Branden B. Johnson

Public participation in decision making : a three-step procedure

This article introduces a novel model of public particpation in political decisions. Structured in three consecutive steps, the model is based on the view that stakeholders, experts, and citizens should each contribute to the planning effort their particular expertise and experience. Stakeholders are valuable resources for eliciting concerns and developing evaluative criteria since their interests are at stake and they have already made attempts to structure and approach the issue. Experts are necessary to provide the data base and the functional relationships between options and impacts. Citizens are the potential victims and benefactors of proposed planning measures; they are the best judges to evaluate the different options available on the basis of the concerns and impacts revealed through the other two groups. The three-step model has been developed and frequently applied as a planning tool in West Germany. We compare this experience with the models first application in the United States, and conclude that the three-step procedure offers a limited, but promising future for democratizing policy making in the United States.

Gender and Race in Beliefs about Outdoor Air Pollution

Universal need for, or reactions to, risk communications should not be assumed; potential differences across demographic groups in environmental risk beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors could affect risk levels or opportunities for risk reduction. This article reports relevant findings from a survey experiment involving 1,100 potential jurors in Philadelphia concerning public responses to outdoor air pollution and air quality information. Flynn et al. (1994) and Finucane et al. (2000) found significant differences in risk ratings for multiple hazards, and in generic risk beliefs, between white men (or a subset) and all others (white women, nonwhite men, and nonwhite women). This study examined whether white men had significantly different responses to air pollution and air pollution information. An opportunity sample of volunteers from those awaiting potential jury duty in city courts (matching census estimates for white versus nonwhite proportions, but more female than the citys adult population and more likely to have children) filled out questionnaires distributed quasi-randomly. On most measures there were no statistically significant differences among white men (N = 192), white women (N = 269), nonwhite men (N = 165), and nonwhite women (N = 272). Nonwhites overall (particularly women) reported more concern about and sensitivity to air pollution than whites, and were more concerned by (even overly sensitive to) air pollution information provided as part of the experiment. Nonwhites also were more likely (within-gender comparisons) to report being active outdoors for at least four hours a day, a measure of potential exposure to air pollution, and to report intentions to reduce such outdoor activity after reading air pollution information. Differences between men and women were less frequent than between whites and nonwhites; the most distinctive group was nonwhite women, followed by white men. Flynn et al. (1994) and Finucane et al. (2000) found a far larger proportion of significant differences, with white men as most distinctive, probably due to use of different measures, study design, and population samples. However, all three studies broadly confirm the existence of gender and race interactions in risk beliefs and attitudes (particularly for white men and nonwhite women) that deserve more attention from researchers.

Creating a Climate for Change: Information is not enough

Introduction Communication about climate change is as complex as the science. Among the most difficult communication challenges is persuading people to act on a problem such as climate change, which is not immediately relevant or easily solved. The challenge becomes even more difficult when you ask people to change routine behavior, such as how they get to work or set their home thermostat. Not surprisingly, after years of schooling, many readers of this volume probably come to it believing that information changes attitudes and behaviors. Some may go so far as to think information is a cure. Filling eyes and ears with sufficient data may seem a means of cleansing the brain of misguided opinions and incorrect facts, and replacing them with “appropriate” beliefs. Many informational efforts to promote environmentally responsible behavior lean on an implicit theory of behavior (Costanzo et al ., 1986) that “right” behavior naturally follows from “right” thinking. However, more knowledge does not necessarily lead to more appropriate behavior, or even behavior deemed more appropriate by the educator or communicator (Johnson, 1993; Fischhoff, 1995). Social science theory and much empirical research show that links between information and behavior can be tenuous at best. Information is not entirely inconsequential, but it is much overrated as a change agent (see a discussion of the so-called “deficit model” in Sturgis and Allum, 2004; see also Tribbia, Chapter 15, this volume). Advocates for precautionary action may find it difficult to accept the fragile link between information and behavior.

Communicating about environmental indicators

The challenge of designing risk or sustainability indicators that communicate effectively to non‐technical audiences may be even greater than described by Gray and Wiedemann (1999) in this journal. To meet the objectives of the international community, which includes involving stakeholders in policy discussions, indicators will need to fulfill communicative criteria articulated by Gray and Wiedemann. Yet our exploratory research of New Jersey indicators suggests that without substantial pre‐testing and revision of indicators, efforts to communicate with stakeholders and members of the public may be frustrated.

Climate change communication: a provocative inquiry into motives, meanings, and means.

The deliberately provocative theme of this article is that perceived difficulties in climate change communication (CCC)--e.g., indifference about or denial of climate changes reality, negative consequences, anthropogenic causes, or need to mitigate or adapt to it-are partly the fault of climate change communicators. Fischhoffs model of risk communication development is used to demonstrate that CCC to date has tended to stress persuasion, rather than social movement mobilization or deliberation, and with a focus on the models early stages. Later stages are not necessarily better, but a more diverse strategy seems superior to a focus perhaps narrowed by empathic, ideological, psychological, and resource constraints. Furthermore, even within persuasion, emphasizing a wider set of values, consequences, and audiences could be fruitful. Social movement mobilization has its own set of weaknesses, but usefully complements persuasion with a focus on developing power, subverting mainstream assumptions, and engaging people in collective action. Deliberation similarly has its drawbacks, but unlike the other two approaches does not define the solution-or even, necessarily, the problem-in advance, and thus offers the chance for people of contending viewpoints to jointly develop concepts and action agendas hitherto unimagined. Simultaneous pursuit of all three strategies can to some degree offset their respective flaws, at the potential cost of diffusion of energies and contradictory messages. Success in CCC is by no means guaranteed by a more diverse set of strategies and self-reflection by communicators, but their pursuit should better reveal CCCs limits.

Residential exposure to chromium waste--urine biological monitoring in conjunction with environmental exposure monitoring.

To determine whether a population living on or adjacent to four sites of chromate production waste was measurably exposed to environmental chromium, spot samples of urine were collected along with wipe samples of household dust and lifestyle/activity interview data. Findings were compared to those from a control population in two communities with no significant chromium use or waste sites. Urine samples were collected and analyzed, employing measures to minimize background chromium contamination. The average Cr mass in dust was 3.7 times that in control houses. The mean creatinine-corrected urine Cr (Cr/c) level of the exposed subgroup residing in households in the 75th percentile of Cr mass in wipe samples was significantly greater than that of the control population. This subgroup was primarily located at a single exposure location. Using lifestyle/activity data, significantly elevated Cr/c urine levels were identified in other exposed subgroups defined by employment location and by outside play time. These data show an association between elevated exposure to chromium in household dust and elevated urine levels of chromium, consistent with residential exposure to chromate production waste. These data also suggest an association between chromium exposure and activities outside the home which are consistent with exposure to chromate production waste.

The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers

The intuitive detection theorist (IDT) model of trust posits that trust in hazard managers stems from judgments about their performance on three criteria: their ability to discriminate safe from dangerous situations (discrimination ability); their tendency under uncertainty to assume danger is present (response bias); and their propensity to be open and honest with the public about events (communication bias). The current article tests the models robustness using findings from three experiments and four surveys conducted by two different research teams. Study-specific analyses and an overall analysis of the seven studies combined confirm that all three of the IDT models dimensions are important for trust, explaining on average 43% of trust variance. These effects occurred largely independently of hazard topic, research method, or investigator. Hypothesized interaction effects among the dimensions, based upon earlier studies, were weak and contradictory; this is the first known study of interactions among trust model variables.

Evaluating Public Responses to Environmental Trend Indicators

Indicators of trends in environmental conditions have been touted as ways to inform the public and provide a “report card” on environmental agency performance, but no quantitative analysis of such claims has been done. A small study of New Jersey residents’ reactions to indicators as presented by the state environmental agency found that these indicators were deemed understandable, credible, and useful. However, actual comprehension was not related to perceived understanding, and many in this well-educated sample exhibited the ecological fallacy of inferring local environmental conditions or priority-setting uses that these indicators could not possibly provide. Prior beliefs about statewide trends in environmental quality, accuracy in extracting information from the indicator presentations, and demographic variables had varying but significant effects on reactions to and interpretations of the indicators. These findings have implications for preparation and evaluation of institutional communications about science in general.

The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers

Effective risk management requires balancing several, sometimes competing, goals, such as protecting public health and ensuring cost control. Research examining public trust of risk managers has largely focused on trust that is unspecified or for a single goal. Yet it can be reasonable to have a high level of trust in one aspect of a targets performance but not another. Two studies involving redevelopment of contaminated land (Study 1) and drinking water standards (Study 2) present preliminary evidence on the value of distinguishing between performance criteria for understanding of trust. Study 1 assessed perceptions of several trust targets (councilors, developers, scientists, residents) on their competence (capacity to achieve goals) and willingness to take action under uncertainty for four criteria. Study 2 assessed competence, willingness, and trust for five criteria regarding a single government agency. In both studies overall trust in each target was significantly better explained by considering perceptions of their performance on multiple criteria than on the single criterion of public health. In Study 1, the influence of criteria also varied plausibly across trust targets (e.g., willingness to act under uncertainty increased trust in developers on cost control and councilors on local economic improvement, but decreased it for both targets on environmental protection). Study 2 showed that explained variance in trust increased with both dimension- and trust-based measures of criteria. Further conceptual and methodological development of the notion of multiple trust criteria could benefit our understanding of stated trust judgments.

Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?

Expert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the US public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains. People with low education, or with low self-reported topic knowledge, were most likely to attribute disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. Our results show that laypeople tend to use coherent—albeit potentially overly narrow—attributions to make sense of expert disputes and that these explanations vary across different segments of the population. We highlight several important implications for scientists, risk managers, and decision makers.