Lead Investigator: Matthew Weber (Lead), Mike Greenberg, and Joanna Burger (Rutgers University)

Project Objectives:

1. The goals of this project are to:
   • To analyze the current landscape of public perceptions regarding complex information related to radioactive waste and nuclear energy more broadly to engage with internal and external stakeholders, including community members, regulatory bodies, and scientific experts, to gather diverse perspectives on the issue of identifying and communicating authentic and trustworthy information
   • Assess the transparency and effectiveness of existing stakeholder engagement efforts and to identify opportunities for improvement.
   • To develop tailored strategic engagement guidelines that complement existing efforts and specifically outline strategies for effectively establishing authority and trust in the context of the modern media environment
   • To establish an iterative approach to the evaluation of the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement, especially with regard to trust in engagement.
   • To develop guidelines regarding effective communication of complex scientific information regarding radioactive waste and nuclear energy more broadly, as well as guidelines regarding effective strategic communication planning to foster trust and collaboration with key stakeholders

Significance/Impact:
The DOE-EM cleanup mission is an integral part of the communities where cleanup is ongoing (Greenberg et al., 2019); further, risk communication related to nuclear cleanup efforts is increasingly integrated with the strategic use of media (Kim, 2021). Incidents such as the Fukushima disaster underscore the importance of the strategic use of new media channels, such as social media, as part of a complex mix of channels implemented as part of stakeholder engagement efforts (Ng and Lean, 2012). Despite the critical role of stakeholder engagement in managing risk communication relevant cleanup sites, the challenges of engaging in modern and complex media environments remain understudied (Balong-Way, McComas, and Besley, 2020), especially in the context of establishing and maintaining trust and authenticity with key stakeholders in an era where trust is frequently called into question.

This study focuses on communities surrounding key DOE-EM cleanup sites to examine the motivations that drive trust on the part of community stakeholders when identifying reliable information sources. Moreover, in examining DOE-EM cleanup sites and surrounding communities, this research effort will study the broader information ecosystems that exist around the target communities to better understand how DOE-EM cleanup sites engaged in the context of current stakeholder engagement efforts in order to establish, sustain, and grow trust with community members.

In part, this work is driven by ongoing concerns about the increasing decline of trust in government.  For example, within local communities, recent work points to a notable decline in trust in official information channels, with such a decline posing a significant challenge for risk communication efforts. This decline in trust and the increasing availability of information sources is a notable issue for risk communication scholars and practitioners (Balong-Way, McComas, and Besley, 2020). Distrust has the potential to stymie a wide range of communication efforts, with some advocating that the battle to establish trusted channels of stakeholder engagement should ultimately be thought of as akin to battling the spread of a pandemic (Bonnevie, Sitting, and Smyser, 2021).

There is the potential for implementation and study at several DOE-EM cleanup sites, but the Savannah River Site, Portsmouth Site, and Hanford Site each provide unique opportunities for study and comparison. The varying demographics of the communities surrounding each site create an opportunity to examine a variety of stakeholder engagement contexts, and the media ecosystems surrounding each site are unique from one another, providing an important basis for comparison.

Public Benefits:

Findings regarding trust will improve engagement and communication with Tribes and stakeholders by identifying approaches and mechanisms that drive trust and continued transparency, furthering the DOE-EM’s cleanup mission and,

Outcomes from this project will aid in determining an appropriate mix of engagement tools, communication channels, and approaches that enhance trust and authenticity, as well as core challenges of concern based on external Tribal and stakeholder perspectives.

Examination of the science of science communication will lead to the development of guidelines for effectively engaging external stakeholders with complex scientific information that is relevant, comprehensible, accurate, and trustworthy

References: (* indicates CRESP publication)

Balog‐Way, D., McComas, K., & Besley, J. (2020). The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2240-2262.

Bonnevie, E., Sittig, J., & Smyser, J. (2021). The case for tracking misinformation the way we track disease. Big Data & Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211013867

*Greenberg, M, Apostolakis, G, Fields, T, Goldstein, B, Kosson, D, Krahn, S, Matthews, R, Rispoli, J, Stewart, J & Stewart, R 2019, ‘Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis, vol.  39, no. 2, pp. 375‐388. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13135

Kim, J. (2021). The Meaning of Numbers: Effect of Social Media Engagement Metrics in Risk Communication. Communication Studies, 72(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1819842

*Krahn, S., Weber, M. S., Greenberg, M. and Henry, M. (2024). Co-PI. Informing Consent-Based Siting of a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF): Examining Public Engagement Through History and Evaluation of Prior & Current Outreach Results.

Ng, K.-H., & Lean, M.-L. (2012). The Fukushima nuclear crisis reemphasizes the need for improved risk communication and better use of social media. Health physics, 103(3), 307-310.