A Primer on

Perceptions of Risk,
Risk Communication and
Building Trust

Peter S. Adler, Ph.D.

Jeremy L. Kranowitz, M.P.A., M.S.

The Keystone Center

February 2005

1
Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Problem Diagnostics and Typing

III. Risk Evaluation

IV. Risk Communication

V. Stakeholding and Public Participation

VI. Building Trust

VII. Conclusion

2
 PREFACE

The Keystone Center with support from the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL), produced this paper to aid in outreach and education for carbon
sequestration activities, specifically to address methods for communicating any risks and benefits
of geologic carbon sequestration to the public. Geologic sequestration (or geo-sequestration)
involves injection of carbon dioxide in geologic formations, such as unused oil and gas wells or
coal bed seams, to prevent emission to the atmosphere and can help reduce potential climate
change, without large shocks to the nation’s energy infrastructure.

This paper was written primarily for those involved in sequestration research, to help as
they begin to engage people in the communities surrounding their planned research sites.
Though this paper can be applied to any large energy-, land- or water-intensive project, many of
the examples given in this paper will be relevant to geo-sequestration.

Thanks and appreciation goes to DOE and NETL for both financial and editorial support
on this paper. Comments are solely those of The Keystone Center, and questions should be
directed to the authors: Peter S. Adler, Ph.D., 970-513-5800, [email protected]; or Jeremy
Kranowitz, M.P.A., M.S., 202-452-1590, [email protected].

3
 INTRODUCTION
Statistically speaking, there is a far greater chance of being run over by a motor boat than being
eaten by a shark. The reality, though, is no one will ever make a movie called `Propeller’
-- Kirk Smith, East-West Center of Hawaii.

A reading of the daily newspaper often feels like it was written by Chicken Little, with
the sky falling at every turn. Headlines are filled with new diseases such as West Nile Virus and
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS); the threat of terrorist attacks that could unleash
biological and chemical weapons; crazed snipers in Columbus, Ohio and Washington, DC and
new studies that show some everyday product causes cancer. At the same time, movie thrillers
offer other risks: the threat of a meteorite crashing on Earth, of nuclear radiation causing
mutations to create monsters like Godzilla, or invasions by extraterrestrials. Humans are
fascinated, scared, and thrilled by catastrophe and the perceived risks.

Some of the more fantastic risks, like those we see in the movies, are mainly
entertainment. Others may be strictly technical issues with mutual agreement on the problem at
hand and the solution to remedy it. Some risks though, such as safety and security risks and the
possible erosion of civil liberties, pit one segment of society against another or even one nation
against another, and may involve fundamentally different approaches by stakeholders with core
values that are polar opposites. The more challenging the risk, the more difficult it is to manage.
Identifying the types of demands that are faced by different prospective audiences is one of the
key first steps to communicating and managing risk and building trust with the public.

Those responsible for ensuring safety to the public face two key challenges. The first is
to communicate risks in a manner that acknowledges the emotional content and provides
information to assuage concerns. The second is to engage the public so that they become
effective partners in addressing and overcoming risks. Communication and engagement are key
elements of effective stakeholding.

Different groups can view the same set of issues through different lenses. Working with
different stakeholders provides different frames of reference and units of analysis to approach the
same issues. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, listening to and using the language of

4
different stakeholders allows for different approaches to a similar set of issues, yields higher
levels of trust, and creates longer lasting decisions.

This paper will touch on effective diagnostic tools to help practitioners identify problems,
communicate effectively, and engage the public. It is intended as a guide for those engaged in
projects with potentially large impacts on the environment or to society. This is particularly true
for projects that affect local communities, but may simultaneously have national repercussions.

The common thread through problem identification, risk communication, and

stakeholding is the element of trust. As will be noted throughout this paper, trust is difficult to
create and easy to lose; once lost, it is extremely difficult to regain. If risks are identified
properly and communicated effectively, those people or agencies creating risks can become an
effective partner with the public. Done awkwardly or poorly, the reaction from the public can be
the same as if Godzilla was approaching to destroy the town.

PROBLEM DIAGNOSTICS AND TYPING

“For every complex problem there is a simple solution. Normally, the solution is wrong.” -- Anonymous

American culture is built on different stakeholder interests, each, according to Susan

Podziba, reflecting “a chaotic mix of passions, values, interests, emotions, self interest, and
altruism.”1 Hence the power to accelerate, stop, delay, or checkmate good projects is pluralistic
and rests in many hands.

In the best case, problems are diagnosed early through anticipation strategies and then
averted through smart project plans and early interaction with stakeholders. In the extreme,
projects become embroiled in disputes which become protracted, entrenched, politicized, and
unpredictable. There are a number of tools that decision makers can use to increase their
chances that stakeholders become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. One of the
first tools is identification of the kind of communication that is needed. This is accomplished
through evaluation of the complexity of the problem.

1
“The Human Side of Complex Public Policy Mediation,” Susan Podziba, in Negotiation Journal, October 2003, p.
285-290.

5
 Decision makers, project planners, and project managers need to distinguish at least three
broad categories of problems.2 As illustrated in Table 1, these categories or “types” are defined
by two factors: a) the degree to which there seems to be a common and accepted definition for a
problem, and b) the degree to which there is agreement on a list of possible solutions.

Table 1: Problem Typing

TYPE-1 TYPE-2 TYPE-3

(“Technical/ (“Value/ (“Wicked/
Convergent”) Divergent”) Intractable)

Agreement on Problem Yes Yes No

Definition

Agreement on Possible Yes No No

Solutions

Issues with any degree of depth, breadth, or complexity rarely fit perfectly into these neat
categorizations. Use of this typology is therefore diagnostic rather than formulaic or prescriptive.
Project managers as well as researchers will do well to examine potentially stubborn issues and
problems with an eye towards (a) identifying the Type-I, II, or III characteristics; (b) identifying
different potential leadership strategies and interventions (including the option of waiting and
doing nothing) that are suggested by the problem diagnostic; (c) designing an appropriate
choreography for bringing people, process, and data together when and if “doing something” is
appropriate; and (d) approaching implementation as an improvisation, as if one were playing
jazz.3 We explore each of these types of problems and some suggested strategies and leadership
models to guide the communication and public engagement which is appropriate.

2
The three categories described in this paper have been distilled from the work of different writers including James
Adams in Conceptual Blockbusting (1974), Ronald Heifitz in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994), Edward
deBono’s many books, especially Lateral Thinking (1970), E.F. Schumacher’s A Guide For the Perplexed (1977),
Edward Tenner’s Why Things Bite Back (1997), and -- most especially, the writings of Professor Nancy Roberts
which include Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution, at
http://www.willamette.org/ipmn/test2/issue1/ejchapter1.htm (Sept. 23, 2000) and “The Transformative Power of
Dialogue” in Vol. 12, Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management .New York, JAI, 2002.
3
See Howard Bellman, “Some Reflections on the Practice of Mediation,” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 14. No.3, July,
1998 pp. 205-210.

6
 Type-I Problems and the Myth of Conventional Problem Solving
“Each situation changes each situation.” -- John Madden

“Type-I” problems are fundamentally “how to” questions. They are technical or, to use
E.F. Schumacher’s term, “convergent” in nature, meaning they can be intellectually bounded and
there are high levels of agreement on both the definition of the problem and a short list of
possible fixes. The more that people of reasonable intelligence and reasonable good will study
these problems, the more likely it is that possible solutions will congregate into a narrow range
of choices.

Generally, Type-I problems are amenable to expert-generated solutions. Intrinsically,

these problems tend not to require much consideration of values and beliefs and may not even
always require high levels of participation and involvement by those who have the problem.
Hypothetical examples of Type-I problems might include retrofitting an older water system for
conservation (“how do we best fix up old pipes”), finding the best route to Mexico City (“how
can we get to Mexico City as quickly and comfortably as we can”), setting a broken arm (“how
do we reduce the fracture so it heals the fastest and with the least amount of discomfort”), or
eradicating a termite infestation (“how do we get rid of the termites without poisoning the people
inside”).

To say that Type-I problems are technical in nature is not to say that they are simple.
Think, for example, of the Apollo 13 mission during which astronauts Lovell, Haise, and Swigert
were stranded 205,000 miles from Earth in a broken spaceship and with most of their life-support
systems at or near failure. Or consider the challenges of designing, testing, and commercializing
a new generation of hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles, to say nothing of the roadside service stations
that will be needed to support them, and the energy infrastructure to manufacture hydrogen. Or
searching for survivors in the aftermath of a major earthquake, or designing and drilling a mile-
deep hole to test deep geologic formations. Or even the more day-to-day professional tasks
performed by traffic engineers, tree trimmers, dentists, architects, forklift operators, plumbers,
and social workers.

Most professionals and trades-people – truck drivers, lawyers, printers, and doctors, to
name a few more – are taught one or another version of a basic planning and problem-solving

7
model that has many variations. While steps and phases will differ from author to author, the
usual fundamentals are described in Table 2.

Table 2: Conventional Type-I Problem Solving Model

1. Problem identification;

2. Analysis and information gathering;

3. Formulation of alternative solutions;

4. Formulation of criteria for weighing alternatives;

5. Scaling and weighing choices;

6. Choosing the optimal solution;

7. Implementing the solution;

8. Evaluating the solution and making appropriate changes as needed.

This problem-solving model has many variations.4 Interestingly, research suggests that
few professionals use it.5 More often, professionals tend to first formulate their own (rather than
a collective) sense of the problem, leap intuitively to a possible fix, then find the flaw with the
fix, then find a new possible fix, and so on. This “intuitive” rather than analytical approach
sometimes works, but it is also vulnerable to breakdown. The reasons for this have little to do
with the nature of the problem or the nature of the fix, but more because of interaction issues:
competing egos, differing agendas, divergent paces, dissimilar mental roadmaps (deductive vs.
inductive reasoning, big picture vs. detail orientated, etc.), and the perennial tension that emerges
in groups between “good” and “perfect” solutions.

Conversely, the disciplined, sequential, and bounded problem-solving processes learned

by most professionals turn out to be quite useful when problem-solving requires people to work
together on issues that are dominated by Type-I characteristics. Bringing leadership to more

4
For two examples, see Roger Fisher and William Ury’s Getting To Yes, Houghton-Mifflin, 1981, p.70 and Gary
Goodpaster’s A Guide to Negotiation and Mediation, TransAtlantic Publishers, 1997, p. 92.
5
Notable research includes an experimental simulation done at the Microelectronics and Computer Technology
Corporation (MCC).

8
challenging Type-I problems seems to require a disciplined version of the steps outlined in
Table 2 when experts need to work together, when other conflicts are present, or when a problem
appears to be extraordinarily complex. The conventional model doesn’t need to be used all the
time, but it will have salutary effects when chaos threatens to overwhelm the usual “problem-fix”
intuition. In this kind of situation, skilled third-party facilitators can potentially do a great service
by holding people’s feet to the fire and keeping them working in a disciplined manner.

Type-II Problems and the

Misapplication of Type-I Problem Solving Strategies
“People, things, unseen forces, sort of come together from time to time.” --Michael Connelly

If Type-I problems are characteristically “Technical/Convergent” in nature, Type-II

problems are best thought of as “Value/Divergent.” The more that people of reasonable integrity,
reasonable good will, and reasonably good working relationships study such matters, the more
likely it is that ideas about “the reasonable solution” seem to swerve away from each other. Even
though there may be general agreement on the definition of the problem, there is little or no
agreement on potential solutions. In fact, solution-seeking discussions force confrontations
between people; many individuals find such confrontations so uncomfortable that they often try
to avoid them entirely or dominate others aggressively.

Consider the scene in Kevin Costner’s film Dances With Wolves when the Lakota Sioux
chiefs are sitting in council pondering what to do about Lt. John Dunbar who is stationed alone at
a remote cavalry post nearby. There is general agreement among the chiefs on the problem: the
whites are overrunning the traditional lands of the Sioux. However, one faction favors sending
warriors over to Dunbar’s encampment and shooting a few arrows into him to see if he really has
“medicine.” Another faction believes they should try to talk with him and see if agreements can
be made. A third chief says: “No man can tell another what to do, but killing a white man is a
delicate matter. If you kill one, more are sure to come.” After everyone else has spoken, the high
chief urges the group to talk further before deciding what to do, in effect, to not act precipitously
or impulsively and to continue exploring the different value premises that are at play.

9
 Unlike Type-I problems that lend themselves to the diagnostics and interventions of
experts, Type-II matters require a serious consideration of values, not just by the experts, but by
those who in some way must implement the solutions or live with the outcomes. In these
circumstances, information alone won’t fully inform decision-making because the problems
invoke matters of the heart. Not only can the full contours of the problem not be well described
intellectually, the consequences of any one single proposed course of action cannot be fully
predicted or relied upon. Type-II problems evoke the emotions and stubborn responses
associated with worldviews, ideologies, and belief systems.

Technical experts can help inform possible solutions to Type-II problems, but without the
participation of those who actually bear the full brunt of the problem – the stakeholders or
“holders-of-the-problem” – progress remains elusive. In day-to-day life, examples might include
determining how we will expand a water supply once existing sources have been tapped out
(“gray-water recycling? desalinization? importing from elsewhere?”), or deciding “why” we
want to go to Mexico City and what we are going to do once we get there (“see the cultural sites?
take in the nightlife? go to language school and learn Spanish?”). From an energy perspective,
the U.S. relies heavily on fossil fuel resources for its energy source. However, decisions about
how to diversify (“build more wind and solar power? switch to nuclear? build advanced clean
coal power plants?”) are quite divergent.

Bringing leadership to Type-II problems requires skills and strategies very different from
those needed for Type-I problems. Faced with more emotion-laden and value-driven problems,
the inclination of many professionals is to apply one or another version of the conventional
problem-solving model outlined in Table 2, i.e., systematic problem identification, analysis and
information gathering, formulation of alternative solutions, etc. The elements of this model may
be useful, but only after some of the following other tasks may have been set in motion, if not
accomplished:

¾ Gathering together a strong, representative cross-section of voices and perspectives.

¾ Establishing the goals and protocols needed for sustained and disciplined discussions.
¾ Collecting multiple narratives that help illuminate different descriptions of the problem as
seen through different eyes.
¾ Naming the fears and risks associated with different problem definitions.

10
 ¾ Reframing narratives into mutual questions.
¾ Managing the pace of problem solving.
¾ De-positioning and/or preventing premature negotiation.
¾ Helping everyone to avoid the wishful thinking that one value set will ultimately prevail.
¾ Helping everyone understand the trade-offs involved in tough choices.

Type-III Problems and the Challenge of

Bringing Leadership to “Wicked” Problems
“Dance with your demons and they become angels.” -- Anonymous

In the various literatures on problem-solving, Type-III problems are often referred to as

“wicked” or “intractable” because they seem to be diabolically complicated by multiple
stakeholders, overlapping jurisdictions, powerful moral dimensions, and deep, nasty, much
remembered histories. The situation can be especially troublesome when the remedies are
complicated and expensive and there are other competing demands for resources. Simon Shum
says these problems cannot be easily defined so that all stakeholders actually agree on the
problem to solve. They require complex judgments about the level of abstraction at which to
define the problem, have no clear starting or stopping rules for defining the problem, and have no
objective measure of success.6 Similarly, the concept of “intractability” carries a variety of
connotations and denotations, not the least of which is the inability to find or create a traction
point from which to try to tame or resolve the problem.7

“Type-III” problems preoccupy us because of their volatility, drama, high public

consequences, and difficulty to tame. One key indication of a Type-III problem is that
communication channels have been clogged, if not actually severed. Stakeholders are unable to
talk with each other without inflaming the situation. If there is communication, it takes place
through lawyers, press releases, high tone and ambiguous diplomatic exchanges, symbolic acts
(violent or non-violent) that “send a message,” and through escalatory or retaliatory behaviors.

6
Simon Buckingham Shum, “Representing Hard-to-Formalise, Contextualised, Multidisciplinary, Organisational
Knowledge” at http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/sbs/org-knowledge/aikm97/sbs-paper2.html.
7
For a comprehensive and in-depth collection of materials on intractable problems, see the “Beyond Intractability”
website assembled by Guy and Heidi Burgress at the University of Colorado at
http://www.beyondintractability.org/iweb/.

11
This does not mean that simply restoring communication is the answer. Communication failures
are a symptom and must be part of a solution-finding process. By itself, good communication is
insufficient.

In Type-III problems, there is inevitably broad disagreement on what “the problem”

actually is and competing solutions that create ongoing discord among stakeholders when they
try to discuss “it.” Further, there is a diffusion of power that makes any one party incapable of
either defining the problem in a way that sticks, or imposing a solution. Because integrity, good
will, trust, and working relationships are perceived to be missing, people often act impulsively
and actively seek to defeat each other. The conflict seems to have a life unto itself and in the
most extreme stages, writes Friedrich Glasl, disputants give up their deepest instincts for self-
preservation and charge headlong and together into the abyss. They want to annihilate each
other, even if it costs them their lives, fortunes, or futures. 8

Like Type-II problems, Type-III problems are driven by deeply conflicting values.
Unlike Type-II challenges, proposed solutions are suspect simply because they are brought
forward by someone who is typically defined as an essential part of the problem. For example, a
proposal from Ariel Sharon or the late Yasser Arafat was distrusted simply because it came from
Sharon or Arafat. Intentional and unintentional signals create additional complexity. Offers are
seen as bribes and demands are viewed as extortion.

While the climate change debate has not yet reached the level of vitriol found on Middle
East issues or on abortion rights, we posit it as an example of a Type-III problem. There is
growing agreement on the issue of climate change, but by no means is there unanimity on a
pathway towards solutions. Aspects of the global climate issue, including the water cycle, the
carbon cycle, and the ocean “conveyor belt,” to name but a few, are not well understood. It is
still unclear to what extent natural variability is playing a role, and whether or how the Earth may
adjust to atmospheric changes. Similarly, as there is a difference of opinion as to the extent or
importance of man-made emissions, so too is there a broad range of potential responses, ranging
from a Luddite view of stopping all fossil-based energy use, to a model based upon adaptation to

8
Friedrich Glasl, Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch für Führungskräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater, Bern: Paul
Haupt Verlag, 1997.

12
potentially warmer climates and higher sea levels, as well as many options of mitigation (i.e.,
actions that reduce man-made emissions) and reduction in between these extremes.

Bringing leadership to Type-III problems requires both the right political timing (the
“open window”) and a suite of different strategies, tools, and formats that can be used to
organize and sustain disciplined problem naming, problem framing, and problem taming efforts.
Most writers believe that these kinds of problems can only be solved by groups of disputants
made up of people with knowledge pertinent to all aspects of the problem, and artfully organized
into sub-groups that correspond to the elements and structure of the problem. Further, the process
must be choreographed as a series of events or meetings with time-breaks between events. And
the team must be unconstrained in applying knowledge tools, creative intuition, and common
sense. Finally, the group must be unshackled when it comes to finding unconventional solutions.9

Anticipating Challenges

To best respond to a given challenge, it is important for responsible parties to correctly type the
challenge, and to respond with the best strategy. Therefore, anticipating challenges leads to the
following questions:

• As we anticipate or study a situation, what are the various Type-I, II, or III
characteristics we see?

• What kinds of strategies might best be used for some of these attributes?

• Who best can help bring leadership, coordination, and inspiration to the problem solving
effort?

The above-described typology is a diagnostic tool, not a formula to be inflicted or forced

onto problems.

9
“A General Problem Solving Approach for Wicked Problems: Theory and Application to Chemical Weapons
Verification and Biological Terrorism” by R.W. Hutchinson, S.L. English, and M.A. Mughal in Group Decision and
Negotiation, 11: 257-279, 2002, Kluwer Publishers.

13
 RISK EVALUATION
“I define major surgery as anything being done to me.” -- Woody Allen

When planning the best way to communicate and engage the public, it is important to not
only identify problems by their level of complexity, but also to understand the different lenses
through which stakeholders view problems and possible solutions. To expand on this distinction,
a technical definition of risk could be written as:

[Probability of a Hazard × Impact of the Hazard Occurring]

For example, the probability of a hurricane hitting the U.S. multiplied by the damage to both
property and lives caused by a hurricane. However, to communicate effectively, we need to
recognize that individuals may have similar reactions or perceptions of risks based on
characteristics of the hazards, but any given hazard may engender widely divergent perceptions
of risks based on an individual’s personal context: their life experience, values and culture.
Therefore, a definition of perceived risk has additional factors to the technical definition, and
would look as follows:

[Technical Risk × Nature of the Hazard × Context of the Perceiver]

Below we explore both these aspects of communication, how we typically react to different types
of hazards and how our life view also influences our perception of risks.

Nature of Risks

Table 3 displays a common method established by Fischhoff and expanded by others to

describe how characteristics of risks influence people’s perception of risks and their readiness to
accept those risks.10

10
From Fischhoff et al. A Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. 1981. http://aquaticpath.umd.edu/appliedtox/module3-astdr.html. And from
Ropeik, D. “What Really Scares Us,” Parade Magazine, Mar. 30, 2004.

14
Table 3: The Nature of Risks
Risks Perceived to… Are More Accepted Than Risks Perceived…
• Be voluntary • As being imposed
• Be under an individual’s control • To be controlled by others
• Have clear benefits • To have little or no benefit
• Be distributed fairly • To be unfairly distributed
• Be natural • To be manmade
• Be statistical • To be catastrophic
• Be generated by a trusted source • To be generated by an untrusted source
• Be familiar • To be exotic
• Affect adults • To affect children
• Affect you personally • To affect others

On the issue of trust, people are more likely to trust the explanation from a scientist from
the Centers for Disease Control on the risks of anthrax than a presentation from a representative
from the company that manufactures the vaccine with a decided interest in the outcome. So too
will the risks of geologic storage of CO2 be more accepted when explained by a local geologist
than by an official from the Department of Energy.

The level of benefits relative to the risks also influences people’s perception. Research
has shown that people view medical technologies based on the use of radiation and chemicals as
high in benefit, low in risk, and clearly acceptable. 11 Our relatively high degree of trust in
physicians who manage these devices makes them acceptable. However, people tend to view
industrial technologies involving radiation and chemicals as high in risk, low in benefit, and less
acceptable. This is consistent with numerous polls which have shown that government and
industry officials who oversee the management of nuclear power and non-medical chemicals are
not highly trusted.12

Another factor that influences individuals’ perception of risk is the unequal distribution
and nature of the impacts of the hazard. For instance, impacts of climate change will be felt
across the planet in different ways, with some areas potentially becoming more agriculturally
productive, others suffering from drought, and still others experiencing flooding. These effects
may be felt across the globe, and some of those same effects may be felt even across the U.S.

11
Slovic, Paul. “Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.675-682. Society for
Risk Analysis, 1993
12
Ibid.

15
Consequently, views on the need for and urgency of addressing the risks will also vary. When
the individuals most affected by the proposed solutions are also the individuals who are less
affected by the problem, policymakers face an even greater challenge in public communication
and engaging the public in decision-making.

For policy makers and researchers involved in climate change or sequestration research,
many of these factors come into play. For example, on the issue of control, it is well
documented that many people have a greater fear of flying than of driving a car, because they are
not in control of the airplane, even though the risk of injury is far greater in a car. Another factor
to consider that falls under the nature of risk category touches on whether the hazard is agreed
upon by those facing it, or is imposed by others. Safety standards governing injection of carbon
dioxide into deep geologic formations, if made behind closed doors will be viewed with much
more suspicion than those that allow for full public participation and input.

Context of the Perceiver

Understanding how the nature of risks affects reactions by and from the public, as much as
the risk itself, can aide policy makers as they engage with stakeholders. As noted earlier, news
media – a main source of information – tend to highlight sensational catastrophes, and this, in
turn, affects our perception of risk. Indeed, Frederick Allen notes that “people often overestimate
the frequency and seriousness of dramatic, sensational, dreaded and well-publicized causes of
death and underestimate the risks from more familiar, accepted causes that claim lives one by
one.”13 To return to the airplane example, the fear generated by airplane crashes that kill several
hundred people on occasion is far greater than fear generated by the thousands who are killed in
automobile crashes every year. Some risk communication experts refer to this as the level of
“outrage” attributable to a risk.

13
Allen, Frederick W. “Towards a Holistic Appreciation of Risk: The Challenge for Communicators and
Policymakers,” Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 12, Issues 3 and 4, pp. 138-143. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1987.

16
 It is important to understand how risks are perceived in the first place. Over history, only
organisms that could recognize and respond to danger survived and evolved. Though modern
humans have evolved to possess great mental capacity, human brains seem “hard-wired” to
instinctively fear first and think second. In order to protect ourselves, we very quickly respond
to potential hazards. Fear of potential dangers is a completely rational response to our survival
instinct. Furthermore, once a fast judgment has been made based on information available at the
time, it is hard for subsequent information to change our minds.14

Figure 1: There’s a saying: Where you stand depends on where you sit.

As the above cartoon so pleasingly demonstrates, facts alone rarely sway personal
perception. Factors that influence perception are highly variable, and for any given risk, several
factors are usually involved, each with varying importance. These can include life experiences,
values, social context, as well as culture, age, and gender. These same factors can either mitigate
or intensify potential perceptions of fear. Some risks may seem more exotic and frightening to
some segments of the population than others. For example, an oil field worker in a rural area is
likely to be less concerned about a research drilling project at his worksite than would someone
from an urban area less familiar with these types of projects, i.e., someone who would have
difficulty placing such a project within their own life experiences.

14
Friedensen, Victoria P. Risk Manager for Project Prometheus, Office of Exploration Systems, NASA. “Risk
Communication 101” Presentation to the Carbon Sequestration Regional Partners Outreach Coordinators group,
Third Annual Carbon Sequestration Meeting, Alexandria, VA, May 2004.

17
 In a paper from 1987, when climate change was becoming more recognized by scientists,
interviews of various stakeholders found that global warming was ranked low by the public and
relatively high by an EPA task force.15

“The EPA task force ranked it high because of the massive potential
implications for the entire world. The most probable explanations of the
low public ranking are the following: 1) the consequences are very much
in the future and hard for many to imagine because they extend beyond
ordinary experience; 2) the problem is diffuse and there are many causes
(the scapegoat problem [i.e.,– there is no one person or thing to blame]);
and 3) there is simply a general lack of public familiarity with the issue.”16

The way an issue is framed dramatically impacts the way risks are evaluated. Today, for
example, some insurers are taking note of climate change and sea level rise and beginning to
factor it as a risk for certain locales and populations; yet some in the oil industry look at climate
variability in past eras, and suggest the overall risk of anthropogenic climate change is small and
can be addressed through adaptation. Both actions are logical from their respective positions.

Indeed, the evaluation of risk is always personal. Ipso facto, the communication of risks
to the public requires an understanding of the personal ways risks are seen to affect people
individually and as part of stakeholder groups.

RISK COMMUNICATION

As defined by the Society for Risk Analysis, risk communication is “an interactive process
of exchanging of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions.” 17 It
often involves multiple messages related to the types and levels of the risk, or to the concerns,
opinions, or reactions to risk messages, or to the legal or institutional arrangements for risk
management. For the purposes of this paper, a working definition of risk communication is “the

15
Allen, Frederick W. “Towards a Holistic Appreciation of Risk: The Challenge for Communicators and
Policymakers,” Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 12, Issues 3 and 4, pp. 138-143. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1987.
16
Ibid.
17
“Risk Communication: Working with Individuals and Communities to Weigh the Odds.” Prevention Report.
U.S. Public Health Service, Feb./Mar. 1995. http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/prevrpt/Archives/95fm1.htm.

18
method by which the public can be informed as to the potential risks and benefits of specific
projects and programs.” It includes all written and oral external communication with the media,
interest groups, Congress, other government agencies, and the public at large regarding programs
that are controversial or related to the controversial aspects of such programs.

Successful risk communication serves many roles. It increases institutional and

interpersonal trust. It reduces the length, strength, and frequency of controversies, and may also
reduce the frequency and magnitude of lawsuits. This in turn improves the programmatic
success of a given venture.18 Risk communication includes the open sharing of information and
acknowledgement of concerns. It incorporates and appreciates diverse opinions and perspectives
in an atmosphere of consensus building. It accepts that the dialogue sometimes may be more
about feelings than facts. If messages are consistent, if the process is open and accountable, the
success of the planned project increases dramatically.

There are essential elements of communication that form a solid foundation of

understanding. Once the foundation is laid, it is then possible to build upon it and customize it
for various groups. In the following section, we outline the basic “dos and don’ts” in risk
communication.

Evolving Theories of Risk Communication

Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.

Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking...
don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.
--The Wizard of Oz

There are many ways in which risk communication has improved over the years, and
there now are well-established ground rules that communicators must know and use instinctively
as they communicate about various risks and hazards. According to Fischhoff, there has been a
decided progression, starting from just trying to get people to behave “rationally” by providing
18
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines
for Public Officials,” 2002.

19
them with information to today’s more modern view that risk communication is a two-way
communication that involves providing information, understanding people’s perception of the
risks, and developing solutions in partnership. This progression is demonstrated in the following
table (See Table 4, below).

19
Table 4: Developmental Stages of Risk Communication

⇓
¾ All we have to do is get the numbers right
¾ All we have to do is tell them the numbers
¾ All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers
¾ All we have to do is show them that they’ve accepted similar risks in the past
¾ All we have to do is show them that it’s a good deal for them
¾ All we have to do is treat them nice
¾ All we have to do is make them partners
¾ All of the above

Elements of Successful Risk Communication

In their seminal paper on risk communication, Vincent Covello, Peter Sandman and Paul
Slovic established seven golden rules for effective risk communication:20

Table 5: Seven Golden Rules of Effective Risk Communication

1. Accept and Involve the Public as a Legitimate Partner
2. Plan Carefully and Evaluate Performance
3. Listen to Your Audience
4. Be Honest, Frank and Open
5. Coordinate and Collaborate with Other Credible Sources
6. Meet the Needs of the Media
7. Speak Clearly and with Compassion

19
Baruch Fischhoff, “Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process,” Journal of Risk
Analysis, 15:137-45 (1995).
20
Covello, Vincent T., Peter M. Sandman, and Paul Slovic. “Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk
Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers” Washington, DC, Chemical Manufacturers Association, 1988.

20
Rule 1: Accept and Involve the Public as a Legitimate Partner. In a paper on risk
communication, the U.S. Public Health Service notes:

“Risk communication can be considered successful only to the extent that

it first improves or increases the base of accurate information that decision
makers use… and second, satisfies those involved that they are adequately
informed within the limits of available knowledge.”21

Indeed, effective risk communication is a two-way process with participation seen as an

individual’s and a community’s democratic right. Demonstrate your respect for the public and
your sincerity by involving the community early, before important decisions are made, and
return to the public often.

In a landmark article in the magazine Science in 1969, Chauncey Starr made a statement
that seems as true today as it was 35 years ago. He noted:

“The bulk of evidence indicates that the time from conception [of a new
technical idea] to first application (or demonstration) has been roughly
unchanged by modern management, and depends chiefly on the
complexity of the development…. What has been reduced substantially in
the past century is the time from first use to widespread integration into
our social system.”22

With modern day advances in telecommunications and computer technology, diffusion of

innovations and widespread integration occur with ever-greater speed. With this in mind, it is
critical to begin to formulate messages at the earliest possible stages before controversy
develops. In developing guidelines for public outreach, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services recognized that a key to good risk communication is to determine what
information is crucial to convey and then to convey that information before a controversy
develops. 23 It also recommends engaging the public in a long-term coordinated dialogue using a
variety of formats, prior, during and after an event.

21
“Risk Communication: Working with Individuals and Communities to Weigh the Odds.” Prevention Report.
U.S. Public Health Service, Feb./Mar. 1995. http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/pubs/prevrpt/Archives/95fm1.htm.
22
Starr, Chauncey. “Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk: What is our Society Willing to Pay for Safety?”
Science, Sept. 19, 1969. Vol. 165: pp.1232-1238.
23
US HHS 2002 Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials

21
Rule 2: Plan Carefully and Evaluate Performance. Effective risk communication must be
aimed at the concerns and information needs of specific target audiences. It may be prudent to
initiate interviews with small, representative groups of local people and ask for early input or try
out the communication informally on non-experts. Indeed, it is often beneficial to hold smaller,
more informal meetings rather than large public hearings or consider breaking large meetings
into smaller groups. In some situations, one-to-one communication may work best.

The National Research Council notes that it is important to make sure that the right
participants are involved, which can be ascertained by asking those that have been invited
initially to nominate other potential stakeholders.24 In addition to getting the right participants, it
is critical to make sure that the participants become part of the process. Participants should feel
that they were adequately consulted and that they had adequate opportunities to offer concerns or
ask questions.

The Department of Health and Human Services notes that spokespersons must be
identified well in advance and must be well prepared. 25 It is vital that a risk communicator know
the audience and their attitudes. It is important to determine what information is crucial to
convey and to determine whether messages differ prior, during, or after an event. This can be
accomplished in part by anticipating questions from the public and preparing thoughtful answers
ahead of time.

Rule 3: Listen to Your Audience. Communication is a two-way activity. Do not make

assumptions about what people know, think, or want done about risks. Recognize that people’s
values and feelings are a legitimate aspect of environmental health issues and that such concerns
may convey valuable information.

When people are speaking passionately they are responding to their emotions. It is both
ineffective and often inappropriate to simply follow with data. Show respect by developing a
system to both acknowledge and respond promptly to concerns raised by community residents
without becoming “technocratic.”

24
*NRC 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, p. 152.
25
US HHS, “Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials,” 2002.

22
 Community residents, site personnel, citizen groups, health professionals, and state and
local government representatives are also important sources of information. They can provide
information concerning site background, community health concerns, demographics, land and
natural resource use, environmental contamination, environmental pathways, and health
outcomes. It is also important to recognize the “hidden agendas” and broader economic or
political considerations that often underlie and complicate the task of risk communication.

Effective risk communication is highly dependent on tailoring the message to the

audience. The public is not a single, undifferentiated mass. For example, women often show a
greater interest in problems of chemical risks than do men.26 In one pilot study, interviewing
three different constituencies on market acceptability of new nuclear technologies resulted in
three quite separate risk priorities.27

1. Utilities viewed the risk as investment risk. They were also concerned with health and
safety risks, but viewed them as part of the technical design.

2. State Public Utility Commissions were concerned with economic risks. Their concern for
health and safety risks was incorporated into their general concern that, from the public’s
point of view, costs will outweigh the benefits.

3. Public interest groups focused almost entirely on health and safety risks, pointing out that
because these risks are imposed by one group and inevitably fall unevenly on others, they
cannot be treated as acceptable under any circumstance. For them, risks must be spread
equitably.

By acknowledging and understanding the different lenses through which different stakeholders
view the world, it will be easier to identify concerns and to better address them .

Rule 4: Be Honest, Frank and Open. Trust and credibility are difficult to obtain; once lost they
are difficult, if not impossible to regain. The community is more interested in trustworthiness and
credibility than in risk data and the details of quantitative risk assessment. People want the
person communicating to acknowledge, respect, and share those concerns.

Uncertainty is seldom if ever an acceptable excuse for waiting to communicate risk

information, particularly if the information is alarming. It is far better to announce a possible

26
Covello, Sandman and Slovic, 1988.
27
Rayner, Steve and Robin Cantor. “How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology
Choice,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-13. Society for Risk Analysis, 1987.

23
problem right away than to be accused later of having covered one up. Acknowledging
uncertainty is not to be confused with declaring ignorance. If there is total confidence in the
data, do not hesitate to say so. But if there is some uncertainty, state as much as is known and
then explain a) what you propose to do to get better risk data and b) what you propose to do in
the meantime to reduce risk or protect people against it. If the affected public is satisfied, it will
“hardly consider many of the low-probability, high-consequence events that currently obsess us
to be worthy of the term risk at all.” 28

Rule 5: Coordinate and Collaborate with Other Credible Sources. Former U.S. Congressman
Tip O’Neill’s famous statement that “all politics is local,” can also be translated to “all pollution
is local.” People care most about that which is closest to them. As Covello, Sandman, and
Slovic note:

“The prospects for overcoming distrust are much better locally than
globally. People stereotype less and scapegoat less when they are dealing
with someone they know. The outsider from the home office is probably
not as good a spokesperson as a plant manager.” 29

People understand the benefits from a local factory or energy facility and understand the negative
aspects, as well. Because of this dynamic, a competent and conscientious plant manager may
matter more than a particular risk itself. For this reason, it is imperative that risk communication
be done at the local level and by a credible intermediary.

Collaboration also turns out to be a key to success. If more information is needed,

communications can be issued jointly with other trustworthy sources such as credible university
scientists, physicians, trusted local officials, and opinion leaders. With highly technical and
complex issues, it is rare that one individual or even one institution can be the sole source of
information. Collaboration can occur among institutions conducting similar research, such as
that of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, where different universities,
environmental groups, corporations and state and local governments are leveraging the research
capabilities of the partner organizations to greater overall effect. In addition, collaboration can

28
Rayner, Steve and Robin Cantor. “How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology
Choice,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-13. Society for Risk Analysis, 1987.
29
Covello, Vincent T., Peter M. Sandman, and Paul Slovic. “Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk
Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers” Washington, DC, Chemical Manufacturers Association, 1988.

24
also be among nations, such as the efforts underway with the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum, which shares research among nations at the ministerial level at periodic meetings. This
collaborative dissemination of knowledge helps assuage fears that a particular locality is
somehow being hoodwinked.

Rule 6: Meet the Needs of the Media. The media are generally more interested in politics than
risk, more interested in simplicity than complexity, more interested in danger than safety. Media
relations are essential. Be open with and accessible to reporters, respect their deadlines, and
provide graphics and visual aids. It is better to provide and explain two or three numbers,
carefully selected, than to inundate the media (or any other audience) with meaningless facts.
Pick a few numbers and explain them well. In addition, try to establish long-term relationships
with editors and reporters, built upon a foundation of openness, credibility, and trust.

Rule 7: Speak Clearly and with Compassion. Local managers need good presentation skills,
must be able to speak well in public, and be able to recognize and avoid jargon and clarify
technical concepts. Also, he or she should have good interactive skills, be able to deal well with
people, listen, give feedback, and respond to emotions.

The best language to use in communicating risks is simple and non-technical. Language
about deaths, injuries, or illnesses makes risks seem distant and abstract. Worse, it makes the
communicator seem unfeeling. On the other hand, anecdotes and real stories about real people
can make technical risk data come alive. Use comparisons to help put risks in perspective, but
avoid comparisons that ignore distinctions that people consider important. It is important to
demystify the risk assessment process by talking about how the risk estimate was obtained and
by whom. Always try to include a discussion of actions that are underway or can be taken.
Promise only what you can do, tell people what you cannot do.

An important element of clear communications is to boil down complex scientific

information into useful analogies. That said, while good analogies can help explain risks in an
easy format and engage the public, irrelevant or misleading comparisons can harm trust and
credibility, especially those that imply that a personal risk is just about money. In Table 6, we
outline the best and worst types of analogies, according to Vincent Covello.

25
 30
Table 6: Good and Bad Analogies

Best Analogies OK Analogies Poor Analogies

Those that compare the same Alternative solutions to the Compare costs
risk at two different times same problem

Compare a risk with an Look at the same risk Compare cost/risk ratios
existing standard experienced in different
places

Compare different estimates Compare the risk of doing Compare risk/benefit ratios
of the same risk something versus not doing it

Comparisons between an occupational risk and an environmental risk or unrelated risks

such as smoking, or driving a car, are especially poor because they confuse risks of personal
control with risks that are out of one’s control.

Pitfalls in Risk Communication

Communication can fail for a number of reasons. Communicators may not recognize
why people, or specific stakeholders in particular circumstances, may respond to risks the way
they do. Steeped in statistical analysis and actuarial charts, a risk communicator tends to express
risk from the viewpoint of the communicator, with a “just the facts, ma’am” approach. The
communicator may dismiss adverse reactions to risk messages as “irrational,” even though they
are part of the typical “outrage” or “fight or flight” phenomenon. The likelihood of
communication failure is increased by a lack of empathy or “simpatico” with the public.

In addition, communications often fail because they are made after a problem has arisen,
and the public has already formed opinions and ideas about the extent of the problem and who is
to blame. People with a vested interest in the organization that created the risk are often those
called upon to explain it, and so have a perceived (or real) conflict of interest that makes their

30
Using Risk Comparisons (Covello et al 1988, Covello 1989)

26
facts circumspect. This is exacerbated when explanations of risk take on the manner of a school
lecture rather than a conversation. Furthermore, the causes of the controversy are often not the
facts of the risk exposure, but rather what is being done (or not being done) to safeguard the
public, and who is taking responsibility.

There are other mistakes that are made in addition to those mentioned above, including
those that do nothing to build trust and everything to destroy it. In a paper on earning trust and
building credibility, Vincent Covello at Columbia University describes a long list of “pitfalls”
often made by communicators and provides some suggestions of what to do instead.

31
Table 7: Avoiding Pitfalls

Pitfall Do Don’t
Jargon Define technical terms Use language that anyone in the
audience does not understand
Humor Direct it at yourself Use it in relation to environment, health
and safety issues
Negative Refute the allegation without repeating it Repeat or refer to them
Allegations
Negative Use positive or neutral terms Refer to national problems
Words/Phrases (e.g., “This is not Love Canal”)
Reliance on Use visuals to emphasize key points Rely entirely on words
Words
Temper Remain calm. Use a question or allegation Let your feelings interfere with your
as a springboard to say something positive ability to communicate clearly
Clarity Ask whether you have made yourself clear Assume you have been understood
Abstractions Use examples, stories, and analogies to Talk about new or unfamiliar topics
establish a common understanding without grounding the audience
Nonverbal Be sensitive to nonverbal messages you are Allow your body language, your position
messages communicating. Make them consistent with in the room, or your dress be
what you are saying inconsistent with your message
Attacks Attack the issue Attack the person or organization
(e.g., “You’re being irrational”)
Promises Promise only what you can deliver Make promises you can’t keep or fail to
follow up.
Guarantees Emphasize achievements made and ongoing Say there are no guarantees
efforts
Speculation Provide information on what is being done Speculate about worst cases
Money Refer to the importance you attach to EH&S Refer to the amount of money spent as
issues; your moral obligation to public health a representation of your concern
outweighs financial considerations
Organizational Use personal pronouns (I, we) Take on the identity of a large
identity organization
Blame Take responsibility for your share of the Try to shift blame or responsibility to
problem others

31
Covello, V. “Risk Communication, Trust, and Credibility,” Health and Environmental Digest. Vol. 6, No. 1.
1992.

27
Table 7: Avoiding Pitfalls, continued.

Pitfall Do Don’t
Off the Record Assume everything you say and do is part Make side comments or “confidential”
of the public record remarks
Risk/Benefit/Cost Discuss risks and benefits in separate Discuss your costs along with risk levels
comparisons communications
Risk Comparison Use them to help put risks in perspective Compare unrelated risks (e.g.,
“compared to driving drunk while talking
on your cell phone, this risk is
miniscule”)
Health risk numbers Stress that true risk is between zero and State absolutes or expect the lay public
the worst-case scenario. Base actions on to understand risk numbers.
federal and state standards rather than risk
numbers.
Numbers Emphasize performance, trends, and Mention or repeat large negative
achievements numbers.
Technical details Focus your remarks on empathy, Provide too much detail or take part in
and debates competence, honesty, and dedication protracted technical debates
Length of Limit presentations to 15 minutes, if Ramble or fail to plan the time well
presentation possible

STAKEHOLDING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing.
Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde

No matter how benign, innocuous, or socially beneficial a project may seem, constructive
public engagement is now a political necessity. Powered by the landmark air, water, and open
meeting laws of the 1960s and 1970s, and by four decades of administrative and court tests, the
American public expects to be involved in governmental decision-making at the local, state, and
federal levels. While this has increased the confidence the public has in governmental decision
making processes, it has also slowed that process down, and at times, brought it to a halt as
different public interest groups clash over the most desirable option to pursue.

In theory, agencies that anticipate potential controversy over the creation or

implementation of a proposed project, policy, or plan have three strategic choices. Strategy #1
might be called “The “Letter of the Law Approach.” This approach focuses on rights and
permissions and involves doing what is required to withstand legal challenges. Strategy #2 is
“The Intensive Information Dissemination Approach.” Essentially, the predicate of this strategy
is providing high quality information to the public through as many channels of communication

28
as possible. Strategy #3 is “The Direct Engagement Approach.” The focus here is on stakeholder
engagement, proactive two-way interactions, and problem-solving around issues of concern.
These strategies, like all those referenced in this document, are not mutually exclusive – quite the
opposite. Skilled project leaders will braid all three strategies together to maximize success.

Governmental agencies or anyone seeking to plan, fund, or site specific on-the-ground

and potentially controversial projects need to implicitly or explicitly embrace a hierarchy of three
goals, as follows in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Hierarchy of Goals

Most
Desirous
Supportive and Informed
Legislators and a Supportive
and Informed Public

If Possible
Delays avoided. Serious
litigation avoided.

Necessary
Project Mission Secure. Legal position is fully
defensible (not “Arbitrary & Capricious”).

Achieving the highest and most desirous level of acceptance requires building trust,
maintaining credibility, and ensuring confidence in government. In turn, this usually requires
moving beyond the conventional public participation procedures that are required by law. Said
differently, public hearings and expert advisory bodies are necessary but insufficient. More
sophisticated strategies are needed.

29
 Beyond Public Relations
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
-- Warden Struther Martin in Cool Hand Luke

“Public Relations” has been the dominant method for government entities, corporations,
and non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) in the United States to communicate to the
public. Generally speaking, public relations works to inform a public and help them understand
the work of the company or agency as it relates to its mission and goals. PR is useful, but by
itself will not reduce the frictions involved in a potentially volatile and challenging project. In
the words of Peter Johnson, Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration:

“I don’t know how many times I have heard business leaders say, `If we could just
inform them of what we’re doing, they’d support us.’ Hogwash. Hogwash. Public
relations alone won’t make it in the new era. Society has become so complex that hardly
any of us does anything that doesn’t affect the other guy. Everything is too interrelated.
Instead of pretending that those opposing interests are not there, instead of hoping to
vanquish the vocal, start including them. That way, there are almost no limits to what
can be accomplished.”

“Public Involvement” is a public process that seeks to involve constituents in framing

both the problems they anticipate as well as the solutions to those problems. Where PR tends to
be primarily one-way communication, public involvement is interactive and consultative. It is a
dialogue. The driving belief behind public involvement is that people should have the
opportunity to participate in decisions that affect them. It is typically a means by which the
public is not only heard from before a decision, but has an opportunity to influence the decision
from the beginning to the end of the decision making process.

Public involvement processes give the public the ability to influence how a question or
problem is posed, which alternatives are to be considered, how alternatives are evaluated or
reviewed, and which adjustments or mitigations are necessary to reduce impacts. It is
understood that public involvement processes are “advisory” in nature and do not confer formal
decision-making to those who are not directly accountable. However, decisions generally gain
greater legitimacy when the public is able to be involved in every step of the process. Even if
some groups do not like the decisions that are made, the fact that a decision making process was

30
open, visible, and fair makes the decision legitimate in the eyes of the general public. “Public
Information,” it turns out, is a key component of public involvement. Its purpose is not to
convince the public of a predetermined position, but to inform so that people can make a
considered judgment.

The most common (but often ineffective) form of public participation is the public
hearing. Here a panel of government agency or industry representatives gives a presentation on a
proposed decision and the public is then asked to stand up and give short testimonies indicating
their thoughts on the proposed action. Typically, only the people who are opposed to a decision
come to such hearings. Although the government agency or company can get a feel for the extent
and nature of the opposition, public hearings rarely give a good indication of overall public
opinion, nor do they yield good information about why people may feel the way they do because
viewpoints tend to be expressed in positions and demand statements rather than articulations that
give insight into interests and needs. Thus, they do not contribute effectively to problem solving
or mutual cooperation. That said, government agencies are often required to conduct public
hearings by law, for example, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Choosing the Right Public Involvement Process

"Whenever I'm confronted with a choice between two evils,
I always choose the one I haven't tried." -- Mae West

In the United States, government agencies and private companies tend to anger the public
by not involving them in decision making when the stakes or impacts are perceived to be high.
In the extreme, this leads to lawsuits, delays, boycotts, and negative media. However, there is
one thing that is guaranteed to anger the public even more than not involving them—involving
them with no real intention of listening. Government officials, business leaders, and community
members may want to consider establishing a public involvement process, when the following
conditions exist:

9 Public support will be required to accomplish the goal;

31
 9 Public opposition could delay or terminate the project;

9 The problem involves conflicting and/or competing public values or goals;

9 A decision will be compounded by turbulence in the political climate, or by controversial

issues that are already being hotly debated in the public arena, whatever they are related
or not; and/or

9 The government official wouldn’t want the proposed project in his or her own
neighborhood.

Typically, energy projects have career paths with at least three distinct stages. At the
start, project proponents must establish their “right to operate.” In the second, project sponsors
must maintain public support as the enterprise matures and as the problems of start-up emerge.
Once a project succeeds, the challenge shifts to the problems associated with success, i.e., how
can we expand the project or replicate it.

In determining what kind of public involvement process might be most appropriate, other
considerations also come into play. One is the degree to which an active conflict has already
arisen. At the political “front end” public engagement strategies can focus on a proactive
invitation to comment on proposals or plans or even a concerted collaborative partnership effort.
At the “back end” when conflict has emerged, public participation efforts may involve resolving
differences, mitigating existing plans, or even changing strategies altogether.

The goal of any effort, whether early in the life of a project, or later when problems have
arisen, is to build and maintain trust. Trust, which is always ephemeral in human affairs, seems
to have four psychological components:

• Acknowledgement – being known, recognized, and heard.

• Disclosure – sharing weaknesses, flaws, and challenges as well as strengths.
• Accountability – doing what you say you will; becoming “predictable.”
• Commitment – creating or negotiating reciprocal and verifiable behavior.

As in many other areas of strategy development, form follows function when considering
a public involvement process. Possible functions or purposes could focus on conflict resolution
(averting or reducing a fight), assessing risk, gathering input and advice, networking (exchanging
information), coordination (altering activities to achieve common purposes), cooperating

32
(sharing resources to achieve common purposes) or collaboration and partnering (sharing risks,
responsibilities, and rewards). In turn, many different forms, forums, and venues for public
participation can be created, for example:

Table 8: Types of Public Participation Forums and Venues

• Task Forces • Consultative Workshops

• Restoration Advisory Boards • Community Advisory Boards

(RABs) (CABs)

• Visioning Processes • Planning Charettes

• Working Groups • Partnering Projects

• Study Groups • Roundtables

• Joint Fact Finding Workshops • Policy Dialogues

• Science Summits • Future Searches

• Community Planning Meetings • Joint Problem Solving Workshops

• Open Space Meetings

Some of the above formats can be used to elicit input to a project or plan. Others are best aimed
at networking, coordination, and cooperation efforts. Still others are useful for collaborative fact
finding, planning, and problem solving. Additional ideas on formats, strategies, and participation
tools can be found at the website of the International Association for Public Participation.32

32
Available at: http://iap2.org/practitionertools/index.shtml

33
 Collaborative Efforts:
Communities, Corporations, and Government Agencies Working Together
"None of us is as smart as all of us.” -- Cowboy Saying

All collaborative processes have beginnings, middles, and ends, and no two are exactly
the same. Some have short life-spans. A group meets a few times, conducts its business, comes
to conclusions, and disbands. Others go on for years. Some are high in complexity, conflict, and
drama. Others are slow, easy going conversations. All involve groups of stakeholders who hold
an interest in the issues under consideration. Some stakeholder groups are composed of parties
who have established standing in a lawsuit or who are on a trajectory toward administrative rule-
making, standard-setting proceedings, or contested administrative hearings. Others, like
appointed or nominated advisory boards, are convened to exchange ideas or provide reactions to
proposed policies, projects, or programs.

Some groups – alternative energy collaboratives, forest management groups, watershed

protection committees, or re-vegetation groups, for example – work together over years to
improve the definition of issues and solutions. Sometimes an independent facilitator or mediator
is involved. More often than not, collaborative leadership must come from the group itself, often
with government officials acting as conveners or moderators. Regardless of the specifics,
collaborative efforts have common underpinnings and premises:

• People want to be asked their opinion on issues that impact them.

• People tend to support solutions they helped craft.

• Autocratic management processes – the “decide, announce, defend” model – may

work in moments of crisis, but it tends not to work for more ordinary issues and
problems that do not have sudden deadlines.

• To get to get to an agreement that has traction and durability over time, you need a
critical mass of moderate people to create and hold the center.

• It is a given that everyone walks in with their own narrow interests, and consensus
solutions must inevitably be composed of those interests.

Typical collaborative processes involve a variety of functions and activities organized into three
broad phases, as defined below in Figure 3:

34
Figure 3: Collaborative Process Phases

INFORMATION PROBLEM SOLVING &

START UP EXCHANGE & DIALOGUE CONSENSUS BUILDING

1. Appraising the 5. Organizing 9. Making informed

situation for productive and choices.
possibilities. respectful exchanges
10. Working with
of different
2. Organizing parties not at the
viewpoints.
leadership, table to ensure
sponsorship, and the 6. Bringing the best acceptability of
capacity to convene. technical, cultural, proposed projects or
legal, and economic solutions.
3. Gaining the
information to the
participation of all 11. Ratifying,
table.
affected stakeholders. memorializing, and
7. Discerning the preparing for
4. Designing the
underlying interests of implementation.
forum, establishing
all stakeholders.
protocols, and forging 12. Developing
working agreement 8. Discovering, implementation plans
on the issues to be clarifying, or creating and ways to insure
considered. the greatest joint compliance with plans
gains possible. or agreements.

Building true collaborations with stakeholder groups composed of people from the public,
private, and civic sectors takes time, careful planning, and thoughtful management. It requires
identifying all of the people and perspectives that are needed to create and hold a center, working
with all participants to improve the way issues and problems are named and framed, fostering
peer-to-peer exchanges of ideas and views, and bringing collective focus to salient technical and
scientific facts.

35
 BUILDING TRUST
“You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist.” -- Indira Gandhi

At the start of the 21st Century, citizens and decision-makers are hungry for ways to
improve environmental discussions. As a country, we need wiser outcomes that are conceptually
sounder, more explicitly equitable, and that have practical staying power. Simultaneously, we
need to reduce the transaction costs (both human and financial) that are associated with public
interest conflicts over environmental protection and energy development.

The use of strategies based on collaboration, “joint gains,” problem solving, mediation,
facilitation, and consensus building offer promise for many projects. While these approaches are
not a panacea, thousands of significant cases involving public health, public lands, and natural
resources have been successfully resolved since the early 1970s. This includes “upstream” cases
when rules and policies are being made and “downstream” issues when parties are involved in
enforcement and compliance.

Twenty Tips for Building Trust, Collaboration, and Smart Outcomes 33

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.” -~ Mohandas K. Gandhi

1. Begin With Co-Hosting. When two or more groups are potentially or actually at odds with
each other over environmental matters, it is always better to co-convene, co-host, or co-
manage a stakeholder process. A respected farmer working side-by-side with a respected
environmentalist(or Native American, or government representative) sets a tone from the
beginning that all points of view and all ways of knowing will be welcome.

2. Create a Game Plan and Group Covenants. Stakeholder processes usually have beginnings,
middles, and ends but, at the start, not everyone knows the plan. Make game plans negotiable
and transparent. Groups come with expectations that a collaboration will be made up of
diverse interests. They also may have expectations about how long it will take to accomplish

33
Adapted from Building Trust: Twenty Things You Can Do To Help Environmental Stakeholder Groups Talk
More Effectively About Science, Culture, Professional Knowledge, and Community Wisdom by Peter S. Adler and
Juliana Birkhoff, Policy Consensus Center, 2000.

36
 the work. Stakeholder groups require flexibility for work to go faster or slower, but “time” is
a key element of culture and handled differently by different people. Engage the group in
some gentle discussions about how much time people can devote to meetings and how they
will handle attendance, alternates, and “logistics.”

3. Concentrate on Relationships First. People need to know each other as individuals, not just
as energy experts, scientists, community members, or representatives of organizations. Learn
each other’s histories. Share a meal together. If people do not know each other, they will
not trust each other and will revert to fear-based interactions. As a collateral procedure, it is
often useful to have stakeholders create interpersonal “contexts” by having each participant
identify what the impacts of a decision or agreement might mean in their own lives versus for
their community or group.

4. Be Transparent About Decision Making. Clarify the “rules of the road” before you start trying
to build agreements -- who will make final decisions, how representation will be established,
how the group will decide things. Craft opening moves that will help the parties manage
complex technical discussions. Set the stage also for informal versus formal across-the-table
discussions by asking stakeholders to identify when they are speaking officially or unofficially.

5. Pay Attention to Power. Community groups, scientists, indigenous people, government

professionals and environmental advocates come to the table with different kinds of standing,
control over resources, and access to decision-making. Although power relationships are
rarely as fixed as people think, most groups have a “predominant” way of knowing things, a
shared prism through which group members take in and give out information. This way of
knowing may be institutionalized in laws, rules, and protocols or it may simply be “the way
we do things around here.” Ask group members: “What is the dominant way of knowing in
this group?” “Who has power to control what information gets considered and what
information is not salient?” “How can we give opportunity, credence, and value to the ways
of knowing that are not predominant?”

6. Create Rituals. Stakeholder groups often invent or discover small habits that give members a
sense of identity, though as individuals they represent different organizations and interests.
Small routines – starting with a traditional song or chant, bringing homemade food,

37
 celebrating birthdays, ending with a story, buying everyone a hat with the name of the group
-- can become a small reference point that helps a group develop good working relationships.

7. Balance Linear Processes With Iterative Strategies. Overly structured processes and agendas
with detailed times are off-putting to people who come from story telling traditions. Resist
the temptation to bear down directly on “problems” and “solutions” and “getting right to
work.” Instead, make sure the process has enough forward momentum to satisfy some
people and enough story telling and circling back to values and history to satisfy others.

8. Talk About “Values.” Explicitly talk about the values participants bring to the table before
you talk about problems, data, or potential solutions. As for the issues at hand, discuss what
they cherish most, what “truths” they hold dearest, what they hope to leave behind as a
legacy for their children, how the past informs the future, and what values they believe are
“absolute and unconditional.” Most people hold multiple values, few of which are actually
unequivocal or categorical.

9. Acknowledge Different Kinds of Knowledge. From the beginning, explicitly legitimize that
there are different ways of “knowing” and different modes of communicating important facts
and ideas. No one -- scientists, Native Americans, planners, farmers, ranchers, people from
the neighborhood -- wants to see their kind of knowledge trivialized and most people have
specific “ways” they want to be engaged.

10. Generate Multiple Problem Definitions. Do not assume that problem solving proceeds from
a single definition of the issues. No definition is wrong or “off the table.” Scientists will see
the problem one way. Community people will define it their way. Business professionals
will bring yet another approach. All problem definitions are helpful starting points because
they reveal issues and aspirations.

11. Step Out of the Normal Conversation Mode. Do not rely solely on meetings, conversation,
and negotiating sessions. Too much talk can weigh a group down and actually confuse
discussions about values, identity, issues, and options. Invite hand drawn (rather than slick)
diagrams, maps, and pictures. Try to create joint maps and pictures with everyone

38
 contributing to a common picture. Take field trips. Go look at the landscapes or sites under
consideration and allow people to educate each other in ways other than words.

12. Create “Jointly Owned” Knowledge. If information really is power, then information that
has been jointly brought to the table is especially powerful. To the greatest extent possible,
create a “group inquiry” in which all stakeholders jointly frame the questions that need to be
answered (who actually lived here before, what are the migratory paths of the elk, what is the
interaction of ground and surface water, etc.) and actually bring it into the process.
Stakeholder groups go through a “learning curve” which deepens over time and often
matures into truly mutual understandings. Choreograph the learning curve so that scientific
and technical information is not privileged over the information brought to the table by
community groups, native peoples, and citizen advocates.

13. Explore Validity and Accuracy With Care. All information -- scientific, technical, traditional,
cultural, local, or remembered -- is subject to questions about validity, accuracy, authenticity,
and reliability. Create a climate in which, in the spirit of problem solving, it is acceptable to
respectfully ask people to substantiate what they are saying. Every type of knowledge, cultural
assertions no less than scientific models, can be reviewed. The issues of what is examined,
how it is examined, who examines it, and when it is examined are all negotiable.

14. Talk Politics . . . But Do It Gracefully. The higher the level of interpersonal trust in a
stakeholder group, the easier it is to speak candidly about internal and external political
pressures. Environmental conflicts are inevitably embedded in political contexts where
tough value choices are at play. While these value choices can be informed by cultural,
professional, and scientific considerations, underlying values are the ultimate arbiters of
political decision-making.

15. Be Patient Teachers to Others. When professionals present their knowledge, it is important
that they explicitly present and clarify the assumptions behind what they are saying. It is
often useful that initial technical presentations not be done through power-point, overheads,
or fancy models. Without dumbing things down, keep presentations as simple and clear as
possible. Community groups, native peoples, and others also have a burden to present their
knowledge from in ways that make sense to outsiders or people who do not share in local

39
 ways of doing things. Without violating matters that are sacred, and without talking down to
outsiders, it is critical that context, history, and background are explained in ways that do not
leave things inexplicably mysterious.

16. Organize “Sidebars”. When matters of great technical or cultural complexity arise,
establishing sidebar groups or working committees is usually useful. There are many
different design strategies worth considering, among them a special committee of “cultural
experts” or scientists. Sometimes, it is useful to create public sessions for the stakeholder
group to meet other interested members of the public and to report progress, test out new
ideas, or gather feedback. In all such meetings, balancing local knowledge with outside
expert knowledge is important.

17. Create a “Public Learning” Culture. Build a group norm to support joint inquiry. This means
that knowledge will be built slowly with contributions from each participant. It also means
that ground rules and agendas should take account of constantly evolving information.
Additionally, it implies that the stakeholder process should allow for small meetings and group
breakouts for those who are shy or don’t share the western norms of public meetings.

18. Engage in Storytelling. Stories are the single most accessible way for human beings to
communicate in groups. Often local or cultural knowledge is located in stories. For
scientists and technical experts, telling stories can provide important context and help people
understand the assumptions and values that are embedded in models and findings.

19. Explicitly Articulate Outcomes. No matter how we try, not all collaborative processes end
up with integrated solutions. If the outcome leads to ongoing relationships, try to create
structures that reinforce continuing relationships and trust building. If the outcome means
loss or change for some, acknowledge the transition and grief and create rituals that
memorialize changes and losses.

20. Create Strong Endings. Stakeholder groups often run out of steam toward the end of the
process. Resist the temptation to leave things unsaid or undocumented. Besides developing
well-crafted written agreements, make sure everyone is acknowledged. With or without

40
agreement, close the process with dignity by inviting different cultural and professional
voices to help summarize what they have learned. Then, find ways to celebrate.

CONCLUSION
Phil: Do you know what today is?
Rita: No, what?
Phil: Today is tomorrow. It happened.
--Groundhog Day

In the movie Groundhog Day, the protagonist is stuck in time, repeating the same day
over and over until he finally gets it right. By the end of the movie, he is able to anticipate
every problem that happens in the small town before it happens – ready with a jack to help
the old ladies with a flat tire, ready to catch the boy as he falls out of the tree, ready to rescue
a man from choking. As the title of this paper suggests, the future remains unknown to us,
but there are hints of the future that cast visible shadows into the present. Future problems
can be averted with proper preparation, including steps suggested by this guide. Importantly,
it must involve interactions that engage the public as partners, as this is the only way to build
trust. With community trust, tomorrow’s problems can be averted today.

41