15.09.2010

1

Par$cipatory  decision  making  and    dialogue  

Topic  6  

Peter  Wiedemann  

•  Topic  1:  Risk  concept  •  Topic  2:  Percep$on  of  risks  •  Topic  3:  Risk  communica$ons  •  Topic  4:  Trust  and  credibility  •  Topic  5:  Labeling  risks  •  Topic  6:Par$cipatory  decision  making  and    dialogue  •  Topic  7:  Disclosure  of  uncertain$es  •  Topic  8:Precau$onary  measures  and  risk  management  •  Topic  9:  Evidence  characteriza$on  •  Topic  10:  Tips  for  risk  communica$on  

Content  of  the  Lectures  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

2

Star$ng  Point  

     Solving  the  problems  of  risk  communica$on  is    as  much  about  improving  procedures  as  improving  content.  (NRC,  1989)  

•  Improving  process  •  Improving  content  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Recommenda$ons:  Process  

• Openness  is  the  surest  RC  policy.  •  Ini$ate  RC  early  in  the  cycle  of  concern.  •  Involve  the  public  early  and  oUen.  •  Establish  a  dialogue  with  the  public.  •  Tailor  RC  according  to  the  needs  of  targeted  audience.  

•  Be  respecXul,  caring,  and  sensi$ve.  •  Slow  down;  listen  to  your  pa$ent’s  story.  •  Engage  in  stakeholder  par$cipa$on.  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

3

•  Public  par$cipa$on  will  increase  the  legi$macy  of  risk  related  decisions.    

• More  effec$ve  public  par$cipa$on  can  help  build  trust  and  understanding  within  the  community  which  in  turn  helps  communicate  risk  more  effec$vely.  

•  Public  par$cipa$on  may  iden$fy  aspects  of  risk    that    are  otherwise  be  neglected.  

Recommenda$ons:  Process  –  Par$cipa$on  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Expecta$ons  Par$cipa$on  will    result  in:  

•  A  posi$ve  evalua$on  of  the  transparency  of  the  si$ng  process  as  expected  by  NRC  (1996),  

•  Iinfluencing  the  percep$ons  of  conflict  resolu$on  and  conflict  avoidance  opportuni$es,  

•  Strengthening  trust  in  the  health  protec$on  management  as  suggested  by  Slovic  (1993),  

•  Lowering  par$cipants’  concerns  and  risk  percep$ons,  •  Raising  acceptance  of  the  planned  base  sta$ons,  •  Restoring  of  public  confidence  in  risk  management  ins$tu$ons  

(cf.  Rowe  et  al.  2004),  and  •  Decisions  that  are  more  likely  accepted  by  the  affected  par$es  

(Arvai  2003).   Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

4

Possible  Effects  

•  Framing    – Broadening  views  and  including  different  values  

•  Process  – Improving  working  rela$onships  

•  Outcome  – Improving  decision  quality  

•  Implementa$on    – Improving  legi$macy  and  acceptance  of  decisions  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

A Ladder of Citizen Participation - Sherry R Arnstein, 1969

15.09.2010

5

Peter  Wiedemann  

1 Manipulation and 2 Therapy. Both are non participative. The aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is best and the job of participation is to achieve public support by public relations.

3 Informing. A most important first step to legitimate participation. But too frequently the emphasis is on a one way flow of information. No channel for feedback.

4 Consultation. Again a legitimate step - attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries.

Peter  Wiedemann  

5 Placation. For example, co-option of hand-picked 'worthies' onto committees. It allows citizens to advise or plan ad infinitum but retains for power holders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.

6 Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through joint committees.

7 Delegated power. Citizens holding a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability of the programme to them.

8 Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job of planning, policy making and managing a programme e.g. neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between it and the source of funds.

15.09.2010

6

What  is  important  

– Process  maders  • Par$cipa$on  should  be    considered  as  early  as  possible  • Systema$c  analysis  of  stakeholders  is  needed  

• Clear  objec$ves  need  to  be  agreed  upon  • Appropriate    par$cipa$on  methods  should  be  selected  

• Skilled  facilita$on  is  important  

– Content  maders  • Topic  is  key  • Consensual  framing  of  the  issues  at  stake  is  essen$al  

•  Integra$on  of    scien$fic  and    local    knowledge  is  required  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Time  is  cri$cal  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

7

Par$cipants  are  important  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Fung, A. (2006), "Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance", Public Administration Review-Washington Dc- 66: 66-75, http://www.archonfung.com/papers/FungVarietiesOfPart.pdf

Topic  is  key  

•  Conduc$ng  risk  assessment  of  RF/ELF  EMF  

•  Deciding  on  risk  management  op$ons  •  Si$ng  base  sta$ons  •  Selec$ng  precau$onary  measures  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

8

Integra$ng  Knowledge  is  needed    

•  Science  and  subjec$ve  experience  point    not  always  in  the  same  direc$on.  

•  Hearsay  and    subjec$ve  opinions  do  not  have    the  same  epistemic  quality  as  evidence  based  in  sound  science      

•  Mo$vated  reasoning  makes  consensus  impossible.  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Example  1  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

9

Who  is  right?  

•           No  major  public  health  risks  have  emerged  from  several  decades  of  EMF  

research,  but  uncertain$es  remain.  

Peter  Wiedemann  

The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.

Who  is  right?  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

10

Risk  Dialogue  

Epidemi- ological studies

Animal studies cancer

CNS / Sleep

Genotoxic effects

Effects on well-being

Selection of topics and experts

Blood-brain -barrier

Peter  Wiedemann  

•  Selec$on  of  experts  –  Each  topic  (research  field)  was  reviewed  by  two  experts  /  expert  

groups  •  Experts  are  ac$vely  doing  research  and  publish  in  the  respec$ve  research  field  

•  Experts  should  represent  the  spectrum  of  scien$fic  opinions  

–  Support  by  advisory  experts  

•  Guidelines  for  structuring  the  reports  –  Goals  of  the  report  

•  Relevance  for  RF  EMF  risk  evalua$on  

•  Selec$on  of  endpoints  to  be  considered  –  Selec$on  of  studies  (2000  -­‐  2004)  –  Descrip$on  of  the  scien$fic  state  of  knowledge  –  Overall  evalua$on  

Risk  Dialogue  Criteria  for  Expert  Opinion  Reports  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

11

Risk  Dialogue  

Epidemi- ological studies

Animal studies cancer

CNS / Sleep

Genotoxic effects

Effects on well-being

Selection of topics and experts

Final workshop with all experts Discussion of evidence maps

Workshops for each topic with advisory experts

Blood-brain -barrier

Construction of evidence maps

Revision of expert reports

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

12

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

13

Example  2  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

14

Method  

•  Experiment:  Effects  of  informing  people  about  different  modes  of  base  sta$on  si$ng    (Informa$on  &  par$cipa$on)  

– Varia$on  by  text  modules  (informa$on  about  different    approaches  to  si$ng  of  base  sta$ons  in  their  neighbourhood)  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

15

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

15.09.2010

16

Lessons  learned  

•  Good  working  rela$onships  are  important  –  process  maders!    

•  Dialogue  should  start  early.    •  Dialogue  between  experts  are  at  least  as  important  as  stakeholder  dialogue.  

•  Par$cipa$on  is  not  a  magic  tool.  •  Par$cipa$on  fits  best  for  si$ng  issues.  •  Be  beware  of  false  consensus.  •  Dialogue  and  par$cipa$on  need  skilled  facilitators.  

Peter  Wiedemann  

Peter  Wiedemann  

http://www.partnerships.org.uk/guide/AZpartic.html#Confidence