This study concerns the levels of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM1) released by residential stoves inside the home during ‘real world’ use. Focusing on stoves that were certified by the UK’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), PM sensors were placed in the vicinity of 20 different stoves over four weeks, recording 260 uses. The participants completed a research diary in order to provide information on time lit, amount and type of fuel used, and duration of use, among other details. Multivariate statistical tools were used in order to analyse indoor PM concentrations, averages, intensities, and their relationship to aspects of stove management. The study has four core findings. First, the daily average indoor PM concentrations when a stove was used were higher for PM2.5 by 196.23% and PM1 by 227.80% than those of the non-use control group. Second, hourly peak averages are higher for PM2.5 by 123.91% and for PM1 by 133.09% than daily averages, showing that PM is ‘flooding’ into indoor areas through normal use. Third, the peaks that are derived from these ’flooding’ incidents are associated with the number of fuel pieces used and length of the burn period. This points to the opening of the stove door as a primary mechanism for introducing PM into the home. Finally, it demonstrates that the indoor air pollution being witnessed is not originating from outside the home. Taken together, the study demonstrates that people inside homes with a residential stove are at risk of exposure to high intensities of PM2.5 and PM1 within a short period of time through normal use. It is recommended that this risk be reflected in the testing and regulation of residential stoves.
With air quality issues in urban areas garnering increasing media attention, concerned citizens are beginning to engage with air monitoring technology as a means of identifying and responding to the environmental risks posed. However, while much has been written about the accuracy of this sensing equipment, little research has been conducted into the effect it has on users. As such, this research deploys coping theory to explore the specific ways in which portable air quality sensors influence user behaviour. This is done using a qualitative exploratory design, targeting parents and carers of children on the school run. Drawing from survey and interview responses, the article illustrates the decision-making pathways underpinning engagement with monitors and the ways in which they influence beliefs and behaviours around air pollution. The study demonstrates that personal environmental monitors can play a role in protecting children from air pollution on the school run. They can raise awareness about air pollution and disrupt misconceptions about where it does and does not occur. They can also encourage the public to change their behaviour in an attempt to mitigate and manage risks. However, the findings additionally reveal that sensor technology does not generate a simple binary response among users, of behavioural change or not. When attempts at behavioural change fail to reduce risk, resulting negative feelings can lead to inaction. Hence, the relationship between the technology and the individual is entwined with various social circumstances often beyond a parent or carer's control. Thus, top-down support aimed at tackling air pollution at source is essential if this bottom-up technology is to fulfil its full potential.
Procedural environmental justice refers to fairness in processes of decision-making. It recognises that environmental victimisation, while an injustice in and of itself, is usually underpinned by unjust deliberation procedures. Although green criminology tends to focus on the former—distributional dimension of environmental justice—this article draws attention to its procedural counterpart. In doing so, it demonstrates how the notions of justice-as-recognition and justice-as-participation are jointly manifested within its conceptual boundaries. This is done by using the consultation process that occurs with indigenous peoples on proposed oil sands projects in Northern Alberta, Canada, as a case study. Drawing from ‘elite’ interviews, the article illustrates how indigenous voices have been marginalised and their Treaty rights misrecognised within this consultation process. As such, in seeking to understand the procedural determinants of distributional injustice, the article aims to encourage broader green criminological scholarship to do the same.
With around two million trees within its boundaries, the city of Sheffield, England, is known as the ‘greenest city in Europe’. Of these, 36,000 are ‘street trees’, defined as those planted on pavements and other public rights of way. As of 2012, however, a private contractor was awarded a £2.2 billion contract by Sheffield City Council to upgrade the city’s roads over a 25-year period. This required the felling of over 6000 street trees by the end of August 2017. By 2015, this had sparked such widespread public opposition that the felling programme missed its 2017 deadline. For protesters, the central point of contention was and continues to be the seemingly indiscriminate felling of healthy trees. This article examines the specific forms of harm precipitating local public involvement in such opposition. In doing so, it explains the substantive injustices associated with the felling of street trees before focusing on the underpinning forms of procedural environmental injustice that have allowed for their ongoing production. This contributes to wider green criminological literature by demonstrating how public participation in decision-making is crucial for the attainment of environmental justice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.