Navigator’s Kit: Fallacies about communities
8 Common Fallacies in Community Relations: Why Projects Fail and How to Do Better
Video Description:
Introduction (30 seconds)
“Welcome to our exploration of the 8 common fallacies that can derail community relations. These misconceptions often lead to project failures, but understanding them can help us build better relationships with communities.”
Fallacy 1 – Subjectivity (90 seconds)
“The Subjectivity Fallacy assumes we can ignore community opinions because they’re not objective. Let me share a real example: A mining company once dismissed community complaints about noise because their measurements showed levels within legal limits. The company’s instruments showed acceptable readings, but residents experienced the noise differently, especially at night when ambient noise was lower. By ignoring these ‘subjective’ experiences, the company created growing resentment. Remember, perception IS reality when it comes to community relations.”
Fallacy 2 – Naiveté (90 seconds)
“The Naiveté Fallacy is the belief that simply presenting facts will change minds. Consider this situation: A wind farm developer faced strong opposition to their project and responded by organizing multiple information sessions with detailed technical studies and visualizations. Despite their thorough presentations, opposition actually grew stronger. Why? Because they missed the real issue – the emotional connection residents had to their landscape and their concerns about changing community character. This shows us that effective communication isn’t about lecturing, but about listening and understanding the deeper concerns that drive opposition.”
Fallacy 3 – Unpredictability (90 seconds)
“Next is the Unpredictability Fallacy – the belief that community behavior is random and impossible to anticipate. Let me share a telling example: A project team was shocked when a supportive community leader suddenly joined protests against their development. They labeled this as ‘unpredictable behavior.’ However, when investigated, the shift occurred after the company failed to follow through on early commitments about local employment. This wasn’t unpredictable at all – it was a direct response to broken trust. Understanding these underlying factors helps us anticipate and prevent such situations.”
Fallacy 4 – Irrationality (90 seconds)
“The Irrationality Fallacy assumes that if people don’t follow expert logic, they’re being irrational. Here’s a classic example: An infrastructure project team dismissed community fears about electromagnetic fields from power lines as ‘irrational’ because scientific evidence showed minimal health risks. However, these concerns led to real consequences – property values dropped and local businesses suffered. What the team labeled as ‘irrational’ fears had very rational economic and social impacts. This teaches us that different ways of assessing risk – including social and economic factors – are equally valid and need to be addressed.”
Fallacy 5 – Greediness (90 seconds)
“The Greediness Fallacy occurs when we assume communities are simply trying to extract maximum compensation. In one land acquisition case, a company viewed escalating community demands as pure greed. However, deeper investigation revealed concerns about losing ancestral lands, disrupting traditional livelihoods, and lack of long-term benefits. The issue wasn’t greed – it was about sustainable futures and cultural preservation. This shows us why we need to look beyond monetary demands to understand the real needs of communities.”
Fallacy 6 – Self-Serving (90 seconds)
“With the Self-Serving Fallacy, we assume people only act out of self-interest. Take this example: When local fishermen opposed a hydroelectric dam project, the company initially dismissed their concerns as purely self-interested. However, these fishermen were raising valid concerns about river ecosystem health, cultural heritage sites, and impacts on downstream communities. Their perspective actually considered broader social and environmental impacts than the company’s narrow focus on project benefits. This teaches us that apparent self-interest often masks broader community concerns.”
Fallacy 7 – Aggressiveness (90 seconds)
“The Aggressiveness Fallacy leads us to label community responses as unnecessarily hostile. Here’s what happened at one industrial facility: When the community staged protests, the company immediately labeled them as ‘aggressive troublemakers.’ Investigation revealed that the protests began only after the company started construction without proper consultation and destroyed a local heritage site. The ‘aggressive’ response reflected deep feelings of disrespect and powerlessness. Understanding this helps us see that protest is often a last resort when other channels of communication have failed.”
Fallacy 8 – Rigidity (90 seconds)
“Our final fallacy is the Rigidity Fallacy – the belief that once people take a position, they won’t change their minds. Let me share an encouraging example: A port expansion project faced fierce initial opposition. Instead of assuming these positions were fixed, the company engaged in genuine dialogue, modified plans to protect a local beach, and created a community oversight committee. Many former opponents became project supporters, demonstrating how positions can evolve when concerns are genuinely addressed and trust is built.”
Closing (30 seconds)
“As we’ve seen through these examples, successful community relations requires moving beyond these fallacies. The key is to listen first, build trust, seek genuine understanding, and create meaningful dialogue. Remember, communities aren’t obstacles to be overcome – they’re partners in creating sustainable, successful projects. Thank you for your attention. This presentation has drawn on a 2022 article by Sergio Moreira, Frank Vanclay and Ana Maria Esteves in the journal Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Contact us if you’d like a copy or give us any feedback.”
