Transcript Public Perceptions and Public Engagement

Public Perceptions and Public
Engagement
Heidi Gantwerk
Vice President, Viewpoint Learning
Presented to the California Council on Science and Technology
October 31, 2006
A disconnect on energy/climate change
Experts and the public agree that climate change is a serious
problem and that steps must be taken - but beyond this their
opinions diverge:
Expert opinion

Renewable sources (wind and
solar) cannot meet the state’s
future energy needs

California cannot conserve its
way out of the problem

Growing openness to nuclear
power
Public opinion

Strong support for investing in
wind and solar (83% support)

Strong support for requiring
greater fuel efficiency (74%
support)

Strong opposition to building new
nuclear plants (52% oppose)
Unanswered question:
Are Californians willing to go beyond these measures?
2
Polls have proven strengths
3

ACCURATE: a snapshot of what the public says and
feels at a moment in time

RELIABLE: people rarely lie in polls

OBJECTIVE: avoid special interest bias

PREDICTIVE: but ONLY when the public’s views are firm
But polls also have limitations

When public’s views are unresolved, polls are not predictive

Public’s views are unresolved on more than 90% of
California’s policy issues

Poll findings do not reveal volatility of views

Answers to single questions often distort meaning

Polls do not permit the public to work through painful
tradeoffs
Polls have huge potential to mislead policy makers

4
Sustainable solutions require support
from all sectors
5
Challenges to engaging the public

6
Changing public expectations

More educated and informed population

Greater demand for openness, accountability and
responsiveness

Increasing insistence on having a voice

Increased availability of information (media,
internet)

New era of mistrust
The traditional model of public
engagement
Unorganized
Public Opinion
• Inconsistent
• Unstable
+
Information
• Consequences
unclear
But it’s not about information…
7
Thoughtful
Public
Engagement
A more realistic model of public
engagement
Sense of
inclusion
Unorganized
Public Opinion
Values-based
choices
• Inconsistent
• Unstable
• Consequences
unclear
+
Multiple
framings
Wishful
thinking
confronted
Stages
Information
8
Thoughtful
Public
Engagement
Scientists can be a critical bridge
between public and policy-makers
9

Public support is necessary for any policy to be
sustainable in the long run

Scientists benefit when the public sees them as allies in
a common search for solutions (rather than experts
telling them what to do)

When public and scientists are on the same page,
scientists get much-needed clout
A possible game plan
10

Engage policy makers and business leaders in Strategic
Dialogue to develop realistic energy scenarios that they
will be willing to support and to see tested with the public

Test these scenarios in ChoiceDialogues with
Californians to identify which approaches the public will be
willing to support and under what conditions

Outcomes: A road map leaders can use to advance
sustainable energy policy
Strategic Dialogue: sets the framework

11
Structured dialogues with a range of leaders (including
business leaders, environmental advocates, elected
officials, scientists, civic leaders) designed to:

Identify key trends shaping the state’s current energy
situation and key certainties and uncertainties that will
shape the future

Frame the questions to be addressed

Develop different scenarios for change that can be tested
with the public

Build commitment to implementation of the actions that will
be taken
ChoiceDialogue:
A new research tool
12

A series of dialogues with representative cross-sections
of the public (30-40 participants in each session)

Eight-hour sessions allow intense social learning

Dialogue organized around 3-4 alternative scenarios
developed in advance

Special workbook sets agenda, gives background on
issues, lays out pros and cons grounded in research

Facilitation keeps people on track and in dialogue mode

Before and after measures quantify shifts in preferences,
coupled with qualitative analysis
Focus Groups vs. ChoiceDialogues
Focus Groups
13
ChoiceDialogues
Two hours
Eight hours
8-12 participants
30-40 participants
Capture current thinking
Capture future thinking
Avoid changing minds
Explore how minds change
Participant learning is minimal
A huge amount of learning
Trust building minimal
A huge amount of trust building
Strong feelings controlled
Strong feelings elicited
Changes are random
Changes are significant
What sort of questions this sort of
project can answer
14

How do Californians want to respond to the threat of
global climate change?

What direction do Californians want to see for the state’s
energy policy?

How do Californians want to balance different
components of the energy mix (including supply,
conservation and lifestyle changes)?

What role do Californians want to see for nuclear energy
in California’s energy supply, and what are their key
conditions and concerns?
Outcomes
15

Greater understanding of which solutions the public,
industry and advocates will be likely to support

Important conditions for that support

Potential roadblocks

A road map leaders can use to advance public
understanding and engagement in a sustainable energy
policy