One belief I have in regards with the public is it is always best to have full disclosure of all pertinent information. Transparency in project development is key to successful projects and establishing public trust. I fully understand that many times our projects may deal with certain details that beg some sort of technical background, one that the general public may not possess. And you do, however, always run the risk of controversy with full disclosure, which may be the reason why this question comes up.
For example, I am in the transportation industry; our projects are technical in nature and are at times highly unpopular, normally by a small population of special interest groups. Unfortunately the general public’s unawareness of the technicalities related to the project may lead them to support advocates against the project. I guess a more specific example would be a proposed roundabout at a new intersection. There may be a coalition that is against roundabouts and will lobby the public against the state DOT by heavily attending public meetings, publishing articles in the local newspaper on how in effective they are, or how dangerous the new roundabout will be. Although, studies have proven that historically roundabouts are much safer than a regular signalized intersection, the general public would never know unless they are educated. I find that the best way to prevent these coalitions is to provide localized education. Meaning, as it pertained to my example, it may behoove the state DOT to hold public meetings on the dynamics of a roundabout, or send brochures or DVDs to the local community of the advantage of roundabouts.
The consequence of withholding information from the public is never good. This violates NEPA and all related laws. All pertinent information should always be disclosed; otherwise a law suit is certain, especially if anything goes wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I fully support the idea that people should be educated and this will dispel inaccurate fears. However, as stipulated in the articles, environmental policies should be the result of bias- of values and culture- not science. So, when we educate youngsters using this method, it more like propoganda than education. How would we fix this problem? I really do not know. People need to be exposed, at least aware, of environmental factors, whether the factor is rooted in science or not. I wish private insitutions would get more involved in pushing green polcies.
ReplyDeleteI also work in the transportation industry and one of the reason why projects within are controversial is that they affect the environment. The environment is this context, may be defined by a human component, but also by its natural, resource, or other feature, making each unique.
ReplyDeleteBecause the environment may be defined in so many different and opposing views, we HAVE to deal with groups that advocate one of these definitions. By educating ALL the groups, you hope to build a baseline or framework of mutual language that creates discourse among all............ and through education and NEPA you "hope" to build consensus among all. Every view is important and must be acknowledge, but it is not more important than any other. Is a factor to consider?