8.1. Workshop on various aspects of communication in the process of power grid expansion

8.1.a Expert discussion on various aspects of communication in the power grid expansion

Project management: Federal Office for Radiation Protection
Start: 29 November 2017
End: 30 November 2017

Background

In order to get the current scientific status of the communication of electric and magnetic fields in the power grid expansion, the BfS held an expert discussion on the various aspects of communication during the power grid expansion. In addition to scientific contributions, an essential part of the expert discussion was to be contributions from communicators from practice on site. Accordingly, various stakeholders were invited to participate in the discussion and to give their own presentations.

Objective

The aim of the expert discussion was to discuss the findings of social science research with the interested and professional public. The main topics were discourse design, credibility, trust, transparency, and “lessons learned” from previous practical examples of power grid expansion. Insights into these aspects should be gained for the further design of the planned research projects in the area of “risk perception and risk communication”.

Implementation

The expert discussion took place on 29 and 30 November 2017 at the BfS Munich site in Neuherberg. More than 60 people took part in the expert discussion. The group of participants consisted of social scientists, representatives of public authorities, citizens’ initiatives, and grid operators.

You can find the programme of the event here.

Results

1. Risk perception, concerns, and fears

• Population surveys should ask not only about the perception of risks but also about living conditions, the world of work, and the housing situation as important factors in daily life that influence risk perception.
• Trust and transparency are important aspects for risk communication.
• The new or upgraded high-voltage overhead lines and underground cables planned are perceived by the residents affected as “socially unfairly distributed” (“We feel like 2nd-class citizens”) because they do not directly benefit from them.
• Information on scientific uncertainties in risk assessment can contribute to raising concerns about adverse health effects in the population. Perceived inequities in the planning of infrastructure (e.g. when an above-ground high-voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line is built in one community and underground cabling is laid in the neighbouring community) can also lead to a community becoming more concerned about adverse health effects.
• The perception of scientific uncertainties and the fact that, for example, the new technology of the hybrid line (Ultranet project with a high-voltage direct current transmission and alternating current transmission on the same masts) was described as a pilot project lead to the people affected feeling like “objects of investigation” – according to the statements of citizens who participated in the expert discussion.
• Research results on new findings concerning the health aspects of overhead power lines and underground cables were to be explained on site in order to clarify the practical relevance of these for those affected.

2. Experiences with (risk) communication situations in the field of power grid expansion from different perspectives

• The experience of representatives of public authorities and electricity grid operators shows that lecture-style events are not effective. Communication on site works best at topic tables and at eye level (i.e. the number of participants at events should be rather small or spread over information stands with different focal points).
• Consistent arguments and language use are considered particularly important by most of those participating in the discussion. In particular, trust is inspired by contradiction-free information from different sides.
• Neutral representatives of the authorities and personally known contact persons are important for successful communication.
• There are too few people in the municipalities who can adequately represent decisions and procedures as well as knowledge on radiation protection and health aspects. More personnel capacities at the federal level – a nationwide pool of experts – and knowledge transfer at the local level are considered important.
• It is important to train multipliers such as medical doctors, representatives of the public health sector, or emission control in risk communication on radiation protection and health aspects.

3. Risk communication on radiation protection, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection as a communication partner

• For the BfS, radiation protection in power grid expansion is based on two aspects: Limit values that protect against the proven effects and supplementary precautionary measures in the event of existing scientific uncertainties.
• The precautionary principle serves to minimise exposures and thus protect against adverse health effects in the case of existing scientific uncertainties.
• However, the precautionary principle as protection against possible but not proven adverse health effects with limit values that are “safe” according to the state of knowledge can be misunderstood. Under certain circumstances, information on precautionary measures can increase the existing uncertainty (e.g. this leads to the demand of representatives of citizens’ initiatives for a moratorium on the power grid expansion until the questions are clarified by the pending research projects).

4. Communication of scientific uncertainties, use, and effect of numbers

• The presentation of measurement results on site is seen as helpful and confidence-inspiring. However, the presentation format is not always self-explanatory or easily understandable and can even be misleading for non-experts. The units, which are often used differently by critics, and the large numbers associated with them suggest high loads and great risks.
• Scientific uncertainties in risk assessment should be distinguished from uncertainties arising from communication. Here, a uniform language and, if necessary, uniform explanations for technical terms for citizens’ events are indispensable.

5. A meta-view of communication processes

• There is no “quintessential” or “typical” risk communication. The communication process always depends on the respective circumstances on site.

8.1.b Workshop on risk assessment and risk perception in power grid expansion

Project management: RISA GmbH
Start: 1 November 2018
End: 31 March 2019

Background

Based on the results of the first sub-project, a workshop on risk communication in power grid expansion was conducted as the second sub-project. This workshop focused on two topics:

1. Uniformity of language used by different actors in communication with local citizens
2. Knowledge mediators on site: What are they and how can the BfS reach them?

Objective

There was a goal for each of the two topics:

1. Identification of key terms in the discourse on power grid expansion, low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, and health with relevant stakeholders as well as clarification on how they are used. This should contribute to better information for citizens in the regions affected by the power grid expansion;
2. Identification of relevant groups of knowledge mediators on site and the demonstration of distribution channels to these knowledge mediators.

Implementation

In consultation with the BfS, RISA GmbH and adelphi GmbH designed and moderated the workshop. This took place on 25 and 26 February 2019 at the BfS Munich site in Neuherberg. The first day of the workshop was dedicated to the topic of “key concepts” and the second day to the topic of “knowledge mediators on site”. Representatives of federal and state authorities, citizens’ initiatives, grid operators, the German Commission on Radiological Protection, and other experts took part in the workshop.

Results

Results for Goal 1

It was found that almost all key terms used for communicating with local citizens have a negative connotation (i.e. a negative “image effect”). This poses a challenge for communication. With respect to the effect and use of individual key terms, agreements were reached: Stakeholders almost unanimously agreed with the proposal to talk about “fields” rather than “radiation”. For other key terms, for example the term “danger”, different facets of the term were highlighted; however, no agreement on the use of the term was reached.

Results for Goal 2

Relevant groups of local knowledge mediators were identified:

• Local politicians (e.g. Members of the Bundestag/Landtag, mayors),
• Doctors
• Teachers
• Media (local journalists, technical/specialist journalists).

For these individual groups of knowledge mediators, distribution and approach possibilities were discussed and outlined. For example, local doctors can be reached via local public health officers, who in turn receive information from the state health offices. The federal structure of the Federal Republic of Germany proved to be a considerable obstacle in reaching local knowledge mediators.

Individual possibilities for the distribution of information to the relevant groups of key actors were identified. For example, the provision of information material on the topic for Members of the Bundestag/Landtag or the specialist officers of the parties.