Public Understanding of Science

Public Understanding of Science http://pus.sagepub.com

Keeping the public informed? Public negotiation of air quality information Judith Bush, Suzanne Moffatt and Christine E. Dunn Public Understanding of Science 2001; 10; 213 DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/304 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/213

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Public Understanding of Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pus.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://pus.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 10, 2008 © 2001 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE

Public Understand. Sci. 10 (2001) 213–229

www.iop.org/Journals/pu

PII: S0963-6625(01)22686-1

Keeping the public informed? Public negotiation of air quality information Judith Bush, Suzanne Moffatt, and Christine E. Dunn

Air quality information has been made available to the public in the UK since 1990. However, relatively little work has been done to explore the impact of this information and the ways in which it is interpreted and evaluated by members of the public. In this paper, we describe a social constructionist approach to exploring public views on air quality information based on a case study in Teesside and Sunderland in northeast England. Our research findings, based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with 41 people, suggest that the public doesn’t “assimilate” air quality information in a passive way, but actively negotiates and critically evaluates such information on the basis of a range of cultural resources, including experiential and local knowledges. Validity, reliability, and trustworthiness of air quality information is scrutinized by members of the public at three main levels: (1) air quality monitoring, (2) the authorities that collect and provide air quality information, and (3) the parameters used to present this information to the public. We consider the implications of these findings for debates on the public negotiation of scientific information and for policies relating to the provision of air quality information. On the basis of our findings, we make some preliminary suggestions regarding ways of developing air quality information services that are more responsive to the needs of the public.

1. Introduction Making information on the environment more accessible to the public has been a central tenet of recent government-led initiatives in the UK, including green labeling, improving public access to registers of environmental information, and providing information to people living in close proximity to chemical and nuclear industries, as well as activities undertaken as part of Local Agenda 21.1 The public’s “right to know” has also been fundamental to recent campaigns of environmental action groups, such as Friends of the Earth, that have stipulated that “Information is power. . . telling people what is happening will lead to a more accountable government, a healthier environment and a fairer society”2 It may be argued that such initiatives and campaigns are based on three main assumptions: (1) that information is empowering, helping to re-dress power differentials between “experts” and the lay public, (2) that the public faithfully absorbs information given to them, and (3) that “increasing openness in the public sector” helps to nurture a sense of public trust in the government.3 0963-6625/01/020213+17$30.00

© 2001 IOP Publishing Ltd and The Science Museum

Printed in the UK


213

214

J. Bush et al

In this paper we critically evaluate such assumptions by focusing on one example in which environmental information—air quality information—is given to the public. A daily summary of UK air quality has been made available to the general public since the publication of the Environment White Paper, “This Common Inheritance” in 1990, in which the government made a commitment to making information from its air quality monitoring networks more widely available to the public.4 Whilst government attention has focused on the importance of providing air quality information to the public, relatively little work has been carried out to explore the impact of such information and whether or not the public really does find this information empowering and useful.5 The small number of empirical studies that have been undertaken suggests that whilst there is a general feeling that making information on air quality available to the public is a good thing, relatively few people have come across this information.6 Those who are aware of it tend to express a sense of “general distrust towards the motivations of the government in interpreting and presenting the data, but also on the more specific questions of complexity, ambiguity, validity and spatial scale.”7 There is also public ‘discontent’ with the reliability of air quality monitoring and forecasting, and with lack of public involvement or consultation in air quality information services.8 In this paper we describe a qualitative, empirical study that adopted a social constructionist approach to exploring public understanding of air quality information. A social constructionist approach is based on the belief that the environment has many meanings for different people in society; that meanings associated with the environment are multiple and conflicting, and that people come to sense the environment in diverse, multifaceted, and complex ways.9 The aim of this study was to understand the nature of the negotiation and reasoning involved in public “understanding” of air quality information and to try to identify the resources—social, cultural, and experiential—that are drawn on to make sense of, critically evaluate, judge, and interpret air quality information. We were also interested in the relative significance of the local context and the role of local knowledge (i.e., knowledge grounded in everyday experience and understanding) in framing public negotiation of this information.10 We begin by outlining recent debates on the public understanding of scientific information. After outlining the provision of air quality information in the UK and the nature of the information provided, we then describe the study areas, research aims and methods, and the emergent themes arising from the analysis. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings, first, for debates surrounding the public understanding of scientific information and second, for recent debates on public involvement in environmental assessment and decision making. 2. Public “understanding” of scientific information Traditionally, the “public understanding of science” has been measured in terms of the degree to which the public faithfully assimilate “scientific” information produced by “experts.”11 In this deficit model, the public is seen as lacking expertise and knowledge and is thus disqualified from participating in “scientific debates.”12 This essentialist approach to the dissemination of scientific information is based on a perceived need to better inform a scientifically ignorant lay population.13 Empirical studies have demonstrated that the public understanding of science is much more sophisticated than is acknowledged by the deficit model.14 Far from being “epistemically vacuous,” the “. . . public do not simply possess knowledge about scientific ‘facts’ and scientific procedures and processes, they can also reflect on the epistemological status of that knowledge.”15 An essentialist approach which dichotomizes lay and expert knowledge does not embody the complex social and cognitive processes whereby public groups make sense of environmental information, nor does it acknowledge the more substantive


Keeping the public informed?

215

intellectual status of lay knowledge (including cultural resources and contextual knowledge), which are generated outside of formal scientific institutions.16 Empirical studies have found that the perceived trustworthiness and social credibility of scientific information are strongly framed by, and are interrelated with, attitudes toward the institutions providing the information, politics, control, and trust.17 The public doesn’t assimilate scientific information in a passive way, but the social validation and legitimization of expert information is actively negotiated in relation to a range of resources, including experiential and local knowledge. Furthermore, as Yearley has recently argued commentators from many backgrounds have demonstrated growing public discontents with scientific information, particularly when expert accounts of physical reality conflict with local knowledge and personal experience.18 Such local knowledge has been used to challenge “expert” knowledge on environmental issues.19 However, it is important not to oversimplify the concept of local knowledge. As Michael argues, in much work on the public negotiation of scientific advice, the “lay local” has been romanticized and homogenized and portrayed as a site of a happy common and coherent consent.20 Little attention has been paid to the internal disagreements and conflicts within this local picture, or to the links between the local and broader cultural and social networks. 3. Air quality information In the early 1990s, a national air quality monitoring program was introduced in the UK to provide the public with “rapid and reliable information” on current and forecast air quality, and to assist the assessment of personal exposure to air pollution.21 In 1997, changes were made to the existing air quality information system, which had attracted widespread criticism for understating the risks posed by air pollution.22 The new national Air Pollution Information Service provides guidance as to the effects of air pollution on health, and it has been based on advice from the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) and the Department of Health (DoH) Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS). The aim of the new service is to “ensure facts about air pollution levels and the resulting effects on health are accessible to those who wish to know them, even if their health is not affected by air pollution.”23 There are over 1,500 sites across the UK that are used to monitor air quality. The number and types of pollutants monitored varies, depending on the reason why the monitoring station was set up and the resources available. In 1998, there were 108 Automatic Urban Network (AUN) monitoring sites in the UK, producing reports on hourly pollutant concentrations (for ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates), which are collected from individual sites by modem. There are also many nonautomatic monitoring sites where a smaller number of pollutants are measured less frequently (e.g., daily, weekly, or monthly); samples are collected (via, for example, diffusion tube or filter) and may be subjected to chemical analysis. Air pollution information relayed to the public is expressed as either a bulletin or, more commonly, as a forecast. Bulletins comprise hourly measurements obtained from the AUN. Hourly information is provided on sulfur dioxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, airborne particles (PM10 ), and carbon monoxide, benzene and 1,3 butadiene. Air pollution forecasts for the following 24 hours are provided by the National Environmental Technology Centre. The forecasters make use of information from a number of sources, including (1) AUN data, (2) weather forecasts for the following day, (3) ozone data from selected European monitoring sites, (4) real-time results from a trajectory model (run each day to predict episodes of photochemically generated pollutants in the summer), and (5) results from an urban pollutants box model (which predicts urban pollutant concentrations and is used to anticipate episodes


216

J. Bush et al

that occur in cities during the winter months).24 National air pollution information for 10 UK regions is made available to the public via a range of sources, including CEEFAX, TELETEXT, the Department of Health Freephone Helpline, the UK National Air Quality Archive on the Internet, and local and national media. In addition, a small number of local authorities also provide air pollution forecasts for the public living in specific towns or cities using, for example, local radio, electronic display boards, newsletters, automatic faxing systems, and forecasts in the local newspaper. The Air Pollution Information Service is based on the five pollutants that are felt to have the most significant effect on health: sulfur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and fine particles (PM10 ). Air pollution levels are banded as either low, moderate, high, or very high, and the pollutant concentrations for each band are set with reference to what is known about the health effects of each pollutant. Official health advice corresponds to each banding of air pollution, although this is made available to the public via only two sources: (1) the DoH Freephone Helpline, a noninteractive system consisting of a recorded message, and (2) a Department of the Environment Transport and the regions (DETR) booklet entitled “Air Pollution—what it means for your health,” which is available from General Practices and other health centers.25 People with asthma or lung disease are advised that their symptoms may worsen when air pollution levels are high or very high and “to change your treatment in the usual way. If this doesn’t help, consult your doctor.” Although the banding system has been designed to reflect health effects, when air quality information is presented to the public, only the air quality banding itself is given. There is no reference to associated health effects, nor is there any suggestion that these bandings relate to health effects. Health advice is routinely issued to the public only if pollution levels are high or very high. The DETR states that “transparency and up-to-the-minute, accurate data are the watchwords” for the new air pollution information service and that “UK air pollutant measures are based on a rigorous quality assurance and control programme.”26 However, all scientific data contain uncertainty.27 In relation to relaying air pollution information to the public, uncertainty exists at each stage of the monitoring, analysis, modeling, and presentation process.28 For example, uncertainty surrounds the performance and accuracy of monitoring equipment; the techniques used to model and predict air quality; the siting of monitors, issues of spatial and temporal representativeness, the accuracy of the air pollution banding system used to present air quality; and how well these bands reflect health effects, particularly as evidence on the relationship between air quality and health is changing (as illustrated by the revisions made to the air quality information system in 1997). Also, as COMEAP points out, air quality levels and health effects are arbitrary, as they describe increments along a continuum.29 Furthermore, uncertainty specific to scientific modeling raises important questions of trustworthiness in air pollution forecasts. However, in terms of the information relayed to the public, such uncertainties are filtered out so that the message is simple: “air pollution levels tomorrow will be low.” The national air pollution service clearly illustrates a deficit approach to the provision of environmental information. In this model, the public is viewed as consisting of passive receivers (and absorbers) of scientific “facts” on air quality and health provided by panels of “experts.” Decisions on what to monitor, and where and how to make this information available to the public, tend to be made solely by experts without public involvement. There is no room for public negotiation or participation in the national scheme. In the public deficit model “social and technical uncertainty are implicitly eliminated: the assumption is ‘keep it simple and the public will grasp the message more easily’ ”30 Furthermore, the government has tended to focus on the technicalities of information provision and given limited attention to ensuring that the information is relevant to the general public, or communicates effectively with



217

them.31 Only a limited amount of research has been undertaken to evaluate use of air pollution services.32 However, whilst the national air pollution service remains firmly committed to the deficit approach to the provision of environmental information, some local authorities—in view of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s recommendation that public values should be integrated more specifically into UK environmental decision making— have adopted a more enlightened approach and have tried to become more responsive to the needs of local people.33 There is now an emerging view that involving the public in environmental assessment and decision making can actually improve scientific knowledge by allowing decision makers access to local knowledge, by improving quality assurance, and by revealing public values and agendas.34 Methods of involving the public in environmental assessment include citizen panels, citizen advisory committees, citizen juries, and negotiated rule making.35 In relation to air quality, the local authorities in Sheffield, for example, have demonstrated their acknowledgement of the importance of local knowledge by actually monitoring in places where the public feels that air quality is poor.36 Citizens groups in Sheffield (consisting of self-identifying groups such as local community groups, public sector workers, business representatives, etc.) have also been used to allow local people to discuss and critically evaluate the air quality modeling undertaken by the local authority and to describe their knowledge of local conditions.37 However, these groups do not have a direct decision making role. In Canada, the public has been involved in developing indicators of local air quality via community workshops.38 No local initiatives to involve the public in air quality monitoring were taking place in the communities we focused on for our study at the time that field work took place. 4. Air quality information: exploring public views in northeast England Public views on air quality information were explored within a wider study of public perceptions of the risks to health from air pollution in northeast England during 1996–98.39 The study focused on two conurbations: Teesside and Sunderland. Teesside is the site of the largest steel and petrochemical complex in the UK, and the landscape is dominated by densely concentrated heavy industries. Sunderland, in contrast, is characterized by lighter industry, such as car manufacturing; former heavy industries, such as coal mining and shipbuilding, have now largely ceased to operate. Air quality has been an issue of enduring concern in Teesside but not in Sunderland.40 Importantly, these areas differ in terms of the provision of local air quality information. Whilst people living in both Teesside and Sunderland have access to regional air quality information provided by the DETR (although within this schema, both conurbations fall within the “northeast” region), the public in Teesside has access to additional local information. In Teesside, at the time fieldwork was undertaken for this study, Middlesbrough Borough Council issued a daily, predicted air quality forecast (i.e., model outputs based on emission inventories and weather forecast data) which was faxed to 10 key points in the district (e.g., the university, town hall, health centers) and the local newspaper. A regular Air Quality column for Middlesbrough was published in the local evening newspaper as part of the local weather forecast. In Sunderland, local air quality information (i.e., for Sunderland itself) is not routinely made available to the public. Both areas contain AUN monitoring sites, and outputs are fed into the national air pollution information service described earlier. Teesside has two AUN sites (Figure 1); one in Redcar, the other in the Grove Hill area of Middlesbrough, which is approximately 4 km away from the main concentration of industry. The AUN monitors in Teesside monitor a full range of pollutants (ozone, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and hydrocarbons). In Sunderland (Figure 2), the AUN monitor is sited in the city center and


218

J. Bush et al North Sea

A1085 10

PM monitor

REDCAR

Chemicals

Riv

Chemicals

A1

9

er

74

Coke ovens

Tee s

Chemicals & steel

A66

A66

PM

South Bank

AUN monitor A66

A1

10

85 monitor

0 A1

MIDDLESBROUGH 74

A1

0 A1

A19

Acklam Sunderland

32

Teesside

A174

Built up area

Hemlington

0

1 mile

0

1 kilometre

Figure 1. Teesside monitoring sites and study communities.

A18

4

Fulwell North Sea

Hylton Castle A108

10

PM monitor

1

A19

Car factory

31

A12

ear er W

Riv

81

0

AUN monitor 0 A1

3 A18

Built up area 0

10

PM monitor

SUNDERLAND

1 mile 1 kilometre

Grangetown

Sunderland Teesside

Tunstall

B1286

Ryhope

9 A1

e an nL rdo Bu 10

PM monitor

Figure 2. Sunderland monitoring sites and study communities.



219

measures only sulfur dioxide. Insight into the social, cultural, and localized contexts that frame public understanding of air quality information was obtained via semi-structured in-depth interviews with 41 people (21 in Teesside and 20 in Sunderland). Research participants were recruited from responses to a prior postal questionnaire survey of 5,000 people (3,333 in Teesside and 1,667 in Sunderland), which achieved a 58 percent response rate after two reminders. The survey asked questions about the respondents’ views on the relative importance of making information on air quality available to the public, whether they had come across air quality information before, and if so, where they had obtained this information. The survey was analyzed using a range of uniand multivariate analyses, and full details are given in the study report.41 The survey found that over 90 percent of respondents believed that making information on air quality available to the public was either “important” or “very important.” However, the in-depth interviews highlighted confusion about what was actually meant by the term “air quality information.” Some participants felt that this information included pollen forecasts, whilst others associated the term only with seasonal smog warnings. This suggests that our survey finding that 47 percent of respondents in Teesside and 16 percent in Sunderland had come across air quality information during the last six months is likely to be inflated. Seventeen percent (440 of the questionnaire respondents) agreed to take part in a follow-up interview. Participants for in-depth interviews were recruited purposively in order to reflect a broad-ranging group in terms of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and whether or not the individual suffered from an illness affected by air pollution (which included asthma, bronchitis, and hay fever). Approximately half of the research participants from each community fell into the category of either suffering from an illness affected by air quality themselves, or having a close family member with such an illness. The remaining research participants did not suffer from such a condition, nor did any other member of their immediate family. The aim was to recruit participants who were broadly typical (in terms of socioeconomic criteria, age, and gender) of those living in their community. The interviews lasted between 45 minutes and 2 hours and were carried out by one researcher. As the interviews were semi-structured, the same topics were raised for discussion at each interview, and the researcher ensured that questions were asked in similar ways so as not to bias responses. The interviews were tape recorded with the participant’s permission and transcribed in full. The interview material was analyzed by identifying recurring, emergent themes—and searching for deviant cases—so that the theory produced by the qualitative analysis was grounded in the empirical data.42 In each of the study communities, interview recruitment continued until “saturation” of categories occurred, i.e., until no new themes were emerging from the data.43 The study centered on five communities. The Teesside neighborhoods (Figure 1) comprised two communities that were materially deprived (on the basis of 1991 Census of Population indicators): South Bank, which is located 1.5 km away from the main concentration of industry in the east of the district and Hemlington which is 8 km away—and one affluent community, Acklam, which is situated 7 km away from industry. The two neighborhoods in Sunderland (Figure 2) comprised one materially deprived community (Hylton Castle) and one relatively affluent community (Fulwell), which were broadly similar to the corresponding Teesside neighborhoods on the basis of socioeconomic indicators obtained from the 1991 census. In work on the public understanding of science, case studies have predominantly been located in areas in which conflict between experts and the public are likely to be most pronounced.44 Such a criticism could be leveled at our study with the inclusion of Teesside: an area stigmatized for its association with air pollution.45 However, by also including Sunderland, a city not traditionally associated with air pollution, and by considering a range of communities


220

J. Bush et al

within Teesside which are located at different distances from heavy industry, we aimed to try to understand the role of local scale, spatial influences on the negotiation of scientific. In discussing the findings from the study, we begin with views on the relative importance and usefulness of air quality information and then go on to explore in detail public negotiation of this information. 5. Air quality information: its importance and usefulness Views on the relative importance of air quality information were strongly influenced by where the participant lived. People living in Teesside, particularly in South Bank (the community closest to industry), tended to have the strongest views on the need for air pollution information. Some felt that the public had a “right” to this information. A typical view is highlighted below: I think it’s important. You can’t have too much information. . . . I do think that information should be available. . . . It’s very important for the people who live around here to know what’s going on and what effects it’s having. Because I think if it was made public and it was really, I’m not going to say really dangerous or really bad, but people have a right to know don’t they? From their point of view and from their children’s point of view (male, 20s, South Bank, Teesside). Others, however, expressed feelings of resignation and powerlessness in relation to any actions that could be taken even if air pollution levels were high: Yes it (making air quality information available to the public) is important. But you can’t get out of it can you? There’s nothing you can do about it. I mean the ICI accident, the cloud of poisonous dust the other year, it hung over the coast and over here for days. And they were saying there was no need to worry. But we were worried. (male, 60s, South Bank, Teesside). Those living in Sunderland, and to a lesser degree those who lived in the two communities at a distance from industry in Teesside, tended to be more ambivalent about the air pollution information service provided by the government. Most felt that although making air pollution information available “to those who need it” (see below) is important, it wasn’t of any personal value, either because they felt that they lived in an area unaffected by air pollution or because they didn’t suffer personally from an illness affected by air quality: I would have thought it’s (air quality information) important, then people that suffer from asthma and things, they can be prepared for it (male, 50s, Fulwell, Sunderland). Well I suppose (air quality information is important) yeah if you live in those neighborhoods or you go into those neighborhoods. The people who are affected by the air quality (female, 30s, Hemlington, Teesside). The general feeling was that whilst it was important for air quality information to be made available to the public, this information was only actually of value to “Others”—those who lived in areas of poor air quality and those who suffered from illnesses affected by poor air quality. Interestingly, the interview participants with an illness affected by air pollution also tended to feel that air pollution information wasn’t useful, due to their feelings of powerlessness surrounding what action they could take if air quality levels were poor: Well if they gave it (air quality information) out, what could we do about it? You’ve still got to go out. You can’t live in a bubble all your life (male, 60s, Hylton Castle, Sunderland).



221

Only one participant—an asthmatic—felt that she may consider changing her behavior if the air quality was poor, but this was in relation only to leisure activities: I suppose it would depend what I was doing that day. It couldn’t stop you going to work or. . . something like that but. . . maybe it would if it was, you know, something you’d chosen to do rather than something that you have to do, you might want to try and avoid it. I don’t know. (female, 20s, Acklam, Teesside) None of the interview participants was aware of the health advice that accompanies the air pollution banding system. Whilst most participants in Teesside felt that making air quality information accessible to the public was important, a small number of interview participants living in communities at a distance from industry expressed reservations about “information overload” and the fear associated with this: I think the public should be given certain information. You can give people too much information and it frightens them, and I don’t think that’s necessary (female, 70s, Acklam, Teesside). If it was on a local level, if they said why it was poor or what, you know, was the particular factor that was causing it, that might help. . . . It might be a bit scary though. Would people want to know that every day? I don’t know. ’Cause it’s easy to ignore if you don’t hear about it isn’t it? (female, 20s, Acklam, Teesside). 6. Negotiation of scientific information Interview participants felt that only scientists had the technical abilities and knowledge to measure air quality scientifically—particularly intangible air pollution: I think it’s important that we do know exactly what’s in the air and we know exactly what sort of effects it would have on us. When scientists do these studies and they say “well this is normal air and this is your air,” and they say there’s five times above the legal limit of so and so, then that information should be made available. . . a lot of people, they may not see any sort of threat, but people that were working on asbestos didn’t see any threats. (male, 20s, South Bank, Teesside). We’re out in the country. . . about 12–13 miles away from heavy industry, and it is fairly clean. But I can’t test the air for any additives. . . and I think it would be a bit of a shock to a lot of people if experts did come in and test a little bit to find out exactly what was floating around. Because you can breathe normally and take oxygen in and you feel OK, you think it’s clean and fresh. But you don’t know these things unless somebody can put it on paper. Black and white. There is this in the atmosphere. There is that in the atmosphere. (female, 50s, Hemlington, Teesside) Scientific information on air quality was not simply accepted and absorbed by the research participants, however, but the credibility and trustworthiness of this information was critically evaluated and judged. Whilst there was a belief in the need for science to quantify and measure air quality, there was also a widespread awareness of the issues that affect such scientific information before it reaches the public. We found that validity, reliability, and trustworthiness of air quality information are scrutinized by members of the public at three main levels: (1) the air quality monitoring processes themselves, (2) the authorities that collect and provide air quality information, and (3) the parameters that are used to present this information to the public.


222

J. Bush et al

Air quality monitoring Concerns were expressed about the siting of air quality monitors and the representativeness of the monitored data, both spatially and temporally: I would like to see a bit more monitoring done as well. If they did a bit of monitoring on the roof of Sunderland University it doesn’t give a true indication of what is happening citywide. It just tells you what is happening in one particular street or in one part of a particular street. What you need are thousands of monitoring stations throughout to get an overall picture of what’s happening, and you should collate that material and work out some sort of mean from that. (male, 40s, Hylton Castle Sunderland) . . . it will only be a snapshot. And therefore it is what it was at say 12 o’clock last Tuesday. (male, 50s, Acklam, Teesside. The indeterminacies and uncertainties associated with air quality monitoring were also highlighted: If they say air quality is good then you think, is it good because of the steps that have been taken to improve the air quality or is it just good because it’s windy and it’s blowing it all away? But if it wasn’t windy, it would be there. (male, 40s, Hemlington, Teesside) In Teesside, concerns focused particularly on whether or not the monitors providing this information were situated close to industry: I don’t know whether monitoring takes place around here. . . . I don’t where they take these things from. . . . It might be interesting for the public to know where these monitoring stations are. Because if you look at it suspiciously, I or other people could be saying “oh yeah, but they’ve got it in the wrong place. They’ve got it there and there’s no industry there.” (male, 60s, Hemlington, Teesside) Authorities that collect and provide air quality information Feelings of mistrust of the authorities that provide air quality information were expressed predominantly by Teesside respondents during the interviews: I think they only tell you what you really want to hear. . . it’s like a doctor in the hospital. Unless you really wanted to know, like ‘Tell me the bad news’ or they just like gloss over it and tell you that it’s not really that bad. (female, 30s, South Bank, Teesside) Suggestions of bias were implicated in the local authority’s responsibility to portray Teesside in a positive (“clean”) light: . . . you get some people that are biased saying. . . like the local council might not be painting a bad enough picture or even a worse picture than you see. Some might be thinking they’re painting a worse picture to try and get more money from central government or vice versa, or they’re not painting enough to try and say well “their town is better than what it is,” and I personally don’t know what the answer is and. . . . I’d rather see it come from an independent source myself. (male, 60s, Hemlington, Teesside) South Bank residents appeared to be least trusting of official air quality information provided by the local authority. Some participants living in South Bank expressed an outright rejection of air quality information, as it conflicted with personal experience:



223

I don’t get it (the local newspaper) all the time but when I do there’s one of these little side columns like “Air Quality Today.” I think that’s a load of tripe. . . . I just see it, and shrug me shoulders and think, well they’ve put that but how can it be? Perhaps they haven’t had a leak that day or they haven’t had the red smoke coming out of the plant or whatever. So maybe like for them that’s good. (female, 40s, South Bank, Teesside) Everyday experiences of air pollution tended to be used as a basis upon which to judge the accuracy, validity, and reliability of air quality information. Frequent personal experiences of dust and smells were common, as described below.46 The smell is like rotten eggs, and the clouds of black ash litter your dressing table and your window sills. (female, 60s, South Bank, Teesside) Dust leaves windows and sills black. Clean washing becomes dirty while drying overnight. (female, 40s, South Bank, Teesside) Judging official information on the basis of personal experience was also illustrated in reactions to the responses that interview participants had received to complaints they had made to industry or the local council about air pollution. We found that few people living close to industry actually complain to the council or industries about the air pollution they have experienced, primarily due to feelings of powerlessness, resignation, and economic dependence on the polluting industries.47 However, two participants in South Bank had made formal complaints. Knowledge of local conditions was used as a basis for the critical evaluation and interpretation of official responses to their complaints: Whenever I’ve phoned up the council to complain I’ve spoken to the same person. I’ve also spoken to the local MP. But both just tell me not to worry because South Bank has a west prevailing wind which blows all the pollution away. That’s what they tell you, you see. . . the wind blows it all away somewhere else. The thing is South Bank doesn’t always have a west wind and when we don’t all the pollution lingers. And the council always turns round and says “oh we’ve got the best air quality in the north of England!. How can then say that?” (female, 60s, South Bank, Teesside) Knowledge of local health problems was also used as a basis upon which to assess the quality of local air. It was felt that the perceived high incidence of “chest complaints” in South Bank—predominantly asthma in children—was due mainly to emissions from industry.48 90 percent of children in South Bank have asthma. My son was in hospital at 2 months old when I was told he had asthma. He will have it almost all of his childhood like many other of the children around here. (female, 30s, South Bank, Teesside) Presentation of information Concerns surrounding the presentation of air quality information were articulated in three main ways. First, participants who had come across regional air quality information (at the level provided by the DETR) felt that it wasn’t local enough: . . . the problem is it (air quality information) does cover very wide areas, so they don’t say that the air quality in Sunderland is such and such, they only say the air quality in the northeast is such and such. . . . The northeast covers a very wide area. . . the air quality’s bound to vary. (male, 40s, Hylton Castle, Sunderland) Second, the banding system used to describe air quality information was felt to be relatively meaningless:


224

J. Bush et al

I don’t think they’re very useful at all. At the end of the day, what is “very bad,” what is “very good?” You need to sort of know, because you’ve got nothing to compare it to have you? You’ve got nothing to judge it on. (female, 50s, Hemlington, Teesside) There were also concerns that such a “simple” banding system could be hiding true air quality levels: When it says “good” people think that it’s good right across the range of all the sort of pollutants that could be there, rather than it might be very good for certain ones but it might be bad for others. But they put them all in a group and say well, generally it’s good. (male, 40s, Hemlington, Teesside) It doesn’t really mean much does it when you think about it. . . “Low air quality,” “poor air quality”. . . doesn’t really mean very much does it? So I suppose. . . they’re not giving out that much information are they? (female, 20s, Acklam, Teesside) However, views on how to make the information more meaningful were mixed and sometimes conflicting. Some felt that quantification may help: I might say “oh my son’s gone to school today and he’s got 18 out of 20. Yes, he’s done very good.” And then you would understand that, because it’s given in a percentage, but when you say air quality is “very good” that could mean anything. (female 30s, Hemlington, Teesside) If a car had a “good” top speed I would ask what is it? If they say 85 I would say well I don’t think that’s good, but if they said 150, I would say oh that’s not bad. You need to know what the parameters are. (male, 50s, Acklam, Teesside) Others felt that many members of the public would not be able to understand statistical representations of the information: I suppose it’s pointless putting out loads of figures for the vast majority of people because they don’t have the technological knowledge of how to interpret the figures so it wouldn’t really be very meaningful to them. (male, 40s, Hylton Castle, Sunderland) I suppose, if they did split it up, sort of show you in more detail. . . it probably wouldn’t mean much to a lot of people. You’d be baffling them with science. (male, 40s, Hemlington, Teesside) The most commonly suggested way of making air quality information more meaningful was for it always to be accompanied by advice on health effects: It says air quality was very good but. . . if I looked at that and it said air quality “very bad” I don’t know how that’s going to adversely affect me more than a “very good” day. I don’t know if it’s going to suddenly make me start wheezing or coughing or anything. If it says “poor” one day does that knock an extra 10 days off your life that day? You just don’t know. Em. . . I think people need things quantifying, you know. If it remains at this level. . . then this will happen, whatever that might be. But “poor” is too general, it doesn’t say anything. (male, 30s, Acklam, Teesside) This again demonstrates a lack of awareness that the bandings used in the Air Pollution Information Service are directly related to anticipated health effects. 7. Discussion We discuss the implications of our findings, first, for debates on the public understanding of scientific information, and second, for policies on the provision of air quality information.



225

Public understanding of scientific information Our research findings suggest that the public doesn’t “assimilate” air quality information in a passive way, in a social vacuum, but actively negotiates and critically evaluates, judges, and interprets this information in a reflexive way, on the basis of a range of social, cultural and local resources and congnitive processes.49 Participants in all communities judged air quality information in relation to knowledge they had about the uncertainties and indeterminacies inherent within scientific information. Whilst most participants felt that only scientists had access to, and knowledge of, the technologies needed to measure and quantify air pollution, they were also aware of the many uncertainties and potential for bias that surround air quality monitoring and the provision of air quality information. It may be argued that the interview participants reflected on the “epistemological status” of air quality information.50 Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of experiential and local knowledge in the understanding of air quality and health issues in Teesside. Knowledge and experiences of air pollution and local health problems were used in Teesside, particularly in South Bank, as resources upon which to judge the trustworthiness of air quality information. This knowledge—gounded in the context of everyday life and experience—is actively used by members of the public to appraise critically and scrutinize the accuracy of air quality information and monitoring: that geographical embeddedness forms a claim to local knowledge and expertise with which the public may challenge the preeminence of scientific “expertise.”51 Indeed, it may be argued that in communities like South Bank, local knowledge—grounded in day to day experience over a long time period—may well represent a more robust body of information than technical information, particularly when air quality monitors are located several kilometers away from industry.52 The study identified quite marked differences in responses to air quality information between Teesside and Sunderland, and also between and within the study communities. Those who lived in Teesside—particularly those who lived in the community closest to industry— felt most strongly about the need for air quality information, although the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information currently provided by the local authority was contested. The provision of additional local air quality information in Teesside (in the form of a forecast specifically for Middlesbrough) did not appear to improve the way in which air quality information was received. Indeed, those living in Teesside were most likely to mistrust official information on air quality because of personal experiences of air pollution and because of a feeling that the local authority had a responsibility to portray the region in a positive light in order to attract businesses and investment to the area. Air quality information and policy The reflective, active way in which the people who took part in this study negotiated air quality information is at odds with the current national air pollution information service based on the “top down” deficit model. Our work suggests that the public is not willing simply to absorb “facts” on air quality that are given to them by local or central government. Our findings question the value of the public deficit approach to disseminating air quality information at three levels. First, our study highlighted public awareness of the uncertainties inherent within scientific information, which suggests that ignoring such uncertainty in the delivery of air quality information is a dangerous oversimplification. Second, participants did not appear to find the information provided by this service (i.e., in the format thought appropriate by scientists and government officials) to be useful; there was little awareness that the information provided to the public actually relates to health effects, and there was little evidence of this information influencing behavior. Similar themes surrounding


226

J. Bush et al

mistrust of air quality information, and questions surrounding ambiguity, validity, and spatial scale have been identified by other empirical studies.53 Concerns with the relatively abstract and ambiguous nature of the air pollution banding system, with the public being unclear about how it relates to real life and to health have also been highlighted.54 Collectively, this research suggests that statutory authorities have failed to publish in any meaningful way the science behind the “limits” set, and there is widespread confusion surrounding what the parameters actually mean. Third, as Irwin argues, whilst a “top down” approach to the dissemination of scientific information has the advantage of “keeping the message simple,” it involves major difficulties relating to the “understandings of local people whose practical experience encourages scepticism towards this kind of official advice,” and there is no attempt to incorporate public knowledge and understanding.55 Our findings on the public negotiation of scientific information suggest that “top down” approaches to dissemination must be reconsidered in favor of a model of environmental communication which “emphasises not the deficit of public understanding, but the active interpretation, judgement and evaluation of official information sources.”56 So how can such an approach be operationalized? Suggestions from authors in this field have been conflicting, as have the opinions of the research participants themselves: air quality information needs are personal and vary dramatically according to where a person lives and whether that person or a member of the family suffers from an illness affected by air pollution. It is apparent that the Air Pollution Information service would benefit from consulting the public about its needs and expectations at both the national and local level, utilizing the methods (citizens panels, groups, juries, etc.) suggested in Setting Environmental Standards and other literature.57 Basing the Air Pollution Information Service on expert opinion alone, “slight(s) the local and anecdotal knowledge of the people most familiar with the problem and risks producing outcomes that are incompetent, irrelevant, or simply unworkable.”58 Public participation makes for better scientific knowledge because it can lead to new understandings of an environmental problem, can enhance quality assurance, and can access local knowledge.59 As experiences of air pollution vary dramatically at the local level, it is particularly important to acknowledge and respond to local knowledge—as demonstrated by the Sheffield case study—and not to dismiss public concerns out of hand.60 Alternative strategies for providing and monitoring air quality information that involve the public in some way could be tested via local pilot projects, which would respond, reflexively, to local needs. Public consultation and participation is also necessary in order to be able to make air quality bands more meaningful with respect to how they relate to health, the insecurities contained within them, and the corresponding actions that should be taken. Who the information is to be targeted at (e.g., the public in general or only those who suffer from an illness affected by air quality) and the potentially differing needs of such groups also need to be more fully considered. We argue that simply making air quality information available to the public is not empowering in itself, nor does such information-giving (in the way in which it is carried out at present) help to nurture a sense of public trust in the government. Policy makers must seek to better understand the processes by which the public actively responds to and evaluates, rather than passively assimilates, such information, if the air quality information system is to become a useful service, responsive to the needs of the public. We recognize that this is a complex task; as our own work has highlighted, there are many differing, conflicting views on the most effective way of presenting this information. To this end, we encourage more reflexively based piloting projects with various community groups, including adult asthma sufferers, parents of children with asthma, the elderly, and those who suffer from other illnesses affected by air pollution, to identify the most relevant ways of presenting and disseminating air quality information to a range of potential users.



227

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all research participants, Susanne Young for secretarial support, and Ann Rooke for producing the maps. We also gratefully acknowledge the insightful and helpful comments from three anonymous referees on an earlier draft of this paper. The study was funded as part of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions/Department of Health Air Quality and Health Initiative. References 1 K. Bickerstaff and G. Walker, “Clearing the smog? Public responses to air-quality information,” Local Environment 4, no. 3 (1999): 279–294. 2 Friends of the Earth web site at http://www.foe.co.uk/rtk/rtk.html. 3 UK Home Office web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/foi/dfoisumm.htm. 4 Department of the Environment, This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environment Strategy (London: HMSO, 1990). 5 R. Beamont, R. S. Hamilton, N. Machin, J. Perks, and I. D. Williams, “Social awareness of air quality information,” The Science of the Total Environment 234 (1999): 319–329. 6 Bickerstaff and Walker, “Clearing the smog”; Beamont et al., “Social awareness.” 7 Bickerstaff and Walker, “Clearing the smog.” 8 P. Bailey, S. Yearley, and J. F. Forrester, “Involving the public in local air pollution assessment: a citizen participation case study,” International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11, no 3 (1999): 290–303. 9 P. Macnaghten and J. Urry, Contested Natures (London: Sage, 1998). 10 A. Irwin and B. Wynne, “Introduction,” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, ed. Alan Irwin and Bryan Wynne (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), 1–17. 11 Irwin and Wynne, “Introduction”; A. Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development (London: Routledge, 1995). 12 S. Eden, “Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environment,” Progress in Human Geography 22, no. 3 (1998): 425–432. 13 Irwin, Citizen Science. 14 H. Lambert and H. Rose, “Disembodied knowledge? making sense of medical science,” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 65–83. 15 M. Michael, “Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science,” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 107–125. 16 Lambert and Rose, “Disembodied knowledge”; Irwin, Citizen Science. 17 Irwin, Citizen Science; Irwin and Wynne, “Introduction”; B. Wynne, “May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide,” in Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology, ed. S. Lash, B. Szersynski, and B. Wynne (London: Sage, 1996), 44–83; A. Irwin, A. Dale, and D. Smith, “Science and Hell’s kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues,” in Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, ed. A. Irwin and B. Wynne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 47–64. 18 Irwin, Citizen Science; Irwin and Wynne, “Introduction”; Irwin et al., “Science and Hell’s kitchen”; S. Yearley, “Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study,” Public Understanding of Science 9 (2000): 105–122; C. Harrison and J. Burgess, “Social constructions of nature: a case study of conflicts over the development of Rainham Marshes,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 19 (1994): 291–310; S. Moffatt, J. Bush, C. E. Dunn, D. Howel, and H. Prince, Public Awareness of Air Quality and Respiratory Health and the Impact of Health Advice, Report. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1999; S. Moffatt and P. Phillimore, “If this is what it’s doing to our washing, what is it doing to our lungs?” Social Science and Medicine 41, no 6 (1995): 883–891. 19 Wynne, “May the sheep safely graze.” 20 M. Michael, “Between citizen and consumer: multiplying the meanings of the ‘public understanding of science,’ ” Public Understanding of Science 7 (1998): 313–327. 21 Department of the Environment, The United Kingdom National Air Quality Strategy (London: HMSO, 1997). 22 Air Quality Management “Meacher brings AQ bandings into line with NAQS limits”, December 1997, p1. 23 Department of the Environment, The United Kingdom National Air Quality Strategy (London: HMSO, 1997). 24 AEAT web site at http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/forecast/forehow.html).


228

J. Bush et al

25 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Air Pollution—What it Means for Your Health (London: DETR, 1998). 26 DETR Press release 19/11/1997, on the Internet at: http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GTE/coi4765d.ok; Department of the Environment, Air Pollution in the UK: 1995 (Oxford: AEA Technology, 1997). 27 B. Wynne and S. Mayer, “How science fails the environment,” New Scientist June (1993): 33–35. 28 J. R. Stedamn, E. Lineham, S. Espenhahn, B. Conlan, T. Bush, and T. Davies, Predicting PM10 Concentrates in the UK. Report prepared for the DETR, December 1998, on the Internet at http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/ reports/pm10/phead.html; J. R. Stedman, S. Espenhahn, P. G. Willis, Air Pollution Forecasting in the UK: 1997, Report prepared for the DETR, June 1998, on the Internet at http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/reports/ forecast/forhead.html. 29 COMEAP web site at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hef/airpol/airpol9.htm. 30 Irwin, Citizen Science. 31 Beamont et al., “Social awareness.” 32 Department of the Environment, Survey on the Public Responses to the Air Pollution Advice Programme (London: HMSO, 1995). 33 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Setting Environmental Standards (London: The Stationery Office, 1998). 34 Bailey et al., “Involving the public in local air pollution assessment”; J. Petts, “The public-expert interface in local waste management decisions: expertise, credibility and process,” Public Understanding of Science 6 (1997): 359–381; F. Forrester, “The logistics of public participation in environmental assessment,” International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11, no 3 (1999): 316–330. 35 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Setting Environmental Standards; O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995). 36 Forrester, “The logistics of public participation.” 37 Bailey et al., “Involving the public in local air pollution assessment.” 38 D. C. Cole, L. D. Pengelly, J. Eyles, D. M. Stieb, and R. Hustler, “Consulting the community for environmental health indicator development: the case of air quality,” Health Promotion International 14, no 2 (1999): 145–154. 39 Moffatt et al., Public Awareness of Air Quality. 40 H. F. Gavin, “A survey investigation of perceptions of environmental issues in Middlesbrough,” Clean Air 26, no. 1 (1996): 10–15; R. Bhopal, S. Moffatt, P. Phillimore, P. T. Pless-Mulloli, C. Foy, C. Dunn, and J. Tate, “Does living close to a constellation of industries impair health? a study of health, illness and the environment in North East England,” Occupational and Environmental Medicine 55 (1998): 812–822. 41 Moffatt et al., Public Awareness of Air Quality. 42 B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Chicago: Aldine, 1967); A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990). 43 Glaser and Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory. 44 Yearley, “Making systematic sense of public discontents.” 45 J. Bush, S. Moffatt, and C. E. Dunn, “ ‘Even the birds round here cough’: stigma, health and place in Teesside,” Health and Place 7, no 1 (2001): 47–56. 46 Bush et al., “Even the birds round here cough.” 47 Moffatt et al., Public Awareness of Air Quality. 48 Bush et al., “Even the birds round here cough”; Moffatt et al., Public Awareness of Air Quality. 49 Lambert and Rose, “Disembodied knowledge.” 50 Michael, “Ignoring science.” 51 Wynne, “May the sheep safely graze.” 52 Irwin, Citizen Science. 53 Bickerstaff and Walker, “Clearing the smog”; Beamont et al., “Social awareness of air quality information”; Bailey et al., “Involving the public in local air pollution assessment.” 54 Bickerstaff and Walker, “Clearing the smog”; Beamont et al., “Social awareness of air quality information.” 55 Irwin, Citizen Science, p. 92. 56 Bickerstaff and Walker, “Clearing the smog,” p. 291–292. 57 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Setting Environmental Standards; Bailey et al., “Involving the public”; Petts, “The public-expert interface”; Forrester, “The logistics of public participation.” 58 Renn et al., Fairness and Competence. 59 Petts, “The public-expert interface”; Forrester, “The logistics of public participation”; O’Renn, Fairness and Competence. 60 Bailey et al., “Involving the public.”



229

Authors Judith Bush is a Research Associate in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle. She has research interests in theoretical and empirical aspects of environmental risk and has experience researching public negotiation and contextualization of environment and health issues. Contact: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK. Tel: (0191) 222 7081. Fax: (0191) 222 6746. E-mail: [email protected]. Suzanne Moffatt is a Lecturer in Social Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle. She has worked on environmental health research for 10 years and has particular research interests in risk and culture and media coverage of environmental risk issues. Contact: Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,The Medical School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK. Tel: (0191) 222 5005. Fax: (0191) 222 6746. E-mail: [email protected]. Christine E. Dunn, is a Lecturer in Geography at the University of Durham, UK. She has been involved in research on the geography of health for more than ten years and has particular skills in the application of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to the study of health and the environment. She is currently researching public perceptions of the risks to health from air pollution. Contact: Department of Geography, University of Durham, Science Laboratories, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK. Tel: (0191) 374 2491. Fax: (0191) 374 2456. E-mail: [email protected].


Public Understanding of Science - CiteSeerX

Public Understanding of Science - CiteSeerX

Suggest Documents