Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract

This article offers longitudinal data tracking people who did and did not attend a series of public meetings in an upstate New York rural community grappling with the expansion of an existing solid waste landfill and remediation of an adjacent inactive hazardous waste site. Before and after the public meetings, mailed questionnaires measured risk perceptions and perceived credibility of risk managers (here, the state government agencies and the responsible industry) conducting the meetings. Respondents at each measurement point included meeting attendees and nonattendees, with some fluctuation over time when attendees at one measurement point were nonattendees at the next and vice versa. The results from the first survey indicate that following the first two public meetings, attendees perceived greater risks from the waste sites than did nonattendees; attendees also perceived the risk managers as less credible. After the third public meeting, the results showed that attendees' risk perceptions remained steady; however, perceptions of government agency credibility significantly decreased. After the fourth public meeting, the survey found that attendees' risk perceptions were again not significantly different, whereas perceptions of government agency credibility increased significantly. The industry's credibility also increased, though only among attendees who had attended the most recent public meeting, not among attendees who had attended both the third and fourth public meetings. For nonattendees, risk perceptions and credibility ratings did not change. The discussion examines how distinctive characteristics of communication at each public meeting may have resulted in different effects and proposes hypotheses for future research.

Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses

“…Surveys have generally been analysed by regressing risk perceptions, and sometimes amplified risk perceptions, against expected correlates. These include types of information source and social interaction (BrenkertSmith et al, 2013), attitudes of support or hostility toward a technology (Binder et al, 2011), engagement in public meetings (McComas, 2003) and the volume of reporting (Frewer et al, 2002). Occasional studies have also looked at the covariation of behavioural changes, such as consumption of foods thought to carry disease, with risk perception (Raude et al, 2004).…”

Using deliberative democracy to identify energy policy priorities in the United States

“…Finally, citizens must trust that the implementers of a policy, whether that is government or industry, are competent and share their values [15,16]. Evidence suggests that government agencies are perceived as more credible and trustworthy when they engage citizens earlier in the decision-making process, provide an opportunity to ask questions, and demonstrate that citizen input will be taken seriously [17].…”

Folk media forms and their potential for food security communication in eastern Tigray, Ethiopia

“…The study findings challenge the idea that public meetings can contribute to enhance government's accountability and responsiveness (Adams, 2004;McComas, 2001a;2003b) and by helping people to access knowledge and experiences (McComas et al, 2006). It also challenges the optimism that the advent of mobile phones in rural areas would help local people to access agricultural information (Hahn & Kibora, 2008;Arunachalam, 2002;Hudson, 2006;Bhavnani et al, 2008;Overa˚, 2006).…”

“…The term public meeting broadly describes any organised social gathering of three or more people, open to any person to attend often for the purposes of discussing issues, providing information, reviewing projects, and seeking input among others (McComas, Besley & Trumbo, 2006;Adams, 2004;McComas, 2003b given the authority to decide on issues of priority concern. 28 Myers (1986) sees the reason why individuals chosen to speak on behalf of their members as:…”

“…Studies have shown that public meetings can play a vital role to provide opportunities for participants so that they can achieve their political goals and thereby enhancing governmental accountability and responsiveness (Adams, 2004;McComas, 2001a;2003b). Other studies have also shown the usefulness of public meetings due to their openness to the public and agencies, to presumably reach a wide audience with key information while simultaneously accessing a varied range of knowledge and experience (McComas, Besley & Trumbo, 2006).…”