Canadian Water Network’s CEO Nicola Crawhall recently sat down for a conversation with Benjamin Morgan, principal and managing director of the Centre for Crisis and Risk Communications. Benjamin is one of the country’s leading communications experts for managing emergency situations in high pressure environments. He’s advised through numerous crises, including Canada’s two costliest natural disasters and largest peace-time evacuation: the 2013 Calgary floods and 2016 Fort McMurray wildfires.
Tell us about your background and the Centre for Crisis and Risk Communications.
I cut my professional communication teeth in the municipal world. I was working as a paramedic for 16 years, during which time I became the designated spokesperson for the City of Calgary. It was in this role where I caught the communications bug, so I went back to school and completed a master’s degree in communications at Royal Roads University. In 2013, I was hired back to the City of Calgary (since paramedic services had transferred to the province) as Supervisor of Crisis Communications. This position was created after a significant water main break in 2011 that redefined how the City engaged in urgent or crisis communications.
Three months into the new job, the City of Calgary and most parts of Southern Alberta were impacted by a 1-in-100-year flooding event as the result of a significant rain event. I got the call to come into the Emergency Operations Centre. By 10:00 am, the City declared a State of Local Emergency. At the time, the flood was the costliest natural disaster and largest peace-time evacuation event in Canadian history. With my new role, I was accountable for the municipal communications.
Over the next several years, I was directly involved in crisis communications during Calgary’s Snowtember event (2014), an electrical vault fire in downtown Calgary (2015), and the Fort McMurray wildfire response, as part of Canada Task Force’s Incident Management Team (2016).
Fast forward to 2019, I founded the Centre for Crisis and Risk Communications (CCRC), in partnership with global risk communication expert Dr. Vincent Covello. We continue to work with and learn from the expertise of Dr. Covello and Dr. Timothy Coombs, another globally recognized communications expert. The CCRC’s service offerings include building crisis communication plans, training and exercises, and helps businesses, organizations and communities communicate during crisis and emergent events. Due to my years at the City of Calgary, my personal passion remains with helping municipalities.
The risks associated with aging water infrastructure have been front and centre in the media this year, with infrastructure failures in Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal. Given the increased attention, what do you see as challenges that utilities face today when educating the public and other key stakeholders about the hidden water systems they rely on — but largely take for granted?
Most people expect that when they turn on their taps, water will come out of their faucet, just like when flicking a light switch, the lights come on, or when flushing the toilet, the waste goes away. This generally is underpinned with a sentiment of, “I pay for it; therefore, it is my right, I don’t have to worry about it.” Changing those ingrained attitudes isn’t just about communications, it’s a process of change management, beginning with getting people to understand that things such as water are a precious resource, not to be taken for granted. For instance, in its efforts to promote water conservation in the summer months, the City of Vancouver started promoting the message that treated water shouldn’t be used for watering lawns. The City began to change perceptions by introducing a recognition award for those not watering their lawn, called the Golden Lawn Award.
There’s no question that the COVID-19 pandemic did a number on society in terms of a loss of trust in government and traditional media. This is helping to fuel what is called ‘Public outrage theory.’ The first thing to understand is that public outrage is different than regular risk. For example, if I choose not to wear my helmet when riding my bike and I have an accident, I feel at least partially responsible for my injury. Same goes for gambling all my money away. Public outrage, on the other hand, is about something that is imposed on me — why am I being punished? If I perceive that something happening to me is unfair and out of my control, I’m likely going to feel outrage. For example, during the recent water restrictions in Calgary due to a watermain break, people were feeling outrage because they couldn’twater their new trees that cost $10K. People used to be able to use as much water as they wanted (within reason), and now the government was telling us that we CAN’T.
When feeling that outrage, people tend to need to direct this outrage somewhere. In the case of Calgary this summer, it’s hard to get angry at an underground pipe. So, we can only direct our outrage to the municipality, the mayor and council.
Another aspect that has been reinforced more recently through social media is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when people hear one thing on the news (water restrictions) that I don’t believe, but on Facebook, people are talking my language. Even if they may be conspiracy theories, they are right, because they are confirming my beliefs, so I’m not going to listen to the news or the authorities anymore.
Remember, perception is reality. If I perceive it to be true, then it is true. If someone thinks it’s your fault, it is — from a crisis management and communication perspective.
Critical infrastructure failures and risks associated with extreme events caused by climate change are becoming more frequent here and around the world (wildfires in B.C. and Alberta, flooding in Spain, tropical storms on the East coast). What key principles and/or methods should utilities and their organizations consider to effectively communicate this increasing risk, in advance and post-event?
Pre-crisis communications is essentially risk communication. Risk communication is an undervalued consideration. People tend to understand ‘crisis communications,’ but what is ‘risk communications?’ Dr. Covello will say risk communication has three characteristics. Risk communications:
- Typically look for a behavioural response from your audience,
- Often, focus on the potential outcomes rather than the cause, and
- Usually includes supportive scientific measurement or data.
Take something as simple as a speed limit sign on the road. I) What’s the behaviour you’re seeking from the audience? Do not exceed the posted speed limit. II) What is the potential outcome if you don’t? You just might get a speeding ticket. III) What data can support this? The number of tickets issued, or the fine amounts, or the number of fatalities due to speed.
Likewise for public health risk communications such as COVID — the behaviour we want is for you to wash your hands. The outcome if you don’t is that your family will get sick. And here’s the data that shows that viruses spread without hand washing.
In the context of water usage, if it looks like a risk of drought is approaching, a municipality should start drought messaging early. Start with general understanding of pre-drought, with a message that begins with something like, “Did you know…?” And of course, you need to break through the noise to find people who are interested in the topic, things that are affecting people in the here and now. For instance, you are fighting for attention with people’s concern over paying $7.00 for a carton of eggs, or potholes in the road that they drive over every day. It can be a challenge to get people’s attention, to break through all the other noise.
Without pre-event understanding, you are likely to see outrage if you suddenly introduce water restrictions once the drought hits.
Post-event is also critical. The City Calgary has a great opportunity now to double down on post-event communications.
Okotoks, a town south of Calgary, makes a great case study of effective communications regarding water usage. They’ve been communicating waterwise messaging for years, including promoting watering schedules, and hiring water conservation educators every summer to go door-to-door educating people on water use. They watch water meter readings as evidence of the effectiveness of water conservation measures.
So, my advice is to start early. Make communicating your daily activity before an event, instead of trying to push it through the outrage during an event.
There is growing public concern over contaminants, particularly PFAS. Do you have any tips on how to communicate about the safety of water when there is scientific uncertainty about longer-term exposure to some pollutants?
Communicating through uncertainty when people feel like something that they value is threatened (such as their health) is tricky. Think about the onset of COVID — at first, we were told, “Don’t worry about masks, masks aren’t helpful.” Then three months later, we were mandated, “WEAR A MASK!” The inconsistency and changes in messaging can add to public outrage and bias.
If the first message had of been something like, “the best science today suggests that mask-wearing isn’t effective in stopping the spread,” that would have left space for someone to say, “because we care about you so much, we have done much research and now have evidence that tells us that wearing a mask is helpful. Now we know, and we need your help.”
When asked about the risks associated with PFAS, you could answer something like, “while this is a very important topic, we just don’t know enough yet. Today, we believe X at this point, we understand Y.”
A tool that I like using when engaging in risk and crisis communications is the Four Box Method. In this method, I create a box with four quadrants and name them:
1) What I know; 2) What I don’t know; 3) What we’re doing; 4) Rumours and myth-busting.
I will then sort all the information that I have about an event or an issue into each of the quadrants. Then I start forming my messaging.
In high-stress, high-concern situations and environments, like communicating about PFAS, it can be helpful to use a message map to help create three messages. Each message is then supported by additional supporting facts and information. For example:
- We have believed that PFAS is… and we are beginning to see evidence that this is a bigger problem than we thought, followed by supporting points.
- We are committed to learning more, by doing research, etc.
- Know that our water is safe, and we’re committed to maintaining our safe water. Here’s how we are approaching doing that, followed by supporting points — e.g., our drinking water is tested X times a day.
Your PFAS message map then becomes the foundation for communication products such as a briefing note, an article, a presentation, social media posts, etc.
Thanks Ben, for sharing some of your background and risk/crisis communications expertise.