Involving the Public in Risk Communication Katherine A. McComas, Ph.D. University of Maryland.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Collaborative Delphi
Advertisements

Module 4 Planning SP. What’s in Module 4  Opportunities for SP  Different SP models  Communication plan  Monitoring and evaluating  Working session.
Participation Requirements for a Patient Representative.
Session 231 Benefits of Public Participation Increased Competence of Decision makers Greater Legitimacy through Greater Accountability Proper Conduct of.
How to Prepare a Successful Tax and Bond Proposal Troy Corder Policy Development Group.
1 Tools and mechanisms: 1. Participatory Planning Members of local communities contribute to plans for company activities potentially relating to business.
Giving Public Presentations of Risk Information Katherine A. McComas, Ph.D. University of Maryland.
Evaluating Risk Communication Katherine A. McComas, Ph.D. University of Maryland.
Bankstown Family Relationship Centre (FRC) NIHAL DANIS Manager.
CFSAN’s Peer Review for Risk Assessments Robert L. Buchanan, Sherri Dennis, and Marianne Miliotis.
Characteristics of on-line formation courses. Criteria for their pedagogical evaluation Catalina Martínez Mediano, Department of Research Methods and Diagnosis.
SE 450 Software Processes & Product Metrics Survey Use & Design.
STAGES OF THE POLICY PROCESS
Psychological Aspects of Risk Management and Technology – G. Grote ETHZ, Fall09 Psychological Aspects of Risk Management and Technology – Overview.
Programming Techniques and Skills for Advisory Leaders Ralph Prince and Roger Rennekamp, Ph.D. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service.
1 Decision Analysis by Dr. AA. 2 Man decides based on what he believes… Man believes what he want to believe…
Opportunities for RAC Participation. Three Part discussion General presentation; Example of oil and gas decision making; and Panel Discussion of RAC involvement.
Measuring Learning Outcomes Evaluation
Competency Assessment Public Health Professional (2012)-
Alliance for Community Media Conference Cable Franchise Renewal By Michael R. Bradley Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Phone: (651) July 8, 2005____________________________.
Copyright © 2008 Allyn & Bacon Meetings: Forums for Problem Solving 11 CHAPTER Chapter Objectives This Multimedia product and its contents are protected.
Comparative Evaluation of the Impact of e- participation in Local Climate Change Policy Programs The Effectiveness of E-Participation.
Copyright © 2014 by The University of Kansas Member Survey of Process: Ratings of Satisfaction.
Designing Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment Presentation & Exercise.
Community Issues And Needs Associated With Microbicides Clinical Trials Presenter: John M. Mutsambi, Community Liaison Officer with University of Zimbabwe.
Surveys and Questionnaires Online Tutorial. What is a survey? A survey is a method of gathering information from a number of individuals, known as a sample,
Public Administration Department
The Evaluation Plan.
The Nature and Purpose of Ethical Reflections:
The Reality of Measuring Small Business Environmental Compliance Assistance Kenya Stump.
DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE Thomas C. Beierle and Jerry Crayford Presentation by Priyanth Manjooran, Amanda Gilbert, Eli Wade-Scott and Jordan Smith.
Chapter 2 MAJORITARIAN OR PLURALIST DEMOCRACY?. Learning Outcomes 2.1 Distinguish between the two theories of democratic government used in political.
Who are we? And what is it that we do? LCC--Business Department Advisory Committee.
Third Party Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?  It involves the application of theories, procedures, and skills designed.
CHAPTER 3 SCOPING AND AGENCY COORDINATION. Scoping - the procedure for determining the appropriate level of study of a proposed project/activity - process.
1 Public Participation and Community Involvement about Environmental and Health Risks Breast Cancer and Environment Pre-Conference Breast Cancer and Environment.
August 7, Market Participant Survey Action Plan Dale Goodman Director, Market Services.
Gabriela Pérez Yarahuán Universidad Iberoamericana Exploring Politics, Accountability and Evaluation Use in the Mexican Federal Government Education Programs.
Cooperative Refurbishment Occupant Participation in Refurbishment Projects of Multi Floor Buildings Michael Ornetzeder.
DEMOCRACY IN PRACTISE Workshop "Public Participation: from Obligation to Advantage" Introduction Dušica Radojčić, Zelena Istra Pula, April 2009.
Stakeholder consultations Kyiv May 13, Why stakeholder consultations? To help improve project design and implementation To inform people about changes.
Policy Influencing strategies & Tactics. What is Public policy? Public policy: It is a guideline to the actions of the governments in addressing societal.
Public Review Committee Linda Sullivan-Colglazier Assistant Attorney General July 28, 2011.
U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Part 190 NPRM: Administrative Procedures - 1 -
Redevelopment of the Georgia-Pacific Mill Site, Fort Bragg, CA. Options and Alternatives for Public Participation in the Planning Process Neil Peacock.
Training Resource Manual on Integrated Assessment Session UNEP-UNCTAD CBTF Process of an Integrated Assessment Session 2.
Guide for Rural Local Officials Evaluating Your Input into the Statewide Transportation Planning Process Developed by the National Association of Development.
What is Negotiated Rulemaking? Center for Public Policy Dispute Resolution The University of Texas School of Law.
Alain Thomas Overview workshop Background to the Principles Definitions The National Principles for Public Engagement What.
DEVELOPING THE WORK PLAN
MODULE 9 MANAGERS AS DECISION MAKERS “Decide first, then act” How do managers use information to make decisions and solve problems? What are the steps.
European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Aspects of pharmacovigilance: Public hearings.
Module 3 Engagement techniques 3a Introduction. What’s in Module 3a  Range of techniques  Different techniques for different levels of engagement 
Community-Based Deer Management Collaborative Deer Management Outreach Initiative.
1 1 CEQA Scoping Naomi Feger Planning TMDL Section Leader Region 2.
“General RIA Training” 6–8 July 2009 EuropeAid/125317/D/SER/TR Session 12 Data Collection and Stakeholder Consultation in the RIA process.
Citizen Participation and Sustainable Development Graham Smith School of Social Sciences University of Southampton.
PROMOTING SPECIALTY CROPS AS LOCAL Module 5: How do you talk to consumers about your locally grown food? – Part 1.
Governance and Institutional Arrangements What they have to do with Regional Water Planning (RWP)
Version: 27 May 2007 New Models for Collaboration: Patients as Drivers and Partners in Neurological Research Integrating Patient Input Within the Drug.
BLM Decision Making Process
Regulatory Strategies and Solutions Group, LLC
Stakeholder consultations
Risk Determinations and Research with Children
The Rulemaking Process
‘Top Ten’ Screening Criteria
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Survey Design & Use.
2012 Annual Call Steps of the evaluation of proposals, role of the experts TEN-T Experts Briefing, March 2013.
Member Survey of Process: Ratings of Satisfaction
Presentation transcript:

Involving the Public in Risk Communication Katherine A. McComas, Ph.D. University of Maryland

What This Tutorial Covers Reasons for involving the public in risk communication A review of some common participatory methods Things to consider when choosing among methods of involvement Some outcomes of public involvement

What Does “Involving the Public” Mean? There are many different types and ranges of public involvement. –Common forms of public involvement include: Public hearings Negotiated rule-making Citizen panels or advisory committees Mail or telephone surveys –These are just a few of many techniques available to risk communicators.

Why Should the Public Be Involved? Fiorino (1990) poses three arguments for public involvement: 1.Substantive – “lay judgments about risk are as sound or more so than those of experts” (p. 227) –The public may see things that the experts do not. The public is also often more aware of the social and political values related to the risk situation. 2.Normative – “technocratic orientation is incompatible with democratic ideals” (p. 227) –The public has a right to be involved in decisions affecting their interests. 3.Instrumental – “lay participation in risk decisions makes them more legitimate and leads to better results” (p. 228) –If we deny the public the right to participate in decisions affecting them, we only deepen their skepticism of risk institutions. Moreover, a broader degree of participation may reduce the probability of error in resulting decisions.

Some Participatory Methods Public hearings/meetings/scoping/availability sessions – open forums where people come to hear and respond to agency proposals. Initiatives – issues are placed on ballots for citizens to vote for approval. Citizen surveys – solicit representative sample of public opinion on issue via questionnaires. Negotiated rule making – representatives of organized interests meet and negotiate environmental regulations. Citizen review panels – a “lay jury” of citizens evaluate science, consider alternative, and offer recommendations. Citizen advisory committees – a selection of citizens serve for a certain period in an advisory capacity to the agency. Workshops – citizens are invited to a formal or informal gathering where issues are discussed at length.

Choosing Among Methods of Involvement How do risk communicators decide which participation methods to use? Here are some questions to ask: –What are the legal requirements? Some techniques are required by law. –For example, Environmental Impact Assessments on proposed environmental projects may require a public hearing to receive public comments. These hearings are listed in the Federal Register. Other techniques are used voluntarily. –For example, some agencies use “scoping sessions” with the public at the beginning of a decision making process to “scope out” potential areas of concern.

Choosing Among Methods, cont’d. What are the goals and objectives for involving the public? –If the intention is primarily to provide information to the public and solicit the public’s input, some options to consider include: Informational public meetings (formats often include short informational presentations, audience comments, and a question and answer period); “Open House” or availability sessions (formats often include poster-type displays attended to by experts or officials preceded or followed by formal or informal public meeting); Mail or telephone surveys conducted with a representative sample to provide information to the public and generate feedback –If the intention to to allow for more extensive feedback from the public, other options include citizen advisory committees, workshops, and negotiated rule-making. Each of these options arguably involves a more long-term, meaningful commitment from the organization and the public.

Choosing Among Methods, cont’d. What messages are we sending to the public with this method of involvement? –Risk communicators may want to consider the unintentional messages they send to the public in the methods they choose for involvement. e.g., Does the process satisfy normative criteria? –Fiorino (1990) suggests four criteria for evaluating public involvement according to normative criteria: It allows for the direct involvement of amateurs in the decisions; It enables lay audiences to participate directly in the process; It provides structure for face-to-face discussion over time; It offers citizens opportunity to participate on some level of equality with officials and experts.

Some Outcomes of Public Involvement Besides satisfying democratic criteria, when used appropriately and effectively, public involvement can lead to better decisions and better relations with the public. –Benefits to the organization include enhanced credibility and enhanced public satisfaction. When used carelessly or disingenuously, public involvement can have negative outcomes. –Consequences include increased skepticism of the organization, dissatisfaction with the decision making process, and unwarranted concern about risk.

References Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33, Fiorino, D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15,