Public Perceptions and Public Engagement

Heidi Gantwerk

Vice President, Viewpoint Learning

Presented to the California Council on Science and Technology

October 31, 2006

2

A disconnect on energy/climate change

Renewable sources (wind and solar) cannot meet the state’s future energy needs

California cannot conserve its way out of the problem

Growing openness to nuclear power

Strong support for investing in wind and solar (83% support)

Strong support for requiring greater fuel efficiency (74% support)

Strong opposition to building new nuclear plants (52% oppose)

Experts and the public agree that climate change is a serious problem and that steps must be taken - but beyond this their opinions diverge:

Expert opinion Public opinion

Unanswered question: Are Californians willing to go beyond these measures?

3

Polls have proven strengths

ACCURATE: a snapshot of what the public says and feels at a moment in time

RELIABLE: people rarely lie in polls

OBJECTIVE: avoid special interest bias

PREDICTIVE: but ONLY when the public’s views are firm

4

But polls also have limitations

When public’s views are unresolved, polls are not predictive

Public’s views are unresolved on more than 90% of California’s policy issues

Poll findings do not reveal volatility of views

Answers to single questions often distort meaning

Polls do not permit the public to work through painful tradeoffs

Polls have huge potential to mislead policy makers

5

Sustainable solutions require support from all sectors

Public

Po

licy

Mak

ers

Exp

erts

6

Challenges to engaging the public

Changing public expectations

More educated and informed population

Greater demand for openness, accountability and responsiveness

Increasing insistence on having a voice

Increased availability of information (media, internet)

New era of mistrust

7

ThoughtfulPublic

EngagementInformation+

The traditional model of public engagement

UnorganizedPublic Opinion

• Inconsistent

• Unstable

• Consequences unclear

But it’s not about information…

8

Wishful thinking

confronted

Stages

ThoughtfulPublic

Engagement

Multiple framings

+

Information

A more realistic model of public engagement

Values-based choices

Sense of inclusion

UnorganizedPublic Opinion

• Inconsistent

• Unstable

• Consequences unclear

9

Scientists can be a critical bridge between public and policy-makers

Public support is necessary for any policy to be sustainable in the long run

Scientists benefit when the public sees them as allies in a common search for solutions (rather than experts telling them what to do)

When public and scientists are on the same page, scientists get much-needed clout

10

A possible game plan

Engage policy makers and business leaders in Strategic Dialogue to develop realistic energy scenarios that they will be willing to support and to see tested with the public

Test these scenarios in ChoiceDialogues with Californians to identify which approaches the public will be willing to support and under what conditions

Outcomes: A road map leaders can use to advance sustainable energy policy

11

Strategic Dialogue: sets the framework

Structured dialogues with a range of leaders (including business leaders, environmental advocates, elected officials, scientists, civic leaders) designed to:

Identify key trends shaping the state’s current energy situation and key certainties and uncertainties that will shape the future

Frame the questions to be addressed

Develop different scenarios for change that can be tested with the public

Build commitment to implementation of the actions that will be taken

12

ChoiceDialogue:A new research tool

A series of dialogues with representative cross-sections of the public (30-40 participants in each session)

Eight-hour sessions allow intense social learning

Dialogue organized around 3-4 alternative scenarios developed in advance

Special workbook sets agenda, gives background on issues, lays out pros and cons grounded in research

Facilitation keeps people on track and in dialogue mode

Before and after measures quantify shifts in preferences, coupled with qualitative analysis

13

Focus Groups vs. ChoiceDialogues

Focus Groups ChoiceDialogues

Two hours Eight hours

8-12 participants 30-40 participants

Capture current thinking Capture future thinking

Avoid changing minds Explore how minds change

Participant learning is minimal A huge amount of learning

Trust building minimal A huge amount of trust building

Strong feelings controlled Strong feelings elicited

Changes are random Changes are significant

14

What sort of questions this sort of project can answer

How do Californians want to respond to the threat of global climate change?

What direction do Californians want to see for the state’s energy policy?

How do Californians want to balance different components of the energy mix (including supply, conservation and lifestyle changes)?

What role do Californians want to see for nuclear energy in California’s energy supply, and what are their key conditions and concerns?

15

Outcomes

Greater understanding of which solutions the public, industry and advocates will be likely to support

Important conditions for that support

Potential roadblocks

A road map leaders can use to advance public understanding and engagement in a sustainable energy policy