Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate

This article takes as its case study the "GM Nation?" public debate, a major participation process on the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology, which occurred in Britain during the summer of 2003. We investigate possible self-selection biases in over 36,000 open questionnaire responses on the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops and food obtained during GM Nation? A comparison sample of equivalent responses from a statistically representative sample (n = 1,363) of the British general public obtained shortly after the conclusion of the debate is reported. This comparison shows that the GM Nation? open responses were indeed not fully representative of British "public opinion" regarding agricultural biotechnology. Rather, such opinion is not a unitary whole, but fragmented, with considerable ambivalence coexisting alongside outright opposition to GM agriculture. The methodological implications for multistage participation processes are discussed: in particular, the need to anticipate outcomes of complex design decisions, and to include representative public surveys as standard where measures of broader public attitudes to risk are an important objective.

[1]  Judith Petts,et al.  Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management , 2004 .

[2]  G. Gaskell Science policy and society: the British debate over GM agriculture. , 2004, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[3]  A. Bryman Quantity and quality in social research , 1988 .

[4]  William L. Shade,et al.  Citizen Participation, Democratic Representation, and Survey Research , 1973 .

[5]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  K. McComas Public Meetings About Local Waste Management Problems: Comparing Participants to Nonparticipants , 2001, Environmental Management.

[7]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. , 1992, British journal of psychology.

[9]  Karen Bickerstaff,et al.  Participatory Local Governance and Transport Planning , 2001 .

[10]  T. Heberlein Some observations on alternative mechanisms for public involvement: the hearing, public opinion poll, the workshop and the quasi-experiment , 1985 .

[11]  Peter M. Chisnall,et al.  Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement , 1993 .

[12]  David Parkinson,et al.  Risk: Analysis, perception and management. report of a Royal Society Study Group: Pp 201. The Royal Society. 1992. Paperback £15.50 ISBN 0 85403 467 6 , 1993 .

[13]  E. Townsend,et al.  Flaws undermine results of UK biotech debate , 2003, Nature.

[14]  Ortwin Renn A Model for an Analytic−Deliberative Process in Risk Management , 1999 .

[15]  John G. Gammack,et al.  Promise and perils of electronic public engagement , 2004 .

[16]  Steven J. Breckler,et al.  A Comparison of Numerical Indexes for Measuring Attitude Ambivalence , 1994 .

[17]  Jörg Niewöhner,et al.  Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  Kristen Purcell,et al.  Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? , 1999 .

[19]  N. Pidgeon Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: why we do need risk perception research , 1998 .

[20]  Daniel J. Fiorino Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms , 1990 .

[21]  T. Heberlein,et al.  Research Report: Do Public Meetings Represent the Public? , 1984 .

[22]  Claire Marris,et al.  Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Report of the PABE project funded by the European Commission, DG Research (contract number: FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12 - SSMI) , 2001 .

[23]  M. Morris Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[24]  J. Glass Citizen participation in planning: the relationship between objectives and techniques. , 1979, Journal of the American Planning Association. American Planning Association.

[25]  W. Poortinga,et al.  A Deliberative Future? An Independent Evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the Possible Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops in Britain, 2003 (Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02) , 2004 .

[26]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[27]  R. Kasperson Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Social Theories of Risk , 1992 .

[29]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Biotechnology 1996-1999 : the years of controversy , 2001 .

[30]  A. Knops,et al.  Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation , 2003 .

[31]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[32]  Simon Joss,et al.  Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate , 1998 .

[33]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[34]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[35]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.