Articles | Volume 15
https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-15-45-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-15-45-2018
27 Apr 2018
 | 27 Apr 2018

Give me five! – reasons for two-way communication between experts and citizens in relation to air pollution risk

Maria Loroño-Leturiondo, Paul O'Hare, Simon Cook, Stephen R. Hoon, and Sam Illingworth

Related authors

Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk
Maria Loroño-Leturiondo, Paul O'Hare, Simon J. Cook, Stephen R. Hoon, and Sam Illingworth
Geosci. Commun., 2, 39–53, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-39-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-39-2019, 2019
Short summary

Cited articles

Arnstein, S. R.: A Ladder of Citizen Participation, J. American Inst. Plan., 35, 216–224, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1321-5_10, 1969. 
Bickerstaff, K.: Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution, Environ. Int., 30, 827–840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001, 2004. 
Bickerstaff, K. and Walker, G.: Public understandings of air pollution: the `localisation' of environmental risk, Global Environ. Change, 11, 133–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00063-7, 2001. 
Bowater, L. and Yeoman, K.: Science Communication: A Practical Guide for Scientists, 1st Edn., Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, 2012. 
Bultitude, K.: The Why and How of Science Communication, edited by: Rosulek, P., Science Commun. Eur. Comm., Pilsen, 2011. 
Download
Short summary
Globally we are facing both an air quality crisis and a communication emergency. Communication efforts so far have been based on a one-way provision of information from experts to society, and have arguably failed in their mission to foster a more engaged society, or to result in cleaner air. This paper supports the case for moving away from one-way communication, and identifies five benefits of a practical two-way communication between experts and citizens in order to engender positive change.