Strengthening public engagement on environmental hazards: insights from cross-disciplinary air pollution research

References

• Abelsohn, A., & Stieb, D. M. (2011). Health effects of outdoor air pollution: Approach to counseling patients using the air quality health index. Canadian Family Physician, 57(8), 881–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armitage, S. (2011). Air toxics pollutant summaries (Portland air toxics solutions). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/05-AQ-003_AirToxics.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Azevedo, R., & Rodriguez, E. (2012, May 20). Phytotoxicity of mercury in plants: A review [review article]. Journal of Botany. Hindawi. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/848614
   Google Scholar
• Baird, B. N. R. (1986). Tolerance for environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, voluntariness, and environmental attitudes. Risk Analysis, 6(4), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00955.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer-Oglesby, L., Schindler, C., Hazenkamp-von Arx, M. E., Braun-Fahrländer, C., Keidel, D., Rapp, R., Künzli, N., Braendli, O., Burdet, L., Sally Liu, L.-J., Leuenberger, P., & Ackermann-Liebrich, U. (2006). Living near main streets and respiratory symptoms in adults: The Swiss cohort study on air pollution and lung diseases in adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 164(12), 1190–1198. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (M. Ritter, Ed., Vol. 2). Sage. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579937
   Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2009). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Lahlor, & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science (pp. 11–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867631-9
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, N., Perez-Padilla, R., & Albalak, R. (2000). Indoor air pollution in developing countries: A major environmental and public health challenge. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(9), 1078–1092. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0042-96862000000900004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57–76). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cairns, G., de Andrade, M., & MacDonald, L. (2013). Reputation, relationships, risk communication, and the role of trust in the prevention and control of communicable disease: A review. Journal of Health Communication, 18(12), 1550–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.840696
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, F., & Deslandes, A. (2011). Museums and science centres as sites for deliberative democracy on climate change. Museum and Society, 9(2), 136–153.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, M. J. (1997). Risk society and ecological modernisation alternative visions for post-industrial nations. Futures, 29(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00071-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comess, S., Desiel, N., Donovan, G., & Gatziolis, D. (2019). Exposure to atmospheric metals using moss bio-indicators and neonatal health outcomes in Portland, Oregon. Environmental Epidemiology, 3, 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.EE9.0000606544.15912.62
   Google Scholar
• Cordano, M., Welcomer, S. A., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the new ecological paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960309603490
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R. E., & Liere, K. D. V. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Martig, A., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edgell, M. C. R., & Nowell, D. E. (1989). The New Environmental Paradigm scale: Wildlife and environmental beliefs in British Columbia. Society & Natural Resources, 2(1), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941928909380692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. (2010). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/713670162
   Google Scholar
• Gatziolis, D., Jovan, S., Donovan, G., Amacher, M., & Monleon, V. (2016). Elemental atmospheric pollution assessment via moss-based measurements in Portland, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-938. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p., 938. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/51076
   Google Scholar
• Gill, G. A., & Fitzgerald, W. F. (1987). Mercury in surface waters of the open ocean. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1029/GB001i003p00199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, K., Barclay, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2008). The issue of trust and its influence on risk communication during a volcanic crisis. Bulletin of Volcanology, 70(5), 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-007-0156-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In B. Blöbaum (Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 143–159). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
   Google Scholar
• Hofflinger, Á, Boso, À, & Oltra, C. (2019). The home halo effect: How air quality perception is influenced by place attachment. Human Ecology, 47(4), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00100-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovick, S. R., Bigsby, E., Wilson, S. R., & Thomas, S. (2020). Information seeking behaviors and intentions in response to environmental health risk messages: A test of A reduced risk information seeking model. Health Communication, 0(0), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1804139
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huber, J. (2000). Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(4), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/714038561
   Google Scholar
• Jasemzadeh, M., Jaafarzadeh, N., Khafaie, M. A., Malehi, A. S., & Araban, M. (2016). Predicator of pregnant women’s self-care behavior against air pollution: An explanation based on the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Electronic Physician, 8(9), 2871–2877. https://doi.org/10.19082/2871
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeffreys, E., & Xu, J. (2018). Governing China’s coal challenge: Changing public policy, debate and advocacy. Environmental Communication, 12(5), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1452775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerrett, M. (2015). The death toll from air-pollution sources. Nature, 525(7569), 330–331. https://doi.org/10.1038/525330a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., Brace, P., & Arceneaux, K. (2005). Public opinion and dynamic representation in the American states: The case of environmental attitudes*. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00292.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko, H. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? How do the shifting information flows in healthcare affect the deficit model of science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629746
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, A., & Bucy, E. P. (2018). Interpreting images of fracking: How visual frames and standing attitudes shape perceptions of environmental risk and economic benefit. Environmental Communication, 12(3), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1412996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazri, A. M., & Konisky, D. M. (2019). Environmental attitudes across race and ethnicity. Social Science Quarterly, 100(4), 1039–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, D. S., & Strube, M. J. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, Intentions and behaviors Among college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(3), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2011.604363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling, P. M., & Glantz, S. A. (2019). Tobacco company strategies to identify and promote the benefits of nicotine. Tobacco Control, 28(3), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lofstedt, R. E. (2006). How can we make food risk communication better: Where are we and where are we going? Journal of Risk Research, 9(8), 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870601065585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren, L., Stofer, K., Dunckel, B., Krieger, J., Lange, M., & James, V. (2019). Panel-based exhibit using participatory design elements may motivate behavior change. Journal of Science Communication, 18(2), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18020203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo, Y., & Deng, J. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm and nature-based tourism motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507308331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCallum, D. B., Hammond, S. L., & Covello, V. T. (1991). Communicating about environmental risks: How the public uses and perceives information sources. Health Education Quarterly, 18(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819101800307
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Merkley, E., & Stecula, D. A. (2018). Party elites or manufactured doubt? The informational context of climate change polarization. Science Communication, 40(2), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018760334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S. (2010). Deficit model. In S. H. Priest (Ed.) Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 208–210). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mizumachi, E., Matsuda, K., Kano, K., Kawakami, M., & Kato, K. (2011). Scientists’ attitudes toward a dialogue with the public: A study using “science cafes”. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.10040202
   Google Scholar
• Morello-Frosch, R. A., Woodruff, T. J., Axelrad, D. A., & Caldwell, J. C. (2000). Air toxics and health risks in California: The public health implications of outdoor concentrations. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.202026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Museum of Science Boston. (2020). Editing our evolution: Human genome editing. https://www.mos.org/pes-forum-archive/editing-our-evolution
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23674/communicating-science-effectively-a-research-agenda
   Google Scholar
• Nelms, C., Allen, M. W., Craig, C. A., & Riggs, S. (2017). Who is the adolescent environmentalist? Environmental attitudes, identity, media usage and communication orientation. Environmental Communication, 11(4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oregon Musum of Science and Industry. (2020). Events: Meet a scientist. OMSI. https://omsi.edu/events
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. A&C Black.
   Google Scholar
• Park, E., Lee, S., Lee, C.-K., Kim, J. S., & Kim, N.-J. (2018). An integrated model of travelers’ pro-environmental decision-making process: The role of the New Environmental Paradigm. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(10), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1513051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paton, D. (2008). Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: How trust influences its effectiveness. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 8(1–2), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2008.017256
   Google Scholar
• Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prior, J., Partridge, E., & Plant, R. (2014). ‘We get the most information from the sources we trust least’: Residents’ perceptions of risk communication on industrial contamination. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2014.954011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberto, A. J., Goodall, C. E., & Witte, K. (2008). Raising the alarm and calming fears: Perceived threat and efficacy during risk and crisis. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 287–303). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Roper, J., Ganesh, S., & Zorn, T. E. (2016). Doubt, delay, and discourse: Skeptics’ strategies to politicize climate change. Science Communication, 38(6), 776–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016677043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäfer, M. S. (2016). Mediated trust in science: Concept, measurement and perspectives for the `science of science communication’. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), C02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, S., & Rogers, S. (2016). Surf science in the Gulf of Maine: Understanding perceptions of risk related to water quality and decision making in the surfing community (New England Sustainability Consortium’s Safe Beaches and Shellfish Research Project). https://www.newenglandsustainabilityconsortium.org/sites/newenglandsustainabilityconsortium.org/files/media/technical_report_scott_rogers_2016_surf_science.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Severtson, D. J. (2015). Testing map features designed to convey the uncertainty of cancer risk: Insights gained from Assessing judgments of information adequacy and communication goals. Science Communication, 37(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014565908
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steg, L., Bolderdijk, J. W., Keizer, K., & Perlaviciute, G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit always return? Exploring key influences. Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suldovsky, B., McGreavy, B., & Lindenfeld, L. (2017). Science communication and stakeholder expertise: Insights from sustainability science. Environmental Communication, 11(5), 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1308408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2017). Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environmental Research Letters, 12(8), 084019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaker, J. (2019). Corporate communication about climate science: A comparative analysis of top corporations in New Zealand, Australia, and Global fortune 500. Journal of Communication Management, 24(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2019-0092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, December 3). Health and environmental effects of hazardous air pollutants [Reports and assessments]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants
   Google Scholar
• van der Hel, S. (2016). New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in future earth. Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Meijman, F. J. (2008). Dialogue guides awareness and understanding of science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506067376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weingart, P., & Guenther, L. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(5), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte, K. (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107396127988
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu, J., Bravo, A. G., Lagerkvist, A., Bertilsson, S., Sjöblom, R., & Kumpiene, J. (2015). Sources and remediation techniques for mercury contaminated soil. Environment International, 74, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Q., & Wu, S. (2019). How social media exposure to health information influences Chinese people’s health protective behavior during Air pollution: A theory of planned behavior perspective. Health Communication, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1692486
   Google Scholar