Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Sustainability of Regional Ecosystems: Current Challenges and Future Prospects
Previous Article in Journal
Promoting Sustainable Island Tourism Through Tourists’ Environmentally Responsible Behavior: Integrating VIP, VAB, and TPB
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 11
10.3390/su17114793
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Irish Perspectives on School Ambient Air Quality: A Design-Led Exploration

by
Áine de Róiste
1,*,
Aoife Stack
1,*,
Ganga Chinna Rao Devarapu
2,
Liam O’Faolain
2 and
Mary Galvin
1
1
Department of Applied Social Studies, Munster Technological University, T12 P928 Cork, Ireland
2
The Centre for Advanced Photonics and Process Analysis (CAPPA), Munster Technological University, T12 P928 Cork, Ireland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(11), 4793; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114793
Submission received: 7 April 2025 / Revised: 9 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 23 May 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This design-led research explored public awareness and opinions on air quality outside schools using an online survey with 310 parents and staff from 10 primary schools across Cork City. Twelve ethnographic interviews were also undertaken with school parents, staff and stakeholders. Air quality was found to be a concern for a minority of respondents (one-fifth of the sample), most seeing it as a concern for respiratory health. The majority indicated support for the installation of air quality sensors, with information from these communicated in an understandable and meaningful format. Initiatives tackling air quality including awareness-building actions and transport measures were identified as warranting consideration. The survey and interview findings underpin the need for multidimensional interventions incorporating Place-Making and design thinking. Tailored initiatives, meeting socio-economic community needs with a shift from individualistic thinking to collective action for air quality initiatives, are recommended from this research.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic or ‘human-generated’ air pollution is a pressing contemporary concern worldwide. The United Nations (UN) 2030 Sustainable Development Goals [1] for a better and more sustainable future for all include good health and well-being (Goal 3) and climate action (Goal 3). In Ireland, the 2018 National Planning Framework [2] specifies as an objective (no. 64) ‘Improve air quality and help prevent people being exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution’. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annual air quality report [3] concluded that Ireland is not on track to achieve its goals listed in the National Clean Air Strategy and will fail to meet the health-based WHO air quality guideline limits in 2026 on key pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a mix of fine solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air generated from the combustion of fuel from traffic and home heating, and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a gas linked to vehicle emissions. Both pollutants are harmful to health. The revised Ambient Air Quality Directive [4] identifies lower limit values for 2030 for health-impacting pollutants including PM2.5 and NO2. The directive also adds more monitoring requirements for ultrafine particles, back carbon and ammonia, and greater public information on air quality and air quality management.
Provisional compliance data issued by Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that throughout 2024 the statutory limit values for both particulate matter ≤10 µm (PM10; 50 µg m−3, daily, ≤35 exceedances yr−1) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2; 200 µg m−3, hourly, ≤18 exceedances yr−1) were respected at all fixed monitoring stations in Cork. The sole infringement registered in the county was a single PM10 episode (56 µg m−3) at the Glanmire Road gravimetric site on 16 January. Consequently, the Air Quality Index for Health (AQIH) remained in the “Good” category [5].
When the assessment framework is tightened to the World Health Organization [6] guideline values—5 µg m−3 (annual) for PM2.5 and 10 µg m−3 (annual) for NO2—an alternative picture emerges. High-resolution measurements from eight suburban AirSENCE sensors deployed between June 2022 and May 2024 as part of PASSEPARTOUT project reveal systematic exceedance of both PM2.5 and NO2 thresholds across all suburban locations, with hourly NO2 or PM2.5 levels surpassing the WHO interim limits in up to 60% of the monitored hours at the most affected sites (e.g., Little Island and Midleton). These findings suggest that, while Cork complies with current EU legislation, significant challenges remain in achieving WHO-aligned air quality targets, particularly in the commuter belt where natural ventilation and free cooling strategies could be constrained by pollutant ingress [5].
Ireland has seen development in air quality monitoring with the air pollution monitoring network [7] providing evidence for policy development and intervention design. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality Index for Health also plays a key air quality role, providing air quality indices combined with related health advice, using social media to share updates [8].
In line with greater use of air pollution indices, research has also expanded on how air pollution contributes to health problems, including respiratory illness such as asthma, neurological and cognitive difficulties as well as mental health and autism spectrum-related difficulties [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Irish research has reported stroke admission risks in Dublin associated with increased PM2.5 and NO2 pollution during the winter season [18] and the EPA [19] estimated that approximately 1600 premature Irish deaths annually are due to poor air quality from fine particulate matter alone. Local traffic in Dublin has been identified as the dominant contributor to short-term nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations, underpinning the urgent need to address traffic pollution as a public health concern [20,21].
Air quality, both inside and outside is a particular concern in respect to children. Childhood is a period when lungs and organs are still maturing and so it is important to minimize children’s exposure to air pollution. Physiologically, children’s brain, respiratory and immune systems are still developing and thus may be more prone to the negative impact of pollutants. Children also breathe more air volume compared to their body weight than adults and do so more through the mouth than the nose, resulting in a higher pulmonary deposition of particles [22,23]. Reducing or removing avoidable childhood exposure to poor air quality can have significant benefits for health quality (and health expenditure) over the long term [24].
Looking particularly at ambient or outdoor air quality, Swedish research by Linden and colleagues [25] reported that a difference in distance to traffic of less than 100 m caused an increase in NO2 air pollution of up to 24%. Additionally, NO2 concentrations in street-side preschool yards were between 8 and 25% higher compared to adjacent school yards located inside courtyards where barriers prevented the flow of polluted air.

1.1. Air Quality Awareness

Research across the European Union concluded that a lack of information and knowledge on the causes of air pollution is widespread across people with different educational attainment levels and socio-economic groups [26]. Air pollution was rated as a very important environmental concern by 72% of Irish households surveyed by the Central Statistics Office [27], and most Irish people see transport and industry as contributors to air pollution [28], yet there is a lack of understanding of the specific pollutants that affect air quality. While most Irish adults sampled did see air pollution as a serious health risk, half of those sampled indicated that they did not know about PM2.5 and NO2 as being some of the main air pollutants in Ireland and indicated a lack of awareness on air quality monitoring. A significant minority (36%) also incorrectly saw air pollution as restricted to cities [28].
As well as understanding public attitudes towards air quality, knowledge on attitudes towards air quality forecast warnings and communication is crucial to inform policy on how best to engage with the public. Barrier frameworks from environmental psychology provide useful perspectives for understanding blocks to the changes leading to pro-environmental behavior [29,30]. Lacking knowledge of environmental concerns and how to engage in more pro-environmental behavior are internal psychological barriers; they are barriers not just at the level of the individual but also at organizational and community levels [31], and they are central to environmental communication where a shift in public attitude and behavior is targeted. How information is framed for affecting behavioral change [32,33] and psychological distance, i.e., the extent to which a concern seems far from oneself or the here and now [34], are two examples of the many influential factors discussed in the dynamic field of environmental communications. Greater and more meaningful environmental data and information sharing is also vital for meeting the EU Aarhus Principle of access to information and public participation on environmental issues [35].
However, as indicated across environmental science and psychology, awareness-building alone is not enough to incite behavioral change [36,37]. Recognizing and addressing the myriad factors that affect engagement (and reticence to engage) with air quality information and initiatives, along with the ‘intention and value-behavior’ gaps [29,38], is central to tackling the challenges faced in engendering behavioral change. Accordingly, intervention models have developed, some of which are identified further on.

1.2. Air Quality and Environmental Justice

Air quality is also a concern in terms of environmental justice, defined as ‘the extent to which the physical and economic burdens of pollution and degradation, as well as environmental benefits, are equitably distributed across society, both spatially and temporally, and the degree to which individuals and communities most vulnerable to environmental risks can access and participate in relevant decision-making processes’ [39] (p. 13).
Socially disadvantaged groups are at risk of being disproportionately exposed to health-damaging characteristics of their environment, including environmental toxins such as air pollution [6,40]. Furthermore, they are at risk of being unduly blamed for environmental pollution [41]. A significant gap in the application of the principles of environmental justice in Ireland has been noted as Irish environmental quality data with spatial representations of disadvantage or marginalization is lacking. Consequently, a fully informed picture of environmental impacts and their links to social inequalities in Ireland is wanting [39].
One Irish study reported little variation in PM2.5 across demographic and socioeconomic groups [42], yet international studies report otherwise [43], reflecting perhaps national, contextual and/or methodological variation. As with other research, the ecological fallacy, i.e., that group-level patterns should not be assumed to translate into individual experiences, needs to be borne in mind [42].
People experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage face multiple challenges in adopting healthy behavior and given the role social and environmental factors play in health, the effectiveness of any single-mechanism behavioral change intervention may be constrained by such factors [44]. Consequently, social models such as ‘Assets-Based Community Development’, ‘Place-Making Approaches’ and attention to ‘Social Determinants of Health’ are being drawn on in the design of behavioral interventions in the spheres of health and sustainability. These have gained traction in Irish policy-making such as the Government of Ireland (2021) ‘Sláintecare Healthy Communities (SHC)’ [45].
Assets-Based Community Development (ABCD), pioneered by Kretzmann and colleagues [46], emphasizes the importance of mobilizing and connecting community assets to create sustainable change. Place-Making approaches seek to build connections between people and the public spaces they use in their everyday life. Social Determinants of Health (SDH) focuses on the key variables that contribute to health inequalities such as housing, income, education and discrimination, accounting for over 75% of health outcomes [47,48].
These models incorporate systems thinking by leveraging the broader socio-ecological system to create sustainable practices. They place behavioral change within the broader socio-ecosystem, recognizing the interplay of several factors, including psychological factors such as self-efficacy, as well as social factors such as cultural norms. Research suggests a correlation between place-based approaches and positive effects on physical health when Social Determinants of Health are incorporated, though such initiatives vary in quality and are often not evaluated [37,49].
As a ‘lens’, these frameworks offer a constructive systems perspective in initiative development and a framework for co-design sessions in a design-led approach, as outlined further on.

1.3. Self-Regulated Behavioral Change Model

This research is anchored in Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1982) model as the ‘Wheel of Change’ [50], expanded on by Bamberg’s model of ‘Self-Regulated Behavioral Change’ [51], a theoretical framework for intervention development. Our study focuses on data collection primarily relating to the first stage, ‘predecision’. This stage model conceptualizes behavioral change as a process across the temporally ordered four stages of predecision, preaction, action and postaction. In the predecisional stage, a person is asked to deliberate on behaviors in relation to a goal, including related constraints and supports. Self-commitment to a specific behavioral goal is explored and then linked to a goal intention. The formation of this goal intention simultaneously marks the person’s transition to the second (preactional) stage. As different actions might be used to achieve an intended goal, in this second stage the task is to choose the most suitable behavioral strategy, comparing various strategies in terms of what might be best to choose given their merits, limitations and feasibility. A clear behavioral intention reflects a self-commitment to a behavioral strategy and transition into the third stage. In this actional stage, the task is to implement the chosen behavioral strategy. Following this, in the final postactional stage, evaluation is undertaken and a decision made on whether further action is needed, along with reflection on the possibility of relapse into the previous ‘old behavior’ (if a habit poses a real risk) and how this can be managed.

1.4. Design Thinking Approach

As pollution sources become more diverse, effective responses increasingly rely on public participation rather than targeting large scale pollution sources, a shift reflected in the recent literature. Design thinking has emerged as a valuable approach to improving air quality [52,53,54,55,56,57], promoting behavioral change through shared visualizations of air quality data [57]. It has been applied to enhance public understanding of concepts such as air quality variability (US EPA), to support carbon emission monitoring [58] and to promote creativity in sustainability education [59].
Design thinking methodologies are gaining popularity in government sectors globally, particularly concerning public health interventions. The increased application of design thinking in public policy demonstrates a growing recognition of the need to understand the point of view of the ‘end user’ to elicit change. The Government of Ireland’s (2022) ‘Designing our Public Service- Design Principles for Government in Ireland’ [60] is evidence of Ireland’s increased application of design thinking approaches within the public sphere. The report encourages public bodies to adopt a user-centered design approach in developing services, with design thinking seen as ‘bridging the gap’ between policy and human behavior, enhancing the effectiveness of new policies and initiatives.
Design thinking, often called ‘human-centred design’, concentrates on the human point of view, using design mindsets and methodologies to formulate new ideas, solutions and alternatives to address stakeholders needs [61]. Design methodologies are applied with scientific rigor by rapidly generating and integrating data to define the problem and build, test and evaluate ideas. Ethnographic methods employed, including interviews, are drawn from anthropology, which seeks to understand people in the context of their lives [62]. “We are seeking to build on the understanding so as to create an innovative intervention that will add value to their lives, which they will feel compelled to adopt” [62] (p. 95).
While the focus on users is integral to design thinking, the questions of feasibility and economic viability are also considered. Successful innovations evolve from the needs of the end user (desirability), a solution that is economically possible (viability) and technically possible (feasibility) [63]. Achieving such an innovation ‘sweet spot’ is of particular significance within public services. Incorporating public citizens into the design and decision-making process is seen as vital to ensure quality and efficiency in public initiatives [62,63,64]. A design thinking approach thus enables designers to gain a deeper understanding of the end user’s needs, allowing them to re-organize existing strategies in ways that more effectively address those needs. Overall design thinking can be construed as a nonlinear iterative process across six-phase loops, understand—observe—point of view—ideate—prototype—test [65], as illustrated in Figure 1 and applied across our research.
Our research study remained within the problem identification zone of the Hasso Plattner [65] model, that is, within the first four design cycles (‘understand’ to ‘ideate’).
  • Understand: Collect perspectives on ambient air quality and initiatives along with secondary research, including analyses of comparable projects, to formulate the design challenge.
  • Observe: Ethnographic interviews with parents/carers, school staff and key stakeholders to understand the context of the problem. Correlate human patterns, emotions and needs and distill them into ‘insights’.
  • Point of View: Synthesize key insights to inform evidence-based archetypal ‘personas’ (artefacts).
  • Ideate: Personas developed underpin evidence-based recommendations formulated using design principles submitted to Cork City Council regarding school ambient air quality.
In this regard, the focus was on discovering and defining the problem from the perspective of end users. This study produced several design artefacts (an artefact being something created by humans for humans; it can be a word, concept or object developed due to scientific investigation, with the nature of artefacts varying according to the research question). In this research, artefacts included evidence-based personas, empathy maps, story boards and design principles. Examples of some of these are explained and presented later in this paper.
This research set out with the following objectives:
  • To collect parent/guardian and school staff awareness and perspectives on air quality around schools, air quality sensors and possible initiatives to improve air quality outside schools.
  • To formulate design-led artefacts and evidence-based recommendations regarding air quality outside schools.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

A mixed-methods design-led approach was used, including an anonymous survey circulated via 10 Cork City primary schools in conjunction with semi-structured interviews.

2.2. Survey Sample

Out of a total of 36 primary schools approached by the research team, 10 agreed to participate (depicted in Figure 2), with schools from each of the four suburbs (north-west, north-east, south-east and south-west) and the suburban areas of Ballincollig, Tower and Glanmire. Of these, 2 were non-denominational, 2 were single-sex (1 boys only and 1 girls only) and all were green flag schools.
A total of 331 respondents from across the 10 schools completed the survey. Three-quarters of the respondents (75%) were female, nearly one-quarter male and 1 respondent preferred not to say. Most of the respondents were parents/caregivers (85.5%), 13% were staff and 1.5% (n = 5) were both parents and staff.

2.3. Interviewee Sample

From the survey sample, 5 parents as well as 3 school staff were interviewed in person or via Teams/Zoom. These interviewees were recruited from a link on the survey where respondents could read an interview information sheet, indicate their interest and provide a contact email address for participation in an interview related to the topic.
Four purposively selected key informant or ‘expert’ interviewees were interviewed in person or over Teams/Zoom and included: 1 academic with expertise in the sector; 1 professional working with the Green Schools initiative; 1 Cork City Council staff member with environmental expertise; and 1 Cork City Council staff member with expertise in social inclusion.
The interviews followed interview templates with responses thematically analyzed and linked to the survey.

2.4. Materials

A 33-item anonymous survey was circulated across the schools sampled, shared with staff and parents via social media (WhatsApp, Facebook). The survey took approximately 18 min to complete.
A 15-item interview schedule, with a list of prompts and probes, was developed that synchronized with the survey.
A key informant interview schedule with 22 questions (synchronized with the survey themes) was also developed and used with ‘expert’ interviewees.

2.5. Data Analysis

With qualitative data, reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s [66] six-phase approach was used in conjunction with framework-based analysis, which is a technique showing considerable promise in addressing applied policy questions [67]. Following a variation of this method known as the ‘best-fit’ framework synthesis [67], researchers began with a pre-existing conceptual model for initial coding and refined it iteratively based on emerging data. Two reviewers coded the data for reliability using a Kanban framework, which served as a visual tool to categorize the data under developing themes. Consistent with a design-led approach, this framework allowed facilitators to work with ambiguity and flexibility, and it facilitated re-iteration of themes as new insights emerged. A deductive approach with both semantic and latent coding, along with an experiential orientation to data interpretation to emphasize meaning and meaningfulness as ascribed by interviewees, was followed. Statistical analysis was undertaken on the quantitative data and design-led artefacts were developed from the findings and agreed upon by the researchers, drawing on the most frequent themes and linking the survey and interview data.

2.6. Ethics

Informed and voluntary participation, freedom to withdraw, validation of interview transcripts, data protection, debriefing and dissemination were all core ethical measures. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in this study. The survey was anonymous, and the interview transcripts were pseudonymized. Interviewees were offered the option of validating their transcribed responses following the interview. All recordings were deleted upon transcription.

2.7. Limitations

The volunteer effect and self-selection bias undermined the representativeness of the research samples, both across the survey and interviews. It should also be noted that research engagement was lowest from the schools in socially disadvantaged locations, so the findings may not be representative of lower socio-economic groups. Caution also needs to be exercised with respect to the generalizability of the findings beyond the city sampled, particularly to rural towns and villages, as well as internationally where pollutant awareness, environmental initiatives, cultural differences and availability of public transport may contribute to a different pattern of findings.

3. Results

3.1. Perspectives on Air Quality

Almost two-thirds of the sample (61.1%) perceived air quality as ‘usually good or good most of the time’ at school drop-off/collection times. One-fifth (20%) rated it as ‘equally good and poor’, while just under one-fifth (19%) rated it as ‘usually poor or poor most of the time’, as demonstrated in Figure 3 below. This might reflect the local impact of the school location, as the majority of this 19% came from one school. Other factors such as differences in air quality knowledge might also contribute to it.
Concern about the impact of poor air quality on respiratory illness was reported by over two-thirds of the sample (69%), while over half indicated this for cardiovascular disease (58%) and mental health (52%).
Worry over the impact of air pollutants was also frequently raised in the interviews, especially with reference to asthma and other respiratory conditions. For example:
‘Air quality is a concern as we need to ensure we are doing the best for our children’s health in the long-term as well as short-term and with lots more traffic and more exposure to fumes around schools, the health impact is what is particularly concerning. Respiratory issues first and foremost…people aren’t aware how much smell and poor air quality impacts and for well-being too’ (parent 3). Another interviewee noted though about air quality: it’s not something that would be on WhatsApp groups or something like that, and it’s not something I’ve ever seen come up as a topic of discussion’ (parent 1).

3.2. Pollutant Awareness

Looking at pollutant awareness (see Figure 4), almost one-quarter (24%) of the sample indicated they had no knowledge about NO2, and over one-quarter (29%) indicated that they ‘had heard of it but didn’t know about it, while over one-third (39%) knew ‘a little about it’ and nearly 9% reported knowing ‘a lot’ about it.
A similar pattern was found with respect to awareness on PM2.5 with over one third (36%) reporting they had no knowledge of it, while just over one-fifth (21.5%) indicated they ‘had heard of it but didn’t know about it’, almost one-third (31%) knew ‘a little’ about it and 11.5% reported knowing ‘a lot’ about it.
When asked about the health impacts of these pollutants near schools, 43% believed there was a profound impact but only for susceptible individuals, one-fifth (20%) thought there were severe health effects for many people and nearly one-third (30%) felt the impacts were minor, affecting only a small number of sensitive individuals. This reflects that while many respondents recognize the existence of health impacts outside schools, awareness of the broader effects of traffic pollutants near schools varies, with nearly three-quarters of the sample (73%) perceiving the impacts as primarily affecting vulnerable populations. Low levels of awareness are not surprising according to one interviewee, who contended that ‘if you start asking people if they are concerned about the impact of air pollution on health, they will all tend to agree. But whether they realize, (or) understand how much that might be an issue in their own school community. I’m not sure’; there is a very low level of awareness, and I think that is because it’s (air quality) invisible. How much understanding there is of the links between the things we do, the way we travel to school and air pollution?’ (expert 1).

3.3. Air Quality Sensors

When asked if they would support the installation of sensors to monitor air quality outside the school, over four-fifths (87%) of the sample would support it, while close to 11% were unsure and needed more information first. A clear minority (7%) were not supportive of their installation.
If sensor information were to be collected outside the school, most respondents, over two-thirds (72%), would like information on a general index of air quality; for specific pollutant levels such as carbon monoxide and particulate matter it was nearly two-thirds (63%), while just under half (48%) indicated temperature and humidity. Regarding such information, ease of understanding the information (on the part of the parents and children) was deemed to be the most important consideration by nearly two-thirds of the respondents (63%), followed by its contribution in promoting dialogue amongst the school community which was indicated by over one third (34%). The mode of delivery of such information (29%) and the tailoring of this to a time chosen by the respondent (19%) were the least significant considerations.
One interviewee expressed seeing benefit in air monitoring using sensors outside schools and the importance of information being personally meaningful and in understandable terms. In her words, ‘What I’d want from air sensor monitoring at schools is if there is an issue with poor air quality with an explanation about it, why it’s bad so it’s explained in an understandable way; it needs to be personally meaningful and understandable, directed at people personally like with clear messages about the links to asthma and so forth. The messages need to be relatable for everyone, if you just send out stats then people won’t pay attention’ (parent 2).
A common theme among interviewee responses was using digital platforms to communicate air sensor information, including school email/apps, social media or some particular app. ‘I suppose an app would be very handy if there was one developed for that and you know, you could just check it in whenever you like, I suppose, as opposed to, getting loads of emails caught with constant daily updates’ (staff 1). Digital signage outside schools was also suggested: ‘I think large screens outside the schools would be an efficient option. They would provide real-time data on pollutant levels and remind people to turn off engines’ (staff 2).

3.4. Car Idling

Regarding opinions on introducing a no-car-idling initiative at school, a resounding 71%, nearly three-quarters of those sampled, would support it; just over one-quarter would like further information before deciding, while 2% were against it (see Figure 5). A similar pattern was evident in the three-quarters of those sampled who would support a no-car-idling zone in Cork City.
Interestingly one interviewee reflected how car idling as an air quality concern is not prevalent in public awareness and that she ‘wasn’t aware about car idling, even the term itself, until I did the survey. I don’t think many see it as an issue’ (parent 3). ‘I heard something about getting drivers to turn off their cars as they idle outside the school grounds, but it clearly isn’t happening’ (R211). The challenge a no-idling zone would present, given that it would slow down traffic more, requiring more engine stopping and starting, which in a moving queue is not beneficial, was noted by parent 1: ‘There are more ways that air quality can be improved as opposed to reducing car idling and I can’t see non-idling measures working because of the traffic flow to the school and the lack of spaces at the school. Turning a car engine on and off every 30 s isn’t good for the environment either’.

3.5. Transport-Related Initiatives

Many transport-related initiatives were identified as having the potential to improve ambient air quality by almost one-third (30%) of respondents, including more school buses as well as park and ride/stride/scoot systems to improve air quality; as succinctly expressed by one interviewee (parent 1), ‘More transport options to school would reduce car volume and that would then improve air quality’.
Traffic management and infrastructure initiatives identified included improved infrastructural design (school entrances, road network, cycle lanes, traffic lights) to facilitate a better traffic flow, prioritizing pedestrians and improving school drop/off and collection; personnel/traffic wardens to manage the traffic flow; staggered drop-off/collection times; and improved parking.
Many transport initiatives identified would necessitate action at a city council level and, as an academic interviewee noted, ‘infrastructure seems to be something that really makes or breaks somebody’s decision with regards to how they travel or how they heat their home. We’re kind of seeing the change in those places where infrastructure has been improved. If you look across the city during Covid some cycle lanes were upgraded, and I see more people now with bikes, so those are not choosing their car. So that means that the infrastructure is enabling them’ (expert 1).
Car-pooling was listed by only a few (n = 4) survey respondents but it was prevalent across the interviews where concerns regarding insurance, driver fears of child allegations, as well as the difficulty of living at a distance from other school commuters were raised.

3.6. Awareness-Building Initiatives

Actions fostering public awareness about air quality were specified by 4% of respondents. The importance of child involvement and awareness campaigns that present information in an easy-to-understand format, that are not ‘scaremongering’ but rather constructive and positive in their communication, were highlighted across the survey responses. Some respondents indicated the involvement of the Green Schools program and the use of data from air sensors as part of an awareness campaign.
Awareness initiatives were also raised across the interviews. Examples included initiatives linked to schools as well as broader community and national actions. ‘Parental awareness on it (air quality) needs to be raised by maybe a parents group handing out leaflets and speaking nicely to parents about car idling and the health risks, to both children and adults. This could link in with the schools’ green committee so the children could raise awareness too. Local resident associations might also want to get involved because of the local impact. Maybe get a local famous person that people will listen to’ (parent 2).
One interviewee stressed the importance of awareness-building for everyone such that air quality concerns then will no longer be ‘so easily ignored even if we want to deny it’. A parallel was also drawn regarding how the same applied to cigarette-smoking in the past. ‘If we start bringing the issue more into public discourse, more people will understand about it, and more people might, take action. If people don’t know and air quality remains an invisible issue, we don’t really talk about it (air quality), therefore there is very limited public awareness. It’s really an invisible issue, and that to me is the first barrier. I was completely oblivious to it up to a certain point and then, when I started learning about it, I started seeing things that now I cannot ‘unsee’ and therefore I try to take action based on that. But still my actions are limited because there are some structural barriers that I need to face. We probably were similarly oblivious when it came to smoking, and then the smoking ban came, and it became an anti-social behavior to smoke indoors’ (expert 1).

3.7. Tailored Policy Initiatives

Qualitative findings from the interviews highlighted the importance of tailored policy initiatives, anchored in a local context and cognizant of socio-economic factors which can constrain what people see as priorities as well as their attitudes and behavior.
‘And you know that idea of common but differentiated responsibility in terms of response to climate change is that those people living in socio economically deprived communities have less room to pivot or less room to adapt. It may feel to somebody who’s living on a pension that it’s cheaper for them to heat one room by means of an open fire. You won’t get a community development worker to go out to a deprived community and say, OK, now you have to be climate champions’. (expert 1).
Other initiatives with a more specific focus identified by smaller numbers of respondents included actions on residential fuel burning, such as the banning of solid-fuel burning and the retrofitting of heat pumps (n = 9), promotional measures for hybrid/electric cars and green-space measures (n = 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Perspectives on Air Quality and Pollutant Awareness

Air quality was a concern for a minority of respondents (one-fifth of the sample). Over half of the respondents surveyed indicated little or no knowledge of the pollutants nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM2.5). Air quality was not a primary concern for respondents sampled, except for a minority. However, most respondents noted its impact on respiratory health. An association of air quality with other facets of health was also indicated, suggesting awareness that air quality has a broader impact on health.
Similarly, a survey with a Cork City sample undertaken by Cassarino and colleagues [68] highlighted that half of respondents rated the air quality outside their school as ‘good usually or most of the time’. However, about half the sample indicated that traffic-related air pollutants represent a risk to health outside the schools. Our research findings concur with theirs as respondents in our study were also more aware of nitrogen dioxide than particulate matter and shared similar perceptions of ambient school air quality. Knowledge of air pollutants, low in the data we collected, is not surprising given past Irish research by Quintyne and colleagues [28], who found that while most people were aware of transport and industry as contributors to air pollution, there was a lack of understanding of the specific pollutants that affect air quality. Low levels of engagement with air quality information (via traditional as well as online media) and awareness of air quality monitoring information systems were reported by Gorman and colleagues [69] as well as with a Cork sample.
Awareness-building on air quality and pollutants was a theme across the interview data. As one interviewee noted, ‘there is minimal public awareness. It’s really an invisible issue, and that to me is the first barrier’ (expert 1). The same interviewee spoke on how air quality concerns will no longer be ‘invisible’ with greater public awareness, so easily ignored or denied, with a parallel drawn to cigarette smoking in the past.
Media information campaigns, citizen science projects and school-based programs, such as GLOBE Ireland [70], are examples of initiatives to nurture public awareness and understanding. Our findings are congruent with past international research on air quality communication. Actionable information that is meaningful and targeted to local contexts, connecting people with a sense of collective responsibility, are all characteristics of effective communication campaigns [71]. However, the challenge of engaging those who are disinterested, along with the challenge of moving those who are interested from ‘intention onto behavioral action’, remain challenges to be considered by any intervention [72].

4.2. Air Quality Monitoring

Most respondents would support the installation of air quality sensors and like information from these, preferably in an understandable and meaningful format. Their role in contributing to planning and infrastructure development was noted in some of the interviews undertaken. An overall positive response towards installing air quality sensors suggests that respondents favored measures that record air quality and which can be used in developing air quality actions. Apps on smartphones have received much attention as a resource for personal health protection in relation to poor air quality and are an avenue for ongoing investigation. The importance of localizing information in meaningful ways with motivational tactics and a user-friendly interface to maintain engagement with the app for diverse population groups are key considerations [73,74]. In our research, interviewees highlighted the importance of sensor information being ‘personally meaningful’, local’ and ‘understandable’ when shared with parents. Such mindfulness is in keeping with a ‘Place-Making approach’ [51].
Cassarino and colleagues [68] found that most respondents in their survey indicated a willingness to participate in school-based initiatives to promote better air quality, such as an anti-idling initiative or the use of an air quality toolkit. Over three-quarters (78%) of their sample felt optimistic about installing air quality sensors outside the school and the possibility of engaging with these. Ease of access to sensor information was also identified by them as a key factor of engagement. Overall, their sample felt that air quality sensors could raise awareness of school air quality issues. It was also seen as potentially promoting positive behavioral change (i.e., walking/cycling to school more frequently). However, many felt that the behavioral impact may be limited for them.

4.3. Air Quality Initiatives

The high proportion of respondents who listed initiatives indicated an appetite for action that could be harnessed among the populace. Most survey respondents indicated support for a no-car-idling initiative at the school which might serve as a useful starting point in promoting ambient air quality and pollutant awareness. Whilst many of the initiatives identified were transport related, measures to support active travel to school and more transport alternatives to dependence on cars, as well as combined measures such as park and stride programs and car-pooling, merit serious attention. The ‘Safe Routes to School’ (SRTS) Program [75], developed in partnership by the National Transport Authority with Green-Schools/’An Taisce’, has expanded across some Irish localities, supporting greater active transport to schools, and its further expansion would be a positive endeavor.
The need for tailored initiatives and a shift from individualistic thinking to collective action to change behavior was evident from the interviews. To benefit public awareness and behavioral change, air quality information and forecasting through diversified communication channels with positive, accessible and actionable messaging have been noted as critical [69,76]. In addition, air quality indices can convert complex air quality data into a simple metric, which can be paired with advice to encourage behavior change. As noted by McCarron and colleagues [77], combining more ‘personalized’ air quality data and greater public engagement with these data will better support individual action towards improved air quality. The proliferation of sensor technology and real time data collection, along with citizen science modes of data collection and social media and app communication channels, shows the variety of options for public awareness building, forecasting and information dissemination and rendering air pollution more tangible for all [78]. It is worth noting that the need to expand communication methods beyond traditional and digital media has received much attention, including recognition of the arts and culturally based initiatives for information and data-sharing nurturing greater ‘buy in’ and citizen engagement [79,80,81].
A strong digital theme was evident throughout the recommended air quality initiatives. This, coupled with the health inequalities created by socio-economic factors, points to the need to incorporate consideration of digital health literacy into initiative design. People with limited health literacy, English proficiency and digital literacy have trouble engaging with digital health tools [82,83]. Age, education, income and social support impact digital health literacy [84]. Programs to enhance health and digital literacy and the monitoring of access, use and impact across all groups in society can help to ensure that digital technologies act to reduce rather than exacerbate existent health inequalities [85].
Air quality initiatives must integrate digital health literacy programs to ensure equitable access and engagement, particularly for individuals who may be digitally excluded due to social, economic, cultural or demographic factors. Additionally, the systems approaches advocated in this paper, including Assets-Based Community Development, promote equitable access and promote sustainable, self-directed health behaviors. When paired with digital health literacy initiatives, digital technologies can enhance accessibility and raise awareness, thus supporting behavioral change. For example, a study on the usability and effectiveness of the ‘AirRater’ app within a behavioral change framework found that the app increased awareness of environmental hazards, as well as providing information to help users self-manage and adapt behavior to improve their health [86].

4.4. Co-Design Workshops

Co-design is increasingly used to tackle air quality challenges [87] and an emphasis on public participation as a strategy to counter what Conway et al. [88] describe as the system’s ‘immune response’ was central to this research. The artefacts generated serve as tools in a series of ongoing co-design workshops, facilitating a shared understanding of the problem for the purpose of co-creating effective solutions. The co-design process involves collaboration between researchers, designers and key stakeholders and recognizes the expertise of those directly impacted by the issues and the responses.
As part of this research, the first co-design workshop, held in April 2025, brought together a diverse group of stakeholders, including air quality scientists, public health professionals, community development experts and parent representatives. Participants engaged with design artefacts and developed a series of “How might we …” questions, helping to bridge the define and ideate phases of the design thinking process. The questions developed evidence for how the artefacts effectively communicated the complexity and often invisible aspects of the problem—for example, ’how might we center air quality in planning and infrastructure policy so that the built environment supports behavior change’ and ‘how might we give parents greater understanding of health implications, so they feel incentivized to adapt behavior’. Initial workshop evaluations of the artefacts were positive as tools for development, but the need for a more diverse and culturally inclusive range of artefacts was identified along with the inclusion of localized area motivators and barriers. Workshop deliberations and proposals will be progressed to further design phases (’prototype’ and ‘test’) at future workshops in the coming year.

4.4.1. Evidence-Based Artefacts

The deployment of design-led evidence-based artefacts can assist policymakers with understanding the perspectives of the end-user and the impact of local and other contextual factors. Design artefacts can support all design phases, from understanding the problem to generating and testing air quality interventions. Using a design approach, several artefacts were created from the research to gain a deep understanding of the problem and its interaction with the surrounding ecosystem. These artefacts enrich this study by integrating subjective user experiences with contextual data.
A defining feature of this study is the use of artefacts as a communication tool to enhance public participation. Artefacts encompass visualizations and data gathered through this study. Such artefacts help bring visibility to the invisible components of ‘air quality’ and support clarification of previously undefined problem components [89], including individual barriers to change. Artefacts include storyboards, empathy maps, insight cards and evidence-based personas; examples of these are now outlined.

4.4.2. Insight Cards

Insight cards are a design depiction of the most relevant, interesting and actionable findings from research. They provide contextual actionable insights and quick exploration with a user-centric focus for the data collected. Insight cards capture user perspectives and subjective experiences and values that standard metrics often miss, thereby enriching the design process with a more nuanced understanding [90]. They are a valuable tool in co-design workshops to generate a shared understanding of the invisible problem components to produce user-centric actions (Figure 6).

4.4.3. Storyboards

A storyboard is a visual representation of a narrative or concept anchored in research and usually split into panels or sequences depicting a story emergent from the findings. It provides a meaningful depiction of what the research shows about the interplay of a variety of contextual factors and narratives. Storyboarding serves as a condensed graphical representation, facilitating communication between designers, stakeholders and end users, enabling better decision-making [90,91].
Storyboards were employed during the initial co-design workshop as a visual tool to articulate the multifaceted nature of the problem, facilitating a shared understanding among participants. Storyboards are frequently used in the design of new technologies to depict an imagined use case for a product or service. Storyboards are further developed in subsequent co-design workshops alongside the creation of tangible prototypes to test interventions, communicate ideas and facilitate reiteration (Figure 7).

4.4.4. Evidence-Based Personas

Evidence-based personas involve creating caricatures of end-user groups to help researchers better understand their intrinsic (and often latent) needs, i.e., their ‘expectations, prior experience and anticipated behavior’ [78] (p. 253). In this study, evidence-based personas, such as the example in Figure 8, are used by researchers in co-design sessions to convey individuals’ readiness for change when interpreted through behavioral change models such as Bamberg’s framework [51].
Stakeholders can co-create more effective solutions by addressing user ‘pain points’ and harnessing motivators to support behavior change [92] with persons enabling user-centric consideration of more nuanced and contextually appropriate interventions.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Improving air quality outside schools requires multifaceted responses, not only at a national level but also at the very local level, cognizant of the context and local culture, assets and infrastructure.
The research findings from this pre-decisional phase exploration signpost avenues for intervention planning and development and suggestions for future research including research with school children and with communities in socially disadvantaged localities on air quality concerns and potential initiatives.
The finding of a low level of awareness about pollutants underpins a recommendation for prioritizing awareness-raising as a foundational component of human decision-making (in alignment with the stage model of behavioral change) and air quality mitigation strategies, ensuring pollutants become a ‘visible’ concern rather than being invisible.
The findings favoring actions focusing on a collectivist approach rather than individual attitudes and behaviors highlight the importance of an integrated policy underpinned by legislation that outlines multifaceted responses that mandate and motivate shared social responsibility for air quality promotion. A cultural shift from individual to collective action underpins a recommendation for the application of Place-Making and Assets-Based Community Development approaches, to harness social cohesion and community engagement, preparing the system for change by identifying and mobilizing community assets, promoting cultural shifts and collective action.
In sum, this research identified the need for awareness-building on air quality within the ‘niche’ of local school communities, and following on from this, localized initiatives, such as no car idling, developed following a design-based approach and anchored in behavioral change models, to promote air quality. Coupled with collective engagement, reinforcing a sense of collective responsibility may then render the goal of improving air quality more realistic and the UN Sustainable Development Goals [1] of good health and wellbeing (Goal 3) and affordable and clean energy (Goal 7) more effectively reached.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.d.R., A.S., G.C.R.D. and L.O.; methodology, Á.d.R., A.S. and G.C.R.D.; formal analysis, Á.d.R. and A.S.; investigation, Á.d.R. and A.S.; resources, L.O. and M.G.; data curation, A.S.; writing Á.d.R. and A.S.; project administration, L.O., G.C.R.D. and M.G.; funding acquisition L.O., G.C.R.D. and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 101016956 PASSEPARTOUT in the context of the Photonics Public Private Partnership.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Munster Technological University (Human Research Ethics Committee October 2024, Approval No. MR-24-057-A).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all the schools, respondents and interviewees that participated in this research and the manuscript reviewers for their constructive comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors wish to declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PM2.5Particulate matter
NO2Nitrogen dioxide
UN United Nations
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
WHOWorld Health Organisation

References

  1. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. Available online: https://desapublications.un.org/publications/sustainable-development-goals-report-2023-special-edition (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  2. Government of Ireland. National Planning Framework. 2018. Available online: https://www.npf.ie/wp-content/uploads/Project-Ireland-2040-NPF.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Annual Air Quality Report 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring--assessment/air/air-quality-in-ireland-2023.php (accessed on 16 December 2024).
  4. European Commission. Revised Ambient Air Quality Directive 2024. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-pollution-rules-come-effect-cleaner-air-2030-2024-12-10_en (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  5. O’Sullivan, P.D.; Theofanis Psomas, T.; Devarapu, G.C.R.; O’ Donovan, A.C. Assessing Suburban Air Quality Constraints on Free Cooling in an Irish City. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2505.04746. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.04746 (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  6. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Air Quality Guidelines. 2021. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/345329/9789240034228-eng.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2025).
  7. Environmental Protection Agency. Air. Available online: https://www.epa.ie/our-services/monitoring--assessment/air/ (accessed on 9 December 2024).
  8. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Index for Health. Available online: https://airquality.ie/information/air-quality-index-for-health (accessed on 4 December 2024).
  9. Bowatte, G.; Lodge, C.J.; Knibbs, L.D.; Erbas, B.; Perret, J.L.; Jalaludin, B.; Morgan, G.G.; Bui, D.S.; Giles, G.G.; Hamilton, G.S.; et al. Traffic related air pollution and development and persistence of asthma and low lung function. Environ. Int. 2018, 113, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Calderón-Garcidueñas, L.; Leray, E.; Heydarpour, P.; Torres-Jardón, R.; Reis, J. Air pollution, a rising environmental risk factor for cognition, neuro inflammation and neurodegeneration: The clinical impact on children and beyond. Rev. Neurol. 2016, 172, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Flores-Pajot, M.-C.; Ofner, M.; Do, M.T.; Lavigne, E.; Villeneuve, P.J. Childhood autism spectrum disorders and exposure to nitrogen dioxide, and particulate air pollution: A review and meta-analysis. Environ. Res. 2016, 151, 763–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Landrigan, P.J.; Fuller, R.; Acosta, N.J.R.; Adeyi, O.; Arnold, R.; Basu, N.; Baldé, A.B.; Bertollini, R.; Bose-O’Reilly, S.; Boufford, J.I.; et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. Lancet 2017, 391, 462–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lyons, S.; Nolan, A.; Carthy, P.; Griffin, M.; O’Connell, B. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 air pollution and mental health: A retrospective cohort study in Ireland. BMC Environ. Health 2024, 23, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Newbury, J.B.; Stewart, R.; Fisher, H.L.; Beevers, S.; Dajnak, D.; Broadbent, M.; Pritchard, M.; Shiode, N.; Heslin, M.; Hammoud, R.; et al. Association between air pollution exposure and mental health service use among individuals with first presentations of psychotic and mood disorders: Retrospective cohort study. Br. J. Psychiatry 2021, 219, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Porta, D.; Narduzzi, S.; Badaloni, C.; Bucci, S.; Cesaroni, G.; Colelli, V.; Davoli, M.; Sunyer, J.; Zirro, E.; Schwartz, J.; et al. Air Pollution and Cognitive Development at Age 7 in a Prospective Italian Birth Cohort. Epidemiology 2016, 27, 228–236. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26511831 (accessed on 13 March 2025). [CrossRef]
  16. Saenen, N.D.; Provost, E.B.; Viaene, M.K.; Vanpoucke, C.; Lefebvre, W.; Vrijens, K.; Roels, H.A.; Nawrot, T.S. Recent versus chronic exposure to particulate matter air pollution in association with neurobehavioral performance in a panel study of primary school children. Environ. Int. 2016, 95, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moschetti, A.; Giangreco, M.; Ronfani, L.; Cervellera, S.; Ruffilli, M.P.; Nume, C.; Barbi, E.; Servidio, A.G. An ecological study shows increased prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in children living in a heavily polluted area. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 17159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Byrne, C.P.; Bennett, K.E.; Hickey, A.; Kavanagh, P.; Broderick, B.; O’Mahony, M.; Williams, D.J. Short-term air pollution as a risk for stroke admission: A time-series analysis. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2020, 49, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Air Quality in Ireland Report 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring--assessment/air/air-quality-in-ireland-2023.php#:~:text=Summary%3A%20Air%20quality%20in%20Ireland,based%20WHO%20guidelines%20in%202023 (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  20. Chen, J.; Mölter, A.; Gómez-Barrón, J.P.; O’Connor, D.; Pilla, F. Evaluating background and local contributions and identifying traffic-related pollutant hotspots: Insights from Google Air View mobile monitoring in Dublin, Ireland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 56114–56129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. Statement on the Differential Toxicity of Particulate Matter According to Source or Constituents; COMEAP, U.K. Department of Health: London, UK, 2022. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/particulate-air-pollution-health-effects-of-exposure/statement-on-the-differential-toxicity-of-particulate-matter-according-to-source-or-constituents-2022#:~:text=The%20COMEAP%20statement%20on%20the,potency%20in%20causing%20health%20effects (accessed on 30 October 2024).
  22. Aithal, S.S.; Sachdeva, I.; Kurmi, O.P. Air quality and respiratory health in children. Breathe (Sheff) 2023, 19, 230040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  23. Osborne, S.; Uche, O.; Mitsakou, C.; Exley, K.; Dimitroulopoulou, S. Air quality around schools: Part I—A comprehensive literature review across high-income countries. Environ. Res. 2021, 196, 110817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. European Environment Agency. Air Pollution and Children’s Health. 2023. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-pollution-and-childrens-health (accessed on 9 December 2024).
  25. Lindén, J.; Azzouz, M.; Stockfelt, L.; Gustafsson, M.; Molnar, P.; Laurelin, M.; Rieck Jildén, J.; Olofson, H.; Watne, A.K. Location, location, location–A study of factors affecting air quality in Swedish preschool yards. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 113, 105683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maione, M.; Mocca, E.; Eisfeld, K.; Kazepov, Y.; Fuzzi, S. Public perception of air pollution sources across Europe. Ambio 2021, 50, 1150–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Central Statistics Office. Press Statement Household Environmental Behaviours—Environmental Concerns Quarter 3 2021. Available online: https://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2021pressreleases/pressstatementhouseholdenvironmentalbehaviours-environmentalconcernsquarter32021/ (accessed on 8 January 2025).
  28. Quintyne, K.I.; Kelly, C. Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of air pollution in Ireland. Public Health Pract. 2023, 29, 100406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  29. Gifford, R. The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dioba, A.; Kroker, V.; Dewitte, S.; Lange, F. Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behavior Change: A Review of Qualitative Research. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1st ed.; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  34. Liberman, N.; Trope, Y.; Stephan, E. Psychological distance. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd ed.; Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 353–381. [Google Scholar]
  35. European Commission. The Aarhus Convention and the EU. 1998. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/law-and-governance/aarhus_en (accessed on 28 April 2025).
  36. Johnson, B.; Duffin, M.; Murphy, M. Quantifying a relationship between place-based learning and environmental quality. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 609–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rong, T.; Ristevski, E.; Carroll, M. Exploring community engagement in place-based approaches in areas of poor health and disadvantage: A scoping review. Health Place 2023, 81, 103026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Faries, M.D. Why We Don’t “Just Do It”: Understanding the Intention-Behavior Gap in Lifestyle Medicine. Am. J. Lifestyle Ed. 2016, 10, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  39. O’Neill, S.; Gleeson, C.; Torney, D.; Mercier, S.; Daly, C.; Wall, R.; Dublin DCU. Environmental Justice in Ireland: Key Dimensions of Environmental and Climate Injustice Experienced by Vulnerable and Marginalized Communities. 2022. Available online: https://communitylawandmediation.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Environmental-Justice-in-Ireland-230322-1.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  40. European Environment Agency. 2018 Unequal Exposure and Unequal Impacts: Social Vulnerability to Air Pollution, Noise and Extreme Temperatures in Europe. 2018. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/unequal-exposure-and-unequal-impacts. (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  41. Tubridy, F.; Mölter, A.; Lennon, M.; Pilla, F. Citizen science and environmental justice: Exploring contradictory outcomes through a case study of air quality monitoring in Dublin. Local Environ. 2022, 27, 622–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hoy, A.; Mohan, G.; Nolan, A. An investigation of inequalities in exposure to PM2.5 air pollution across small areas in Ireland. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2024, 23, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fecht, D.; Fischer, P.; Fortunato, L.; Hoek, G.; De Hoogh, K.; Marra, M.; Kruize, H.; Vienneau, D.; Beelen, R.; Hansell, A. Associations between air pollution and socioeconomic characteristics, ethnicity and age profile of neighbourhoods in England and the Netherlands. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 198, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ball, K. Traversing myths and mountains: Addressing socioeconomic inequities in the promotion of nutrition and physical activity behaviors. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Government of Ireland. Sláintecare Healthy Communities (SHC). 2021. Available online: https://www.localgov.ie/national-programmes/slaintecare-healthy-communities (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  46. Kretzmann, J.P.; McKnight, J.L.; McKnight, J. Building Communities from the Inside Out, 1st ed.; ACTA Publications: Evanston, IL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lipman, T.H.; Lobo, M.L. Special Issue on Social Determinants of Health. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2017, 37, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sederer, L.I. The Social Determinants of Mental Health. Psychiatr. Serv. 2016, 67, 234–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Karakor, E.K. Place-Making Approachment to Accomplish Social Sustainability. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prochaska, J.O.; DiClemente, C.C. Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. 1982, 19, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bamberg, S. Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 34, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cibin, R.; Venables, D.; Cassarino, M. Promoting Urban Air Quality Resilience Through Communication: A Stakeholder Needs Mapping and Prioritization Study Informed by Design Thinking. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5055465 (accessed on 28 March 2025).
  53. Schulders, M. Co-Creating Smart Cities—Design Thinking for 21st Century Urban Planning. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2022, XXV, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nghiem, M. Reducing air pollution in cities: Evaluate the gap in population engagement and policy strategies DS 117. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2022), London, UK, 8–9 September 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Golumbic, Y.N.; Fishbain, B.; Baram-Tsabari, A. User centered design of a citizen science air-quality monitoring project. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B 2019, 9, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Robinson, J.A.; Novak, R.; Kanduč, T.; Maggos, T.; Pardali, D.; Stamatelopoulou, A.; Saraga, D.; Vienneau, D.; Flückiger, B.; Mikeš, O.; et al. User-Centred Design of a Final Results Report for Participants in Multi-Sensor Personal Air Pollution Exposure Monitoring Campaigns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, S.; Paulos, E. InAir: Sharing indoor air quality measurements and visualizations. In Proceedings of the CHI ’10: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–15 April 2010; pp. 1861–1870. [Google Scholar]
  58. Herawati, N.A.; Surendro, K.; Hikmawati, E. Development of an Intelligent Carbon Emission Monitoring Methodology to Support Carbon Trading with A Design Thinking Approach: A Case Study in PT Paiton Energy. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS), Bandung, Indonesia, 6–7 September 2023; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Clark, R.M.; Stabryla, L.M.; Gilbertson, L.M. Sustainability coursework: Student perspectives and reflections on design thinking. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 593–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Government of Ireland. Designing our Public Service—Design Principles for Government in Ireland. 2022. Available online: https://accessible-eu-centre.ec.europa.eu/designing-our-public-services-design-principles-government-ireland_en (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  61. Lor, R. Design thinking in education: A critical review of literature. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Education & Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand, 24–26 May 2017; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11189/7810 (accessed on 10 February 2025).
  62. Devitt, F.; Ryan, M.; Vaugh, T. ARRIVE. A Design Innovation Framework to Deliver Breakthrough Services, Products and Experiences, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lewrick, M.; Link, P.; Leifer, L. The Design Thinking Toolbox: A Guide to Mastering the Most Popular and Valuable Innovation Methods; Wiley and Sons: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  64. Plattner, H.; Meinel, C.; Weinberg, U. Design Thinking. Learning Innovation—Opening Up Worlds of Ideas; mi-Wirtschaftsbuch: München, Germany, 2009; pp. 59–127. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hasso Plattner Institute. Design Thinking. Available online: https://hpi.de/en/d-school/topics/design-thinking/ (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  66. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, 1st ed.; Teo, T., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1947–1982. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dixon-Woods, M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011, 9, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cassarino, M.; Murphy, L.; Venables, D.; Hellebust, S. Air Quality Around Schools—An Investigation of the Views of Parents/Caregivers and School Staff in Two Primary Schools in Cork. Report of Main Findings. 2022. Available online: https://osf.io/y6t2x/files/osfstorage/66fec28a75b264bd73a20330 (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  69. Gorman, G.; Hellebust, S.; Venables, D.; Ryan, K.; Cassarino, M. Introducing forecast-based public health warnings to promote engagement with air quality risk: A survey of citizens’ attitudes in Cork, Ireland. J. Risk Res. 2023, 26, 594–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. GLOBE Ireland. Available online: https://www.globe.gov/web/ireland/home/about (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  71. Riley, R.; de Preux, L.; Capella, P.; Mejia, C.; Kajikawa, Y.; de Nazelle, A. How do we effectively communicate air pollution to change public attitudes and behaviours? A review. Sustain. Sci. 2021, 16, 2027–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Knowles, E.S.; Riner, D.D. Omega approaches to persuasion: Overcoming resistance. In The Science of Social Influence: Advances and Future Progress, 1st ed.; Pratkanis, A.R., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 83–114. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wheeler, B.W.; Ben-Shlomo, Y.B.S. Environmental equity, air quality, socioeconomic status, and respiratory health: A linkage analysis of routine data from the Health Survey for England. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2005, 59, 948–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Delmas, M.A.; Kohli, A. Can apps make air pollution visible? learning about health impacts through engagement with air quality information. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 161, 279–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. National Transport Authority. Safe Routes to School. 2020. Available online: www.nationaltransport.ie/planning-and-investment/transport-investment/active-travel-investment-programme/safe-routes-to-school-srts-programme-active-travel/ (accessed on 9 December 2024).
  76. Schulte, K. Real-time’ air quality channels: A technology review of emerging environmental alert systems. Big Data Soc. 2022, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. McCarron, A.; Semple, S.; Braban, C.F.; Swanson, V.; Gillespie, C.; Price, H.D. Public engagement with air quality data: Using health behaviour change theory to support exposure-minimizing behaviors. J. Expo. Sci. Env. Epidemiol. 2023, 33, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  78. LeRouge, C.; Ma, J.; Sneha, S.; Tolle, K. User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2013, 82, e251–e268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Morgan, T. Sensing Our World: How Digital Cultural Practices Can Contribute to Changing Social Norms Around Consumption; Environmental Protection Agency: Dublin, Ireland, 2020; Available online: www.epa.ie/publications/research/socio-economics/Research_Report_355.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
  80. Brereton, P. Environmental Literacy and New Digital Audiences, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Brereton, P. Essential Concepts of Environmental Communication: An A–Z Guide, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nouri, S.S.; Avila-Garcia, P.; Cemballi, A.G.; Sarkar, U.; Aguilera, A.; Lyles, C.R. Assessing Mobile Phone Digital Literacy and Engagement in User-Centered Design in a Diverse, Safety-Net Population: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR MHealth UHealth 2019, 7, e14250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Estacio, E.V.; Whittle, R.; Protheroe, J. The digital divide: Examining socio-demographic factors associated with health literacy, access and use of internet to seek health information. J. Health Psychol. 2017, 24, 1668–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Estrela, M.; Semedo, G.; Roque, F.; Lopes Ferreira, P.; Herdeiro, M.T. Sociodemographic determinants of digital health literacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2023, 177, 105124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Azzopardi-Muscat, N.; Sørensen, K. Towards an equitable digital public health era: Promoting equity through a health literacy perspective. Eur. J. Public Health. 2019, 29 (Suppl. S3), 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  86. Workman, A.; Jones, P.J.; Wheeler, A.J.; Campbell, S.L.; Williamson, G.J.; Lucani, C.; Bowman, D.M.J.S.; Cooling, N.; Johnston, F.H. Environmental Hazards and Behavior Change: User Perspectives on the Usability and Effectiveness of the AirRater Smartphone App. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  87. Samet, J.M. Community Design and Air Quality. In Making Healthy Places, 1st ed.; Dannenberg, A.L., Frumkin, H., Jackson, R.J., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Conway, R.; Masters, J.; Thorold, J. From Design Thinking to Systems Change How to Invest in Innovation for Social Impact. 2017. Available online: https://andiroberts.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2024).
  89. Rosen, Z.; Bice, C.; Scott, S. Visualizing the Invisible: Visual-Based Design and Efficacy in Air Quality Messaging. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  90. Ayrton, R. The case for creative, visual and multimodal methods in operationalizing concepts in research design: An examination of storyboarding trust stories. Sociol. Rev. 2020, 68, 1229–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Young, R.; Sage, K.; Broom, D.; Hext, A.; Smith, C. Effective use of storyboarding as a co-design method to enhance power assisted exercise equipment for people with stroke. Des. Health 2022, 6, 244–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Norman, D.A.; Verganti, R. Incremental and Radical Innovation: Design Research vs. Technology and Meaning Change. Design Issues 2014, 30, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 04793 g001
Figure 1. Hasso Plattner DT Framework. Copyright: HPI d–school [65]. Source: reprinted from © HPI d–school https://hpi.de/en/d-school/topics/design-thinking/ (accessed on 8 January 2025). Used with permission.
Figure 1. Hasso Plattner DT Framework. Copyright: HPI d–school [65]. Source: reprinted from © HPI d–school https://hpi.de/en/d-school/topics/design-thinking/ (accessed on 8 January 2025). Used with permission.
Sustainability 17 04793 g001
Sustainability 17 04793 g002
Figure 2. Cork City Map of Participating Schools.
Figure 2. Cork City Map of Participating Schools.
Sustainability 17 04793 g002
Sustainability 17 04793 g003
Figure 3. Perspectives on Air Quality Outside Schools at Child Pick-Up and Drop-Off.
Figure 3. Perspectives on Air Quality Outside Schools at Child Pick-Up and Drop-Off.
Sustainability 17 04793 g003
Sustainability 17 04793 g004
Figure 4. Opinions on Health Impact of NO2 and PM2.5.
Figure 4. Opinions on Health Impact of NO2 and PM2.5.
Sustainability 17 04793 g004
Sustainability 17 04793 g005
Figure 5. Perspectives on the Introduction of a No-Car-Idling Zone Outside the Schools.
Figure 5. Perspectives on the Introduction of a No-Car-Idling Zone Outside the Schools.
Sustainability 17 04793 g005
Sustainability 17 04793 g006
Figure 6. Air Quality Insight Card: Beyond One-Dimensional Solutions: A Multifaceted Approach to Behavioral Change.
Figure 6. Air Quality Insight Card: Beyond One-Dimensional Solutions: A Multifaceted Approach to Behavioral Change.
Sustainability 17 04793 g006
Sustainability 17 04793 g007
Figure 7. Storyboard: A Typical Parent/Carer’s Experience of the School Commute.
Figure 7. Storyboard: A Typical Parent/Carer’s Experience of the School Commute.
Sustainability 17 04793 g007
Sustainability 17 04793 g008
Figure 8. Evidence-Based Persona: Understanding the Needs and Motivators of ‘Mary’.
Figure 8. Evidence-Based Persona: Understanding the Needs and Motivators of ‘Mary’.
Sustainability 17 04793 g008
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Róiste, Á.; Stack, A.; Devarapu, G.C.R.; O’Faolain, L.; Galvin, M. Irish Perspectives on School Ambient Air Quality: A Design-Led Exploration. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114793

AMA Style

de Róiste Á, Stack A, Devarapu GCR, O’Faolain L, Galvin M. Irish Perspectives on School Ambient Air Quality: A Design-Led Exploration. Sustainability. 2025; 17(11):4793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114793

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Róiste, Áine, Aoife Stack, Ganga Chinna Rao Devarapu, Liam O’Faolain, and Mary Galvin. 2025. "Irish Perspectives on School Ambient Air Quality: A Design-Led Exploration" Sustainability 17, no. 11: 4793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114793

APA Style

de Róiste, Á., Stack, A., Devarapu, G. C. R., O’Faolain, L., & Galvin, M. (2025). Irish Perspectives on School Ambient Air Quality: A Design-Led Exploration. Sustainability, 17(11), 4793. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114793

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop