Impacts of citizen science on trust between stakeholders and trust in science in a polarized context

ABSTRACT Air pollution and odour annoyance caused by livestock farming often leads to tension and distrust between livestock farmers and non-farming residents in agricultural areas in the Netherlands. In this study, we conducted a citizen science project to measure air quality and odour annoyance in collaboration with farmers, non-farming residents, and the municipality. The aim was to explore whether measuring together through citizen science influenced (1) mutual trust between stakeholders, and (2) their trust in the scientific process and outcomes of this project. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants before and after participating in the project. Results indicated that measuring together did not improve trust between farmers and their neighbours. However, non-farming residents did express more trust in the municipality and perceived their interests were more fairly taken into account. Moreover, all participants expressed trust in the scientific process and outcomes regarding their ‘own’ measurements; contrasting the distrust they expressed in the ‘official’ governmental data. Control and transparency due to their own involvement, involvement of an independent scientific institute and positive interactions with the scientists’ contributed to this trust. These results highlight the need for further research on the potential impact of citizen science projects on trust in different contexts.


Introduction
In the Netherlands, most Dutch livestock farms are located less than 250 metres from a civilian house (Os et al., 2016).The high density of these farms in certain areas can lead to air pollution and odour annoyance, which can cause health and environmental concerns for non-farming residents (Gezondheidsraad, 2018;Post, 2021).These issues often lead to tension and mutual distrust between farmers and non-farming residents (Biesheuvel et al., 2019;Caldwell et al., 2004;Eijrond et al., 2022;Sharp & Smith, 2003).Non-farming residents state that they cannot trust the local governmental authorities to take their concerns or complaints seriously (Biesheuvel et al., 2019;Breeman et al., 2013;Eijrond et al., 2022).Also, there is much distrust from farmers towards the government (Eshuis & Van Woerkum, 2003); recent proposed governmental measures to reduce livestock farming in order to reduce nitrogen deposition has put this relationship on edge even more (Kanne et al., 2021).Both farmers and non-farming residents are often sceptical towards the official calculations and models on environmental pollution caused by livestock farming.Farmers generally believe that livestock CONTACT Kirsten R. Vegt kirsten.vegt@rivm.nlDepartment of Perception and Behaviour (Centre for Environmental Safety and Security), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, P.O.Box 1, Bilthoven 3720 BA, The Netherlands Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2253164.
farming is not the main source of the pollution, and that the calculations are overestimating its contribution, while non-farming residents believe official calculations underestimate pollution levels and its effects on their health (Biesheuvel et al., 2019;Kanne et al., 2021;Schaap, 2021).Both the lack of mutual trust and the lack of trust in the science regarding the impact of livestock farms on the environment exacerbates dealing with the problem of pollution (Eijrond et al., 2019;Eijrond et al., 2022;Van Bueren et al., 2003).
A number of studies indicate that citizen science has the potential to strengthen both mutual trust between stakeholders and trust in science (Bedessem et al., 2021;Hubbell et al., 2018;Walker et al., 2021).Citizen Science can broadly be defined as a way to actively involve citizens in a scientific endeavour that generates new knowledge or understanding (Haklay et al., 2021).There are many ways citizens can be involved in scientific research.Recently, research projects in which citizens utilise sensors to monitor or measure their surroundings has considerably expanded (Berti Suman, 2020;Fraisl et al., 2020;Pocock et al., 2017;Volten et al., 2018).Citizens measure factors in their environments for a variety of reasons, including health concerns and distrust of official (governmental) data (Berti Suman, 2020;Volten et al., 2018;Whatmore, 2009; as cited in Hubbell et al., 2018).Whether such measurements can also strengthen trust in an already polarized context with stakeholders with divergent interests remains the question.
Therefore, this study aims to explore (1) whether measuring air quality and odour annoyance together in a citizen science project influenced trust between farmers and local non-farming residents and towards their local government, as well as (2) trust in the scientific process and outcomes of this project.Based on these aims, the following research questions can be formulated: (1) To what extent does participating in a citizen science initiative promote mutual trust between farmers and non-farming residents, and towards the municipality involved in the project?(2) How does measuring together through citizen science impact farmers and non-farming residents' trust in the scientific process employed in the project, as well as it's outcomes?
To address these research questions, interviews were conducted with farmers and their non-farming neighbours before and after a citizen science project measuring air quality, in an area with a high density of livestock farms.

Trust and trustworthiness
A wide range of definitions of trust can be found in the literature.In the current paper, we follow the definition of Mayer et al. (1995), because of its extensive empirical support and applicability in multiple contexts (Fricker et al., 2013;Hendriks et al., 2016;Schoorman et al., 2007): trust is the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.
In order to be trusted, a combination of the following three factors is important: ability, benevolence, and integrity.Ability is defined as the set of skills, competencies, and characteristics someone is perceived to have to influence a specific domain.Benevolence is the extent to which someone is believed to want to do good to another person, aside from an egocentric profit motive (Mayer et al., 1995).Showing support towards the other and creating opportunities for someone else's success can lead to increased perceived benevolence, which can eventually lead to higher levels of trust (Colquitt & Salam, 2012).Finally, integrity is the extent to which someone is perceived to adhere to a set of principles that the other person finds acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995).This also means that promises that are made need to be kept and one should be honest in order to come across as trustworthy (Colquitt & Salam, 2012).Integrity is often studied in the context of procedural justice, which is the perceived fairness by an individual concerning decision-making procedures such as accuracy, consistency, transparency in communication, and the degree to which voices and what input are allowed (Leventhal, 1980;Vogelgesang et al., 2013).

Environmental concerns and trust in science
Intensive livestock farming and the environmental (health) risks involved, are associated with high levels of knowledge uncertainty and interdependencies, as well as high stakeholder diversity and ambiguous solutions, and can therefore be categorized as 'a very wicked problem' (Eijrond et al., 2019).When it comes to such problems, most individuals are not able to manage the available information and make a risk-assessments themselves (Siegrist, 2021;van Harreveld van & Rutjens, 2020).Science can potentially reduce uncertainties when one can rely on external expertise, which increases a sense that things are under control (van Harreveld van & Rutjens, 2020).However, science can also provoke public scepticism and distrust (Rutjens et al., 2018;van Harreveld van & Rutjens, 2020;Većkalov et al., 2022).Arguably, this is particularly the case for contentious scientific issues that affect people's personal lives.
Increasingly, research points to a link between people's concerns about environmental risks, trust in the associated science, and acceptance of proposed solutions.Either people support solutions and trust the associated science or people reject solutions and distrust the associated science (Messer et al., 2017;Slovic, 1999;Spaccatini et al., 2022).This seems to boil down to fact vs. policy: people can agree on the problem, but not on a proposed solution to the problem.If certain scientific findings are in conflict with or threaten people's way of living, people tend to refute or dismiss the evidence (Campbell & Kay, 2014;Sutton et al., 2018).With regard to livestock farming in the Netherlands, similar factors seem to play a role: there is much discussion and division as to what should be done to decrease the negative impact of livestock farming on the environment (Eijrond et al., 2019;Eijrond et al., 2022;Van Burgsteden et al., 2022), as well as distrust towards the science and the research institutions behind the calculations of pollution related to livestock farming (Kanne et al., 2021).

Citizen science, mutual trust and trust in science
To deal with 'wicked problems', collaboration between stakeholders is needed to increase the likelihood that there is mutual trust between stakeholders, and the problem (and the science behind it) is understood and agreed upon (Eijrond et al., 2019;Van Bueren et al., 2003).Research suggests that citizen science can facilitate the development of mutual trust among stakeholders and increase trust in science.For example in citizen science projects regarding water evaluation (Thornton & Leahy, 2012;Walker et al., 2021) and on the topic of urban studies (Bedessem et al., 2021).Furthermore, there are indications that citizens and policymakers working together in citizen science projects has the potential to increase citizens' trust in the (local) government (Hecker et al., 2018;Schade et al., 2021).In a review of the literature on social and behavioural aspects of sensor use by citizen scientists, Hubbell et al. (2018) states that the process of engaging community members as citizen scientists builds trust and can address concerns about scientific validity and sustainability of monitoring networks.
It would be socially and scientifically relevant to see how these results translate to other real world contexts.Specifically in a citizen science project in which the context involves a wicked problem, with stakeholders having opposing interests and an established distrust towards each other and the existing science related to the problem.To the best of our knowledge, there haven't been any studies conducted in this particular direction yet.

Project set-up
This study is part of the citizen science project 'Farmers and Neighbours' (Dutch: 'Boeren en Buren') which started in 2019.Farmers and non-farming residents both desired local air quality and odour annoyance monitoring, creating an unique opportunity to conduct a citizen science case study with stakeholders with divergent interests.The project was a collaboration between the Healthy Living Environment Venray (Dutch: 'Gezond Leefmilieu Venray'; GLV), representing local non-farming residents, the Limburg Agricultural and Horticultural Association (Dutch: 'Limburgse Land-en Tuinbouwbond'; LLTB) representing farmers, the municipality of Venray and the RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, in Dutch: 'Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu').Woutersen et al. (2022) provides a detailed description of the activities and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved, a schematic representation of the projects' different phases (Figure 1) and an overview of the meetings and interactions between the participants (Woutersen et al., 2022; Suppl Table S1).
For the current study, two rounds of interviews with stakeholders (farmers, non-farming residents and municipal officials) were held at the start in 2019 and in 2021 after presenting the final results and conclusions of the project.We explored the impact of participation in a citizen science project on mutual trust between stakeholders and trust in the scientific process and outcomes of the project.

Interview guideline
An interview guideline was made based on Mayer et al. (1995) theory on trust (see Table 1 for major interview themes and example questions).All questions on trust were categorized in terms of the dimensions ability, benevolence, integrity, or unspecified on 'General Trust'.The 2021 interview guideline included additional questions on how participants reflected on their previously formulated expectations and their experiences with regard to the project, as well as possible elements to have influenced their trust.We also asked whether there had been other events that impacted their trust, unrelated to the project.
The semi-structured interview approach was inspired by Realist Evaluation, developed by Pawson and Tilley (1997).This method aims to identify the underlying Mechanisms that describe 'how' particular Outcomes are created by a programme or intervention, and the impact of Context on these outcomesin short the CMO's (Koralesky et al., 2021).For Farmers and Neighbours, an 'Outcome' was when trust was impacted in some way for participants because of their participation in the project (the intervention).A 'Context' was the (project-)setting in which this happened, which included existing features like demographics and interpersonal relationships.And 'Mechanisms' were the ways trust was influenced; for example particular information or behaviour that was received and perceived by a participant in a specific way (see Table 1).

Recruitment interviews
In total there were 26 participating citizen scientists (4 farmers and 22 residents) in the 'Farmers and Neighbours' project.In 2019, nine non-farming residents, agreed to be interviewed (5 female, age between 61 and 78).In 2021, we included two additional participating non-farming residents who expressed a willingness to be interviewed, resulting in a total of 11 residents (6 female, age between 59 and 78).Out of the four participating farmers who were invited, three agreed to be interviewed, both in 2019 and in 2021 (all male, age between 47 and 50).Additionally, two local government officials were interviewed to provide contextual information, allowing us to gain insight into the municipality's perspective regarding the project and to identify any external events unknown to us that could have potentially impacted trust.Participants provided written consent prior to the interview (Appendix).The interviews were carried out by scientists who were members of the project team but who had not been involved in the day-to-day contact with the participants during the project itself, to mitigate some of the potential influence of a familiar researchers' presence on the subjects' responses (Anderson, 2010).In 2019, the interviews were conducted in person.However, because of COVID-19 restrictions, all interviews in 2021 were conducted online.Each interview took approximately an hour, and was recorded and transcribed.

Analysing procedures
The themes in the data set were identified and organized using qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012).Researchers used MAXQDA software to familiarize themselves with the data, generate initial codes, identify and review potential themes, as well as defining, naming and reporting them.The interview guideline provided the analytical framework for interpreting the data, focusing on the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) of trust in terms of Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity.The interviews were independently coded by one of two researchers who were also responsible for conducting the interviews.To ensure the accuracy and consistency of coding, all coded interviews were subsequently cross-checked by the other researcher.Additionally, a third researcher, who had no prior involvement in the project, conducted a double-check of the coding process to further enhance its validity and reliability.In cases where discrepancies or disagreements in coding emerged, they were resolved through subsequent discussions among the researchers.Following the coding process, the identified mechanisms were grouped into three overarching themes that summarized the impact of the project on trust for the participants.

Results
Three overarching project mechanisms could be identified that were influential on trust: (1) contact between farmers and residents, (2) increased access to the municipality for residents and (3) participant knowledge and transparency about the measurement process.Results on mutual trust between stakeholders are categorized in ability, benevolence, or integrity.For clarity, illustrative quotes are presented in Tables 2-4 to show how contexts (C) activated mechanisms (M) and produced outcomes (O).To maintain anonymity, interviews with farmers (F) and residents (R) are identified in a numbered way (F1, 2 and 3 and R1-11).

Contact between farmers and residents
In 2019, it was reported that the community was already polarized on the issue of air quality and odour annoyance, with mutual distrust between farmers and residents.During the course of the project in 2021, both farmers and residents reported that direct contact and conversation facilitated by the project had impacted their trust.Both parties reported feeling positive about the exchange of ideas and information, and an increase in mutual understanding as it became clearer for participants why individuals took a certain position on issues.However, residents nonetheless reported that their trust in the farmers had either remained low or decreased, with farmers reporting similar sentiments towards their neighbours.While there were some individual differences, both parties mainly cited that their existing negative perceptions of each other were confirmed during the project meetings.
The discord is certainly not gone because of the project.The question whether people who took part now communicate and understand each other better and trust each other more … ?I'll answer that with a resounding 'no' -R7 (2021) Many residents believed that farmers prioritized their own financial self-interest over the interests of their neighbours and behaved defensively and dishonestly during the meetings.Farmers, on the other hand, felt that most residents were overreacting and exaggerating their concerns, and were more interested in using the situation against farmers rather than engaging in a genuine dialogue.Overall, it appears that the project did not have a positive impact on trust between farmers and residents (Table 2).

Increased access to the municipality for residents
Residents in 2019 reported low levels of trust in the municipality, believing that it did not prioritize their interests.Some residents also mentioned the co-dependency between certain major political parties in the area and farmers, with the parties reliant on the support of farmers to maintain their political power.This, according to some residents, leads to the municipality turning a blind eye to farmers who cause nuisance in order to maintain good relations with them.
The municipality is very sympathetic towards the agricultural sector (…).Farmers' organizations have a network there that works for them; it has been like this for a very long time.The laws are written for them.-R4 (2019) In 2021, residents reported that the project had given them more opportunities to engage with the municipality and that they now feel they have 'a seat at the table' and that the municipality is more aware of their interests.They saw the municipality's willingness to be involved in the project as a sign of a more balanced approach towards both farmers and residents.However, some residents expressed frustration with the municipality, fearing that the focus on their interests would not result in tangible action in the near future.Some suspected that the local government's participation in the project was primarily to delay finding solutions to the pollution problem (Table 3).

Participant knowledge and transparency about the measuring process
At the beginning of the project, residents expressed skepticism towards the government that provided official data on livestock farming-related pollution.They strongly believed air that smells so bad cannot be healthyin their opinion the official figures didn't reflect this.
it was nice that we were informed well and on time on the limitations of the measurements; it helped me understand.
[…]'-R7 RIVM involvement in the project Experiencing the involvement of RIVM as an independent and fair 'arbiter' on the measuring process All participants -> trusting this cs 'I think it was important a neutral expert party like the RIVM was involved'.-R1 'Before, I noticed that in an unspoken way, relevant topics were often being taken of the agendaall kinds of sneaky things.
[…] The RIVM hasn't had any involvement [in the problems] here, so they were very suitable to guard this process.'-R10 'My views on the RIVM with regard to the nitrogen discussion is very negative, but in Farmers and Neighbours they're pretty positive.I believe you've conducted this research to the best of your abilities and knowledge during this project.'-F1 The attitude of the scientists involved in the project The experience of scientists sharing their knowledge with participants and interacting with them in an empathetic and reliable manner.
All participants -> trusting this cs Farmers were also concerned about the accuracy of the official figures, believing they overestimated the emissions from their livestock farms.They hoped the project-measurements would provide insight into the actuality of their own emissions, as well as providing more data on (other) pollution sources.Furthermore, farmers placed a high value on transparency and a sense of control with regard to the measuring process and outcomes.They were confident 'their' citizen science measurements were not 'tampered with' and believed that these measurements were more trustworthy because they could be monitored in real time, instead of relying on emission calculation models based on averages.
It became evident during the project that the measurement data would not necessarily provide the precise and conclusive answers that participants hoped for.The sensors weren't as reliable as participants desired, and interpretation of the data was nuanced and complex, leading to some disappointment.However, this did not translate into distrust of the scientific process or outcomes.Participants felt that they were informed of this issue in a timely manner and they appreciated the honest information about the limitations of the measuring instruments from the experts.
Most participants expressed trust in the RIVM as an independent process supervisor with no stake in the matter.They valued the independent guidance provided during meetings as assurance that no important topics would be overlooked.Farmers distinguished between their low level of trust in the RIVM in the context of its role as a data supplier in the national nitrogen deposition debate, and their high level of trust in the RIVM for this project.All participants reported they felt seen and heard in their concerns and interests by the scientists involved.The transparent conduct of the research and the expertise, approachability, and empathy of the scientists involved, were cited as factors that contributed to trust (Table 4).

Contextual factors
The project was mentioned by both farmers and non-farming residents as having an impact on their trust in various ways, but external events had a major impact as well.For instance, during the project a participating farmer applied for a permit to expand his business activities, which was met with a petition against the permit by residents, putting their relationship on edge (see for example R11, Table 2).

Discussion
This study addressed the way mutual trust between farmers and their neighbours, and trust in a scientific process and its outcomes was impacted through participation in a citizen science project, in which farmers and residents jointly measured air pollution and odour annoyance in their environment.Based on the projects results, we draw the following conclusions: Results indicate that, while participants generally did not report an increase in mutual trust towards each other because of the project, their increased contact did promote some mutual understanding and awareness of benevolent intentions between stakeholders.As the project progressed, mutual trust was reported to be negatively impacted due to the lack of (perceived) benevolent actions and questionable integrity.This is in contrast to previous research, which found that working together in a citizen science project can foster mutual trust (Hubbell et al., 2018;Walker et al., 2021).A reason for these divergent results could be that the polarized context of this particular project played a significant role.The focus on measurement knowledge and the measurement process surrounding air quality and odour annoyance may not have been sufficient to build trust in this particular situation.Strategies that are focused on group dynamics, building social capital, and incorporating mediation-like guidance during meetings between the polarized groups may be more effective in addressing trust issues in similar contexts (Caldwell et al., 2004;Sharp & Smith, 2003;Van Burgsteden et al., 2022).From an ethical perspective, it is important for researchers to consider the potential consequences of such a project in a polarized community, including the possibility of leaving the community in a worse state than before.For this reason as well, incorporating a mediation element in the process would perhaps be advisable.
Furthermore, participating in the Farmers and Neighbours project provided residents with a platform for dialogue with the municipality, which contributed to their trust in the local government and an increased perception of their interests being taken into consideration.This aligns with prior research, suggesting that cooperation in citizen science research between citizens and government can foster trust, provided that certain conditions are met, such as policymakers taking citizen scientists seriously (Hecker et al., 2018;Schade et al., 2021).The present study found that many residents had a (cautious) trust in their local government based on their experiences during the project.However, it is likely this trust declines again if citizens perceive a lack of policy action based on the concerns and questions addressed in the Farmers and Neighbours project.
Finally, consistent with previous findings (Bedessem et al., 2021;Hubbell et al., 2018;Thornton & Leahy, 2012), all participants reported that a sense of control and transparency in the measuring process increased their trust in the scientific process and outcomes, as well as honest communication about (the limitations of) the measurement instruments and resulting data.The involvement of an independent scientific institute was important for trust, as well as effective expectation management and approachable, empathetic scientists.The distinction made by participants between science as a method or process, and the scientists as individuals or representatives of the scientific institute to which they belong has also been observed in previous research (Hendriks et al., 2016).This highlights the importance of the content of science (the 'what'), as well as the credibility and transparency of the individuals or institutions communicating scientific information ('the who') for trust.

Limitations & future research
Due to its broad scope and qualitative nature, there are a number of limitations to this research.The generalizability of this project to other contexts may be limited due to the specific context in which it took place, which was influenced by various contextual factors including politics and societal trendsa common characteristic of citizen science projects (Schade et al., 2021).Additionally, common limitations of qualitative studies such as the small sample size and potential influence of the researchers' presence on the participants (for example in their positive evaluation of the RIVM regarding the project) may have impacted the results of this study as well (Anderson, 2010).
Additionally, future research on the impact of citizen science may want to focus on its effects on trust in science.For the Farmers and Neighbours participants, being involved in and having knowledge of the measuring process was important for trusting 'their' science.There was a social component to trust as well; getting to know the scientists and experiencing their involvement in a positive way fostered trust.These findings align with a framework developed by Većkalov et al. (2022) on how trust in science is related to psychological distance to science.This framework maintains that psychological distance predicts distrust in science (across various domains).More specifically, perceiving science as a tangible endeavour conducted by similar individuals (social distance), with effects in the here (spatial distance) and now (temporal distance), and as useful and applicable in the real world (hypothetical distance), contributes to trust.Future studies could investigate how the characteristics of citizen science can increase psychological proximity to science across various distance dimensions in real-world experiments.For instance, social distance might be influenced through close collaboration between citizens and scientists in a citizen science project.Citizen science projects with a strong grassroots element often address issues in citizens' immediate living environment (spatial and hypothetical distance) and impact their current lives directly (temporal distance).Moreover, the presence or absence of policy action based on a citizen science project may influence citizen scientists' perceptions of the usefulness of science in their lives and experiences, possibly impacting hypothetical distance.
Given the divisive nature of the discourse surrounding the impact of livestock farming on health and the environment in the Netherlands, it is essential to devise methodologies for research that fosters trust among all stakeholders in the scientific process and outcomes.Furthermore, in a broader context, more integration of the social sciences and technology research could help to gain a clearer understanding of the potential effects and benefits of citizen science on both individuals and society.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Schematic representation of the phases of the 'Farmers and Neighbours' project.Note: This figure gives an impression of the different phases of the Farmers and Neighbours project.From 'Farmers and Local Residents Collaborate: Application of a Participatory Citizen Science Approach to Characterizing Air Quality in a Rural Area in The Netherlands,' by Woutersen et al. (2022).Sensors, 22(20), 8053.Copyright CC-BY 4.0.

Table 1 .
Major interview themes in 2019 and 2021 with example questions. 1 Perceptions and experiences regarding livestock farms and the living environment 'Concerning health and the environment, how do you feel about the livestock farm(s) in the area?' (2019) Outcome: 'What was the result of receiving that information?' Context: 'What was the situation you were in?' Mechanisms: 'What about this information made you more worried?' 2 Farmer -Neighbour relationship and mutual trust 'Looking back on your experiences in the project, to what extent do you feel that the farmer / your non-farming neighbours take(s) your interests into account?' (2021) (benevolence) Outcome: 'What was the result of this interaction?'Context: 'Where did this interaction happen?' Mechanisms: 'What about what he said elicited that feeling of trust?' 3 Farmer/Neighbourlocal government relationship and mutual trust 'After working together in this project, to what extent do you consider the municipality to be able to make the right decisions with regard to livestock farming?' (2021) (ability) Outcome: 'And what was the result of that decision on your trust in the municipality?'Context: 'When were you informed of this?' Mechanisms: 'What in particular impacted your trust?' 4 Trust in the 'official' data and the citizen science measurements 'What do you think about the measurement data you have collected together compared to the official data?' (2021) Outcome: 'What was the result of knowing this?' Context: 'When did you receive those results?' Mechanisms: 'Why did that make you trust this data?' 5 Contextual factors unrelated to the project that influenced trust 'Were there other events that influenced your trust in the farmer/your neighbour, unrelated to the project?' (2021) Note: no further inquiries were made on the CMO's for contextual factors

Table 2 .
Contact between farmers and residentsillustrative quotes explaining how mechanisms led to outcomes in project contexts.
'There was not one participant from our neighborhood that had an open mind.They're all just against livestock farming and were collecting bullets.Our interaction during the project made that very clear to me.' -F2

Table 3 .
Increased access to the municipality for residents -illustrative quotes explaining how mechanisms led to outcomes in project contexts.

Table 4 .
Participant knowledge and transparency about the measuring process -illustrative quotes explaining how mechanisms led to outcomes in project contexts.
Then you smell the stench and breath in the emissions with god knows what chemicals for a few weeks (…).And they [the government] only look at averages and calculate emission levels in advance(…).But what happens to you as a citizen in the real world … it falls on deaf ears (…) -R8(2019) 'I must say that especially with [name of the head scientist] … Those direct lines that we had with you were very pleasant.