Portrait von Dr. André Schaffrin in Anzug und Krawatte
Above water

Facts and science: Trust on the tidal Elbe

When citizens do not trust scientific findings, the foundation for an objective debate is lacking. The HPA has also experienced this firsthand in the Tideelbe region. We spoke with Dr. André Schaffrin of ifok GmbH. Together with the NGO “Progressives Zentrum,” he investigated, on behalf of the HPA, how mistrust arises and how trust can be built.

The HPA wanted to understand why people trust institutions and scientific studies - or why they do not. Why?

Infrastructure measures in Germany often face the following challenge: on the one hand, planning must be based on objective facts in order to meet requirements and specifications. Studies and expert reports provide the necessary findings for this. On the other hand, there are the emotions of local people: fears and anxieties caused by tangible changes. There is therefore a contrast between the rational perspective on the planning side and the emotional perspective on the affected side. This contrast often leads to people distrusting the arguments of the planners.</p

<p>The HPA is familiar with this: studies in connection with the tidal Elbe are also often distrusted. Without trust, however, no constructive debate can take place. The HPA therefore wanted to know what causes trust in science, studies and institutions.

<p

You investigated this scientifically. How did you go about it?

We selected four case studies. These are infrastructure projects in the tidal Elbe and the Humber, another major estuary in the UK. We evaluated and compared the responses to studies produced in these projects. To do this, we conducted interviews and analyzed documents and press reports.</p

Circular diagram with the terms 'trust' (top) and 'mistrust' (bottom). Around the diagram are four questions that can influence trust in scientific statements.
Many factors influence trust in scientific studies and institutions.

What findings have you built on? What is already known about trust in scientific studies and institutions?

It is known that several factors influence people's trust in scientific studies. For example, the results of a study must appear plausible to them: If the statements contradict their everyday experiences, people become skeptical. Another important factor is how trustworthy they consider the scientific actors behind the study to be. Personal motives, attitudes and their roots are also important. Finally, how so-called intermediaries, such as the media or interest groups, present the results also plays a role.</p

You have dealt specifically with scientific studies on infrastructure projects. What role does the topic of infrastructure play when it comes to trust?

Trust in a particular study is not only related to the people who produce, disseminate and read the study, but also to its topic. For example, it depends on one's own experience with this topic. Many people have confidence in the technology of an elevator that they use every day. In contrast, topics such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence or nanotechnology are more difficult to grasp for most people - and therefore less likely to inspire confidence. But even simpler technologies are often met with mistrust, such as the construction of wind turbines. This can often be explained by underlying fears - the keyword here is infrasound, for example.</p

<p>More important than the topic, however, is usually the project history. Infrastructure projects always have an impact on the lives and everyday lives of local people. Those affected may have had bad experiences in the past with the actors involved, such as a city administration. In this case, they are unlikely to trust new studies that have now been commissioned by this administration. Conversely, good experiences build trust. The project history is decisive for the population's attitude towards a project.</p

Tidal Elbe also has a long project history.

Absolutely. Our investigation has confirmed that the public perception of every new project on the tidal Elbe is also predetermined - by a history that can include projects from long ago, even if these have no direct connection to the current measure. This has an impact on the trust placed in new expert opinions and findings. They are not perceived as scientifically neutral, but as commissioned research.</p

Have you also observed this phenomenon in the Humber or are there also differences compared to the UK?

In fact, we have noticed many similarities. Our British colleagues are also faced with the challenge of explaining the complex interrelationships that form the basis of many government decisions. Some good ideas could perhaps also be implemented in Germany. For example, the British have encouraged young people to talk about critical issues in a relaxed atmosphere as part of the "knowledge transfer over the breakfast table" campaign. The British approach is strongly aimed at training people to make the right decisions themselves through mutual dialog. This also strengthens trust in the decisions made by institutions.</p

What can the HPA do to regain trust?

In principle, it should be noted that the attitude towards expert opinions on the tidal Elbe does not differ significantly from other infrastructure projects. For the HPA, our investigation results in three recommendations for the debate on the tidal Elbe:

Firstly, it is important to translate new findings in an understandable way and communicate them via different channels. In this way, the HPA helps citizens to understand and categorize new findings. The tidal Elbe is a very complex topic, and studies and expert reports often use technical language. Without an explanation, the information can be interpreted differently. This is because when information contradicts people's own experience, they draw their own conclusions: Either they feel deceived or they get their interpretations from other "translators" - i.e. the media or individual actors, for example. In addition to comprehensibility, openness on the part of researchers and experts is also important - in other words, the willingness to take people and their objections seriously and, if necessary, to openly admit mistakes.</p

<p>Our second recommendation is to give researchers a face. On the one hand, this will show that there are people behind the studies who take scientific principles seriously. On the other hand, it is important to give them a greater voice and create opportunities for exchange with those affected. In this way, researchers can explain the facts and prove that science is also acting in the interests of local people.</p

<p>However, it is difficult for the HPA to reach people who are already strongly influenced by the project history: Once mistrust has arisen, every further study reinforces the conflict. This cycle must be broken. The best way to do this - according to our third recommendation - is to involve those affected intensively in the preparation of new studies. And, if possible, even before they are commissioned.</p

What could this look like in practice?

Dialogue formats are particularly well suited to building and strengthening trust in the long term. By this we mean committees and platforms in which scientists, stakeholders, politicians and all other relevant actors come together and exchange ideas. These formats accompany a measure in the longer term: they define common goals, identify needs for studies at an early stage and enable open discussion in the further development process. The Tidal Elbe River Engineering and Sediment Management Forum and this tidal blog are good examples of greater transparency and participation. Now is the time to stay on the ball.

 

You can find the entire study here or in our download area.

Questions and answers on the topic of trust in facts and science on the tidal Elbe

 

Trust in science and research is the basis for an objective, fact-based debate about infrastructure measures on the tidal Elbe. If citizens distrust scientific findings, a constructive discussion becomes difficult. Only if scientific studies appear comprehensible and credible can decisions relating to the tidal Elbe be jointly supported and accepted.</p

 

 

Trust in science depends on several factors:

  • Plausibility of the results: Do scientific statements match everyday experiences?
  • Credibility of researchers and institutions: Are the scientists perceived as independent and competent?
  • Transparent communication: How clearly and comprehensibly are complex findings communicated?
  • Project history: Have those affected had positive or negative experiences with the institutions in the past? Do those affected basically have confidence in the world?

 

 

For the HPA, trust in science is crucial in order to implement projects on the tidal Elbe objectively and together with the population and to gain acceptance and understanding for its constant work to maintain and develop the critical infrastructure that ensures the supply and prosperity of the population. In order to understand how trust is created, the HPA, together with ifok GmbH and the Progressive Center, investigated why people distrust scientific studies - and how trust can be specifically built up.

<p

 

 

The study looked at four case studies - two in Germany (including the Tidal Elbe) and two in the Humber region of the UK. Researchers analyzed reactions to scientific studies, conducted interviews and evaluated press reports. This made it possible to identify patterns of how trust and mistrust develop. Other societal examples were also used for comparison.

<p

 

 

The study shows that trust in science is not only created through data and facts, but also through comprehensibility, openness and participation. It is recommended to communicate findings in an understandable way, make researchers visible and involve those affected at an early stage.

 

Back to overview