|
|
|||||
|
what happens if we type these here |
 |
||||
|
Communicate Risk Effectively Environmental projects are more likely to be thwarted
by public outcry than by technical challenges. Environmental legislation
rightfully empowers communities to participate in decisions that
potentially impact their health, natural resources, or economic
well-being. When these assets are perceived to be threatened by a planned
development or existing condition, the public can exert tremendous
influence on the course of the project. Public outcry can delay projects,
substantially increase their costs, or stop them altogether. Unwise is the
technical professional who chooses to ignore or diminish the importance of
community acceptance. Yet the landscape is littered with environmental
projects that collapsed beneath the weight of an unhappy public. In some
cases, this was unavoidable. The potential risks and negative impacts were
simply too great to allow the project to proceed. Here public involvement
worked as the law intended, preventing a poorly conceived project from
being thrust upon the community without their consent. In other
situations, however, beneficial projects have failed because the
interaction with the public was not properly handled. These are projects
that on merit should have succeeded, but did not because proponents failed
to gain community confidence. In the middle of many of these project failures were
competent technical professionals with inadequate skills or misguided
strategies for dealing with the public. These projects required a careful
process of communicating with and involving the public, with the goal of
coming to a mutual understanding of the risks involved and how to mitigate
them. But most engineers and scientists are ill prepared to enter the
realm of risk communication. Many of the capabilities needed in risk
communication, in fact, are quite in contrast with the conventions of
their technical practice. These differences need to be understood by the
technical professional wanting to improve community consensus-building
success. THREE COMMON MISTAKES Why are technical professionals prone to struggle in
their attempts to build public support for risk-based decisions? Three
prominent reasons are evident: §
They view
community relations as an obligation rather than an opportunity §
Their
communication focuses more on information than influence §
They
mistakenly attempt to elevate facts over feelings Recognizing these common mistakes is the first step
towards improving one’s public involvement skills. Each of these reasons
is examined below. Obligation
or Beginning with the passage of the first major
environmental legislation—the National Environmental Policy Act of
1970—federal and state laws governing environmental management have
generally recognized the legitimate role of public discourse in such
decisions. Yet regulations mandate only minimal community involvement,
typically a public meeting or two and the opportunity for public comment
on proposed plans. For most environmental projects, these few activities
are sufficient since there is usually little public interest or concern.
But for other projects, this minimalist approach is the wrong strategy. Given that technical professionals (and the agencies
and companies sponsoring the projects) are generally wary of community
relations, they are inclined to do as little as necessary. Why draw
attention to your project and risk stirring up trouble? Isn’t it better
to maintain a low profile in the community? The problem with such
assumptions is that citizens often interpret the reluctance to invite
public involvement as a desire to cover up an unpalatable project. In
fact, experience proves that one of the best ways to “stir up trouble”
with a community is to fail to initiate open communication about a project
suspected to pose unwelcome costs or risks to the community. When an electric utility in the Rocky
Once the investigation was completed—which confirmed
that contaminants posed no threat to the public—the utility communicated
the results to area residents. Some neighbors remained suspicious,
however, and pushed the city government to intervene. The utility’s
relationship with the community never recovered throughout the course of
the project, resulting in extra work and delays. Given the relatively
insignificant environmental impacts, it’s likely the whole controversy
could have been avoided if the utility had simply notified residents
before field work began. Why didn’t they? They wanted to avoid the
“frustration” of dealing with the public. When public involvement is approached as a regulatory
obligation rather than as an opportunity to build a valuable relationship
with the community, the difference is rarely lost on the public. They are
more inclined to focus on motives than the manifestation of a community
relations program. Many technical professionals resent the imposition of
community scruples on the wisdom of their technical approach. Though they
try to hide their true feelings when interacting with the community, it
inevitably shows. Going through the motions of a community relations
program, no matter how elaborate, will never substitute for genuine
concern for the public’s interests. Consequently, effective public
involvement starts not with the right strategy, but the right attitude. It
will not succeed until there is a willing acceptance of the community’s
role in shaping the course of the project, even though this could mean
compromising the best technical strategy. Information
or Influence? Most technical practitioners are inclined to think
that reason will prevail in public discourse on controversial
environmental issues. They hold public meetings to educate the public
about the “facts,” pointing to volumes of data to support their
position. This is the way they were taught to communicate technical
information—to appeal to logic and objectivity. But they fail to appreciate the fact that public
perceptions of risk are not measured, they are felt. Citizens’ concerns are often subjective and unsubstantiated.
No amount of technical information alone is likely to change those
perceptions. Persuasion is not primarily an intellectual exercise. Rather,
it engages the emotions. This is why environmental activists are generally
more effective in gaining the public’s attention. They appeal to
people’s fear and distrust. Trying to combat this emotional cauldron
with dry technical information is like confronting tanks with swords. Technical professionals involved in community
relations need to understand the principles of persuasion. Most don’t.
In fact, the average engineer or scientist has been taught how not to be persuasive. They religiously follow conventions of
technical communication that are fundamentally non-persuasive. Consider
the following differences: §
Technical
communication stresses the need to be impersonal and objective. Yet people
are persuaded by personal, subjective reasons. §
Technical
communication focuses on provoking an intellectual response. Persuasion is
driven by an emotional response. §
Technical
communication emphasizes features, such as the steps of a process, the
rate of groundwater recovery, or specific regulatory requirements. People
are persuaded by the perception of personal benefits. §
Technical
communication produces lots of information. But persuasion hinges on a
relatively small amount of information that influences a particular
response. Technical professionals working with communities need
to learn to communicate their technical content in a way that connects
with personal perceptions and feelings. Technically oriented facts and
data can overwhelm rather than inform lay audiences. Unwilling or unable
to decipher complex information, they must rely instead on their heart.
Who can they trust to give them the straight story? Invariably, it is the
one who shows the greatest sensitivity to their concerns. One company attempting to site hazardous waste
incinerators at different locations around the country learned this lesson
the hard way. After investing millions of dollars in one community for
preliminary studies and contracts, community support quickly dissipated
after some residents enlisted the help of Greenpeace to fight the project.
The sponsor’s public education efforts, which focused on presenting
supportive technical data, simply were no match for the emotion-laden
warnings of the activist group. Eventually, negative stories about the
project were carried by news media across the country. The proposed
project predictably failed. Determined not to repeat their error, the company
launched a more personal community relations strategy in the next locale.
One individual spent months informally meeting with individual citizens
and civic leaders, soliciting feedback on their concerns and interests.
Friendship and trust was developed over time. The core of communications
with the public dealt with community issues related to the project rather
than technical information. This approach was able to turn community
sentiment from initially negative to supportive, at considerably less
cost. Unfortunately, project sponsors are automatically
presumed to place their project before the interests of the community.
Their technical specialists’ dispassionate presentation of complicated
data supporting the project hardly helps change this perception. Several
studies suggest that the sponsor’s behavior
has far more impact on the public’s viewpoint than the technical
information provided.1 Community relations call for project
engineers and scientists to surrender some of their impersonal objectivity
and demonstrate some empathy for public concerns. They will need to
communicate on the public’s terms, which means addressing perceptions
and feelings—even when these appear to be technically indefensible. Facts
or Feelings? Even with the best intentions, the average technical
professional will find it difficult to empathize with citizens’ concerns
as long as he or she views them as invalid. Indeed, the prevailing notion
in the scientific community is that “actual risks” are those
calculated by experts, while public perceptions of risk are merely
imagined. The goal of community relations, then, is to convert the masses
to the “truth” of probabilistic risk estimates. Thus proselytizing the
public takes precedent over partnering with them. Yet it is arguable whether one can legitimately
distinguish between risks and risk perceptions. Risk is a theoretical
concept—the possibility of loss or injury, not the reality. While
mathematical models are useful tools for making risk-based decisions, they
are hardly infallible. Risk estimates, like any projections of future
events, are inescapably subjective. The risk assessor must make various
assumptions as to the proper methodology, historical data, and
interpretations to employ in calculating risk probabilities. The result is
an educated guess, not a precise empirical prediction or confirmation.2 Since risk estimates are concerned with the potential
for harm to a target population, is it not reasonable to include their
perceptions as part of the overall assessment of risk? Is not their
unhappiness part of the harm we are trying to prevent? The real risk posed
by a planned project or existing environmental condition cannot simply be
reduced to the possibility of fatality or illness. It encompasses a range
of harmful effects, not the least of which is the alarm residents feel
when the livability of their community appears threatened. Such feelings
have a legitimate place in the evaluation of risks, and cannot rightfully
be determined to be less important than impersonal calculations. Some project sponsors have succeeded in negotiating
agreements with the public where risk perceptions were addressed with the
same resolve as risk calculations. In What’s
the Real Issue? In debating the question of whose risks are real,
perhaps it would be wise to ask whether risk is really the primary issue.
Nearly everyone is willing to assume a certain degree of risk in life. We
drive cars, eat fatty foods, walk up and down stairs—all activities that
pose greater risk to our health than the typical hazardous waste site or
nuclear power plant. So why the fuss when these types of projects appear
in our communities? The primary issue, it would appear, is not relative
risks but control. It’s unlikely that the focus of the public’s angst
is a one-in-a-million chance of contracting cancer. Rather they’re upset
over the fact that they did not choose to be exposed to that particular
risk. Experience confirms that one of the best ways to alleviate community
concern about the risks associated with an environmental project or
condition is to invite participation
in the process. This extends a sense of control to those affected. This is
also a key principle of persuasion. People are more easily persuaded when
they feel they have a legitimate choice of options. At one closed refinery, the relationship between the
site owner and the public had seriously eroded despite an active community
relations program. The owner, a major oil company, focused on educating
the public about the environmental impacts at the site and ongoing
remedial activities. No matter how much information they provided the
community, however, it wasn’t enough to offset allegations in the local
media that they had failed to disclose the full extent of the risks and
were trying to avoid their full cleanup responsibilities. The oil company
had resisted efforts to form a citizens’ advisory panel, afraid that
actively involving the public would only frustrate their efforts to
develop the optimum cleanup strategy. The truth was their community relations strategy had
backfired, adding substantial cost and frustration to the project. It was
not until the oil company hired a consultant to look at various site
redevelopment options that the tide of community sentiment began to turn.
The consultant began meeting with citizens as part of the planning process
for future site use. This shifted attention from the environmental
problems and associated risks to the prospect of turning the site into a
community asset. Increasingly the public is becoming a partner rather than
an adversary at this site, although it will take time for some old wounds
to completely heal. The key difference? Local residents were given a role
in defining the ultimate outcome, restoring their sense of control over
the impacts the site poses to the community. PRINCIPLES OF PERSUASION The task of building community consensus around
potentially volatile risk-based issues is not for the uncommitted.
Technical professionals who prefer simply to ply their trade with as
little interruption as possible would do well to steer clear of community
relations activities. Unfortunately, many of them do get
involved—reluctantly—and unwittingly contribute to the demise of the
relationship between the public and the project sponsor. They mean well,
but never fully accept or understand the community’s role. If you are among the few technical practitioners who
do savor the opportunity to work with the public, you already possess one
of the most needed attributes—the desire. The public usually can sense
who welcomes their involvement and who doesn’t. It’s nearly impossible
to earn the community’s confidence until it’s evident that you enjoy
working with them. The lack of this desire underlies the three mistakes
described earlier. Assuming you’re among the exceptions, the following
are some basic persuasive principles to keep in mind: u Seek first to understand what the public is thinking.
Too often, community relations programs start with dispensing information.
Just as a doctor cannot responsibly prescribe medicine without knowing
where the hurt is, engineers and scientists cannot pretend to address
community concerns without first seeing them through the public’s eyes.
Demonstrate at the outset that you are interested. Ask questions and
listen carefully to the responses. This may include a formal community
assessment process. But even more important than an elaborate survey is a
general inclination throughout the project to listen before speaking. u Establish credibility through caring.
Your credibility is your most critical asset in working with a community.
The quickest way to establish your credibility is to demonstrate genuine
concern for them. Without credibility, even the best, most eloquently
communicated ideas will be considered suspect. People are persuaded to do
what they feel is good for them. So focus your attention on their needs
and interests rather than your own. Treat community concerns as legitimate
and worthy of your consideration. u Address feelings and perceptions.
Don’t make the common mistake of appealing only to the community’s
intellect. That’s not where their concern is coming from; it emanates
from the gut. Speak to their anxiety, their anger, their distrust.
Validate their emotions; don’t ignore or downplay them. Technical
information is important, but must be delivered in an emotional context
and in terms the public can understand. To that end, make sure you
“humanize” your communication with the public, using a conversational,
personal tone. Avoid the stuffy, impersonal style characteristic of most
technical communication. u Begin with areas of agreement.
Start your negotiations with the community by mutually identifying the
values and understandings the various stakeholders hold in common. For
example, the majority may favor a new industry that will boost the local
economy. But there may be substantial disagreement about how much
environmental impact from this industry is acceptable. In this case, you
should try to build momentum around agreement on the economic benefits
before wrestling with the differences among stakeholders. When efforts to
reach agreement on some point have stalled, it’s often effective to
return to what you agree upon and try a different path towards consensus. u Meet one-on-one with your strongest opponents.
A few vocal activists can have a tremendous influence on public opinion.
Most people are generally noncommittal at first, then form convictions
based on the input they receive from various sources. When they see how
passionately some of their neighbors oppose a project, they are apt to
conclude that something must be wrong with it—especially when contrasted
with the relatively detached demeanor of project sponsors. Technical
professionals are inclined to dismiss community activists as unreasonable
“extremists,” who should be avoided to the extent possible. But the
presence of these activists at public meetings and in the media make it
impossible to ignore them. A better approach is to seek private meetings
with them—the sooner the better. Listen to their concerns, search for
middle ground, show empathy for their position. You may never change their
mind, but you might succeed in neutralizing their opposition. u Don’t overwhelm with information.
Having first listened to the community, identify the few key messages that
should form the core of your communications. These are the points that you
want your audience to understand and remember. Make these key messages
prominent whenever speaking or writing to the community. Keep your
communications as simple as possible, providing only enough detail to
validate your claims. Constantly solicit feedback from the public to
determine how your messages are being perceived. u Invite community participation in project planning and
implementation.
Project sponsors usually resist this strategy, fearing they will “lose
control” to citizens lacking the expertise to make sound technical
decisions. But experience suggests that they are far more likely to lose
control to an angry public that feels excluded from the process. People
naturally feel more threatened when they feel powerless. They tend to
magnify the risks in their own mind when the risks are imposed
involuntarily. Giving the public a meaningful role in the project often
defuses the alarm and anger that can kill or delay a project. It usually
leads to a better project because community values and interests are
incorporated in its design and execution. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS As communication channels continue to multiply, it
will become increasingly difficult to conduct environmental projects
without public scrutiny. Technical strategies will increasingly need to be
balanced with community values, concerns, and objectives. Risk-based
decisions in the future will need to better integrate both statistical and
perceived risks. This coincides with the trend of distributing more
regulatory authority to states and local governments—in other words,
closer to the people who are actually affected. The bottom line is that we
can expect to see growing community involvement in environmental projects
in the coming years. In this setting, the engineers and scientists who
plan, design, and implement these projects will increasingly be called
upon to interact with the public. We can only hope that more of them will
develop the skills needed to make this relationship productive for both
project sponsors and the affected communities. At a minimum, this would
mean a growing number of technical professionals who: u Accept (and
even appreciate) the legitimate role of the community in guiding the
development and implementation of their projects. Community relations will
become more strategic and less defensive. u Possess the
persuasive skills needed to build consensus among multiple stakeholders.
Technical communication will address a broader audience, becoming more
personally relevant and less exclusive. u Recognize the
validity of perceived risk, incorporating it in a comprehensive risk
management approach that responds to the felt needs that mobilize
communities rather than relying entirely on depersonalized statistical
models. These
technical professionals will be better able to communicate the human
benefits of their technical practice to an interested and involved public.
In turn, they will value the community’s contribution to making their
projects better. References 1 Johnson, B.B.; Sandman, P.M.; Miller, P. “Testing the Role
of Technical Information in Public Risk Perception;” Risk:
Issues in Health & Safety, 1992, Vol. 3, pp 341-364. 2 Shrader-Frechette, K.S.; “Perceived Risks Versus Actual
Risks: Managing Hazards Through Negotiation;” Risk:
Health Safety & Environment, 1990, Vol. 1, pp 341.
|
|||||
|
Home | Experience | Articles | Links | Contact |
|||||
