Chapter 6: Communication
This chapter provides some basic guidelines for communicating
information about landfill gas issues. People who live or work near
a landfill may pose a variety of questions and concerns to local
or state environmental health professionals about landfill gas.
For example:
- What is that odor coming from the landfill? Will it make
me or my children sick?
- Will air emissions from the landfill contaminate nearby
homes and schools?
- Can explosive gases travel from the landfill to basements
of neighboring homes?
- I grew up next to a landfill. Am I likely to get cancer
or some other illness?
- Are there more health problems in this community because
of the landfill?
- How do I know if landfill gas is entering my home or other
buildings?
- What are you doing about this problem?
Over the last decade, an extensive body of research has addressed
the best ways for environmental health professionals to respond
to community members asking questions such as these. ATSDR has drawn
from this work to assemble a Primer on Health Risk Communication
and Practices and An Evaluation Primer on Health Risk Communication
Programs and Outcomes. Both of these resources are available
on the Internet (see the end of this chapter for
Web sites and other reference information). This chapter draws from
these primers and other resources to help you respond to community
concerns and develop a proactive approach to communicating with
community members about landfill gas issues.
Appendix E provides some examples of fact sheets and newsletters
produced to help communicate with community members to address their
concerns.
Basic Guidelines for Health Risk Communication
The goal of risk communication should be to promote development
of an informed public that is involved, reasonable, thoughtful,
solution-oriented, and collaborative. The basic guidelines (adapted
from EPA 1992 and 1991; Chess et al. 1988) described below for achieving
this goal might appear to be simple common sense, but they are often
ignored. When this happens, the consequences can be severe, as illustrated
by the case study on the West Covina dump, described later in this
chapter. Putting the following guidelines into practice can greatly
improve efforts to communicate with the public.
Accept and involve the public as a partner.
Effective communication about landfill gas issues depends on developing
and maintaining an ongoing relationship with those who live and
work near the landfill. In other words, good communication is neither
a one-way nor a one-time transmission of information; it involves
listening to community members, responding to their concerns, involving
them in providing input, and, to the extent possible, involving
the community in investigating the problem and devising solutions.
Community involvement is key for a number of reasons:
- People are entitled to participate in decisions about issues
that directly affect their lives.
- Input from the community can help your agency make better
decisions and streamline your efforts.
- Involvement in the process leads to greater understanding
of—and more appropriate reaction of—a particular risk.
- Those who are affected by a problem bring different variables
and viewpoints to the problem-solving equation.
- Cooperation increases credibility and support.
- Battles that erode public confidence and agency resources
are more likely when community input is not sought or considered.
Basic guidelines for involving the public include:
- Involve the community and all other parties that have an
interest in the issue at the earliest stage possible. Keep in
mind that you work for the public and that the public can make
or break your initiatives.
- Clarify the public's role from the outset.
- Clarify your agency's limitations and range of activities
early on.
- Acknowledge situations where the agency can give the community
only limited say in how to proceed.
- Learn from the communities what type of involvement they
prefer. For example, at the Danbury landfill, described later
in this chapter, officials expanded the landfill closure plans
in response to citizen concerns and involved a local citizens
group in the monitoring, selection of closure options, and other
aspects of the landfill.
Identify and respond to the community's specific concerns
and needs. A community consists of a mosaic of diverse
"publics" with different needs and interests. These publics may
include, for example, communities from different neighborhoods or
towns, activists, health care providers, elected officials, and
so on. One of the most important steps in effective communication
is to identify and get to know these various publics by providing
opportunities for dialogue and exchange. This can be done in a number
of ways, including holding meetings and availability sessions during
which the public can meet one- on- one with agency representatives,
meeting with representatives of various groups, and providing hotlines
or Web sites through which community members can express concerns.
The goals of these interactions is to begin building relationships
and trust with community members, to listen to and fully understand
their needs and concerns, to learn what the community already knows
and what they want to know about the landfill, and to learn when
and how the community would like to be communicated with.
Guidelines for identifying community concerns include:
- Do not make assumptions about what people know, think, or
want done. Take the time to find out what people are thinking
by letting all parties with an interest in the issue be heard.
- Try to identify the various interests in a situation at
the beginning and meet with representatives of each interest
informally.
- Make sure all affected groups are represented.
- Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of citizen advisory
groups.
- Deal with everybody equally and fairly.
- Find out from communities how they like to get information
(e. g., in meetings, through mailings or regular newsletters,
on the Internet, at the local library, through the local newspaper,
etc.). Try to accommodate their needs. At the Danbury landfill,
for example, officials used a wide variety of channels to communicate
with a variety of publics, including citizens groups, health
professionals, and schoolchildren. Copies of some of the fact
sheets produced to communicate with residents near the Danbury
landfill are provided in Appendix E.
- Identify with your audience. Put yourself in its place.
Recognize and empathize with the audience's emotions. (See below
for additional guidance.)
- When appropriate, develop alternatives to large public meetings.
In particular, hold smaller, more informal meetings whenever
possible. Consider breaking larger groups into smaller ones.
- Be clear about the goals of the meeting. If you cannot adequately
fulfill a resident's request for a meeting, propose alternatives.
- In certain situations, one-to-one communication may work
best.
Be honest, frank, and open. People often care more about honesty,
trust, credibility, competence, control, fairness, caring, and compassion
than about statistics and details. Trust and credibility are difficult
to obtain; once lost, they are even more difficult to regain completely.
Guidelines for building trust and credibility include:
- State your credentials, but do not ask or expect to be trusted.
- If you do not know an answer or are uncertain, acknowledge
that but get back to people as soon as possible. (See additional
guidance later in this chapter.)
- Do not hesitate to admit mistakes.
- Disclose risk information as soon as possible and do not
minimize or exaggerate the level of risk.
- Try to share more information, not less, or people may think
you are hiding something.
Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts.
Successful planning and evaluation entails the following six elements:
(1) begin with clear, explicit objectives; (2) evaluate the information
you have about risks by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of
the data; (3) identify and address the particular interests of different
groups with which you work; (4) train your staff, including technical
staff, in communication skills; (5) practice and test your messages;
and (6) evaluate your efforts and learn from your mistakes.
Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
Often more than one agency is involved in investigating or responding
to a particular health risk situation. In these instances, effective
coordination and collaboration among the various agencies is critical
to maintaining the credibility of all agencies, because few things
make risk communication more difficult than conflicts or public
disagreements with other credible sources. Guidelines for effective
collaboration include:
- Take the time to coordinate with other organizations or
groups. Devote the required effort and resources to the slow,
hard work of building bridges with other organizations.
At landfills where the threat of fire and explosion is a concern,
develop an active partnership with the local fire departments.
Firefighters are often equipped with combustible gas meters
to check for methane gas entry into homes and public buildings.
Include the local owner/operator of the landfill in technical
discussions. Many landfill operators are certified professionals
with extensive training and experience in landfill operations,
including landfill gas monitoring. They often have technical
knowledge and insights that can provide critical support for
public health actions.
- Try to issue communications jointly with other sources.
Meet the needs of the media. The members
of the media are a key communication channel with the public and
a powerful force influencing public perception. You can optimize
the chances of fair, efficient, and effective media coverage by
following these guidelines:
- Be open with and accessible to reporters.
- Consider the needs of the media. For example, realize that
reporters must meet their deadlines. Provide them with timely
and readily understandable risk information tailored to the
needs of each type of media.
- Prepare in advance and provide background material on complex
issues.
- Do not hesitate to follow up on reporters' stories about
a landfill site with praise or tactful criticism.
- Try to establish long-term relationships of trust with specific
editors and reporters.
- Keep in mind that reporters are frequently more interested
in politics than in risk; in simplicity than in complexity;
and in danger than in safety.
Recognize that people's values and feelings are a
legitimate aspect of environmental health issues and that such concerns
may convey valuable information. Respond with compassion.
When communicating about the risks of landfill gas, it
is important to recognize that, if the public perceives something
to be a risk, no matter how minimal technical experts find the risk,
the public believes it is a risk. Researchers have identified factors
that shape the way the public perceives a risk (EPA 1992). Individuals
tend to view a problem as less risky if it has
the following characteristics: voluntary, familiar, natural,
fair, controlled by self, chronic, or not memorable.
The problem may be seen as more risky if it is
involuntary, unfamiliar, man-made, unfair, controlled by others,
catastrophic, or memorable. The non-technical factors
that produce a perception of greater risk have been called the "outrage"
dimension of risk, because these factors tend to produce feelings
of outrage in people. Handling people's emotions about risk with
respect and compassion is critical to developing trust. Guidelines
for doing so include:
- Provide a forum for people to air their feelings.
- Be sensitive to norms, such as speech and dress.
- Listen to people when they express their values and feelings.
- Acknowledge people's feelings about an issue—anxiety, fear,
anger, outrage, and helplessness—and respond to their emotions.
Do not merely follow with data. Always try to include a discussion
of actions that are under way or can be taken. Tell people what
you cannot do. Promise only what you can do, and be sure to
do what you promise.
- Show respect by developing a system to respond promptly
to calls from community residents.
- Recognize and be honest about the values incorporated in
agency decisions.
- Be aware of your own values and feelings about an issue
and how they affect you.
How can you best communicate scientific information?
Experience has shown that the following guidelines can help in
communicating scientific information to the public (adapted from
EPA 1992):
- When addressing individuals or large groups, use simple,
non-technical language.
- Do not underestimate the public's ability to assimilate
technical information. If there is a compelling reason for people
to learn new information, they generally will make the effort.
- Try to determine what technical information people need,
and in what form. This means taking the time to know your audience.
Be willing to summarize information your audience needs, rather
than to present everything you know.
- Communicate on a personal level by using vivid, concrete
images or examples and anecdotes that make technical data come
alive. Be sure to cover people's specific concerns.
- Anticipate and respond to people's concerns about personal
risk. Remember the factors driving the public's concern.
- Be sure to provide adequate background when explaining risk
numbers and to use nontechnical language as much as possible.
For example, use simple analogies such as "1 ppm is like a BB
in a boxcar."
- Provide information responsive to public concerns that is
neither too complex nor patronizing.
- Put data in perspective and try to express the risks in
different ways.
- Use language consistent with the expertise of your audience
and avoid the temptation to use jargon (for example, avoid describing
a method for estimating risk as "conservative").
- Explain the process you used to determine health and safety
risks of landfill gas. Be willing to discuss uncertainties.
Reviewing this process with the public is important to demonstrate
that risk numbers are not derived from a "black box."
- Whenever possible, use graphics and visual aids to make
your points.
- Work with other credible experts to present the information.
- Use caution when comparing landfill risks to other risks.
Though risks may appear comparable from a scientific standpoint,
they rarely are so to an outraged audience. For example, it
is usually inappropriate to compare a voluntary activity, such
as smoking or driving a car, to an involuntary one, such as
living near an odorous landfill. People will often view these
as non-comparable and will respond negatively to attempts to
link them.
- Do not introduce more than three new concepts at a time.
What if you don't know the answer?
As you address concerns from the community, you might be faced
with questions you cannot answer. Perhaps you have not researched
the question yet (" Has the landfill ever accepted waste from ABC
Chemical Company?") or the question cannot be answered conclusively
(" Are the respiratory illnesses in our community caused by breathing
chemicals in the landfill gas?") Risk communication experts offer
seven tips on dealing with uncertainty (Chess et al., 1988):
Acknowledge uncertainty. Agency experts
have a natural tendency to feel that they should have all of the
answers and to be defensive when they do not. Rather than trying
to cover up what you are unsure of, try to explain uncertainties
before you are confronted with them. Never guess or make up an answer
because you feel pressured; this is a sure way of losing any trust
or credibility you have established.
Give people background about scientific uncertainties.
People need to understand the risk assessment process so that they
understand that uncertainty is an inherent part of the process.
Such an explanation will help people to understand how a risk estimate
can be based on the best scientific data available, yet still be
uncertain. Because the risk estimate will be more sensitive to choices
of certain assumptions, the risk messages should state which assumptions
were used, why they were selected, and what difference they make
in the risk estimate. Be sure to provide these explanations in English
as simple and plain as possible.
Be specific about what you are doing to find the answers.
You do not want people to equate your statement of "I don't know"
with "I don't care" or "I am incompetent." Explain the process;
let people know what has been done, is being done, and will be done
to resolve uncertainties. Explain why resolving uncertainties takes
time, and how conservative assumptions are built into the standard-setting
or permitting process to account for uncertainty until more is known.
Such an explanation is credible if it is provided early, when the
process itself is explained. An explanation also involves describing
how various uncertainties affect risk estimates and which ones are
the most significant for a particular issue. To maintain credibility,
be sure to balance uncertainties with certainties.
Consider involving the public in resolving the uncertainty.
Involving the public in dealing with uncertainty is typically viewed
by the public as fairer and could lead to better solutions. Welcoming
community suggestions about ways of improving risk assessment data
can elicit technical information (e.g., exposure routes that may
have been overlooked) and can demonstrate that your agency listens
and is responsive. However, be aware that people often are sensitive
to "token" gestures. Perceived token gestures undermine credibility.
Stress the protectiveness that is built into the standard-setting
and risk assessment processes. Stressing the protective
nature of these processes is quite important for maintaining public
confidence, because often people do not realize that, in the face
of uncertainty, government agencies build in margins of safety to
account for the uncertainty and to err on the side of health protection.
Without this understanding, people are likely to be concerned about
uncertainty because they fear that it leads to their being exposed
to greater risk.
If people demand absolute certainty, pay attention
to values and other concerns, not just the science.
Public demands for certainty and disputes over science often reveal
disagreements with agency process, policies, and values. People
sometimes feel that they can make more headway with an agency if
they talk about science rather than about values, so they may focus
on science when they really are concerned about agency judgment
calls.
Acknowledge the policy disagreements that arise from
uncertainty. In the face of such a disagreement, understand
the nature of the disagreement and have the appropriate parties
acknowledge the range of opinion. For example, if the disagreement
is about science, scientists should explain the differences and
discuss science; if the disagreement is about values, discuss values.
A Risk Communication Case Study: West Covina,
California
|
In the late 1960s, much of the hazardous waste from the
Los Angeles area was trucked a half-hour away to a 40- acre
garbage dump in West Covina. Developers built houses right
up against the dump site. Strong odors emanated from the
dump, where organic chemicals were mixed with garbage on
the theory that bacteria from the garbage would break down
the chemicals. However, through this process, methane gas
migrated to the surface, carrying a variety of organic chemicals
with it.
By the late 1970s, more and more residents were complaining
about the odors and asking about possible health effects.
In 1981, a study found that vinyl chloride in excess of
the state ambient air standard was present in the gases
coming into the neighborhood. By 1983, at least nine other
potential carcinogens were found in ambient air at the site.
At first, state officials from the California Department
of Health Services made many of the mistakes that polarize
these situations. They did not create mechanisms for communicating
regularly about the problems. Nor did they acknowledge the
outrage felt by residents, who had no way to control their
exposure to dust, fumes, and odors, and who could not obtain
the information they wanted. As a result, when the agency
presented a report about risks of chemical exposure, the
residents responded with criticism and distrust. To make
matters worse, subsequent to the meeting, methane was found
at close to explosive levels in houses nearest to the dump.
The fire department had to evacuate 19 homes, and it was
4 months before the gas collection system was upgraded and
the residents were allowed to return.
Relationships with the community began to improve only
when agency staff made a commitment to talk with constituencies
in the community and establish positive relationships. Staff
members began to work with people trusted by the community's
different constituencies—for example, by inviting local
activists to review a draft report and sit in on an advisory
committee meeting. The agency held additional meetings to
listen to concerns and demands of residents. The state could
not meet all of these demands, such as the demand for a
multimillion dollar exposure assessment, but it did provide
a summary of data about all substances to which the community
might be exposed and conduct a review of birth certificate
data. In these ways, the agency acknowledged the residents'
outrage and allowed them a substantial role in suggesting
courses of action, thereby establishing a constructive working
relationship with the community.
|
Source: Neutra 1989
|
The Danbury Landfill—Addressing
Community Concerns
|
Local health departments in
Danbury and Bethel, Connecticut, began receiving numerous
telephone calls in the summer of 1996 from residents about
strong odors from an old Danbury landfill. Residents were
concerned about the nuisance aspects of the odor; health
symptoms such as itchy, watery eyes, headaches, and increased
asthma; and other potential health effects. State and local
agencies developed a variety of communications and outreach
activities to keep residents informed throughout the process
of odor control, site monitoring, and landfill closure activities
and to respond to residents' requests for specific health
and other information. Outreach activities were phased out
as citizen complaints diminished over time. Outreach included:
- Establishing a hotline that provided information
and recorded callers' messages.
- Producing fact sheets on "Municipal Waste Landfill
Gases" and "Reproductive Health and the Danbury Landfill."
- Distributing biweekly press releases to provide
residents with updated information.
- Publishing a newsletter (one issue) jointly produced
by the Connecticut Departments of Public Health and
Environmental Protection, the Danbury and Bethel Health
Departments, and the Bethel Citizens Coalition, with
articles by each of these organizations on recent developments
and responses to health and environmental issues raised
by residents.
- Holding public meetings (two) to provide citizens
with the most up- to- date information regarding landfill
closure and odor control measures and to respond to
questions.
- Hosting a cable TV session with local physicians
to provide health information and answer call- in questions
from viewers.
- Holding a forum with local physicians (of whom about
25 attended) to make presentations and discuss odor
and health issues associated with the landfill. The
meeting increased physicians' understanding of the issues
and enabled them to better address their patients' concerns.
Also, the "Danbury Landfill Update" newsletter (see
above) advised residents with medical concerns to see
their primary physicians, who could refer them to specialists
in environmental medicine for further evaluation.
- Visiting a local school system (the mayor and local
health department staff) to make presentations to elementary
school and high school students.
- Attending a meeting of a local citizens group that
formed in response to the strong odor problem at the
landfill to discuss strategies for addressing residents'
requests.
- Conducting a tour of the local sewage treatment
plant for the Bethel Citizens Group. (At one point,
the plant was suspected as a possible source of the
hydrogen sulfide odor, which turned out not to be the
case.)
- Expanding the landfill closure plans. The initial
plan involved closing the landfill with a clay cap over
a portion of the landfill. In response to citizen complaints,
this plan was expanded to include a gas control and
treatment system (on an accelerated schedule); air and
additional groundwater monitoring; an odor registry
of health complaints; a liner under the landfill to
reduce leachate and any potential groundwater contamination;
and a cap over the entire landfill area. In addition
to state and local health and environmental agencies,
the local citizens group was involved in monitoring,
selection of closure options, and other aspects of the
landfill.
Also see Chapter Three for a discussion
of the technical aspects of the Danbury landfill.
|
Additional Resources
- The following variety of resources—from publications to online
documents to educational and professional organizations devoted
to assisting with the practice of risk communication—are available
to help environmental health professionals develop effective
risk communication programs:
- American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Founded in
1939, AIHA is an organization of more than 13,000 professional
members dedicated to the anticipation, recognition, evaluation,
and control of environmental factors arising in or from the
workplace that may result in injury, illness, impairment, or
affect the well- being of workers and members of the community.
As part of a continuing education program, AIHA offers an Effective
Risk Communication Training Series.
- ATSDR. n.d. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices.
Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services. Available
from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/risk/riskprimer/index.html.
Provides a framework for the communication of health risk
information to diverse audiences. Discusses issues and guiding
principles for communicating health risk and provides specific
suggestions for presenting information to the public and interacting
effectively with the media.
- ATSDR. 1997. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
An Evaluation Primer on Health Risk Communication Programs and
Outcomes. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Available from: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/risk/evalprimer/index.html.
Can be used to facilitate planning evaluations for risk communication
programs. The primer informs decision-makers about what should
be communicated, in what form, to whom, and with what expected
outcome; identifies performance indicators; and provides guidance
on how to use target audience ideas and opinions effectively
to shape the risk communication message.
- California State University at Northridge (CSUN) The Risk
Communication Forum provides links to key sources of environmental
health risk information and to fellow professionals in the environmental
health community.
http://www.csun.edu/~vchsc006/tom.html#Introduction.
- The Center for Environmental Communication (CEC) at Rutgers
brings together university investigators to provide a social
science perspective on environmental problem-solving. CEC (formerly
the Environmental Communication Research Program) has gained
international recognition for responding to environmental communication
dilemmas with research, training, and public service.
- The Center for Environmental Information (CEI) is a private,
nonprofit educational organization founded in Rochester, New
York, in 1974. CEI's Environmental Risk Communication Program
offers training, resources and skills to enable all parties
involved in an environmentally risky situation to work together
toward a mutually acceptable outcome.
- Chess C, Hance BJ, Sandman, PM. 1991. Improving Dialogue
With Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government.
Available from the Center for Environmental Communication (CEC)
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~cec/
at Rutgers University. Summarizes practical lessons for communicating
about environmental issues.
- National Association of County and City Health Officials
(NACCHO). Don't Hazard a Guess: Addressing Community Health
Concerns at Hazardous Waste Sites. A practical hands-on guide.
While the guide addresses hazardous waste sites, much of it
is applicable to working with communities on landfill gas issues.
Copies are available from NACCHO, Suite 500, 440 First Street
NW, Washington, DC 20001- 2030; telephone (202) 783- 5550, or
at http://www.naccho.org.
- The National Partnership for Reinventing Government has developed
a guidance document, Writing User- Friendly Documents, to help
writers avoid producing complicated, jargon-filled documents.
http://www.plainlanguage.gov.
- National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989. Provides guidance
about the process of risk communication, the content of risk
messages, and ways to improve risk communication.
- The Risk Communication Network The Risk Communication Network
is a project initiated by the World Health Organization Europe
(WHO Europe) and coordinated by the Centre for Environmental
and Risk Management (CERM). The risk communication network staff
produces RISKOM, a regular newsletter outlining developments
in risk communication throughout Europe and beyond. Network
membership and the newsletter are free.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/envsheet/.
- University of Cincinnati Center for Environmental Communication
Studies The mission of the Center is to enhance the understanding
and quality of communication processes and practices among citizen,
industry, and government participants who form and use environmental
and health policies.
http://www.uc.edu/cecs/cecs.html.
- The University of Tennessee College of Communications offers
seminars on risk communication.
http://excellent.com.utk.edu/.
Crisis communication links and environmental issues links can
be found at
- Hotline
- Risk Communication Hotline. Responds to questions on risk
communications issues and literature, provides information on
U. S. EPA's Risk Communication Program, and makes referrals
to other related agency sources of information. 202-260-5606,
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, E.S.T.
References
- Chess C, Hance BJ, and Sandman PM. 1988. Improving dialogue
with communities: A short guide for government risk communication.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Environmental Communication,
Cook College, Rutgers University.
- EPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Risk
Information Support Center. Air Pollution and the Public: A
Risk Communication Guide for State and Local Agencies. Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA 450/3-90-025.
- EPA. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Community Relations in Superfund:
A Handbook. Washington, DC. EPA/540/ R-92/009.
- Neutra R. 1989. "A Landfill Case in California." 1989. IN:
Covello V, McCallum D, and Pavlova M. Effective Risk Communication:
The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment
Organizations. New York: Plenum Press.
Table of Contents
Next Section