There is a growing demand by the civil society for relevant information on the environment quality and related health risks. The state should be able to satisfy this demand and this makes the present research truly vital. It concentrates on correlating expert and non-expert opinions expressed when perceiving risk quantification. Our goal was to answer two following questions: 1) How does an average unprofessional person quantify a probability and severity when he or she hears certain verbal expressions that denominate them? 2) How can we possibly identify the assessment of health risks associated with environmental pollution factors given by the population in general or specific social groups? To find answers to these questions, we applied quantitative methods for data collection and analysis. The first stage involved collecting data on subjective correlation of a verbal probability scale with its numeric expression among people living in industrial cities. The second stage focused on testing the methodology for studying assessments of health risks associated with ambient air pollution given by the population/social groups. This methodology relied on the results obtained at the previous stage. We established that only 70 % of people actually correlated words with figures. We determined that experts tended to rate probabilities approximately by 10 % higher than “average people” did when it came down to such words as “Virtually certain” and “Very likely”. Such words as “Likely”, “Similarly likely” and “Unlikely” were also rated differently but with a smaller gap between the opinions. The study also provides a method for determining the public assessment of health associated with ambient air pollution. The research results give an opportunity to solve a practical task related to informing the population about health risks and to overcome a so-called language barrier between experts and ordinary people. For example, messages aimed for decision-makers can be adapted considering all the identified perception peculiarities.

There is a growing demand by the civil society for relevant information on the environment quality and related health risks. The state should be able to satisfy this demand and this makes the present research truly vital. It concentrates on correlating expert and non-expert opinions expressed when perceiving risk quantification. Our goal was to answer two following questions: 1) How does an average unprofessional person quantify a probability and severity when he or she hears certain verbal expressions that denominate them? 2) How can we possibly identify the assessment of health risks associated with environmental pollution factors given by the population in general or specific social groups? To find answers to these questions, we applied quantitative methods for data collection and analysis. The first stage involved collecting data on subjective correlation of a verbal probability scale with its numeric expression among people living in industrial cities. The second stage focused on testing the methodology for studying assessments of health risks associated with ambient air pollution given by the population/social groups. This methodology relied on the results obtained at the previous stage. We established that only 70 % of people actually correlated words with figures. We determined that experts tended to rate probabilities approximately by 10 % higher than “average people” did when it came down to such words as “Virtually certain” and “Very likely”. Such words as “Likely”, “Similarly likely” and “Unlikely” were also rated differently but with a smaller gap between the opinions. The study also provides a method for determining the public assessment of health associated with ambient air pollution. The research results give an opportunity to solve a practical task related to informing the population about health risks and to overcome a so-called language barrier between experts and ordinary people. For example, messages aimed for decision-makers can be adapted considering all the identified perception peculiarities.

Introduction. People’s satisfaction with ambient air quality is a significant indicator to estimate effectiveness of activities performed by authorities when they aim to provide sanitary-epidemiological wellbeing. Still, it is hardly ever used in management practices in Russia. Methods for estimating satisfaction are multiple, rather controversial, and this might be the reason for neglecting the indicator. The aim of this study to substantiate and test the methodology for estimating people’s satisfaction with ambient air quality on a territory included into the ‘Clean Air’ Federal project. Materials and methods. The empirical base was provided by the results of an online survey accomplished in a large industrial city in Russia. The total sample included five hundred five people. The applied method was quota sampling as per age and gender. The data were analyzed by descriptive and inductive statistics. Results. People’s satisfaction with ambient air quality was measured with an integral index that considered its multidimensional essence. It turned out to be rather low. Indirect indicators of satisfaction that usually describe subjective perception of ambient air quality and its specific components cannot always provide an adequate base for making any conclusions about levels of people’s satisfaction. Limitations. The study has certain limitation associated with a territory where it has been accomplished; this territory has high anthropogenic burdens on the environment. Conclusion. The integral index of people’s satisfaction with ambient air quality has good descriptive capability and can be used to monitor subjective indicators of people’s quality of life.