Int . J . Environ . Res . Public Health 2022 , 19 , 3805
health risk . To help address this problem , the EU Basic Safety Standards Directive has required MS to set a reference level no greater than 300 Bq / m 3 , while lower national
reference levels of 100 or 200 Bq / m 3 have been adopted in a number of countries , especially for dwellings ( e . g ., Ireland , the United Kingdom , Estonia , Denmark , Finland , Sweden , and the Netherlands ) [ 9,10 ]. An important part of many national radon control strategies has been to encourage members of the public to measure radon in their homes , and to remediate them when the level exceeds the reference level [ 11 ]. In spite of the considerable efforts from radiation protection authorities over the past half century , there has been very little voluntary action from the public to deal with radon in their homes [ 12 ]. There is a growing opinion in the field of radon management that a more mandatory approach might be worth considering . It also seems that simply continuing to increase public knowledge about the hazards of radon exposure will not inevitably result in a significant number of voluntary actions being taken by the public to measure or reduce radon levels in their homes . Here , it is suggested that increasing emphasis should be placed on identifying gaps , or presently underused opportunities , in a number of relevant areas . From these gaps , additional tools to reduce public radon exposure could be developed . A few of these gaps have been identified , and are briefly described below . This is based on the experiences of the co‐authors , who have expertise in different disciplines within the overall field of radon management . It should be noted that their listing sequence is not meant to imply any order of importance .
2 . Some Gaps in Existing National Radon Control Strategies
Radon Risk Communication
There is a legal requirement in the EU member states to increase public awareness , and to inform local decision makers , employers and employees of the risks of radon , including in relation to smoking [ 11 ]. Moreover , the EU member states shall provide , as appropriate , approaches for the involvement of stakeholders in decisions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to manage exposure situations . According to this legal requirement , the EU member states are supposed to develop and implement radon awareness campaigns . Unfortunately , the content analysis of radon‐related information on 173 internet pages , from national , regional and local radon policy actors , demonstrated that the availability of radon information on the internet pages in radon prone areas , is limited , that websites contain inconsistent radon information , and that the information is not supported by engaging stories . In addition , internet pages do not provide personalized features , or allow for stakeholder feedback and dialogue . Moreover , the use of social media for radon‐related communication is often not in place , in order to improve test and remediation rates by residents under radon risk [ 13 ].
However , it is reported , in many social science studies , that the behaviour of people under radon risk is loaded with a value – action gap [ 14 – 16 ]. A value – action gap exists due to no , or low , correlation between the knowledge about radon ( radon awareness ) and actually doing a home radon test , or applying mitigation actions , in the affected population . As an example , the recent results of a public opinion study , conducted with respondents living in a high radon prone area in Belgium , demonstrate this gap ; although 75 % of the respondents stated that they are aware of radon , only 15 % of them tested for radon , remediated if there was radon detected , or installed preliminary protective measures when the building was built [ 17 ].
This value – action gap indicates that radon management is not only a technical problem , but is also a socio‐psychological problem , since residents under radon risk need to change their behaviour , test for radon , apply protective measures and remediate , if necessary . For this , communication about radon risk and behavioural recommendations to residents are critical challenges , and , unfortunately , are also the pitfalls for the responsible authorities [ 16 – 18 ]. Efforts to communicate the risks of radon and behavioural recommendations to avoid them have many gaps , and are limited in various aspects . Bouder et al . pointed out that recommended radon communication , as organised by authorities , is still