No abstract

Abstract. Geoscientists and non-geoscientists often struggle to communicate with each other. In this paper we aim to understand how geoscientists and non-geoscientists perceive geological concepts and activities, that is, how they think (cognitive responses) and feel (affective responses) about them. To this effect, using a mixed-methods approach, we compare mental models – people's representation of a phenomenon – of the subsurface, mining/quarrying, and drilling, between geoscientists (n=24) and non-geoscientists (n=38) recruited in Ireland. We identify four dominant themes which underlie their mental models: (1) degree of knowledge and familiarity, (2) presence of humans, (3) affective beliefs, and (4) beliefs about perceived impact of the activities. While the mental models of the non-geoscientists focused more on the perceived negative environmental and economic impacts of geoscience, as well as providing evidence of lay expertise, those of the geoscientists focused more on human interactions. We argue that mental models of geoscientists and non-geoscientists are the result of beliefs, including both cognitive and affective components, and that both components need to be acknowledged for effective dialogue between the two groups to take place.

Radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can accumulate inside dwellings, represents the second biggest cause of lung cancer globally. In Ireland, radon is linked to approximately 300 lung cancer cases every year, equating to 12% of all lung cancer deaths. Despite the health risks posed by radon air pollution, Ireland lacks well-defined and universally applicable air pollution-related public health policies. Through purposive literature sampling, we critically examine the case of indoor radon policy development in Ireland. Specifically, we analyse the evidence-based policymaking process relating to indoor radon pollution from three different knowledge dimensions, namely political, scientific, and practical knowledge. In doing so, we identify various challenges inherent to pollution-related public policymaking. We highlight the difficulties of balancing and integrating information from multiple disciplines and perspectives and argue that input from multiple scientific areas is crucial, but can only be achieved through continued, dialogic communication between stakeholders. On the basis of our analysis, we suggest that a transdisciplinary perspective, defined as a holistic approach which subordinates disciplines and looks at the dynamics of whole systems, will allow evidence-based policymaking to be effective. We end with recommendations for evidence-based policymaking when it comes to public health hazards such as radon, which are applicable to sustainable air pollution management beyond Ireland.

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Geoscientists and non-geoscientists often struggle to communicate with each other. In this paper we aim to understand how geoscientists and non-geoscientists perceive geological concepts and processes, that is, how they think (cognitive responses) and feel (affective responses) about them. To this effect, using a mixed-methods approach, we compare mental models – people's representation of a phenomenon – of the subsurface, mining/quarrying, drilling, and flooding between geoscientists (<i>n</i> = 24) and non-geoscientists (<i>n</i> = 38). We identify four dominant themes which underlie their mental models: (1) degree of knowledge and familiarity, (2) beliefs about human interactions, (3) affective beliefs, and (4) beliefs about perceived impact of the processes. While the mental models of non-geoscientists focus more on the perceived negative environmental and economic impacts of geoscience, those of geoscientists focus more on human interactions. We argue that mental models are the result of beliefs, including both cognitive and affective components, and that both need to be acknowledged for effective dialogue between the two groups to take place.</p>