RE: EPA Dialogue Summary: Outreach (July 11)

[Bil Aird <bill.aird@cta-otc.gc.ca>]

Margaret

You wrote:
"So you see, we do have a wider range than is readily apparent by my single enrollment."

I fully agree with your point.  That model is the classic one for multi-stakeholder meetings where 15 - 20 people at the table represent various constituencies with a total population of thousands or even hundreds of thousands.

Perhaps I did not make my message clear.  I trying to reflect the view often put forward by proponents - we held a meeting that 250 attended and we only got 5 response forms; we have heard from 150 people out of a population of 30,000 and they raised the same 3 concerns; at a hearing 28 people spoke about the same 2 issues. The proponents will then conclude that there is only minor public opposition to their project or that the majority of the public supports the proposal.

My bottom line is that the number of responses to a proposal (project, policy, regulatory action etc.) should not be taken as an absolute.  Rather we should look to the social sciences to learn what proportion of the public normally respond to questionaires, media announcements, door to door campaigns, public notices or any other attempt to get a message out.  That information could be udsed as a benchmark to estimate the significance of the number of responses received.  

For example if only 1 per cent of the public normally complain about noise which is annoying a neighbourhood of a 1000.  Ten complaints are received.  What if one person wrote in but sent a petition signed by 200 people.   Government and industry are often quick to say that a small minority responded.  In fact, those complaints do not reflect a minoriy view at all, rather they are indicative of a much more widely held view.  

Thanks for the opportunity to explain myself
Bill