Public Perceptions and Public Engagement
Download
Report
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