Identifying the issues: The example of air pollution
Is it an issue where you are?
First, make sure that this issue is one that a ects your local area. Maybe you experience health issues yourself or have been talking to neighbours who take their children to school along congested streets.
Geographic Mapping
Commons Mapping
To de ne the key types of contributions required for your Citizen Observatory, it might be useful to hold a Commons Mapping exercise (see “Useful resources”
below). This allows people to identify and log contributions that are needed and that they are willing to make. Write these ideas down on a large sheet of paper or wall canvas under demarcated categories, so that they can be openly seen and discussed by all participants. The categories can vary depending on your Citizen Observatory’s focus, but ‘Stakeholders’, ‘Technology’, ‘Workshops’,
‘Development’ and ‘Resources’ are common examples.
Before you start a Citizen Observatory, the group will need some awareness of the environmental policies, laws or regulations that apply to the shared issue, e.g. in relation to legal limits or existing campaigns to tackle the same problem.
TOOL: Citizen Sensing: A Toolkit contains the Geographic
Mapping and Commons Mapping feature to nd out the nature and the location as well as the
speci c needs of the issue.
Find out the nature and locations of problem hotspots, and map them (to learn about mapping, see the "Useful resources" section. You can add data to your map, such as proximity to resources and schools, that can inform you about which stakeholders should be brought on board.
The next step is to learn about the safe pollution limits currently set by countries, regions (such as the EU) and organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO).
What’s the question?
Finally, you can ask the question: Does the air pollution in my local area exceed safe limits? Even if limits are observed, is there a critical mass of interest in improving the current air quality level?
Example from the Making Sense project – Using the empathy timeline tool in Kosovo
Making Sense was an international project, designed to show how digital, open-source practices can help local communities make sense of their environments. To do this, Making Sense often used Empathy Timelines, which allow for better understanding of the relevant issue by encouraging us to look at both sides of the problem and how we might understand our role in it.
In Prishtina (Kosovo), Making Sense brought together young students and primary school communities to create Empathy Timelines re ecting the impact of air pollution in the city. With these communities, Making Sense posed the question: How are you a ected by the air pollution, and how did you contribute to better air quality in the last 24 hours?
Participants formed small groups and mapped their daily encounters with air pollution. The participants then used a second timeline to detail their contributions to air quality over a typical 24-hour period. Each small group
What are the current policies?
then re ected on their two timelines, noting the positives and negatives on each timeline, before discussing their timelines with the wider group.
This exercise allowed participants to visualise the wide range of day-to-day impacts caused by air pollution, while also identifying shared issues and methods for approaching these issues together.
You may also be interested in:
I want to set up a Citizen Observatory…
…by building a community
…through a suitable co-design process
…by nding and secure funding
…by complying with ethics
Along with the increasing popularity of Citizen Observatories, there is also emerging evidence of di culties with their implementation. Co-design approaches can help ensure success from the start of the initiative.
How can this be done?
There is no one perfect method or blueprint for co-designing Citizen Observatories. Rather, the appropriateness of a given approach depends on the conditions, resources and purpose (i.e., data collection versus social change) of the new observatory. Nevertheless, most co-design approaches that have been applied to Citizen Observatories share some fundamental principles, such as including di erent stakeholder perspectives when de ning the goal of a Citizen Observatory and agreeing on the ways of working.
Example from the Ground Truth 2.0 project
Ground Truth 2.0 considers Citizen Observatories to be true social innovations, addressing societal challenges by combining new social practices and technological innovations. The Ground Truth 2.0 co-design methodology was developed to facilitate setting up Citizen Observatories that are meaningful and helpful for (local) stakeholders in achieving impact and change. It combines the social, technological and operational dimensions of a Citizen Observatory in one coherent process. The approach brings relevant actors together, guiding them towards a shared understanding and purpose of their Citizen Observatory. It also tailors digital innovations to enable participants to actively collaborate in the collection,
Useful Resources
PROJECT REPORT: This report contains guidance for
co-designing a Citizen Observatory using the Ground Truth 2.0 co-design methodology. It includes an inventory of suggested
methods, techniques and tools for each stage of the process.
WEBSITE: An overview of the Citizen Observatories that were set up using the Ground Truth 2.0 co-design methodology.
TOOLKIT: The WeObserve Toolkit: Co-designing your observatory includes a range of open access tools developed by WeObserve partners, including some speci cally for co-designing Citizen Observatories.
CoP: The WeObserve Co-design & Engage Community of Practice brings together
practitioners of Citizen
Observatories and citizen science