par$cipatory+decision+making+and++dialogue+ … 5 peter+wiedemann+ 1 manipulation and 2 therapy....
TRANSCRIPT
15.09.2010
1
Par$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$on
Risk Dialogue Criteria for Expert Opinion Reports
Peter Wiedemann
15.09.2010
11
Risk Dialogue
Epidemi- ological studies
Animal studies cancer
CNS / Sleep
Genotoxic effects
Effects on well-being
Selection of topics and experts
Final workshop with all experts Discussion of evidence maps
Workshops for each topic with advisory experts
Blood-brain -barrier
Construction of evidence maps
Revision of expert reports
Peter Wiedemann
Peter Wiedemann
15.09.2010
14
Method
• Experiment: Effects of informing people about different modes of base sta$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
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