IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v11y2008i6p821-835.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public engagement to build trust: false hopes?

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Petts

Abstract

Public engagement through deliberative processes is promoted in both academic and policy circles as a potential means to build public trust in risk decisions and decision-makers. Governments in particular seem to optimistically take a positive relationship between public engagement and trust almost for granted. This paper provides a new and critical analysis of this hoped-for relationship, questioning whether such a direct and positive link between engagement and trust is a false hope. The paper draws upon personal experience of deliberative processes to discuss key components of an engagement process that have the potential to impact positively on trust. Specifically, who is engaged and which interests are represented; an open and collaborative framing of the discussion, and a direct and clear relationship between engagement and the risk decision. But the paper argues that given the complexities of optimising these process elements and in the light of the known underlying dimensions of trust, expectations are misplaced and that enduring trust is unlikely to spring from engagement itself. This is not to negate the other benefits of engagement, rather it is to focus on those key elements that will need to be in place, both process and beyond, if trust is to be enhanced.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Petts, 2008. "Public engagement to build trust: false hopes?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 821-835, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:11:y:2008:i:6:p:821-835
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870701715592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870701715592
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870701715592?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saleh Wasimi, 2010. "Planning for a Large Dam Project: The Case of Traveston Crossing Dam," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 2991-3015, September.
    2. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    4. Gordon Walker & Noel Cass & Kate Burningham & Julie Barnett, 2010. "Renewable Energy and Sociotechnical Change: Imagined Subjectivities of ‘the Public’ and Their Implications," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(4), pages 931-947, April.
    5. Ngar-yin Mah, Daphne & Hills, Peter, 2014. "Participatory governance for energy policy-making: A case study of the UK nuclear consultation in 2007," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 340-351.
    6. Lejla Dervisevic & Leigh Raymond & Linda J. Pfeiffer & Jessica V. Merzdorf, 2021. "Trade-offs versus reassurance: framing competing risks in the 2016 Zika outbreak," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 729-747, December.
    7. Fernanda Bethlem Tigre & Paulo Lopes Henriques & Carla Curado, 2022. "Building trustworthiness: Leadership self-portraits," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 3971-3991, December.
    8. Hobbs, Jill E. & Goddard, Ellen, 2015. "Consumers and trust," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-74.
    9. Del Giudice, Teresa & Cavallo, Carla & Vecchio, Riccardo, 2018. "Credence Attributes, Consumers Trust and Sensory Expectations in Modern Food Market: Is there a Need to Redefine their Role?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    10. Sabrina Engel-Glatter & Marcello Ienca, 2018. "Life scientists’ views and perspectives on the regulation of dual-use research of concern," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 92-102.
    11. Adriana A. Zuniga-Teran & Andrea K. Gerlak, 2019. "A Multidisciplinary Approach to Analyzing Questions of Justice Issues in Urban Greenspace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    13. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    14. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    15. Iosif Botetzagias & Chrisovaladis Malesios & Anthi Kolokotroni & Yiannis Moysiadis, 2015. "The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 229-251, February.
    16. Emma Soane & Iljana Schubert & Simon Pollard & Sophie Rocks & Edgar Black, 2016. "Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1090-1107, June.
    17. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    18. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:11:y:2008:i:6:p:821-835. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.