View Abstract

A1926 - Exploring Environmental Literacy in Community: Preferences for Data Display and Messaging of Air Quality Data
Author Block: L. C. Cicutto1, M. McCullough1, K. Crews1, S. Cho2; 1National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, United States, 2RTI International, Durham, NC, United States.
Rationale: The availability of low-cost portable air quality monitors is paving the way for citizen science and personal monitoring of air quality exposures. However, for this tool and resultant data to be useful, the user must possess environmental literacy competencies: identifying environmental issues; analyzing environmental data; evaluating potential solutions; and proposing and implementing actions addressing air quality issues. Very little is known about the environmental literacy of adults related to air quality and their ability and preferences for making sense of air quality data. Purpose: To explore environmental literacy in adults related to air quality and to identify preferences for data display and health messaging to support informed decision making and action. Methods: Focus groups are being conducted with community citizens, health care providers, and community organizations. Participants complete a pre-focus group homework packet consisting of worksheets showing various data displays of air quality data with messaging. Focus groups are conducted using an interview guide, last 1.5 to 2 hours, and are audio-recorded. Dialogues are analyzed using the constant comparison method. Notes, summary sheets, and transcripts are integrated into analyses and the process is iterative. Demographic characteristics are collected. Results: Commonly used air quality messaging is confusing, examples include: language used, such as the term vulnerable population; the use of too many risk categories; and a lack of clarity for steps to reduce exposure. Composite air quality indices are poorly understood - how are they calculated, what pollutants are included, and what do the data mean. Preferred data display formats use colors to distinguish levels of risk and maps to demonstrate the location of monitoring sites so that people can make comparisons and “see themselves in the data”. Participants become confused when data for several pollutants are reported simultaneously, especially when only one pollutant is elevated. Confusion exists regarding the level of risk to attribute to the single pollutant exposure, health outcomes associated with different pollutants, and actions to take. Trust issues arose regarding the evidence or process for determining “safe” levels of exposure and instances when geographical areas are aggregated. Specifically, their concern is that results are aggregated to hide communities with higher exposure levels so that government and businesses are not held accountable. Conclusion: Results to date suggest that commonly used approaches for displaying air quality data and messaging for action are inadequate and confusing to permit informed decision making and application of exposure reduction strategies.