Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: frames, values and deliberation

Abstract

This paper documents a personal conceptual and methodological journey to develop processes of public engagement and deliberation for use with risk issues. Commencing from the 1995 volume by Ortwin Renn and colleagues on Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation alongside the 1996 National Academies Understanding Risk report, the paper first describes the parallel development of public engagement thinking within risk communication research and within science and technology studies. 16 case studies of research involving public engagement with risk issues are then presented, with topics ranging across major accident risks, geoengineering, nanotechnologies, genetic modification, climate change, fracking, energy systems change and energy use in everyday life. With reference to these case studies four methodological lessons for public engagement practice are discussed: information framing, who participates, facilitating spaces for reflection and deliberation, and data synthesis to access broader values.

Keywords:

• Public engagement
• environment
• technology
• risk communication

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my long-term colleagues and collaborators Karen Henwood, Barbara Harthorn, Terre Satterfield, Tim O'Riordan, Peter Simmons, Rob Goble, Roger Kasperson, Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic Alan Irwin, Branden Johnson, Phil Macnaghten, Robin Gregory, Ann Bostrom, Simon Gerrard, Tim McDaniels, Claire Mays, Marc Poumadére, Joe Árvai, Tom Webler, the late David Okrent, Steve Rayner and Tom Horlick-Jones, and of course Ortwin Renn, who all in their different ways have helped me to think more deeply about the practice and theory of public engagement with risk issues and risk values. Ragnar Löfstedt has served as a longstanding good colleague and patient editor for this volume. I have also had the privilege of working with some very dedicated early career researchers on my research projects, whose contribution is acknowledged through their various co-authorships of the papers listed in Table 1. I also thank the Leverhulme Trust, US National Science Foundation, UK Research Councils (ESRC, EPSRC and NERC), Welsh European Funding Office, and the European Commission for supporting the studies financially. The opinions expressed here are of course mine alone.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The question of whether a crisis of trust in science actually existed at this point in time is debatable.