IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i1p91-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats

Author

Listed:
  • Branden B. Johnson

Abstract

A long‐running effort in environmental communication is daily publication of a report on local air pollution in many American newspapers based on the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI). A 1998 proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to change the PSI prompted a survey experiment with 1,100 adults in Philadelphia, evaluating the proposed change's ability to better inform the populace. The effects of exposure to the old and new versions of the PSI, as well as health cautions and information about groups sensitive to air pollution, were compared with evaluation criteria suggested by Weinstein and Sandman (1993). Sample respondents had strong baseline concerns about air pollution. Descriptors of air quality (e.g., “good; ”“unhealthy”) were difficult to discriminate, particularly in the New format. Concern rose as hypothetical air pollution levels rose, but the New format (as well as PSI versions without health cautions or sensitive‐group information) evoked a sharp discontinuity in concern between below‐ and above‐standard pollution levels. Both Old and New formats reduced concern relative to no provision of PSI information at all, but the New format reduced concern significantly more than the Old version. No PSI format did particularly well at increasing knowledge of air pollution or decreasing intentions to be active outdoors during high pollution, contrary to the agency's aim. Although U.S. EPA has since adopted the new proposal as a national “Air Quality Index” requirement, the experiment's results illuminate the strengths and limitations of the new PSI as a means of informing citizens and motivating them to protect themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 91-103, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:91-103
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00292
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00292?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Nancy A. Connelly & Barbara A. Knuth, 1998. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 649-659, October.
    3. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1990. "Can public information programs affect risk perceptions?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 41-59.
    4. Katherine E. Rowan, 1994. "Why Rules for Risk Communication Are Not Enough: A Problem‐Solving Approach to Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 365-374, June.
    5. Emilie Roth & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Lester Lave & Ann Bostrom, 1990. "What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 375-387, September.
    6. M. Granger Morgan & Lester Lave, 1990. "Ethical Considerations in Risk Communication Practice and Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 355-358, September.
    7. Ann Bostrom & Cynthia J. Atman & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 789-798, October.
    8. Neil D. Weinstein & Peter M. Sandman, 1993. "Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 103-114, February.
    9. Cynthia J. Atman & Ann Bostrom & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 779-788, October.
    10. Pieter Jan M. Stallen & Arend Tomas, 1988. "Public Concern About Industrial Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 237-245, June.
    11. Branden B. Johnson, 2002. "Gender and Race in Beliefs about Outdoor Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 725-738, August.
    12. F. Reed Johnson & Ralph A. Luken, 1987. "Radon Risk Information and Voluntary Protection: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 97-107, March.
    13. Peter M. Sandman & Neil D. Weinstein & Paul Miller, 1994. "High Risk or Low: How Location on a “Risk Ladder” Affects Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 35-45, February.
    14. Skov, Torsten & Cordtz, Torben & Jensen, Lilli Kirkeskov & Saugman, Peter & Schmidt, Kirsten & Theilade, Peter, 1991. "Modifications of health behaviour in response to air pollution notifications in Copenhagen," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 621-626, January.
    15. Paul Slovic & Nancy Kraus & Vincent T. Covello, 1990. "What Should We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 389-392, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    2. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey D. Myers, 2013. "The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 818-837, May.
    3. Branden B. Johnson, 2012. "Experience with Urban Air Pollution in Paterson, New Jersey and Implications for Air Pollution Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 39-53, January.
    4. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Further Notes on Public Response to Uncertainty in Risks and Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 781-789, August.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Caron Chess, 2003. "How Reassuring are Risk Comparisons to Pollution Standards and Emission Limits?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 999-1007, October.
    6. Paul Brown & Linda Cameron & Ricardo Cisneros & Rachel Cox & Erin Gaab & Mariaelena Gonzalez & Steven Ramondt & Anna Song, 2016. "Latino and Non-Latino Perceptions of the Air Quality in California’s San Joaquin Valley," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Henry J. Mayer & Michael R. Greenberg, 2005. "Using Integrated Geospatial Mapping and Conceptual Site Models to Guide Risk‐Based Environmental Clean‐Up Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 429-446, April.
    8. Edwin Schmitt, 2019. "Measuring Micrometers of Matter and Inventing Indices: Entangling Social Perception within Discrete and Continuous Measurements of Air Quality," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Do Reports on Drinking Water Quality Affect Customers' Concerns? Experiments in Report Content," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 985-998, October.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    4. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    5. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    6. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    9. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Are Some Risk Comparisons More Effective Under Conflict?: A Replication and Extension of Roth et al," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 767-780, August.
    10. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    11. Barbara A. Knuth & Nancy A. Connelly & Judy Sheeshka & Jacqueline Patterson, 2003. "Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1185-1197, December.
    12. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    13. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    14. Ann Bostrom & Cynthia J. Atman & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 789-798, October.
    15. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    16. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    17. Cynthia G. Jardine, 2003. "Development of a Public Participation and Communication Protocol for Establishing Fish Consumption Advisories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 461-471, June.
    18. Jörg Niewöhner & Patrick Cox & Simon Gerrard & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 349-361, April.
    19. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    20. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:1:p:91-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.