Table 4 Community engagement approaches and associated outcomes, facilitators and challenges
From: Engaging communities in addressing air quality: a scoping review
Approach | Outcomes (number of studies) | Facilitators (number of studies) | Challenges (number of studies) |
|---|---|---|---|
Citizen science [31, 32, 34,35,36, 38, 41,42,43,44, 49, 51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59, 62, 68] | Individuals and communities • Knowledge and awareness of AQ and technical information (e.g. monitoring data) (18) • Capacity building (10) • Empowerment (8) • Confidence and motivation to act (7) • Development of partnerships (6) • Sense of ownership (4) • Self-efficacy (2) • Sense of community (2) • Disappointment or frustration at organisational responses to the project (1) | • Existing partnerships or forums with community-based organisations (6) • Diversity in the community members and research team involved (5) • Existing expertise and experience of communities (5) • Building trusting relationships between those involved (4) • Using a variety of communication mechanisms (4) • Technical support and guidance available (2) • Financial recognition for those involved (2) • Clear plans from the outset (2) • Engaged individuals prior to start of the project (1) | • Use of technical language and communicating scientific material (6) • Capacity of communities (4) • Insufficient resources (4) • AQ sampling issues (4) • Scepticism/lack of trust from communities (1) • Language barriers (1) • Competing priorities (1) |
Organisations • New ways of working to address AQ (14) • Local knowledge and experience of AQ (12) • New or revised standards and policies to address AQ (10) • Funding secured for AQ improvements (2) • New ways to work with communities (4) | |||
Air quality (AQ) and health • Removal or modification of air pollution source (3) • Changes to vehicle idling times (1) • Health protective behaviours (1) | |||
Environmental and health assessment | Individuals and communities • Capacity building [5] • Knowledge and awareness of AQ and technical information (e.g. monitoring data) (4) • Sense of community (1) • Development of partnerships (1) • Sense of ownership (1) • Empowerment (1) • Disappointment or frustration at organisational responses to the project (1) | • Using a variety of communication mechanisms (4) • Existing partnerships or forums with community-based organisations (2) • Adapting approach to suit the community (2) • Financial recognition for those involved (2) • Clear plans from the outset (2) • Existing expertise and experience of communities (1) • Building trusting relationships between those involved (1) | • Use of technical language and communicating scientific material (2) • Scepticism or lack of trust from communities (1) • Competing priorities (1) • Personnel changes during the project (1) |
Organisations • Local knowledge and experience of AQ (4) • New ways of working with communities (3) • Funding secured for AQ improvements (1) • New ways of working to address AQ (1) | |||
Air quality (AQ) and health • Access to health services (2) • Identification of undiagnosed asthma (1) • Preliminary data indicated improvements in environmental and health outcomes (1) | |||
Education and training | Individuals and communities • Knowledge and awareness of AQ and technical information (e.g. monitoring data) (2) • Capacity building (2) • Confidence and motivation to act (1) • Self-efficacy (1) | • Engaged individuals prior to start of the project (1) | • Use of technical language and communicating scientific material (1) • Language barriers (1) • Insufficient resources (1) • Use of computers for inter-generational learning (1) |
Organisations • New ways of working to address AQ (1) • New or revised standards/polices to address AQ (1) | |||
Air quality (AQ) and health • Changes to vehicle idling times (1) • Health protective behaviours (1) | |||
Policy review and development | Individuals and communities • Knowledge and awareness of AQ and technical information (e.g. monitoring data) (2) • Capacity building (2) • Development of partnerships (1) • Empowerment (1) • Disappointment or frustration at organisational responses to the project (1) | • Existing partnerships or forums with community-based organisations (1) • Building trusting relationships between those involved (1) • Existing expertise and experience of communities (1) • Engagement seen as a priority for organisations involved (1) • Adapting approach to suit the community (1) • Diversity in the community members and research team involved (1) • Using a variety of communication mechanisms (1) | • Use of technical language and communicating scientific material (1) • Competing priorities (1) • Scepticism or lack of trust from communities (1) • Language barriers (1) • Use of online methods with disadvantaged communities (1) |
Organisations • Local knowledge and experience of AQ (3) • New ways of working with communities (2) • New ways of working to address AQ (1) |