Citizen science can drive change in lifestyles and policies needed to achieve healthier, more sustainable cities. To unlock this potential, citizen science projects must ensure the widest possible participation. However, the reality is that many initiatives repeatedly target the same demographics (e.g. individuals with higher levels of education and social status) because they often have pre-existing knowledge and motivation to act on climate change, and are therefore easier to engage. Less represented in citizen science are vulnerable individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, minorities and those at risk of social exclusion. Establishing contact with them can be difficult due to age, lack of trust, language barriers, limited time and digital literacy. But how do you even identify volunteers with this background? It goes without saying that recruitment flyers with messages like ‘Poor people are welcome to apply’ would be grossly inappropriate. So, what do you do?

Trusted intermediaries

One strategy chosen by COMPAIR was to work with organisations that already have access to at-risk groups. In Athens, engagement happened in person through the municipality-run Friendship Clubs, whose members are senior citizens, many of which are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. In Sofia, COMPAIR worked with Roma organisations for recruitment purposes as well as to promote awareness about pollution’s harmful effects, alternative fuels, and various options that Roma can take to protect themselves. (Roma tend to use solid fuels for domestic heating, which makes them especially vulnerable to fine particulate air pollution.)

Poverty statistics

In Herzele, to estimate how many students from low-income families may end up participating in and ultimately benefiting from citizen science, the research team used school allowance as a proxy for low-income status. The statistics are part of the Equal Opportunity Education indicators (Leerlingenkenmerken) shared by the Flemish government. A low percentage (anything less than 10%) would indicate that students are predominantly from wealthy families. The three schools that participated in the Herzele campaign (Sint-Paulusinstituut, GBS De Kersentuin, VSBH) had, on average, 30% of their students in receipt of the allowance. Instead of asking delicate questions about family income, project managers chose this indicator to estimate how many children from low income families would benefit from citizen science directly (as participants) and indirectly (from cleaner air).

Herzele students with a school allowance in three participating institutions

Engagement guide

Whether you are working with local champions, schools or trusted intermediaries, chances are that much of this engagement will happen during a workshop of some kind. A well-organised workshop is a source of valuable information for both the research team and volunteers, and its importance for building a trusted, working relationship within a project is hard to overstate. We are sharing a collection of good practices honed in COMPAIR to help citizen science practitioners get the most out of their engagement opportunities, online and offline.

• Group dynamics: Because air quality is such a contentious issue, citizens and policy makers can be at loggerheads over who needs to do what. Even when the two are working together in the same project, conflicts and power play can emerge, to the detriment of cooperation. Understanding and managing group dynamics is key to ensuring that planned activities run smoothly. To avoid conflict, it may be necessary to interact with antagonistic groups at different meetings rather than assembling them in one place

• Preparation: Circulate background information and, if available, any relevant research findings in an accessible format ahead of the meeting so that participants can come prepared

• Privacy: Let the attendees know that a meeting is being recorded and that pictures or screenshots may be used to promote the event via project dissemination channels. Attendees are free to cease participation and opt out of the meeting or the project at any time
  

• Activity: Use a workshop guide to structure the discussion. Avoid loaded questions and use probes to get additional information. Try to maintain a balanced discussion as much as possible, ensuring that everyone gets a chance to speak. Encourage quieter participants to share their thoughts and manage those who talk all the time. Your message will be more easily understood if you use plain, clear language. Should there be any minorities among volunteers, make them feel comfortable by using inclusive language

• Feedback: Circulate notes from the meeting and/or slide decks to all participants, including those who could not attend. Ask for feedback and any relevant additional information to validate conclusions. Incorporate this feedback into the final summary report, making sure that the document is properly anonymised

<< Back | Next >>