Advertisement

Public engagement on urban air pollution: an exploratory study of two interventions

  • Christian Oltra
  • Roser Sala
  • Àlex Boso
  • Sergi López Asensio
Article

Abstract

The use of portable sensors to measure air quality is a promising approach for the management of urban air quality given its potential to improve public participation in environmental issues and to promote healthy behaviors. However, not all the projects that use air quality mobile sensors consider the potential effects of their use on the attitudes and behaviors of non-expert individuals. This study explores the experiences, perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions of 12 participants who used a real-time NO2 sensor over a period of 7 days in the metropolitan area of Barcelona and compares them with 16 participants who did not have access to the device but rather to documentary information. The study design is based on recombined focus groups who met at the beginning and end of a 7-day activity. The results suggest that the experience with the sensors, in comparison with the traditional information, generates greater motivation among participants. Also, that the use of the sensor seems to support a more specific awareness of the problem of air pollution. In relation to risk perception, the textual and visual information seems to generate stronger beliefs of severity among participants. In both groups, beliefs of low controllability and self-efficacy are observed. Neither using the sensor nor reading the documentary information seems to contribute positively in this sense. The results of the study aim to contribute to the design of public involvement strategies in urban air pollution.

Keywords

Air pollution Portable sensors Public engagement Attitudes Focus groups 

References

  1. Aoki, P. M., Honicky, R. J., Mainwaring, A., Myers, C., Paulos, E., Subramanian, S., & Woodruff, A. (2008). Common sense: mobile environmental sensing platforms to support community action and citizen science. [http://www.communitysensing.org/pdf/AokiUbiComp2008CommonSenseDemo.pdf].
  2. Bales, E., Nikzad, N., Quick, N., Ziftci, C., Patrick, K., & Griswold, W. (2012). Citisense: mobile air quality sensing for individuals and communities. Design and deployment of the Citisense mobile air-quality system. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, 3–6. Doi:  10.4108/icst.pervasivehealth.2012.248724
  3. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Londres: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, P., Brody, J. G., Morello-Frosch, R., Tovar, J., Zota, A. R., & Rudel, R. A. (2012). Measuring the success of community science: the northern California household exposure study. Environmental health perspectives, 120(3), 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crowston, K., & Wiggins, A. (2011). Supporting citizen involvement in scientific research. HICSS 2011 SCI Workshop. Retrieved from http://conway.isri.cmu.edu/hicss2011-sci-workshop/crowston-hicss-supporting.pdf.
  8. Delgado-Saborit, J. M. (2012). Use of real-time sensors to characterise human exposures to combustion related pollutants. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 14(7), 1824–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Environment Agency (2013). Air quality in Europe—2013 report. Denmark: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  10. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods, 5, 1–11.Google Scholar
  11. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman J., Shilton K., Burke J. A., Estrin D., Hansen M., Ramanathan N., Reddy S, Samanta V., Srivastava M. and West R. (2009). Participatory sensing: a citizen-powered approach to illuminating the patterns that shape our world. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Washington, D.C., USA. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/esence/362/
  13. Henry, G. T., & Gordon, C. S. (2003). Driving less for better air: impacts of a public information campaign. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(1), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, B. B. (2003). Communicating air quality information: experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Analysis, 23(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, B. B. (2012). Experience with urban air pollution in Paterson, New Jersey and implications for air pollution communication. Risk Analysis, 32, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2011). Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1148–1154.Google Scholar
  18. Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental Pollution, 151(2), 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kanhere, Salil, S 2013. “Participatory sensing: crowdsourcing data from mobile smartphones in urban spaces.” International Conference on Distributed Computing and Internet Technology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  20. Kollumuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  22. Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). Participatory sensing in public spaces: activating urban surfaces with sensor probes. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 21–30). ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Louv, R., & Fitzpatrick, J. W. (2012). Citizen science: public participation in environmental research. In J. L. Dickinson & R. Bonney (Eds.), Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable development. An introduction to community-based social marketing. Ontario: New Society Publishers 160 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Neidell, Matthew(2006). “Public information and avoidance behavior: do people respond to smog alerts?.” Center for Integrating Statistical and Environmental Science Technical Report 24.Google Scholar
  26. Noonan, D. S. (2011). Smoggy with a chance of altruism: using air quality forecasts to drive behavioral change. AEI Outlook Series. American Enterprise Institute. AEI Working Paper, 8, 14.Google Scholar
  27. O’Fallon, L. R., & Dearry, A. (2002). Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD. (2016). The economic consequences of outdoor air pollution. Paris: OECD Publishing  http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264257474-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paulos E., Honicky R. J. and Hooker B. (2009). Citizen science: enabling participatory urbanism. In: M. Foth (Ed.), Handbook of research on urban informatics: the practice and promise of the real-time city. Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 414–436. Goldman et al. 2009: 3.Google Scholar
  30. Semenza, J. C., Wilson, D. J., Parra, J., Bontempo, B. D., Hart, M., Sailor, D. J., & George, L. A. (2008). Public perception and behaviour change in relationship to hot weather and air pollution. Environmental Research, 107(3), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skov, T., Cordtz, T., Jensen, L. K., Saugman, P., Schmidt, K., & Theilade, P. (1991). Modifications of health behaviour in response to air pollution notifications in Copenhagen. Social Science & Medicine, 33, 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stieb, D. M., Paola, J., & Neuman, K. (1995). Do smog advisories work? Results of an evaluation of the Canadian Smog Advisory Program. Canadian Journal of Public Health. Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique, 87(3), 166–169.Google Scholar
  33. Wells, E. M., Dearborn, D. G., & Jackson, L. W. (2012). Activity change in response to bad air quality, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2010. PloS One, 7(11), e50526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WHO. (2013). Health effects of particulate matter. Policy implications for countries in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and central Asia. World Health Organization [online]. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulatematter-final-Eng.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociotechnical Research Centre, Department of EnvironmentCIEMATBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Núcleo de Ciencias SocialesUniversidad de la FronteraTemucoChile

Personalised recommendations