211
9.2.2 Why Involve the Public?
From the perspective of the so-called civic science, citizens and the public have a
stake in the science-politics interface, an interface that can no longer be viewed as
an arena for scientifi c experts and policy-makers only (Bäckstrand 2003 ). So what
do we mean by the ‘public’? In governance theory the public is generally framed as
concerned publics, meaning those affected by decisions, or what Beck ( 1992 :61)
describes as ‘the voices of the side effects’. Models of deliberative democracy and
the public sphere however refer to citizens in general and the notion of the public
interest (Dahlgren 2005 ; Habermas 1989 ). Both these perspectives point to the diffi culty of defi ning what is at stake for the public – i.e. what is ‘the public interest’ –
and who represents the ‘general citizen’. Researchers working on the public/science/
policy interface point, for example, to problems with participatory processes in relation to the question of whom the public actually represents and the type of people
interested in participating (Janse and Konijnendijk 2007 ). In this chapter, we consider stakeholders as organised interest groups and the public as unorganised, representing the individual citizen.
Risk communication with the public implies taking into account the values,
knowledge and experience of citizens. Such inclusion can improve governance and
also make decisions more legitimate, robust and easier to implement (see, e.g.
Stirling 2005 ; Whiteside 2006 ). Public involvement affects how problems and solutions are identifi ed and defi ned since participants can have a great infl uence on how
issues are framed. In the fi elds of science and risk communication, much attention
has been directed towards the role of deliberative activities and processes for public
participation and communication. Such activities include public hearings, conferences and advisory groups (see, e.g. Brake and Weitkamp 2009 ; Hagendijk and
Irwin 2006 ; Lidskog et al. 2010 ).
A major incentive for activating public dialogue processes is to restore the public’s confi dence in government authorities including risk regulators, although many
argue that increased public communication and a democratised scientifi c process
are also good things in themselves. Increased public involvement may reduce, for
example, mutual distrust. However, certain drawbacks of public involvement may
appear. Increased transparency and public debate regarding complex and uncertain
risk issues may result in increasing worries and larger unpredictability of risk perception and behaviour (cf. Frewer 2003 ). This in turn could be problematic for an
effi cient governance process (cf. Irwin 2008 ).
According to Ortwin Renn, to communicate risk to the public is a diffi cult task
(Renn 2008 ). Risk communication comprises several essential dimensions including
education/enlightenment of the audience and risk training for involved parties to
cope with the risks and to build up confi dence in risk management as well as to help
create confi dence towards risk handling institutions, it also enhances cooperation and
confl ict resolution in risk-related decision-making processes. These specifi c functions of risk communication all require slightly different forms of communication,
including documentation, information , mutual dialogue and involvement. In risk
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…
9.2.2 Why Involve the Public?
From the perspective of the so-called civic science, citizens and the public have a
stake in the science-politics interface, an interface that can no longer be viewed as
an arena for scientifi c experts and policy-makers only (Bäckstrand 2003 ). So what
do we mean by the ‘public’? In governance theory the public is generally framed as
concerned publics, meaning those affected by decisions, or what Beck ( 1992 :61)
describes as ‘the voices of the side effects’. Models of deliberative democracy and
the public sphere however refer to citizens in general and the notion of the public
interest (Dahlgren 2005 ; Habermas 1989 ). Both these perspectives point to the diffi culty of defi ning what is at stake for the public – i.e. what is ‘the public interest’ –
and who represents the ‘general citizen’. Researchers working on the public/science/
policy interface point, for example, to problems with participatory processes in relation to the question of whom the public actually represents and the type of people
interested in participating (Janse and Konijnendijk 2007 ). In this chapter, we consider stakeholders as organised interest groups and the public as unorganised, representing the individual citizen.
Risk communication with the public implies taking into account the values,
knowledge and experience of citizens. Such inclusion can improve governance and
also make decisions more legitimate, robust and easier to implement (see, e.g.
Stirling 2005 ; Whiteside 2006 ). Public involvement affects how problems and solutions are identifi ed and defi ned since participants can have a great infl uence on how
issues are framed. In the fi elds of science and risk communication, much attention
has been directed towards the role of deliberative activities and processes for public
participation and communication. Such activities include public hearings, conferences and advisory groups (see, e.g. Brake and Weitkamp 2009 ; Hagendijk and
Irwin 2006 ; Lidskog et al. 2010 ).
A major incentive for activating public dialogue processes is to restore the public’s confi dence in government authorities including risk regulators, although many
argue that increased public communication and a democratised scientifi c process
are also good things in themselves. Increased public involvement may reduce, for
example, mutual distrust. However, certain drawbacks of public involvement may
appear. Increased transparency and public debate regarding complex and uncertain
risk issues may result in increasing worries and larger unpredictability of risk perception and behaviour (cf. Frewer 2003 ). This in turn could be problematic for an
effi cient governance process (cf. Irwin 2008 ).
According to Ortwin Renn, to communicate risk to the public is a diffi cult task
(Renn 2008 ). Risk communication comprises several essential dimensions including
education/enlightenment of the audience and risk training for involved parties to
cope with the risks and to build up confi dence in risk management as well as to help
create confi dence towards risk handling institutions, it also enhances cooperation and
confl ict resolution in risk-related decision-making processes. These specifi c functions of risk communication all require slightly different forms of communication,
including documentation, information , mutual dialogue and involvement. In risk
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…