Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk

Q2 Social Sciences
Maria Loroño-Leturiondo, P. O'hare, S. Cook, S. Hoon, S. Illingworth
{"title":"Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk","authors":"Maria Loroño-Leturiondo, P. O'hare, S. Cook, S. Hoon, S. Illingworth","doi":"10.5194/GC-2-39-2019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Urban centres worldwide are adversely affected by flooding and air pollution.\nBetter-prepared citizens are crucial to limiting the impacts of these\nhazards, and both lay knowledge and personal experiences are important in\ncomplementing and challenging expert opinion. For the first time, this study\noffers a critical comparison of how different two-way communication formats\nhave been used worldwide between experts and the public in relation to\nflooding and air pollution risk. Through a systematic review, we analyse\nsocial media, educational programmes, serious games, citizen science, and\nforums in terms of their effectiveness in respect of dealing with incidents,\nraising awareness, and promoting knowledge exchange in the context of\nflooding and air pollution risk. We find that there is neither a\none-size-fits-all nor superior format of communication. No single format is\neffective in fulfilling all three communication purposes. All five formats\nanalysed appear to be successful under different circumstances and are never\nsuitable for all segments of the population. Communication between experts and\nthe public is difficult and full of tensions; information alone is not\nenough. Our study shows different ways of incorporating strategies to build\ntrust between experts and the public and make communication more fun and\naccessible, breaking down hierarchies and creating safe spaces for\nco-creation where everyone feels empowered to participate and everyone benefits.\n","PeriodicalId":52877,"journal":{"name":"Geoscience Communication","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscience Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/GC-2-39-2019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract. Urban centres worldwide are adversely affected by flooding and air pollution. Better-prepared citizens are crucial to limiting the impacts of these hazards, and both lay knowledge and personal experiences are important in complementing and challenging expert opinion. For the first time, this study offers a critical comparison of how different two-way communication formats have been used worldwide between experts and the public in relation to flooding and air pollution risk. Through a systematic review, we analyse social media, educational programmes, serious games, citizen science, and forums in terms of their effectiveness in respect of dealing with incidents, raising awareness, and promoting knowledge exchange in the context of flooding and air pollution risk. We find that there is neither a one-size-fits-all nor superior format of communication. No single format is effective in fulfilling all three communication purposes. All five formats analysed appear to be successful under different circumstances and are never suitable for all segments of the population. Communication between experts and the public is difficult and full of tensions; information alone is not enough. Our study shows different ways of incorporating strategies to build trust between experts and the public and make communication more fun and accessible, breaking down hierarchies and creating safe spaces for co-creation where everyone feels empowered to participate and everyone benefits.
搭建专家与公众之间的桥梁:洪水和空气污染风险双向沟通形式的比较
摘要世界各地的城市中心都受到洪水和空气污染的不利影响。做好充分准备的公民对于限制这些危害的影响至关重要,外行知识和个人经验都很重要,无法补充和挑战专家意见。这项研究首次对专家和公众在洪水和空气污染风险方面使用的不同双向通信格式进行了批判性比较。透过系统检讨,我们分析了社会媒体、教育节目、严肃游戏、公民科学和论坛在处理洪水和空气污染风险的事件、提高认识和促进知识交流方面的成效。我们发现,既不存在放之四海而皆准的沟通方式,也不存在更好的沟通方式。没有一种格式能有效地满足这三个沟通目的。所分析的所有五种形式在不同的情况下似乎都是成功的,但并不适合所有人群。专家与公众之间的沟通困难且充满紧张;只有信息是不够的。我们的研究展示了不同的整合策略,以建立专家和公众之间的信任,使沟通更有趣,更容易,打破等级制度,为共同创造创造安全的空间,让每个人都感到有权参与,每个人都受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geoscience Communication
Geoscience Communication Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信