A conceptual model of the role of complex science in local authority consultations about air quality management

Abstract

There exists a clear imperative across the EU and within the UK towards the enhanced integration of community knowledge in environmental and health decision-making processes. The underlying social force that underpins this dynamic is the drive for a more accountable, transparent and publicly acceptable decision-making arena. However, relatively little research has been undertaken on the evaluation of local air quality management consultation in particular. In this context, the paper presents an evaluation of evidence resulting from questionnaire survey and case study research undertaken in the first round of the statutory process of local air quality management (LAQM), in which local authorities are required to consult on their air quality findings and intentions. We suggest that local authority perceptions of the relative abilities of differing stakeholders' grasp of air quality science, the process that translates that science into policy, and the institutional and organizational status of stakeholders (i.e. whether they are statutory or non-statutory stakeholders) may tend to transitively determine the choice of consultation methods used, the communication strategies chosen and the relative integration of stakeholder feedback into the LAQM decision-making process. In order to interrogate this potentially problematic chain of risk communication events, a preliminary conceptual model has been developed to enable the interrogation of the pathways through, and the obstacles to, the translation of air quality knowledge. The task is to unveil the sequential chains of association that comprise the LAQM risk communication process.

Acknowledgements

This paper is partly based on research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-151-25-0044). The authors would also like to acknowledge the City of York Council and South Gloucestershire Council for use of observations taken during consultation events, and all of the local authorities involved in the case studies.

Notes

[1] Jasanoff (2003) notes that ‘wave one’ is characterized by reductive logical positivism, emphasizing the ‘public knowledge deficit’ model; ‘wave two’ responds by emphasizing the relativist project of social constructivism, and critically engages with concerns associated with expert knowledge; and ‘wave three’ seeks to re-enfranchise experts and hence expertise—this last move potentially delimiting the extent and nature of public engagement in decision-making processes.

[2] For example, European Union legislation on public participation in the revision of Local Air Quality Plans has recently been transposed into UK regulations. This enhancement of participatory or ‘deliberative’ democracy translates the 2003 EU Directive on Public Participation in Environmental Plans and Programmes into UK law. The Directive transposed the Public Participation Provisions of the pan-European Aarhus Convention into six existing EU Directives under which implementation plans must be prepared and reviewed. The Directive was enacted by member states in June 2005.

[3] In this context, the public knowledge ‘deficit model’ is based on the assumption that local communities (publics) may not possess sufficient scientific knowledge to enable them to constructively and critically engage with environmental health risk debates.

[4] As distinct from nationally based consultation exercises such as the GM (genetic modification) debate.

[5] A compelling rationale for the inclusion of deliberative processes at early or ‘upstream’ stages of risk assessment and scoping of management options (see Wilsdon & Willis, 2004) is that precise determination of local air quality health risk can be problematic for a number of reasons, including: the complexity of the processes under investigation; difficulties resulting from information uncertainty; spatial and temporal diffusion of health effects; the dynamic nature of human and environmental systems; and the diagnostic variability of cause–effect relationships. The corollary to this analysis is the questioning of the exclusive use of technologically esoteric, expert scientific risk assessment.

[6] In this context Sullivan et al. (2004) have formulated a discrete set of indicators of good practice local community participatory processes, including a well-informed and adequately resourced local community, and an explicit connection between participatory and decision-making processes. Such approaches draw in and value knowledge and contributions from a variety of different sources, rather than relying exclusively on knowledge from traditional ‘expert’ sources. In this way, local knowledge is incorporated and the process is made relevant to local stakeholders.

[7] However, other elements of McDonald et al.'s commentary resonate with Collins and Evans's (2002) normative version of the ‘third wave’ concerning the relative utility of participatory deliberative processes and remain less sanguine about the ability of communities to become constructively involved in LAQM processes. For example, whilst McDonald et al. recognize the advantages associated with deliberative processes, they also suggest that local communities may not always have the necessary scientific expertise to engage in constructive debate on complex air quality science. This has been shown to hold more generally for scientific information, where ‘hooks’ are provided that illustrate the relevance of data to ‘lay’ publics; different hooks may be required for different audiences (OST & Wellcome Trust, 2001).

[8] Note, this form of assurance should not be confused with quality assurance of the scientific process.

[9] Northern Ireland is working to a different time scale to Great Britain on Air Quality Management.

[10] In addition some case studies with special characteristics, such as close regional coordination, were chosen.

[11] A pilot study group of 13 distinct authorities was employed to assess the range of possible answers to the mainly ‘closed questions’ asked.

[12] Case studies included: Bristol City Council, London Borough of Camden; Carlisle City Council; Cheltenham Borough Council; Gateshead Council; Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Leicester City Council; Slough Borough Council; and the City Council of York.

[13] Local authority officers represented included: scientific officers; transport planners; air quality officers; land use planners; environmental health officers; highways engineers; sustainable cities managers; and senior representatives of those disciplines (e.g. heads of environmental policy, planning, and transport).

[14] Triangulation is not just about using as many different methods of data collection as possible, but about utilizing the individual strengths, weaknesses and biases of the various methods in such a way that they counterbalance each other (Walker, 1985).

[15] Local Transport Plan, the process by which transport planners bid for government funding for transport schemes and policies.

[16] The CLCG consists of some technical officers and some managers, the policy group consists of representatives from all the cluster groups as well as the Association for London Government and the Greater London Authority, and the technical group is made up of environmental health professionals.

[17] Part A processes are those industrial processes regulated by the Environment Agency under Integrated Pollution Control, as prescribed by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The authorization system of IPC is now being replaced by Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC).

[18] Although in some of these cases the main purpose of consultation would not have been to gauge public opinion on how large the AQMA should be. This was the case, for example, where the outcomes of the Stage 3 review and assessment were being disseminated to the public in order to alert them to some of the implications of the process, including a potential declaration.

[19] These specific responses broadly fitted the range of responses derived from the questionnaire survey. Thus, most replies were critical of community engagement with the LAQM process.

[20] See <http://www.southglos.gov.uk/acrobat/clearing_the_air.pdf> for details

[21] Here we enrol Law's (2000) example of Russian dolls. Law's metaphor mobilizes the example of Russian dolls as transitive objects in a logical, mathematical sense. In other words ‘a distribution that performs itself … a defined set of relations such as to be valid for any two members of a sequence if it is valid for every pair of successive members’ (p. 144).

[22] The model is being tested in an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded project to examine the current round of air quality management consultations. Methodologies include quantitative assessments of all local authorities through a large-scale questionnaire survey (to gain an understanding of current practice) and qualitative assessments of specific processes (in order to gain an understanding of what works in what situation). The research will conclude with guidance for local authorities on how to improve the effectiveness of their consultation processes. It is hoped that this will be of use not only with respect to air quality but also in wider environmental management decision-making processes.

[23] In other words, our intention is to assess more fully whether results produced through dialogue provide for better outcomes (i.e. better air quality); and whether upstream inclusion of community non-expert knowledge at a broader agenda-setting stage could enhance the LAQM process in a holistic way.