Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy

This paper examines some of the science communication challenges involved when designing and conducting public deliberation processes on issues of national importance. We take as our illustrative case study a recent research project investigating public values and attitudes toward future energy system change for the United Kingdom. National-level issues such as this are often particularly difficult to engage the public with because of their inherent complexity, derived from multiple interconnected elements and policy frames, extended scales of analysis, and different manifestations of uncertainty. With reference to the energy system project, we discuss ways of meeting a series of science communication challenges arising when engaging the public with national topics, including the need to articulate systems thinking and problem scale, to provide balanced information and policy framings in ways that open up spaces for reflection and deliberation, and the need for varied methods of facilitation and data synthesis that permit access to participants’ broader values. Although resource intensive, national-level deliberation is possible and can produce useful insights both for participants and for science policy.

[1]  C. Teddlie,et al.  SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research , 2010 .

[2]  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.

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks , 2011 .

[4]  Andrea Ramírez,et al.  Informed public opinions on CCS in comparison to other mitigation options , 2009 .

[5]  S. Jasanoff Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science , 2003 .

[6]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Transforming the UK energy system: public values, attitudes and acceptability: summary findings from a survey conducted August 2012 , 2013 .

[7]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Transforming the UK energy system: public values, attitudes and acceptability: synthesis report , 2013 .

[8]  R. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions , 1990 .

[9]  Amanda M. Thomson,et al.  Projections of emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector to 2050. Contract report for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) , 2011 .

[10]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Keep it complex , 2010, Nature.

[11]  Javier Lezaun,et al.  Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics , 2007 .

[12]  P. Simmons,et al.  Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste , 2008, Public understanding of science.

[13]  Amanda D. Boyd,et al.  Assessing socio-technical mindsets: Public deliberations on carbon capture and storage in the context of energy sources and climate change , 2013 .

[14]  P. Macnaghten Researching Technoscientific Concerns in the Making: Narrative Structures, Public Responses, and Emerging Nanotechnologies , 2010 .

[15]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Energy Futures: Five Dilemmas of the Practice of Anticipatory Governance , 2012 .

[16]  E. Rosa Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk , 1998 .

[17]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? , 2007 .

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

[19]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Exploring a structured decision approach as a means of fostering participatory space policy making at NASA , 2002 .

[20]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[21]  A. Spence,et al.  Psychology, Climate Change & Sustainable Bahaviour , 2009 .

[22]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Clark A. Miller The Dynamics of Framing Environmental Values and Policy: Four Models of Societal Processes , 2000, Environmental Values.

[24]  David Isaacs,et al.  The World Café: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter , 2005 .

[25]  B. Johnson Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach , 2002 .

[26]  Dirk Scheer,et al.  Public evaluation of electricity technologies and future low-carbon portfolios in Germany and the USA , 2013 .

[27]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Bringing values and deliberation to science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  J. Olsen,et al.  The European Commission , 2020, The European Union.

[29]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[30]  Lauren A. Mayer,et al.  The 'Mental Models' Methodology for Developing Communications , 2014 .

[31]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[32]  Paul Upham,et al.  Public Attitudes to and Engagement with Low-Carbon Energy , 2011 .

[33]  W. Poortinga,et al.  The British 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis: a comparative study of public risk perceptions, trust and beliefs about government policy in two communities , 2004 .

[34]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[35]  K. Chan,et al.  Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values , 2012 .

[36]  A. Stirling Opening Up Or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation And Power In The Social Appraisal Of Technology , 2005 .

[37]  I. Fischhoff,et al.  Publics' Opinions About Biotechnologies , 2001 .

[38]  A. Spence,et al.  Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change , 2011 .

[39]  Barbara Herr Harthorn,et al.  Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[40]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Deliberating Energy System Transitions in the UK , 2013 .

[41]  Gene Rowe,et al.  Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[42]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Decision support for developing energy strategies , 2012 .

[43]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public , 1992 .

[44]  David J. C. MacKay Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air , 2008 .

[45]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

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

[47]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Transforming the UK Energy System : Public Values, Attitudes and Acceptability - Deliberating Energy System Transitions in the UK , 2013 .

[48]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Supporting energy initiatives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios and multi-criteria assessment , 2011 .

[49]  John Turnpenny,et al.  Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health , 2009 .

[50]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[51]  J. Davis Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (2nd ed.). , 2021 .

[52]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Grounded theory in psychological research. , 2003 .

[53]  P. Upham,et al.  Scaffolding, software and scenarios: Applying Bruner's learning theory to energy scenario development with the public , 2014 .

[54]  Thomas C. Beierle Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions , 2010 .

[55]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Index , 2006 .

[56]  A. Corner,et al.  Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project , 2013 .

[57]  T. Brown,et al.  The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation , 2016 .

[58]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake , 2007 .