Abstract:
Over the past two decades one of the most dramatic phenomenon on the
social scene has been the rise of broad, public involvement in decision
maldng about complex technologies, including those that protect society
from natural hazards such as floods. Spawned by national legislation
that required proponents to assess the environmental impacts of their
proposed projects, public involvement in regulation of technology,
including siting decisions, has become a pandemic feature of modem
risk management.
As a consequence, the public has greater opportunity than ever before
to be aware of both risk managers and the workings of their
institutions, largely through increased media scrutiny of technology and
its failures (e.g., Singer & Endreny, 1993). Thus, to be a successful
risk manager, or risk management institution, is to understand the
issues that the public deems important and the mechanisms by which
public participation in risk management, including decisions about
technologies, can be undertaken in a productive and (relatively)
uncontentious manner. To do otherwise is to invite disaster in the form
of immense social costs associated with projects that have failed
because the public will not provide its support via its role as political
constituency or host community.
