards. In parts of the world “Indigenous Peoples, First
Nations or Aboriginal Peoples” are not considered stakeholders, as they have jurisdiction over their territory and engage
with provincial government in a government-to-government level and are co-decision makers alongside government.
2) Beneficial uses of biosolids can include land application to produce food and feed crops, energy crops, forestry
crops and for the remediation of disturbed sites. Some jurisdictions have identified the criteria for beneficial use based
on regulations, policies and regional and geographical situations pertaining to the jurisdiction and have differentiated
disposal and beneficial use.
v
International Standard ISO 23882:2026(en)
Sludge recovery, recycling, treatment and disposal —
Beneficial use of biosolids land application — Guidelines for
risk communication and management of public perception
1 Scope
This document provides guidance for communicating the risks related to the beneficial use of biosolids
produced from industrial and municipal sludge and municipal biosolids derived products (e.g. composts,
growing medium) and for managing public perception related to their use.
This document:
— defines key concepts related to risk and risk communication;
— provides context for risk in relation to the beneficial use of biosolids;
— describes public perceptions and responses to the beneficial use of biosolids at a global scale;
— outlines risk communication principles, methods, and tools;
— includes case studies and examples of communication strategies.
This document can also be used to support the development of biosolids management plans, particularly in
relation to community consultation, engagement, and communication activities.
In addition, it can be applied, where appropriate, to risk communication associated with other beneficial
uses of biosolids or similar materials.
This document does not apply to communication regarding hazardous sludge originating from wastewater
that, due to its physical, chemical, or infectious properties, can pose significant risks to human health or the
environment during use, handling, storage, or transportation, and requires specialized disposal methods.
The definition of “beneficial use of biosolids” is outside the scope of this document.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminology databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https:// www .iso .org/ obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at https:// www .electropedia .org/
3.1
acceptable risk
level of risk (3.9) that an individual or society accepts to secure certain benefits
[SOURCE: ISO 13824:2020, 3.1]
3.2
biosolids
organic products used in agriculture, which include sewage sludge, compost, manure and some industrial
wastes
Note 1 to entry: Major sources of biosolids are municipal wastewater treatment plants.
[SOURCE: ISO 15685:2012, 3.2, modified — Note 1 to entry added.]
3.3
consequence
outcome of an event (3.4) affecting objectives
Note 1 to entry: An event can lead to a range of consequences.
Note 2 to entry: A consequence can be certain or uncertain and can have positive or negative effects on objectives.
Note 3 to entry: Consequences can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively.
Note 4 to entry: Initial consequences can escalate through knock-on effects.
[SOURCE: ISO 31000:2018, 3.6, modified — Note 1 to entry was added and other notes were renumbered.]
3.4
event
occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstances
Note 1 to entry: occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstances
Note 2 to entry: An event can have one or more occurrences, and can have several causes and several consequences
(3.3).
Note 3 to entry: An event can also be something that is expected which does not happen, or something that is not
expected which does happen.
Note 4 to entry: An event can be a risk (3.9) source.
[SOURCE: ISO 31073:2022, 3.3.11]
3.5
exposure
extent to which an organization and/or interested party (3.14) is subject to an event (3.4)
[SOURCE: ISO 31073:2022, 3.3.17]
3.6
growing medium
material, other than soils in situ, in which plants are grown
[SOURCE: ISO 8157:2022, 3.2.8.11]
3.7
hazard
substance or mixture which has the potential to cause harm to either an individual or the environment
[SOURCE: ISO 13043:2011, 3.6.1, modified — the word “event” was replaced with the words “substance or
mixture”]
3.8
likelihood
chance of something happening
Note 1 to entry: In risk management (3.12) terminology, the word “likelihood” is used to refer to the chance of something
happening, whether defined, measured or determined objectively or subjectively, qualitatively or quantitatively, and
described using general terms or mathematically (such as a probability or a frequency).
Note 2 to entry: The English term “likelihood” does not have a direct equivalent in some languages; instead, the
equivalent of the term “probability” is often used. However, in English, “probability” is often narrowly interpreted as
a mathematical term. Therefore, in risk management terminology, “likelihood” is used with the intent that it should
have the same broad interpretation as the term “probability” has in many languages other than English.
[SOURCE: ISO 31073:2022, 3.3.16]
3.9
risk
effect of uncertainty on objectives
Note 1 to entry: An effect is a deviation from the expected ‒ positive or negative.
Note 2 to entry: Uncertainty is the state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to understanding
or knowledge of an event (3.4), its consequence (3.3), or likelihood (3.8).
Note 3 to entry: Risk is often characterized by reference to potential events (as defined in ISO 31073) and consequences
(as defined in ISO 31073), or a combination of these.
Note 4 to entry: Risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event (including changes
in circumstances) and the associated likelihood (as defined in ISO 31073) of occurrence.
[SOURCE: ISO 55000:2024, 3.3.8]
3.10
risk assessment
overall process of risk (3.9) identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation
[SOURCE: ISO 31073:2022, 3.3.8]
3.11
risk communication
exchange or sharing of information about risk (3.9) between decision-maker and other individuals, groups
or organizations who can affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by the risk
[SOURCE: ISO 16732-1:2012, 3.23]
3.12
risk management
systematic and iterative optimisation of the project resources, performed according to the established
project risk management policy
[SOURCE: ISO 17666:2025, 3.5]
3.13
risk perception
interested party’s view on risk (3.9)
Note 1 to entry: Risk perception reflects the interested party’s needs, issues, knowledge, beliefs and values.
[SOURCE: ISO 31073:2022, 3.3.3]

3.14
stakeholder
interested party
person or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by a decision or
activity
[SOURCE: ISO 31073: 2022, 3.3.2]
4 Risk management, assessment and communication
4.1 Risk
Establishments formulate goals to achieve specific objectives and desired outcomes. Objectives are defined
as “what to achieve” statements that guide organizational decision-making and support the attainment of
overarching goals. However, all organizations operate within conditions of uncertainty, making it impossible
to achieve complete certainty in every decision. Consequently, decision-making inherently involves risk in
the pursuit of achieving or exceeding intended outcomes.
Risk is an inherent aspect of organizational decision-making and the consequences that follow, whether
positive or negative. As such, the presence of risk is unavoidable and can expose the organization to both
opportunities and threats.
Uncertainties can arise from sociological and human behavioural factors, natural processes such as
weather, incomplete or inaccurate information, changes over time, such as competition and new information
becoming available, and various perceptions of uncertainties. Fortunately, when moving towards their
objectives, organizations can often control or change the risk level risks through their action.
Figure 1 depicts the reality of risk in all aspects of life.
Figure 1 — Life process decisions
4.2 Risk management
The purpose of a risk management framework is to support organizations in their use of risk management in
regard to their activities. The framework is generally based on the following components listed in ISO 31000:
— Leadership and commitment:
The role of leadership is very important for the success of risk management. Leaders can support risk
management by implementing the components of the framework, i.e. creating policies, confirming
resources and reinforcing accountability.
— Integration:
Risk management should be integrated into all aspects of the organization’s foundations such as purpose,
governance and operations. Risk management should be customized to the needs of the organization, as
a result it is an iterative and dynamic process.
— Design:
Designing the risk management framework requires:
— understanding of the organization’s internal and external contexts;

— articulating risk management through activities such as policy making and setting performance
indicators;
— assigning and delegating roles and responsibilities;
— providing resources;
— creating communication and consultation approaches;
— ensuring the operation carries insurance that is adequate to the environmental and exposure risk
that can result from operations.
— Implementation:
Implementing risk management requires the:
— development of a risk communication plan;
— identifying when, where, how and by whom the risk communication will take place.
Successful implementation of the framework requires the engagement and awareness of stakeholders
and Indigenous Peoples.
— Evaluation through performance indicators:
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the risk management plan and communication, the proponents
should:
— periodically assess the performance of the risk management and communication plan;
— determine if the plan as implemented is achieving its goals.
— Improvement:
Following the evaluation process, the proponents of the risk management and communication plan
should:
— adapt the plan as necessary to respond to internal and external changes;
— continually improve the plan through the evaluation process using the commonly applied Plan-Do-
Check-Act process.
Nonetheless, organizations should review their risk management framework and modify the components as
necessary based on any identified gaps.
The risk management process involves the following iterative steps:
— Defining scope, context and criteria:
Organizations should define scope of risk assessment based on factors such as objectives and desired
outcome and consider tools and resources necessary for the process. Similarly, the risk management
context should be established with consideration to the internal and external environments of the
organization and the mission vision and goals of the organization. Furthermore, organizations should
define the threshold and type of risk that is acceptable and aligns with the organization’s goals,
objectives and policies, obligations and stakeholders’ and Indigenous Peoples’ views.
— Risk assessment (see 4.3 for additional information)
— Risk treatment:
The risk treatment step involves the selection and application of options to address the risk.

— Recording and reporting:
The risk management process should be documented and reported appropriately. Proper documentation
and reporting provide a solid foundation for communicating the risk, offers information to decision-
makers and upgrades the quality of engagement with internal and external stakeholders and Indigenous
Peoples.
Note that communication, consultation, monitoring and review should occur throughout the process of risk
management both iteratively and vigorously.
4.3 Risk assessment
The process of risk assessment utilizes specific terms, including hazard, risk and exposure. The risk
assessment process includes:
— Risk identification:
Recognising risks and uncertainties assists the organization to achieve organizational goals. Risks can
be identified through factors such as considering sources of risk, analysing the impacts on objectives
and accessing up-to-date and reliable information.
— Risk analysis:
Risk analysis provides an understanding of the nature and level of the risk and factors such as source
and consequences. The consequences can be related to human health, environmental and financial
liability risks and can play integral roles in the process of analysis.
— Risk evaluation:
Risk evaluation involves comparing the result of risk analysis to the risk criteria and recommending
future courses of action to mitigate the risk. Once the risk evaluation or risk characterization is
complete, undertakings should consider the level of liability insurance appropriate to their activities
and the level of risk incurred.
The risk assessment process is illustrated in Figure 2. Risk is calculated as the product of hazard and
exposure. For example, if a hazard is identified but there is no exposure, then the calculated risk would be
zero. Similarly, if there is no hazard, regardless of potential exposure, the calculated risk would also be zero.
Figure 2 — Risk assessment ‒ Risk and hazard explained

5 Public attitudes to biosolids
5.1 General
Land application of biosolids can result in issues of a social or cultural nature such as the difficulty from
the public to accept the use of biosolids as a nutrient source, trust in institutions regarding the risk and
Indigenous perspectives. These issues are difficult or impossible to address. These issues often arise from:
— incomplete or contradictory knowledge on the part of stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples;
— the number of stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples involved and their level of knowledge and reactions;
— the interconnected nature of these issues with other perceptions.
Responding to these issues can present challenges when formulating communications, for example,
stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples can be aware of scientific papers describing the benefits of the land
application practice and aware of others describing the practice as being unsafe.
With growing urbanization, the volume of biosolids produced is increasing with a parallel expansion in the
amount being applied to land. This has led to heightened public concern.
Public concerns include:
— odour emanating from the applied biosolids which can endure for several days;
— truck traffic (e.g. increased air pollution, noise, damage to roads, fear of spills);
— reduced property values;
— soil, air and water contamination;
— food contamination;
— resentment due to rural land dealing with an urban waste.
5.2 Perception in communications
Perception in communications involves values, priorities, culture and beliefs. Furthermore, factors such as
inappropriate messaging, word of mouth, rumours, credibility of sources of information and sensational
media coverage can affect perception in communication. High concerns on the subject matter can create low
trust and as a result, perception issues can become a reality.
The complicated nature and source of biosolids, inappropriate management practices and lack of proper
communication can cause concern in the community. Various research surveys have explored public
perception of biosolids. Annex A includes case studies that illustrate the issues around public perception and
awareness.
5.3 Misconceptions about biosolids
In most cases the misconceptions about biosolids stem from no messaging or poor messaging. This
often results from insufficient information, or poorly formed evidence regarding risk, which can create
fearmongering. While some people may not support use of biosolids, communicators should not neglect the
people who support beneficial biosolids use.
Some misconceptions regarding biosolids use are:
— assuming biosolids is equivalent to untreated human waste;
— confusing objectionable odours of manure or landfill wastes with biosolids land application;
— assuming biosolids can retain contaminants from the septage;

— mistaking convoys of solid waste garbage trucks as the relatively fewer biosolids hauling trucks;
— believing that all biosolids facilities generate odours when in fact they can be enclosed facilities with
odour treatment.
6 Real hazards and risks surrounding beneficial use of biosolids
6.1 General
Biosolids contain various elements, components and microbial populations including pathogens. In order to
identify biosolids that are safe to use, specific limits for each of the hazards have been identified.
Many countries regulate both the production and use of biosolids in order to protect water sources from
contamination.
6.2 Biosolids and risk
Although concerns have been expressed in popular and environmental media about the land application of
biosolids, there has been little evidence of adverse effect found in research projects of applications where the
[13]
requirements of the regulations were followed . For example, land application of biosolids on farmland in
Ontario Canada has been permitted for over 30 years under the approval and enforcement of the provincial
government. Although several studies have been conducted on land application, no objective evidence has
been found to indicate that properly applied and regulated land application of biosolids has adverse health
impacts.
6.3 Understanding and communicating acceptable risk
The technical basis for setting the limits on various parameters such as contaminants and pathogens is
the concept of acceptable risk. Although regulatory authorities are reluctant to define a precise level of
acceptable risk, lifetime risks in the order of one in a million have been discussed in regulatory applications
of the acceptable risk concept. For context, the annual risks of a fatal car accident or heart disease are both
approximately one in one thousand. The risk of getting struck by lightning is approximately one in six
hundred thousand. Therefore, the concept of acceptable risk for land application of biosolids, being one in a
million, is a very low risk when compared to risks humans accept as a part of everyday living. Nevertheless,
communicating the concept of acceptable risk of biosolids use requires a very disciplined approach to avoid
missteps and to provide the information required for decision-making. It is important to determine and
understand the context surrounding the risks and thresholds of biosolids use in making presentations to
stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples.
It is also notable that in all human activities there are intrinsic risks; however, this finding should not put
the work in a state of inertia, but should encourage industry, the public and scientists to implement all the
procedures and knowledge necessary to obtain the maximum environmental performance from the various
activities.
7 Risk communication
Risk communication is used by experts to ‘close the gap’ between themselves and the lay public.
Communication between the experts and the public is not generally effective in addressing the public’s
concerns unless those concerns are fully explored and understood. This describes a knowledge-deficit
model of risk or behaviour change. However, concerned residents can often be the most informed, but base
their perceptions of risk on an alternate set of value claims, such as local tranquillity over economic growth.
Recent developments in risk communication provide improvements towards addressing residents’ concerns.
Risk communication traditionally followed a paternalistic approach. It relied on one-way “monologues”
of information. This approach was based on the knowledge deficit model. It emphasized reinforcing the
certainty of expert risk assessments. The aim was to align public understanding of risk with that of experts.
This has now been widely recognized as ineffective.

More recently, risk communication practices have evolved to recognize the importance of two-way
communication and increase public participation. These more ‘negotiated’ methods of risk communication
have been argued to stimulate less controversy and disproportionate concern and to be more effective in
communicating risk. Further, it is crucial that public participation begin simultaneously at the early planning
stages of a new project, rather than nearing its completion.
A commonly used risk communication strategy is the “Decide, Announce, Defend” (DAD) approach.
This is a top-down, minimally participatory method of decision-making where a decision is made, then
announced to stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples, and finally, defended if challenged. It is often used
in situations requiring speed and hierarchical control, such as emergencies, but might not be suitable for
[14]
complex situations or where widespread cooperation is needed. Research studies have reviewed the
ineffectiveness of the DAD approach to biosolids facility siting and concluded that true public participation
and earlier involvement of stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples is crucial to maintain trust and attempt to
mitigate negative risk perceptions. Effective two-way communication and public participation strategies
allow stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples to become empowered and for all sides to equally represent their
opinions and concerns in an open manner.
According to the WHO, the purpose of risk communication is to “enable people at risk to take informed
[21]
decisions to protect themselves and their loved ones” . When looking at the land application of biosolids,
risk communication is vital to ensure that farmers using the material are informed, as well as their
neighbours and concerned members of the public. The risk communicator should be any trusted source, and
in the context of this issue the farmer, regulator, generator (e.g. municipality), agronomist or academic are
examples of stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples that can take on this role.
The methods used for risk communication can vary and should be dependent on the situation. For example,
during the land application of biosolids, a farmer might be approached by a neighbour. The neighbour might
raise concerns about odour or increased truck traffic. In such situations, the farmer can often resolve these
concerns through a simple discussion. Additional tools that the farmer can use include supporting material
from local regulator, the municipality as well as scientific reviews.
Establishing clear risk communication will improve responsiveness to community concerns. The transfer of
information should respect the level of concern in the community or individuals within the community.
Annex B provides examples of jurisdictions that have implemented risk communication.
8 Most effective practices in risk communication and managing public perception
8.1 General
Improving risk communication is not only dependent on selecting appropriate and effective risk
communication methods but also dependent on what is being communicated. With respect to the land
application of biosolids, studies have shown that risk communication can be improved by:
— communicating scientific and technical information clearly;
— explaining the concept of uncertainty;
— acknowledging the limits of science;
[14]
— enhancing the effectiveness of risk communication by including these elements .
Risk perceptions are influenced by social constructs of trust, equity, dread, familiarity and voluntariness.
[12]
Some researchers believe that trust is one of the most important factors influencing individuals’ risk
perceptions and responses to risk communication. Regardless of the use of improved risk communication
strategies, risk communication efforts can be ineffective if stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples do not trust
the individuals disseminating the information. The factors set out in 8.2 to 8.6 should be considered for any
risk communication related to biosolids use.

8.2 Information provided
While providing information, the risk communicators and scientists should consider factors such as
underlaying concerns, history of the issue, misconceptions and opposing views. Balancing information
provision, especially with regards to the target audience, is an important factor in communicating risk.
At the same time the information should be communicated in a manner that informs the audience while
being respectful and engaging. For example, while providing data is a great practice, the data should
also accompany appropriate context. Simply listing the substances in the biosolids can be inadequate to
communicating the risks of biosolids unless information about the amount of the substances and potential
exposure pathway is also communicated.
8.3 Sociocultural values and perspectives
8.3.1 General
Effective risk communication requires an understanding of the stakeholders’ and Indigenous Peoples’
knowledge of the issue, their concerns and their belief systems. For example, when engaging with Indigenous
Peoples, their cultural and ancestral history should be considered. Definitions of respect within Indigenous
cultures should also be considered. This helps ensure that messaging is appropriate and that interactions
are conducted respectfully. Urban and rural populations’ values can also affect the way risk should be
communicated. Risk communication practitioners should conduct thorough research on the cultural and
social contexts that may be affected using biosolids. They should also identify and consider potential
conflicts within the region among different residents. 8.3.2 explores the concept of social sustainability,
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and engagement and consultation with
Indigenous Peoples. Understanding these concepts and topics can benefit a community as a whole to move
towards sustainability and equity.
8.3.2 Social sustainability
According to the modern view of sustainability, social aspects are as important as environmental and
[16]
economic ones .
In particular, the “social sustainability” refers to the ability to maintain a condition of well-being equally
distributed within the whole society, and consists of a series of related concepts, each of them performing a
[17]
specific function .
As illustrated in Figure 3, the “social sustainability” is the combination of:
— safety, understood as safety for humans and non-humans;
— equity, where social, economic and environmental injustice is considered a risk to society;
— responsibility, shared by all actors in reducing future risks and mitigating local and global impacts,
including responsible consumption, production and value creation;
— urban farms, including urban farms that support community cohesion, safety, health, place attachment
and broader environmental objectives;
— barriers, including exogenous factors such as poverty, social disadvantage and low-income conditions, as
well as endogenous cultural factors such as taboos related to waste management and reuse.
Within this framework, the importance of proper risk communication and risk perception management
becomes even clearer. Communication without scientific underpinnings in addition to the wrong method of
engaging stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples, can destabilize the public by transferring wrong messages
that especially question people’s safety and equity. This can generate a general distrust of certain activities
even if, in reality, these are positive or even necessary for environmental protection.
Risk communication is more than explaining risks vs benefits or reflecting current scientific knowledge; it
involves efforts to instil confidence. Better communication with those directly affected is needed to address
[18]
the concerns of individuals and encourage a more favourable public perception .

Social-learning approaches aim to create a process that brings together stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples
in a way that promotes a better understanding of each other’s views and interests and the problem at hand,
[19]
thus building trust or social capital among participants .
Key
A social sustainability
1 safety
2 equity
3 responsibility
4 urban forms
5 barriers
Fig
...