Generally, the assumption held by the expert community has been if we build it, they will buy it. For a large proportion of the population that may be valid. Indeed, given the exclusivity awarded to water utilities, there does not seem to be a realistic alternative for most of the consuming public. However, even those utility contracts need to be awarded and renewed and a poor record of public participation can make this process troublesome for a water provider.
In general, public participation broadens social development ideals enabling the public to participate fully in the decision-making process, and ordinary people experience fulfi llment, which contributes to a heightened sense of community and a strengthening of meeting community needs [ 20 ]. Beyond these more abstract values, there are advantages from engagement that can contribute to the overall success of a treatment strategy, especially in situations when public ownership is important to management and maintenance.
With nanotechnology poised to make signifi cant inroads in water quality sensing as well as treatment technologies, public participation may become critical. Of course, the approach taken for a treatment strategy will aff ect the
Savage_Ch34.indd 527
Savage_Ch34.indd 527 11/11/2008 2:33:56 PM11/11/2008 2:33:56 PM
process of engagement. Adopting a strategy for a point-of-use system involves some diff erent variables than would apply to a large municipal system.
Engagement takes many forms: public meetings, public hearings, open houses, workshops, citizen advisory committees, social surveys (such as consensus conferences), focus groups, newsletters, and reports. The forms of engagement to pursue are aff ected by the experience, if any, the public has with engagement, the amount of information the public has about the technology, how accurate this information may be, the level of comprehension the public possesses, and the context for the exercise.
Meetings and hearings can be highly intimidating to the public who often have little experience with advocacy. Consensus conferences can be equally foreboding to some. One of the reasons election caucuses are attended by the same people cycle after cycle is simply a function of familiarity; newcomers confront a high entry barrier. Unfortunately, some of the more meaningful engagement exercises are the more active and demanding ones. An experience at a well-orchestrated public hearing is less easily discarded than a newsletter.
An understanding of how informed the pubic is about a new technology is challenging as well. Opining does not require information and survey data about advanced technologies is highly suspect. Many surveys of this ilk are closer to push polling than opinion sampling often incorporating narratives or clever manipulation of phraseology and the order of questions in their technique.
Nonetheless, we need some indication of what is known to decide how much time is spent educating and informing the public against time spent in more persuasive appeals.
Unfortunately, public information on advanced technologies is inaccurate, having been gleaned from popular culture and anecdotes. Inaccurate information needs to be debunked and expunged before accurate information is off ered and that takes time and expertise. It is insuffi cient to present competing information.
New competing information must be presented using the same or similar warrants that incorporated the original inaccurate information. Given the diversity of warrants a group of the public might have used, the challenge is learning why the inaccurate information was incorporated into their understanding.
The understandability factor is critical when designing an engagement exercise of any sort. For years, it was believed that by improving the science education of the public we could improve their opinions about technology. This defi cit theory of scientifi c education has been a dismal failure. Although there are many benefi ts to improving science education, persuading the public that scientists are correct is not one of them. By and large, the public selected against an education in science as much as a scientist selected otherwise. Any engagement exercise must speak in a public argot and address issues without deferring to parochial metaphors.
Context is the last major variable. The public engages new information with notions and biases. Generally, the public prefers information consistent with previously held beliefs. In addition, the public searches for stories with a high level of fi delity (they need to ring true to the world around them). Context
Savage_Ch34.indd 528
Savage_Ch34.indd 528 11/11/2008 2:33:56 PM11/11/2008 2:33:56 PM
can modify these sensibilities. If all is generally well, then a new treatment technology is viewed as an expense. Under conditions of an outbreak of waterborne diseases, the new technology will be viewed as an opportunity. If the media has been amplifying fear mongering on the new technology, then the public will refl ect apprehensiveness. On the other hand, if the media has been attenuating the same then the public may be sanguine.
34.5.1 Municipal Systems
A Meridian Institute report claims there are two requirements for implementing a new technology for water treatment, especially in a rural community, the fi rst of which is worth repeating here. The community must be exposed to a comprehensive education program that will inform and educate them about the methodology and benefi ts of the water treatment project [ 2 ].
It is safe to assume there are few people who can summarize how their drinking water is treated. Indeed, most are unable to distinguish between water and waste treatment. This would seem to be true across cultures. As a result, if it wasn’t for the expense involved, a utility might be willing to forego any engagement with the public altogether. As large systems of this sort are expensive and often involve budgetary trade-off s, municipalities should do what they can to educate the public about the treatment strategy as well as allaying as many of their apprehensions as practicable.
Indeed, in an atmosphere where the public knows little about nanotechnology and there have been no seriously amplifi ed reports of environmental health and safety issues associated with nanotechnology, the claims of safe drinking water should trump reservations especially if the claims are linked to the prevention of waterborne diseases. However, retrofi tting or upgrading an existing system or building a new system based on nanotechnologies might be troublesome under a diff erent set of conditions.
The energy industry faces similar fi nancial incentives and their approach has been to call public meetings to solicit public sentiment and support.
Unfortunately, these public gatherings are often more pro forma than anything else with the decision having already been made and with the gathering used to cement support rather than to engage in dialogue. As such, given a crisis situation, energy consumers become aggrieved antagonists rather than advocates of the industry.
Although nanotechnologies may make inroads into commercial treatment facilities, there seems to be more interests in point-of-use applications at this time and these demand a diff erent engagement strategy altogether.
34.5.2 Point-of-Use Strategies
The previously mentioned Meridian Report added a second concern: The community must be involved at all stages of the project such as being trained
Savage_Ch34.indd 529
Savage_Ch34.indd 529 11/11/2008 2:33:56 PM11/11/2008 2:33:56 PM
in the operation and maintenance of the new technology to facilitate a sense of community ownership [ 2 ]. The same Meridian Report cited earlier suggested heightened community ownership can even reduce vandalism and theft though there are no examples cited in their report.
Nonetheless, it is very important to understand that Western conceptions of hierarchical governance may not be shared in many diff erent cultural settings.
Just as group opinion leaders in Western organizations are not necessarily the elected or appointed managers of the organizations, the leader in a non-Western setting might be a tribal leader or chief or a patriarch or matriarch of a clan rather than a government administrator. Getting the government representative to allow distribution of technologies to a community may simply be insuffi cient when the goals are use, maintenance, and ownership. For decades, if not centuries, clan members may have gathered at wells to get water and to share the news. Public spheres in developing cultures tend to be less formalized and less dependent on public structures or institutions, such as libraries and newspapers. Adding new technologies especially by a third party regardless of intentions risks contamination of a diff erent sort altogether—damage to a public forum.
Point-of-use technologies will demand a more diff used or localized form of public engagement. Whereas in the West, fi lter technologies that can be used in the home are marketed just like any other product, commercial marketing may be wholly inappropriate for some developing cultures. It is likely advanced technologies for point-of-use water treatment will be perceived with some suspicion.
In addition to many of the variables mentioned earlier (experience, familiarity, comprehension, etc.), there are some special demands when the technology must be situated in a culturally important public setting such as a public well and home use presents special demands as well. First and foremost, any new technology must be suffi ciently well tested such that it not only meets the specifi c needs of the community but also will not need to be removed, upgraded, or retrofi tted. One may get just one shot. Installing a technology that fails may damn subsequent attempts to adopt preferable technologies.
Any new technology introduced into the public sphere will need to be introduced by the public themselves. It has to be viewed as their technology and demands some level of ownership to the extent that it may be desirable to charge the public some costs whether pecuniary or in-kind. The technology will need to accommodate both the safe drinking water needs of the community as well as their public sphere needs. Put simply, it must not disrupt the culturally signifi cant activities associated with drawing water from a public well. A technology perceived foreboding by some members of the community may dissuade them from going to the well altogether. Sending a diff erent member from the clan, more traditional members may isolate themselves from a vibrant public experience with both they and the community suff ering as a result.
Bringing a new technology into the home may be even more challenging.
The new technology would need to be introduced by a family member and the
Savage_Ch34.indd 530
Savage_Ch34.indd 530 11/11/2008 2:33:57 PM11/11/2008 2:33:57 PM
family must perceive a level of ownership. Installation and maintenance must be done by a family member as well; hence it must be simple enough that it can be done with minimal training. Point-of-use purifi cation systems require maintenance and this task will need to be done by a family member as well.
The less new technological fi xes are part of the maintenance process, the better. Durability and ease of use are critical variables. Any technology that disrupts the day-to-day operation of the family should be avoided. Less intrusion is always more desirable.
A serious and sustained educational campaign will need to be mounted. The group opinion leaders of the community should not only participate but also lead the campaign. There should be testimonials presented as narratives and well as demonstrations. Community members should have the opportunity to handle the new technology as well as participate in a mock installation as well as a mock maintenance exercise. They should name the technology and participate in a ritual whereby they contract for the technology in exchange for some expenses on their part and the expense needs to be meaningful.
Any outbreak of disease subsequent to installation of the treatment technology might be associated with the new technology notwithstanding its falsifi able cause. Responding to this type of misinformation is much easier with the trust that comes with an engagement plan already in place. Beginning a dialogue in the midst of a controversial and damaging event simply suff ers from too much mistrust to be productive without a substantial expense on the part of the provider. Rumors can be as disruptive as the truth and they are more easily debunked if a dialogue is ongoing.