air quality. Public consultation showed that the
pubic of Sheffield was not satisfied with the
model [129]. The public criticized the model on
several points, and councilors and researchers felt
that the community’s and citizen’s groups’ comments were much more detailed, reasoned, and
well supported than expected [129]. Comments
were acknowledged by those running the model
as insightful and well founded [129]. Issues added
to the agenda by the suggestion of the citizen’s
groups included an inquiry into the extent to
which the local council was affected by what the
model presented, and consideration of the “valuefor-money” associated with the modeling strategy
[129], as opposed to a pollution mitigation strategy.
The second case study was in Bristol,
UK. Community members were asked to use
markers to develop a color-coded map of Bristol
that would reflect typical air pollution in the city.
Not only was the resulting map a reasonable reflection of actual air pollution in Bristol, there was
valuable information to be found in a comparison
of Bristol’s air pollution model and the community’s
map in areas where the two disagreed [129]. Both
studies were valuable and acted as a kind of extended
peer review on the policy-related science [129].
Development of scientific material for public
consumption forces scientists to develop understandings of other fields, and does not remove
rigor from the work but does demand skill
[130]. Communication with the public is a sustainability issue in that emissions reductions
recommended by the results of monitoring are
easier to implement with an informed public
supporting policies they feel they helped create
[130]. Alternatively, an ill-informed public
can pressure governments to adopt policy for
the wrong reasons, potentially leading to
unsustainable environmental impacts. O’Neill
et al. [117] recommends that research not only
be communicated to the public, but that air
pollution research should be developed in collaboration with the affected communities.
Only rarely when scientists are asked about
interaction with the public do they imagine anything other than a public lecture [130]. This mistake is an extreme example of the idea that one
way communication is the only way to involve the
public. Sather et al. [131] shows that the public
can be directly involved in research activities. The
Sather et al. [131] study covered a large area
(~25,000 km
2
of the Dallas-Fort Worth
Metroplex) and help from volunteers, including
volunteer EPA personnel, 4-H club members,
Master Gardeners, and retired farmers, was
required. At each network site, volunteers were
able to correctly operate instruments and collect
data of quality. Such involvement is surely replicable in other settings, would increase the range
and cost-effectiveness of monitoring, and would
have positive impacts on a community’s will to
reduce air pollution. In addition to sharing of
information, public involvement can result in substantial, competent aid in air pollution monitoring.
Widespread, hands-on public involvement would
be one aspect of a more effective effort to communicate risks associated with air pollution to the
public, as called for in Craig et al. [14].
Institutional Changes: Conclusion In order to
accelerate the progress of the air pollution monitoring community toward sustainability, there are
changes the monitoring community must make.
Goals must be expanded beyond the conventional
goals of human health, visibility, and documentation of ecosystem damage. Work must cross the
boundaries of conventional intellectual disciplines to further develop the implications of monitoring data and the tools and metrics used in
monitoring. Public involvement will improve
research goals in many cases, bring public support
to air pollution mitigation and, in some cases, aid
the research process itself. Making changes in
these directions will help to promote sustainability
in air pollution monitoring.
Monitoring More Effectively
Changes that can be made to standard monitoring
practice discussed here are based on current trends
or suggested modifications to practices. They
include development of the understanding of
multipollutant impacts, monitoring for universal
consolidated sustainability metrics, improvements
to the use of satellite observations (partially through
new instrumentation), use of design methodologies
for monitoring networks, and removing some of the
Air Pollution Monitoring and Sustainability
413
pubic of Sheffield was not satisfied with the
model [129]. The public criticized the model on
several points, and councilors and researchers felt
that the community’s and citizen’s groups’ comments were much more detailed, reasoned, and
well supported than expected [129]. Comments
were acknowledged by those running the model
as insightful and well founded [129]. Issues added
to the agenda by the suggestion of the citizen’s
groups included an inquiry into the extent to
which the local council was affected by what the
model presented, and consideration of the “valuefor-money” associated with the modeling strategy
[129], as opposed to a pollution mitigation strategy.
The second case study was in Bristol,
UK. Community members were asked to use
markers to develop a color-coded map of Bristol
that would reflect typical air pollution in the city.
Not only was the resulting map a reasonable reflection of actual air pollution in Bristol, there was
valuable information to be found in a comparison
of Bristol’s air pollution model and the community’s
map in areas where the two disagreed [129]. Both
studies were valuable and acted as a kind of extended
peer review on the policy-related science [129].
Development of scientific material for public
consumption forces scientists to develop understandings of other fields, and does not remove
rigor from the work but does demand skill
[130]. Communication with the public is a sustainability issue in that emissions reductions
recommended by the results of monitoring are
easier to implement with an informed public
supporting policies they feel they helped create
[130]. Alternatively, an ill-informed public
can pressure governments to adopt policy for
the wrong reasons, potentially leading to
unsustainable environmental impacts. O’Neill
et al. [117] recommends that research not only
be communicated to the public, but that air
pollution research should be developed in collaboration with the affected communities.
Only rarely when scientists are asked about
interaction with the public do they imagine anything other than a public lecture [130]. This mistake is an extreme example of the idea that one
way communication is the only way to involve the
public. Sather et al. [131] shows that the public
can be directly involved in research activities. The
Sather et al. [131] study covered a large area
(~25,000 km
2
of the Dallas-Fort Worth
Metroplex) and help from volunteers, including
volunteer EPA personnel, 4-H club members,
Master Gardeners, and retired farmers, was
required. At each network site, volunteers were
able to correctly operate instruments and collect
data of quality. Such involvement is surely replicable in other settings, would increase the range
and cost-effectiveness of monitoring, and would
have positive impacts on a community’s will to
reduce air pollution. In addition to sharing of
information, public involvement can result in substantial, competent aid in air pollution monitoring.
Widespread, hands-on public involvement would
be one aspect of a more effective effort to communicate risks associated with air pollution to the
public, as called for in Craig et al. [14].
Institutional Changes: Conclusion In order to
accelerate the progress of the air pollution monitoring community toward sustainability, there are
changes the monitoring community must make.
Goals must be expanded beyond the conventional
goals of human health, visibility, and documentation of ecosystem damage. Work must cross the
boundaries of conventional intellectual disciplines to further develop the implications of monitoring data and the tools and metrics used in
monitoring. Public involvement will improve
research goals in many cases, bring public support
to air pollution mitigation and, in some cases, aid
the research process itself. Making changes in
these directions will help to promote sustainability
in air pollution monitoring.
Monitoring More Effectively
Changes that can be made to standard monitoring
practice discussed here are based on current trends
or suggested modifications to practices. They
include development of the understanding of
multipollutant impacts, monitoring for universal
consolidated sustainability metrics, improvements
to the use of satellite observations (partially through
new instrumentation), use of design methodologies
for monitoring networks, and removing some of the
Air Pollution Monitoring and Sustainability
413