Public Opinion and It’s Effect on Project Planning

A Systems Approach

Presenters

Anjali PatilMike Dean

W. Alex Beaver

Agenda

Introduction Theories & Practices The Factors of Public Opinion The Public Opinion Model Conclusion Round Table Discussion Questions

Introduction

Project- A specific, finite task to be accomplished Meredith and Mantel Today's public is better informed and better educatedLaws and regulations now mandate that the public be given opportunities to become involved in the planning process

Introduction

Public involvement is a task all planners will have to participate in

Skills in communication, facilitation and partnering

Introduction

Project planners must take the public’s opinion into account during project planning and implementation

Not accounting for public opinion could have drastic results, including cost over runs or project failure

Public Participation

Describes integrating the public’s ideas within the implementation of projects, programs, plans and policies

At a minimum- seeks to inform and consult those affected

Public Participation

Public Participation venues are also valuable data gathering tools for planners to assess the publics overall stance on the project, program, plan or policy

Participation Types

Information DisclosurePublic ConsultationFunctional ParticipationInteractive ParticipationSelf Mobilization

Adapted from Petty (1995)

Why Consult The Public?

Raise awareness of project impacts

Reach agreement on management and technical approaches Maximize benefit Reduce negative consequences- i.e.

delay

Who’s Involved?

Public- can be directly or indirectly involved or affectedAll can influence the project outcome Individuals Families Public officials Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

All are referred to as “Stakeholders”

Project affected people- Individuals, Families Indigenous groups

Public sector- Local, State and National Governments

Stake-holders

Private sector- Financiers, Local Business, Industry associations

Advocacy groups NGOs Universities Research Centers

Private Sector Disclosure

Often constrained by various political and commercial factors

Political Factors

Government may determine the: Type Duration Site of the project

Government may remain involved during or after project completion

Commercial Factors

Competitive SensitivityFinancial AccountabilityBudget may not account for Public ParticipationTime horizon may differ between stakeholders

Good Business Sense

Public participation can generate positive financial and commercial benefits for the project sponsor

Benefits of Participation

Reduced financial riskReduced direct costIncreased market shareEnhanced social benefits

Public consultation to improve public

image ease negotiations

with government

Public consultation employed to

avoid conflict

Public consultation employed to

optimize project design

Future projects in country and internationally

Reduce risks (particularly from delays)

Cost effective mitigation and

operational measures

Increased market share

Costs avoided Lower continual costs

Increased Revenue Reduced Costs

Increased Profits

PROJECT SPONSOR

Public ParticipationHas a Price

Time Project teams will

have to devote planning time in order to develop PP plans, hold public hearings, interpret data, and integrate comments into the project design

Time The time devoted to

planning Public Participation may pay for itself in the amount of time saved in delays propagated from public outrage and poor design concept

Cost Benefit

Public ParticipationHas a Price

Money The previously

mentioned planning time and staff will have associated costs

Money Not developing an

adequate participation plan and integrating it into the project design can have catastrophic monetary consequences or project failure

Cost Benefit

Public ParticipationHas a Price

Political Costs Stakeholders may

not embrace the project

Organizations will not reap social benefits

Political Benefits Stakeholders

embrace the project

Organizations benefit from positive public opinion and outlook

Cost Benefit

Participation is the Law

NEPA (1969)CERCLA (1980)Forest Practices Act Local Planning and Zoning

The Causes of Delay

EnvironmentBudgetInteragency coordinationLawsuits*Local controversy*Culturally sensitive*Politically sensitive

Poor designInexperienced employeesComplexityRegulatory limitationsDesign changeWeather

The list is limitless!

Was the public involved? Were their concerns addressed?

Discovered during scoping meetings?

GVEA Intertie Project1987 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Project Inception Funds appropriated by Alaska legislature. Project to be operational by the late 1990s.

GVEA begins permitting and engineering planning

  Project begins to receive criticism from various groups. GVEA proposes 8th possible route in response to criticisms

BLM issues d aft report for the acceptance of the Intertie project. BLM provides EIS for the new project.

GVEA Intertie Project1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Environmental group files an administrative appeal regarding proposed Intertie route

Fairbanks judge rules against administrative appeal. Alaska Supreme Court grants a stay on construction.GVEA states one years delay=$3.6M

Alaska Supreme Court requires the state to conduct additional studies. Federal courts uphold the BLMs EIS, ruling against the 1998 appeal. GVEA has now been seeking approval to begin construction for 6 years

Construction begins

  Current projected costs for the project= $81M

Scheduled FinishEarliest Start w/ Current Delays

With the current 6 calendar quarters worth of delays, this $250M project will not start commercial production until 4th quarter, 2005 at the earliest

Using GVEA numbers, this 1.5 year delay ~$18.75M`

Pappas 2003

Pappas 2003

Theories

Many people have developed theories and methods for dealing and/or communicating with the publicAll come down to three principles Communicate Coordinate Cooperate

Implementation is the challenge

Theories

BleikerSusskind and CruikshankSandman Risk= Hazard+Outrage

Sandman’s Factors of Outrage

ChronicVoluntaryNot dreadedNaturalFamiliarNot MemorableKnowableTrustworthy

CatastrophicCoercedDreadedIndustrialNot familiarMemorableUnknowableUntrustworthy

SAFE RISKY

The Factors of Public Opinion

EconomicEnvironmentalProject RiskSafetyQuality of LifeAestheticsConvenience

Public HealthGovernment InvolvementNIMBYLand Acquisition

Systems Dynamics

We are all part of many systems Phone system Water system Traffic System

Many systems are intertwined

Systems Dynamics

The key is to identify the models key concept such as a population, amount of an item or volumeThis central concept is known as “The Stock”The hydraulic metaphor

The Hydraulic Metaphor

INFLOW

OUTFLOW

STOCK

Reproduced from Sterman

The Hydraulic Metaphor

From the hydraulic metaphor, we can see that there are several parts of the systemAs the stock changes it can affect some or all of the other variables

Systems Notation

STOCKINFLOW OUTFLOW

Source Sink

Systems Dynamics

Attempts to predict the behavior of a system and the variables within that systemMore specifically, SD attempts to quantify change in the system over time

Viewing Opinion as a Stock

Stocks do not have to be tangibleMemories and beliefs persist over time, generating inertia and continuity in our attitudesThe restaurant example

Buzzwords

Radiation

Chemical

Environment

Value

Convenience

Safety

“Bad” “Good”

Examples

Radiation and Power LinesThis same aspect of “bad” vs. “good” can be applied to the Factors of Public OpinionAs the public forms it’s opinions, there will ultimately be an overall public opinion

SusceptiblePopulation

S

InfectiousPopulation

I

RecoveredPopulation

RInfection RateIR

Recovery RateRR

ContactRate c Total

Population N

Infectivity i Avg Duration ofInfectivity d

Sterman, 2000

SIR Model Population Curves

100,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Time (week)

Recovered Population R : Summer personInfectious Population I : Summer personSusceptible Population S : Summer person

Winter SIR Model Population Curves

100,000

75,000

50,000

25,000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Time (week)

Recovered Population R : Winter personInfectious Population I : Winter personSusceptible Population S : Winter person

The Public Opinion Model

Simple, linear model

Accounts for the applicable Factors of Public Opinion as identified by the project planner

The Public Opinion Model

OverallPublic

Opinion DisfavorFavor

A

B

C

X

Y

Z

Rules

All factors deal with the public’s perception, whether the facts are right or wrongEach factor is independent Each factor is scored on a scale from

0 to 1

North Pole Annexation

The city of North Pole distributed surveys to citizens of the FNSB to determine their desire to be annexed into the city of North PoleSurveys were returned to the city with comments

North Pole Annexation

Each survey was scored according to the rules of the Factors of Public OpinionThe results of the scoring were then applied to the Public Opinion Model

North Pole AnnexationSurvey Scores

Economic- .2Safety- .2Quality of Life- .2

Economic- .4Project Risk- .1Quality of life- .1Government Inv.- .5

Positive Factors

Negative Factors

North Pole Annexation

OverallPublic

Opinion DisfavorFavor

ECONOMIC

SAFETY

QUALITY OFLIFE

ECONOMIC2

FEASIBILITY

QUALITY OFLIFE2

GOVERNMENTINV

Results

Graph for Overall Public Opinion

0

-15

-30

-45

-60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Time (Day)

Overall Public Opinion : Current Dmnl

Data Received

Begin planning period

Election Day

North Pole Annexation

OverallPublic

Opinion DisfavorFavor

ECONOMIC

SAFETY

QUALITY OFLIFE

ECONOMIC2

FEASIBILITY

QUALITY OFLIFE2

GOVERNMENTINV

Decrease the Negative Economic Factor

Decrease the “Negative Economic”

FactorGraph for Overall Public Opinion

0

-15

-30

-45

-60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Time (Day)

Overall Public Opinion : TP30-1 DmnlOverall Public Opinion : Current Dmnl

Data Received

Re-evaluate PP Plan and gather new

data

North Pole Annexation

OverallPublic

Opinion DisfavorFavor

ECONOMIC

SAFETY

QUALITY OFLIFE

ECONOMIC2

FEASIBILITY

QUALITY OFLIFE2

GOVERNMENTINV

Increase the Positive Safety factor

Increase the “Positive Safety” Factor

Graph for Overall Public Opinion

4

-12

-28

-44

-60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Time (Day)

Overall Public Opinion : TP30-2 DmnlOverall Public Opinion : TP30-1 DmnlOverall Public Opinion : Current Dmnl

Data Received

Re-evaluate PP Plan and gather

new data

Model Limitations

Not the sole indicator of project success

Does not account for other dynamics within public opinion such as the spread of ideas and delay

“All models are wrong, but some are useful”

Anthony Starfield

Future Uses

Any instance where the publics feelings and/or reactions are going to affect the systemTerrorism, “panic flight” and the traffic system

Conclusions

Public involvement will continue to be an integral part of project planningPublic involvement is the lawPublic involvement makes good business senseAdverse public opinion can have serious, negative consequences for your project

Conclusions

The Factors of Public Opinion and the Public Opinion Model are a tool for evaluating public opinionProvides an opportunity to evaluate public opinion throughout the planning process and adjust your planUltimately, the model is a tool for making better management decisions

TAKE A BREAK

Round Table Discussion

LTC Victoria Bruzese

Bernardo Hernandez

Stacey Fritz

Round Table Discussion

Do you agree with the Factors of Public Opinion

as identified in this discussion?

Round Table Discussion

What was your impression of the model?

Round Table Discussion

Do you feel the model would have utility in your

organization?

Round Table Discussion

Do you feel a modification of the model could be useful to you and your organization?

QUESTIONS?