Skip to main content
Download PDF

A scoping review of wildfire smoke risk communications: issues, gaps, and recommendations

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 312 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Wildfire smoke exposure has become a growing public health concern, as megafires and fires at the wildland urban interface increase in incidence and severity. Smoke contains many pollutants that negatively impact health and is linked to a number of health complications and chronic diseases. Communicating effectively with the public, especially at-risk populations, to reduce their exposure to this environmental pollutant has become a public health priority.

Although wildfire smoke risk communication research has also increased in the past decade, best practice guidance is limited, and most health communications do not adhere to health literacy principles: readability, accessibility, and actionability. This scoping review identifies peer-reviewed studies about wildfire smoke risk communications to identify gaps in research and evaluation of communications and programs that seek to educate the public.

Methods

Four hundred fifty-one articles were identified from Web of Science and PubMed databases. After screening, 21 articles were included in the final sample for the abstraction process and qualitative thematic analysis. Ten articles were based in the US, with the other half in Australia, Canada, Italy, and other countries. Fifteen articles examined communication materials and messaging recommendations. Eight papers described communication delivery strategies. Eleven articles discussed behavior change. Six articles touched on risk communications for vulnerable populations; findings were limited and called for increasing awareness and prioritizing risk communications for at-risk populations.

Results

This scoping review found limited studies describing behavior change to reduce wildfire smoke exposure, characteristics of effective communication materials and messaging, and communication delivery strategies. Literature on risk communications, dissemination, and behavior change for vulnerable populations was even more limited.

Conclusions

Recommendations include providing risk communications that are easy-to-understand and adapted to specific needs of at-risk groups. Communications should provide a limited number of messages that include specific actions for avoiding smoke exposure. Effective communications should use mixed media formats and a wide variety of dissemination strategies. There is a pressing need for more intervention research and effectiveness evaluation of risk communications about wildfire smoke exposure, and more development and dissemination of risk communications for both the general public and vulnerable populations.

Peer Review reports

Background

Wildfire smoke events and their health impacts

Wildfire smoke exposure is a growing public health concern. Large wildfire events have increased [1] due to multiple factors including increased aridity and storms from climate change, and outdated fire suppression strategies. This increase has led to larger overall acreage burned and more smoke days per year [2]. Additionally, wildland urban interface (WUI) fires and homes in the WUI have increased [1, 3]. A growing body of research over the past two decades has documented that such smoke contains many pollutants that negatively impact health, including over the long-term [4]. Wildfire smoke is linked to adverse cardiovascular, respiratory, dermatologic [5,6,7] and nervous system outcomes [6,7,8,9,10]; has metabolic effects linked to diabetes [8]; and contains toxins that can contribute to cancer [11]. The evidence for mortality effects (respiratory and all-cause) is particularly robust [6, 10, 12,13,14]. Additionally, recent research demonstrates that smoke may contribute to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes such as low birthweight [15, 16], infant wheezing [16], and infertility [17]. Other research also points to the psychiatric consequences of wildfire smoke [18, 19].

Wildfire smoke is especially problematic for children, contributing to the development of asthma and increasing asthma exacerbations [7, 16, 20,21,22]. Children are known to be especially vulnerable, both because they are growing and also because they breathe more pollutants relative to their size compared to adults [3, 23]. Recent reviews of wildfire smoke effects in children indicate a rapidly growing body of literature, with substantial evidence of respiratory, mental health, and birthweight effects in those exposed to wildfire smoke, in addition to some evidence for a variety of impacts on other conditions such as cardiac function [24,25,26]. Wildfire smoke has especially impacted vulnerable at-risk populations [2], including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) [1, 27, 28] as well as rural farming communities [18]. Vulnerable adult populations are more likely to have several chronic conditions, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, which already impact certain populations more than others, e.g., Black/African Americans have more hypertension and stroke, certain Latino populations and Native Americans have higher risks for Type 2 diabetes [29]. Vulnerable populations are at higher risk for exacerbations of those conditions, such as experiencing myocardial infarctions and/or strokes, during wildfire smoke events [6, 9, 10]. Therefore, the need for effective risk communications regarding wildfire smoke is especially critical for these vulnerable populations.

Current state of wildfire smoke risk communications

As the incidence and severity of wildfire smoke events increase and the serious health impacts become better understood, communicating effectively with the public to reduce their exposure to this environmental pollutant is a priority for public health interventions, especially for the most at-risk populations. Wildfire smoke risk communication research and communication interventions have greatly increased during the past decade [7, 30,31,32]. This includes messaging primarily by publicly-funded organizations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state, county, and city governments in the U.S [33,34,35,36,37]. as well as from community organizations in other countries [35, 38], all of which have prioritized risk communication on wildfire smoke related health effects.

There are a number of concerns with existing risk communication materials. Wildfire (“forest fire” and “bushfire” are equivalent terms used in different parts of the world) smoke exposure is an emergency event which increases the challenge of timely, effective communications. Cowie et al. found that health communications during wildfire events are a major challenge; such communications lacked reference to health risk changes based on exposure level and ages, protective actions to limit exposure over periods of time, and effective reporting and dissemination pathways [2]. Walsh et al. found that caregivers of children aged 5–12 perceived smoke as a signal of wildfire danger rather than as a health hazard itself, and none of these caregivers had access to information about wildfire smoke intended to guard children’s health [1]. An additional issue is the general lack of alignment of wildfire smoke risk communication materials with accepted health literacy principles. Health literacy principles advocate for clear communication for the public; easy-to-understand materials to help people understand health information, make informed health decisions, and take health-promoting actions [39]. However, studies show that most health communications do not adhere to health literacy principles related to readability, accessibility, and actionability—a major problem for vulnerable populations [1, 36, 40, 41]. Although the fields of risk communication and crisis communication provide a wealth of evidence-based guidance on communicating general and emergency health risks [42, 43], wildfire smoke risk communication research has emerged mostly in the past decade and best practice guidance is still limited [13, 44].

Objective of this scoping literature review

In 2021, members of our research team conducted an environmental scan [45] of existing and widely distributed wildfire smoke materials and determined that very few met the standards for good health literacy and clear communication. Given the gaps we found in our environmental scan, and the critical need for effective communication about wildfire smoke dangers and ways to reduce exposure, the need for a literature review in this area was clear. The objective of this scoping literature review is to identify: 1) relevant peer-reviewed studies about wildfire smoke risk communications, including communication resources for vulnerable, at-risk populations; 2) characteristics of effective communications, dissemination strategies, and gaps in the peer-reviewed literature; and 3) recommendations to improve wildfire smoke research and communication practices.

Methods

Inclusion criteria

This scoping review [46] focused on wildfire smoke risk communications for the public. Journal articles included in this scoping literature review were peer-reviewed, indexed in PubMed or Web of Science databases, available online, and available in English or Spanish. The search was not limited by years of publication.

Exclusion criteria

Journal articles excluded were those focused on wildfires rather than wildfire smoke risk communications, for example, protecting one’s property, preparing one’s household for a fire (e.g., “go bags”), or escaping from wildfires. Articles about effects of fires on health outcomes, mortality-related studies, chemical fires, post-fire interviews, and smoke plumes with satellite/remote sensing were also excluded. Gray literature, general Internet searches, and case studies were excluded.

We excluded articles if indicated articles were not within the scope of our topic, based on title review, then conducted abstract review, and finally full article review/reading/abstraction. We also scanned bibliographies of articles to identify any additional articles that should be included.

Search criteria

Article searches were conducted between October and December 2021 using PubMed and Web of Science databases. No limit was applied to the earliest date of publication to ensure the largest sample possible was collected. Search terms included: communication, communication strategies, education, effectiveness, environmental exposure, fire, risk communication, smoke, smoke exposure, wildfire smoke, and bushfire; various combinations of these terms were used. Bibliographies of articles were also reviewed for article inclusion.

Process of review

After each search, three members of the research team (MV, SI, HB) reviewed the titles and abstracts of the outputs from the searches. After the initial title and abstract review, twenty-four articles were distributed to one of four team members (the three original team members and an additional member (LN)) for review. Throughout the period of review and abstraction, the team members met biweekly to address questions, discuss the articles, and talk through disagreements.

Abstraction and analysis plan

The abstraction process included four categories for review: risk communication approaches, research design and methods, population in the study, and results and recommendations. These four categories were selected to ensure that data collected from articles were comprehensive, concise, and consistent. The category, “risk communication approaches”, organized information about risk communications programs, materials, and strategies. The category, “research design and methods”, was included to examine the quality and robustness of the articles. The category, “population in study”, provided context around population size, location, and sampling frame. The category, “results and recommendations”, contained key article findings and takeaways. After abstraction, the team determined that twenty-one articles would be included in the scoping review. A PRISMA Diagram depicts the flow of information (articles identified, included, excluded, and reasons) through the different phases of a review (see Fig. 1) [47].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram

Full size image

Four members of the research team (MV, SI, LN, HB) conducted the qualitative thematic analysis. Data collected from articles during the abstraction process were coded and organized into categories. If category consistency was not reached, the research team discussed the issues and reached consensus. Analysis was an iterative process with additions or rearrangement of codes and categories. Themes were communication materials and messages, communication delivery strategies, behavior change, and communications for vulnerable populations. Categories were incorporated as subsections of the four themes. Google Workspace software [48] was used for this qualitative analysis.

Quality of articles

Articles were assessed for quality based on study design and methods (see Table 1). Within the final sample, study designs, in order of rigor were randomized controlled trial, quantitative study, mixed methods study, literature review, and qualitative study. Authors reviewed papers for qualitative indicators, such as robustness of study design, recruitment, randomization, sampling, and methods (e.g., intervention, survey, database searches, interviews) with the intent of ranking them by rigor within each category. However, due to the limited sample of available articles and methodological similarities among multiple articles in each study design category, authors made the decision to organize articles alphabetically within each of the study design categories. Table 1 describes study design and methods.

Table 1 Summary of articles on wildfire smoke exposure risk communication approaches
Full size table

Results

The final sample of this scoping review consisted of twenty-one articles. Table 1 is a summary of the articles (see Table 1). Ten were based in the United States, six in Australia, two in Canada, and one in Italy. Two more articles included multiple countries in the studies. The results below are grouped into four sections related to communications materials, dissemination strategies, behavior change, and communications for vulnerable audiences—with a focus on gaps and recommendations. Table 2 contains detailed information extracted from the articles (see Table 2).

Table 2 Abstraction table of articles on wildfire smoke exposure risk communication approaches
Full size table

Communications materials and messaging findings and recommendations

Fifteen articles examined communications materials and messaging, and they offered recommendations including discussion of messaging content and design (5 articles), approaches to communications (2), use of a mobile application (3), use of real-life video footage (1), use of mapping for information distribution (2), effectiveness of risk communications (6), and communication gaps (2).

General messaging content and design

Five articles recommended messaging that uses simple, direct, clear, current, accurate, and specific language [33, 35, 38, 44, 55]. Authors commented that it is important that the communications are well-recalled, understood, and followed. This messaging should include information about fire locations, timeframes, safety, where to get additional updates and actions that people can take [33, 35]. Messages should also be timely, practical, consistent, and provide details about short-term and long-term health effects [38, 55]. Marfori et al. also noted that participants remembered short messages and gained knowledge but expressed interest in having added messages that were about both the short-term and long-term health risks of wildfire smoke [38].

Two articles provided more guidance for risk communications [36, 56]. Damon et al. called for ‘new’ materials to maintain public risk awareness year after year [56]. Messaging must be non-alarming and scientifically grounded. The public must be convinced of their self-efficacy to take recommended protective actions and must be notified to take actions against wildfire smoke exposure in a timely manner. Sugerman et al. discussed messaging that contains both non-technical actions, such as staying inside and closing windows, as well as technical actions, including use of home filtration devices or N95 masks [36]. They found that people’s non-technical recall, understanding, and compliance is high, but that technical messaging about High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters and N-95 respirators should be better explained to the public.

Use of various media for communications

Three articles addressed the benefits and barriers of using the Smoke Sense mobile application, and assessed the knowledge gains from using the app [34, 49, 51]. Smoke Sense is a smartphone application, originally developed by the US EPA, that provides wildfire-related health risk resources and engages affected participants (“citizen scientists”) on wildfire smoke issues. Smoke Sense also shares information about daily air quality, maps of fire locations, and satellite images of smoke plumes [51]. In two different papers, Hano and their EPA colleagues concluded that it was a valuable app to provide general information about smoke risk for individuals, organizations, and communities, but that it needed improvement to provide population-specific information [34, 51]. Authors found that the Smoke Sense app can support organizations that can disseminate information about wildfire smoke, as well as support community efforts to protect sensitive and vulnerable groups [34, 49, 51].

From these qualitative and quantitative studies, recommendations for messaging included increasing individuals’ knowledge about smoke risks to protect themselves or their families, building self-efficacy for reducing exposure and actions to take, linking exposures to symptoms and cost-benefit relationships as well as information related to individuals’ personal concerns, and emphasizing the impact that reducing exposure may have on what individuals care about, e.g., maintaining good health and fitness [34, 51]. Furthermore, related to behavioral outcomes, an unblinded randomized controlled trial found that Smoke Sense app use among a specific vulnerable group – young adult participants with provider-diagnosed asthma – resulted in better asthma management during poor air quality days [49]. Postma et al. discussed the use of different features (e.g., peer message boards, daily spirometry readings, and air quality updates), which were integrated by technology partner Urbanova, within Smoke Sense, to increase engagement from participants and knowledge about smoke exposure/its effects on those with asthma [49].

One qualitative study found that showing real-life, vivid video footage of past wildfires could be a useful communication approach because it led to an increase in some desired behaviors, such as seeking knowledge, reducing exposure, finding more information about risk to home/area, and speaking with household and community members—actions linked to reducing exposure to wildfires and smoke [54].

Use of mapping for information dissemination

Studies by Stieb et al. and Cao et al. found that maps were effective for sharing information as well as increasing people’s knowledge about wildfire smoke and other environmental emergencies [37, 50]. Steib et al. researched the use of mapping health risks from natural hazard exposures (floods, wildfires, and contamination of air and water) as a risk communication technique and found that maps were better understood and interpreted than text [37]. The authors concluded that app and map developers should engage in an iterative process to design maps. Inclusion of visual cognitive science features (e.g., color, position, patterns, motion) and actionable information was important to adapt maps for effective risk communications. Cao et al. recommended a hybrid approach that combines maps with selected text message information [50]. Appropriately designed maps also better communicated wildfire and wildfire smoke warning information, improved comprehension, elevated risk perceptions, and increased appeal to the public. These maps were best complemented by textual descriptions of safe shelters, such as landmarks, names, and addresses.

Effectiveness of risk communications: Overall, as described above, eight articles [34, 36,37,38, 49,50,51, 54] in this category included assessments of effectiveness of risk communications for improving knowledge, behavior change, and health outcomes. Two articles noted that people effectively understood and recalled information from general messaging content and design [36, 38]. Six articles found that the use of various media, such as Smoke Sense app, video with real-life footage, and maps (especially maps that include text linked to spatial features), helped to improve knowledge, behavior change, and health outcomes [34, 37, 49,50,51, 54].

Gaps in communications

Two papers examined gaps in communications [60, 62]. Van Deventer et al. found wide variation in message content [62]. The most common personal interventions included reducing activity and staying inside during wildfire smoke events. However, regarding information specific to vulnerable populations, less than half of 85 government sources (47 social media-based messages, 38 digital articles from website) and 188 media messages (all digital articles from news sources’ websites) examined contained information about wildfire smoke. Approximately half contained a reference to a trusted source of information, but high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration was not mentioned at all. They concluded that government and news media would benefit from improved coordination of information about health risks of smoke exposure, approaches to reduce exposure, input from vulnerable populations, and risk communication tools, templates, and resources. Riden et al. discussed limitations in safety precautions for farmworkers during wildfire smoke, including the need for protective masks or respirators, air quality monitors, and changes to work schedules during events, and suggested that better resources are needed to assist employers and supervisors in complying with wildfire smoke safety regulations [60]. Agricultural employers varied in their knowledge and experience relative to responding to poor air quality caused by wildfire smoke.

Communication delivery strategies: dissemination methods, pathways, and recommendations

Eight articles discussed communication delivery strategies, including traditional and digital communication strategies (7 articles), and allocation of resources within agencies specifically designated for communication and outreach measures (1 article).

Traditional and digital communications

Eight articles outlined common communication channels [33, 35, 36, 38, 44, 52, 55, 56]; three of these articles were literature reviews [35, 44, 55].

Authors recommended communicating through a combination of channels: radio, television, internet, social media, social networks, hotlines, mass media, local papers, and phone to effectively deliver knowledge and encourage behavior change [33, 35, 36, 44, 55, 59]. Burns et al. found that respondents older than 40 years of age tended to receive risk communications through emergency services and city councils, radio and local papers, and from members of local organizations or government [33]. However, in 2009 and 2010, respondents under 40 years of age most commonly used television, local papers, friends, family, and neighbors. More recently in 2020, Keegan et al. stated that traditional sources like television have been the preferred method of communication delivery but that a preference for online and smartphone-based communication has emerged among younger, female, and urban populations [55]. Additionally, authors recommended locations for communications, such as post offices, road signs, schools, retirement facilities, childcare areas, presentations at public events, and billboards [33, 44, 59]. They commented that communication from healthcare workers, texts, and social networks may be effective, but require further research.

Authors provided recommendations on timing for communications delivery. The review by Keegan et al. concluded that messages should be delivered as early as possible to give people time to plan and act in the case of a smoke event [55]. Damon et al. discussed disseminating information in a timely and effective manner and using “message blanketing” at all local media outlets, in addition to statements from local opinion leaders and organizations [56].

Articles included findings regarding the knowledge gain and recall of communications about wildfire smoke. Mott et al. discussed people’s recall of several interventions including public service announcements (PSAs) after a wildfire event and commented that participants more frequently recalled PSAs distributed via radio and by physician/clinical personnel [52]. In a qualitative study done by Marfori et al., participants recalled delivery strategies including media releases, digital information and social media posts from public health and emergency services, and word of mouth [38]. Participants reported that social media was a source that provided more information about smoke than the information on wildfires that dominated the other news platforms. Participants also shared that it was difficult to know which sources to rely on and that they trusted official communications from governments more than those shared on social media from non-government sources. Social media was found to allow real-time dialogue between authorities and the public, and amplified messages.

Resource allocation for wildfire smoke communications

Olsen et al. suggested prioritizing fire and smoke-related communications within agencies by allocating agency resources specifically for staff training in communication and outreach endeavors, and for coordinating messages across and within agencies [59]. Authors found that taking advantage of existing resources including informal social networks among the public, and building long-term relationships both between agencies as well as with the public were viewed as effective in distributing communications to audiences [44, 55, 59]. Olsen et al. warned against inconsistent messaging from different agencies and inadequate reach of messages [59]. Their recommendations included aligning internal priorities when communicating and building relationships with the public, as well as evaluating communications delivery to the intended number of people.

Effectiveness of risk communications

Overall, five articles in this category included assessments of effectiveness of risk communications for improving knowledge gains, behavior change, and health outcomes. These articles discussed traditional and digital communications that were effective for successful and timely dissemination of risk communications [33, 44, 52, 55, 59].

Motivating behavior change: knowledge acquisition and trust building

Eleven articles discussed behavior change, including motivating public behavior change through community-level interventions (5 articles), increasing knowledge about wildfire smoke risk exposure among practitioners serving the public (3 articles), and examining public trust (3 articles). All eleven articles assessed behavior and behavior change (but not behavior intention) in the context of reducing wildfire smoke exposure.

Community-engaged interventions

Five articles described in-person intervention approaches associated with behavior change [34, 49, 52, 54, 57].

Authors of two articles discussed community-level interventions for Indigenous populations. In their qualitative study, Dodd et al. interviewed members of three Tribal Nations in Canada [57]. They found that community-based initiatives could reduce the impact of smoke exposure on physical, mental, and emotional well-being. These initiatives included removing flammable materials from around houses, joining community social support time at the community hall, and improving food security and connection to land-based activities (e.g., berry harvesting, fishing). Mott et al. conducted a retrospective study of Hoopa Tribe members affected by the 1999 wildfire in Humboldt County, California (USA) [52]. The study focused on recall of multiple community-focused interventions: effectiveness of free masks, free hotel services to shelter from the smoke area, high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) air cleaners (distributed to individuals with pre-existing conditions), and PSAs [52]. PSAs were the most effective intervention. Mask use was associated with increased time outdoors and therefore increased exposure, but evacuation to hotels was not conducive to continuing employment as many residents worked in fire camps to fight forest fires. As a result of PSAs, the most common action taken was to stay indoors, rather than leave the area, use a mask, or use an air cleaner. Participants had highest recall of PSAs distributed via radio compared to all other sources, some of which included physicians, social networks, television, newspaper, and the Tribal Council. Additionally, those who recalled any of the PSAs were less likely to report worsening respiratory symptoms.

Hano et al., Hano et al., and Postma et al. indicated that the Smoke Sense application may support behavior change at multiple societal levels [34, 49, 51]. At the individual level, to protect health and increase awareness out of concern for health of self and family. At the organizational level, to advance organizational efforts in the area by using the app to distribute new tools and resources regarding smoke. At the community level, to increase awareness of connections between wildland fire, smoke, air quality, and health [34, 49].

In their case study, Chapple et al. found that study participants exhibited more protective behaviors and concerns for wildfire smoke after watching a video with real-life footage, compared to those who did not watch the video [54].

Knowledge among practitioners

Authors found that professionals with past experiences in wildfire-related work had significantly higher knowledge of wildfires/smoke exposure [53], had improved ability to make informed decisions in the face of an emergency [61], and better understood the current situation [61]. Spano et al. discussed that those with direct experience had, and also asked for, more information about these topics, indicating that practitioners/those experienced with wildfires can be an especially valuable source of knowledge for others [53]. Thomas et al. interviewed emergency risk communication professionals, who shared that working with the same group of people and stakeholders over long periods of time was helpful to the professionals to make informed, tailored decisions during smoke event emergencies [61]. Additionally, Errett et al. found that governmental agencies and academic organizations, participants at a state-wide wildfire smoke exposure symposium, proposed key research areas to increase the public’s knowledge of wildfire smoke risks [58]. They encouraged researchers and practitioners to study the following areas: smoke exposure, health risk, risk communications, behavior change and interventions, and legal and policy issues.

Public trust

Burns et al., Olsen et al., and Fish et al. all highlighted the necessity of trusted sources of information, the role of local agencies and governments, and the importance of communication sources [33, 44, 59]. Authors found that sources within the same social network influenced the value of fire and smoke messaging, and that neighbors and local residents were trusted sources of wildfire smoke communications [44, 59]. In three articles, authors discussed building public trust and improving message effectiveness through credible information sources [33], communication channels [44], and re-tweets or re-shares of social media posts between official accounts [35]. Examples of sources trusted by the public include authoritative local sources, the local police, as well as the Red Cross and State Departments of Health Services.

Effectiveness of risk communications

Overall, ten articles in this category included assessments of effectiveness of risk communications for improving knowledge, behavior change, and health outcomes. Five articles discussed community-engaged interventions that were associated with behavior change [34, 49, 52, 54, 57]. Two articles assessed ways to increase knowledge among practitioners and the public [53, 58]. Three articles suggested that effective communications included building public trust and using credible information sources [33, 44, 59].

Communications for vulnerable populations

Literature regarding risk communications for vulnerable populations to reduce wildfire smoke exposure was limited – only six articles were found. In general, authors found that communication resources for vulnerable populations were limited. For example, in Keegan et al., of twenty-six health protection messaging communications included in their study, only nine were relevant to vulnerable populations [55]. Specific resources relevant to pediatric populations were also found to be lacking [35].

Culturally and linguistically diverse groups, those with hearing, vision, and mobility-related disabilities, those living in high smoke-risk geographic locations, those with pre-existing chronic illnesses, those who are children or older adults, and those who are pregnant may benefit from targeted health recommendations about wildfire smoke exposure and resources on prevention/mitigation strategies [35]. Authors recommended prioritizing communications for communities that have greater exposure to smoke events [55], including actions to reduce wildfire smoke exposure instead of only updates about wildfire smoke situations [35], and providing communications to at-risk groups before the general population [44]. Mott et al. and Dodd et al. emphasized the importance of community-level initiatives for Indigenous populations in northwest Canada and in Hoopa Valley, California, to increase awareness and behavioral change [52, 57].

Postma et al. found that among young adults ages 18–26 with asthma diagnosed by healthcare providers, the Smoke Sense mobile application use was effective in increasing air quality awareness knowledge and improving asthma management [49]. Specifically, young adult participants thought that the version of Smoke Sense with Urbanova’s integrated features for mapping smoke areas, air quality advisories, spirometry graphs, weekly reminders, and peer message boards, was easy to use.

Effectiveness of risk communications: Postma et al. noted that use of the Smoke Sense mobile application and its integrated features was effective to increase knowledge about air quality and wildfire smoke and positive behaviors to manage asthma [49]. Other articles in this category did not assess effectiveness of risk communications for vulnerable populations.

Discussion

Wildfire smoke exposure is a serious public health challenge as wildfires are rapidly increasing in prevalence and intensity [3, 36, 51, 59, 62] and duration. Further, wildfire smoke exposure is an emergency event that adds challenges to providing timely, effective risk communications [52]. Wildfire smoke negatively impacts health in multiple ways, including over the long-term. This scoping review focused on peer-reviewed literature which evaluated wildfire smoke risk communications for public audiences, and identified gaps in the available literature, key communication issues, and recommendations for improvement. A total of 21 articles were included. We reviewed these studies in the following four thematic areas: 1) communications materials, messaging content and design, use of different media; 2) communication strategies, traditional and digital approaches, resource allocation for communications; 3) motivating behavior change, community-based interventions, knowledge acquisition among practitioners, public trust; and 4) communications for vulnerable populations. Although this review found that there are important assessments of the effectiveness of risk communications, most of those examined knowledge gains, rather than behavior intention, changes, and health outcomes.

Gaps in the literature

We found that peer-reviewed literature about wildfire smoke risk communications is still very limited but has notably increased in the past decade as reducing exposure to wildfire smoke has become a priority public health issue. Because of the limited literature, there are gaps in all areas related to wildfire smoke communication. Encouragingly, available literature shows exploration of many important risk communication areas, including experimentation with messages, media, participatory design, community interventions, and an increasing focus on assessing effectiveness of materials and strategies in domains that include increasing knowledge, reinforcing positive behavior intention and changes, and ultimately leading to better health outcomes.

A major current gap in the literature relates to studies about communications created with and for vulnerable populations. This is an important finding of this review because at-risk, vulnerable populations are those most in need of effective communications. Some specific vulnerable populations include those who have low connectivity, are low-income, less educated, rural, and/or limited English proficient. Additional vulnerable populations include Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), outdoor workers, Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing people, pregnant women, children (especially those with asthma) and others with existing chronic respiratory, cardiovascular, or diabetes conditions [3, 7, 52, 62, 63]. The few articles related to vulnerable populations were helpful to point out the need to prioritize these populations, to provide more targeted health messaging and to increase community-based initiatives to develop more successful approaches to support vulnerable groups [3, 7, 28, 51]. However, specific messaging recommendations from these studies are still fairly generic. Another gap is that though some articles evaluated communications for accuracy, simplicity, and actionability, no articles explicitly examined health literacy—a central issue for high quality risk communications [33]. Finally, as in any relatively new research and practice area, there is a need for both more qualitative depth and context in the studies as well as quantitative rigor, including prospective research.

Recommendations from this review

Despite the gaps in the literature, existing studies do provide rich information about known weaknesses of current wildfire smoke communications and note many recommendations to improve them. Many key issues with wildfire smoke risk communications have been identified in the existing literature. These include issues related to community-engaged design, timeliness, understandability, visual and textual elements (including mapping), selection of communication mediums, trusted messengers, actionability of recommendations, and point of contact dissemination strategies. Although many articles in this review included some assessment of effectiveness of risk communications, more work is needed in this area to examine and increase knowledge, encourage behavior intentions and change, and improve health outcomes.

Important recommendations were identified in each of the four thematic areas we focused on in this review as summarized here:

  1. 1.

    Communication materials and messages: Use evidence-based messages and multi-media (print, internet, mobile applications, maps, videos, PSAs, etc.); include clear, specific, actionable ways to reduce wildfire smoke exposure; improve explanations for technical messaging, improve mapping techniques, and provide details about short- and long-term health effects.

  2. 2.

    Delivery strategies: Simultaneously disseminate messaging through multiple local media outlets such as through television, radio, newspaper, the internet, and social media.

  3. 3.

    Behavior change: Provide more information through trusted intermediaries, such as health and public safety providers, to increase the public’s knowledge about wildfire smoke and motivate behavior change; maintain consistent messaging between agencies, and build on existing communications from public officials to increase public trust and timely action.

  4. 4.

    Communications for vulnerable populations: Prioritize targeted communications for specific at-risk groups; use community-engaged design and testing with these groups to ensure that messages are relevant to the group’s needs, and are clear, actionable, and use preferred communication mediums.

Guidance from prior studies of risk communications in other areas indicates that simple and clear communications adapted to specific cultures, languages, health literacy levels, and other factors are essential so that risk communication meets the needs of groups most at risk [64]. It is important that all wildfire smoke communications are created with attention to health literacy principles, which also would likely benefit vulnerable populations. Recommendations for future research on wildfire smoke communication include evaluating the differential effectiveness of various kinds of messages and media, studying communications tailored for the diverse US populations, and co-developing communications using health literacy principles with vulnerable populations.

Strengths

This is a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature about risk communications related to wildfire smoke exposure. Scoping reviews are helpful prior to planning a study, to identify gaps in research, to tailor a study or design interventions, and to include multiple types of studies, not limited to randomized trials or quantitative studies. This can be especially important when there are few articles for unique populations, as we found in this review. There was no publication date limit selected to maximize collection of relevant articles. This scoping review also included articles from authors located in various countries affected by wildfire smoke.

Limitations

There was a limited number of articles from any one country, limiting the ability to make any country-specific conclusions. Available articles in languages other than English and Spanish were not included, given our a priori inclusion criteria. No studies were found in Spanish language which may indicate a critical gap in the evaluation of wildfire communications for Spanish-speaking populations. The biggest limitation was the limited literature in this area to date, which impacted interpreting the issues and recommendations in this review. However, we did note that there was often convergence among authors about important issues cited and recommendations for improved wildfire smoke risk communications.

Conclusion

Wildfire smoke exposure, with its detrimental effects on health, is a significant public health concern [3]. Given the growing magnitude of wildfire smoke exposure, there is a pressing need for more intervention and evaluation research about effectiveness of risk communications in this topical area. This scoping review examined peer-reviewed literature on wildfire smoke risk communication and identified gaps for additional research. Our review found limited studies describing characteristics of effective communication materials and messaging, and communication delivery strategies, and approaches to increase positive behavior intention, behavior change to reduce wildfire smoke exposure and, ultimately, improve health outcomes. Literature on these topics for vulnerable populations was even more limited. Although studies in the topical area of wildfire smoke messaging are still nascent, they provide important guidance for researchers and practitioners in developing and disseminating risk communications for the general public and for vulnerable populations.

Priority recommendations are that risk communications should be easy-to-understand, provide simple and direct messages, highlight specific actions to undertake to avoid smoke exposure, use mapping when relevant, use hybrid mixtures of formats (such as video, textual information, maps, mobile apps, etc.), and be customized to the needs of at-risk, vulnerable populations. These recommendations are similar to those for improving the quality and effectiveness of health communications in general. However, wildfire smoke exposure is also an emergency event that presents the added critical challenge of providing timely, effective communications from government and local community organizations. There is a lack of rigorous evaluation studies to demonstrate which communication strategies are most effective. This review could be augmented with a future review of studies in languages other than English and Spanish. The recommendations also propose using a wide variety of dissemination strategies relevant to the focal populations.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its tables and figure].

Abbreviations

WUI:

Wildland urban interface

BIPOC:

Black, Indigenous, and People of Color

EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency

HEPA:

High-efficiency particulate air

PSAs:

Public service announcements

References

  1. Walsh EI, Sargent G, Cevik-Compiegne B, Roberts M, Palfrey N, Gooyers-Bourke L, et al. Bushfire smoke and children’s health—exploring a communication gap. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12436.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cowie CT, Wheeler AJ, Tripovich JS, Porta-Cubas A, Dennekamp M, Vardoulakis S, et al. Policy implications for protecting health from the hazards of fire smoke. A panel discussion report from the workshop landscape fire smoke: protecting health in an era of escalating fire risk. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5702.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. NAS, Engineering, and Medicine. Implications of the California wildfires for health, communities, and preparedness: proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25622. Cited 2023 Apr 24.

  4. Burke M, Driscoll A, Heft-Neal S, Xue J, Burney J, Wara M. The changing risk and burden of wildfire in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(2):e2011048118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fadadu RP, Grimes B, Jewell NP, Vargo J, Young AT, Abuabara K, et al. Association of wildfire air pollution and health care use for atopic dermatitis and itch. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):658–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Adetona O, Reinhardt TE, Domitrovich J, Broyles G, Adetona AM, Kleinman MT, et al. Review of the health effects of wildland fire smoke on wildland firefighters and the public. Inhal Toxicol. 2016;28(3):95–139.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Holm SM, Miller MD, Balmes JR. Health effects of wildfire smoke in children and public health tools: a narrative review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021;31(1):1–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment. Integrated science assessment for particulate matter. U S Environ Prot Agency Off Res Dev. 2019. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=347534.

  9. Liu Y, Austin E, Xiang J, Gould T, Larson T, Seto E. Health impact assessment of PM2.5 attributable mortality from the September 2020 Washington State wildfire smoke episode. MedRxiv Prepr Serv Health Sci. 2020:2020.09.19.20197921.

  10. Liu JC, Pereira G, Uhl SA, Bravo MA, Bell ML. A systematic review of the physical health impacts from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. Environ Res. 2015;136:120–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Korsiak J, Pinault L, Christidis T, Burnett RT, Abrahamowicz M, Weichenthal S. Long-term exposure to wildfires and cancer incidence in Canada: a population-based observational cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2022;6(5):e400–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(9):1334–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cascio WE. Wildland fire smoke and human health. Sci Total Environ. 2018;624:586–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen G, Guo Y, Yue X, Tong S, Gasparrini A, Bell ML, et al. Mortality risk attributable to wildfire-related PM2·5 pollution: a global time series study in 749 locations. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(9):e579–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yuan L, Zhang Y, Gao Y, Tian Y. Maternal fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure and adverse birth outcomes: an updated systematic review based on cohort studies. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26(14):13963–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Murphy VE, Karmaus W, Mattes J, Brew BK, Collison A, Holliday E, et al. Exposure to stress and air pollution from bushfires during pregnancy: could epigenetic changes explain effects on the offspring? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):7465.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Amjad S, Chojecki D, Osornio-Vargas A, Ospina MB. Wildfire exposure during pregnancy and the risk of adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. Environ Int. 2021;156:106644.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Humphreys A, Walker EG, Bratman GN, Errett NA. What can we do when the smoke rolls in? An exploratory qualitative analysis of the impacts of rural wildfire smoke on mental health and wellbeing, and opportunities for adaptation. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Ducy EM, Stough LM. Psychological effects of the 2017 California wildfires on children and youth with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2021;114:103981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guarnieri M, Balmes JR. Outdoor air pollution and asthma. Lancet. 2014;383(9928):1581–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Oliveira M, Slezakova K, Delerue-Matos C, Pereira MC, Morais S. Children environmental exposure to particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biomonitoring in school environments: a review on indoor and outdoor exposure levels, major sources and health impacts. Environ Int. 2019;124:180–204.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Khreis H, Kelly C, Tate J, Parslow R, Lucas K, Nieuwenhuijsen M. Exposure to traffic-related air pollution and risk of development of childhood asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int. 2017;100:1–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Slavik CE, Philipsborn R, Peters E. Educating families about the impacts of wildfire smoke on children’s health: opportunities for healthcare professionals. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2023;7(1):e002187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Y, Tingting Y, Huang W, Yu P, Chen G, Xu R, et al. Health impacts of wildfire smoke on children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-023-00420-9.

  25. Adu MK, Agyapong B, Agyapong VIO. Children’s psychological reactions to wildfires: a review of recent literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2023;25(11):603–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Foo D, Heo S, Stewart R, Dhamrait G, Choi HM, Song Y, et al. Wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy and perinatal, obstetric, and early childhood health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2023;241(117527).

  27. Berberian AG, Gonzalez DJX, Cushing LJ. Racial disparities in climate change-related health effects in the United States. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2022;9(3):451–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Davies IP, Haugo RD, Robertson JC, Levin PS. The unequal vulnerability of communities of color to wildfire. Jones JA, editor. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0205825.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Berkeley Public Health, Center for Heathcare Organizational & Innovation Research. California Right Care Initiative data and briefs packet. 2023. p. 71. Cited 2023 Dec 20. Available from: https://rightcare.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Right-Care-Initiative-Full-Packet-of-Briefs-v9.4.23.pdf.

  30. Steelman TA, McCaffrey S. Best practices in risk and crisis communication: implications for natural hazards management. Nat Hazards. 2013;65(1):683–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Steelman TA, McCaffrey SM, Velez ALK, Briefel JA. What information do people use, trust, and find useful during a disaster? Evidence from five large wildfires. Nat Hazards. 2015;76(1):615–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Janjua S, Powell P, Atkinson R, Stovold E, Fortescue R. Individual‐level interventions to reduce personal exposure to outdoor air pollution and their effects on people with long‐term respiratory conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2021(8). Available from: https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002%2F14651858.cd013441.pub2. Cited 2023 Feb 8.

  33. Burns R, Robinson P, Smith P. From hypothetical scenario to tragic reality: a salutary lesson in risk communication and the Victorian 2009 bushfires. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2010;34(1):24–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hano MC, Wei L, Hubbell B, Rappold AG. Scaling up: citizen science engagement and impacts beyond the individual. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2020;5(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Heaney E, Hunter L, Clulow A, Bowles D, Vardoulakis S. Efficacy of communication techniques and health outcomes of bushfire smoke exposure: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20):10889.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Sugerman DE, Keir JM, Dee DL, Lipman H, Waterman SH, Ginsberg M, et al. Emergency health risk communication during the 2007 San Diego wildfires: comprehension, compliance, and recall. J Health Commun. 2012;17(6):698–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Stieb DM, Huang A, Hocking R, Crouse DL, Osornio-Vargas AR, Villeneuve PJ. Using maps to communicate environmental exposures and health risks: review and best-practice recommendations. Environ Res. 2019;176:108518.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Marfori MT, Campbell SL, Garvey K, McKeown S, Veitch M, Wheeler AJ, et al. Public health messaging during extreme smoke events: are we hitting the mark? Front Public Health. 2020;8:465.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? J Health Commun. 2010;15(sup2):9–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Neuhauser L, Ivey SL, Huang D, Engelman A, Tseng W, Dahrouge D, et al. Availability and readability of emergency preparedness materials for deaf and hard-of-hearing and older adult populations: issues and assessments. Laks J, editor. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55614.

  41. Neuhauser L, Ivey SL, Huang D, Engelman A, Tseng W, Dahrouge D, et al. Availability and readability of emergency preparedness materials for Deaf and hard-of-hearing and older adult populations: issues and assessments. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55614.

  42. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):713–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Fish JA, Peters MDJ, Ramsey I, Sharplin G, Corsini N, Eckert M. Effectiveness of public health messaging and communication channels during smoke events: a rapid systematic review. J Environ Manage. 2017;193:247–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Health Research for Action. Wildfire smoke environmental scan report. 2022.

  46. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. PRISMA. PRISMA flow diagram. 2023. Available from: http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. Cited 2023 Jul 5.

  48. Google. Google workspace. Mountain View: Alphabet; 2023.

  49. Postma JM, Odom-Maryon T, Rappold AG, Haverkamp H, Amiri S, Bindler R, et al. Promoting risk reduction among young adults with asthma during wildfire smoke: a feasibility study. Public Health Nurs. 2022;39(2):405–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cao Y, Boruff BJ, McNeill IM. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Evaluating the effectiveness of maps for delivering wildfire warning information. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016;19:179–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hano MC, Prince SE, Wei L, Hubbell BJ, Rappold AG. Knowing your audience: a typology of smoke sense participants to inform wildfire smoke health risk communication. Front Public Health. 2020;8:143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mott JA, Meyer P, Mannino D, Redd SC, Smith EM, Gotway-Crawford C, et al. Wildland forest fire smoke: health effects and intervention evaluation, Hoopa, California, 1999. West J Med. 2002;176(3):157–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Spano G, Elia M, Cappelluti O, Colangelo G, Giannico V, D’Este M, et al. Is experience the best teacher? Knowledge, perceptions, and awareness of wildfire risk. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8385.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Chapple DR, Blignault DI, Fitzgerald A. Communicating bushfire risk in the Blue Mountains: a case study of the Fire Stories film. Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub, Australia; 2017. Available from: https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-jul-2017-communicating-bushfire-risk-in-the-blue-mountains-a-case-study-of-the-fire-stories-film/.

  55. Keegan SA, Rahman KM. Health protection messaging for populations susceptible to air pollution during landscape fire smoke events: an integrative review. Rev Environ Health. 2021;36(4):599–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Damon SA, Naylor R, Therriault S. Public communication in unplanned biomass burning events. Inhal Toxicol. 2010;22(2):113–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Dodd W, Scott P, Howard C, Scott C, Rose C, Cunsolo A, et al. Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can J Public Health. 2018;109(3):327–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Errett NA, Roop HA, Pendergrast C, Kramer CB, Doubleday A, Tran KA, et al. Building a practice-based research agenda for wildfire smoke and health: a report of the 2018 Washington wildfire smoke risk communication stakeholder synthesis symposium. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Olsen CS, Mazzotta DK, Toman E, Fischer AP. Communicating about smoke from wildland fire: challenges and opportunities for managers. Environ Manage. 2014;54(3):571–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Riden HE, Giacinto R, Wadsworth G, Rainwater J, Andrews T, Pinkerton KE. Wildfire smoke exposure: awareness and safety responses in the agricultural workplace. J Agromedicine. 2020;25(3):330–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Thomas M, Klemm C, Hutchins B, Kaufman S. Unpacking the realities and complexities of sensemaking: government practitioners’ experiences of emergency risk communication. Risk Anal. 2021;42(11).

  62. Van Deventer D, Marecaux J, Doubleday A, Errett N, Isaksen TMB. Wildfire smoke risk communication efficacy: a content analysis of Washington State’s 2018 statewide smoke event public health messaging. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2020; Publish Ahead of Print. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001151. Cited 2022 Dec 26.

  63. UC Berkeley. Health, wildfires and climate change in California: recommendations for action. The CITRIS Policy Lab, CITRIS and the Banatao Institute California Institute for Energy and Environment, UC Berkeley; 2019. Available from: https://citris-uc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Health-Wildfires-and-Climate-Change-in-California_October-2019.pdf.

  64. Neuhauser L, Rothschild B, Graham C, Ivey SL, Konishi S. Participatory design of mass health communication in three languages for seniors and people with disabilities on Medicaid. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2188–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors express our gratitude to Dr. Jason Su and Dr. Winston Tseng for their support on our related research efforts, to Anthony Eleftherion and Rebecca D. Freed for their work on the environmental scan of existing wildfire smoke risk communication materials, and to Jessica Liu for her support in the initial proposed conception of this literature review.

Funding

EPA grant #84023901-0

This publication was funded by and developed under EPA STAR Assistance Agreement No. 84023901-0 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to University of California, Berkeley. It has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the publication’s authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Research for Action, University of California Berkeley, School of Public Health, Berkeley, USA

    Morgan H. Vien, Susan L. Ivey, Hollynd Boyden, Stephanie Holm & Linda Neuhauser

  2. Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, San Francisco, USA

    Stephanie Holm

  3. University of California, San Francisco, USA

    Stephanie Holm

Authors
  1. Morgan H. Vien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan L. Ivey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hollynd Boyden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephanie Holm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Linda Neuhauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MHV, SLI (Co-PI), and HB conducted the literature search and wrote the main manuscript text. MHV made substantial contributions in drafting and revising the manuscript, submitted the manuscript to the journal, and is corresponding author. SLI made substantial contributions in the organization of the manuscript and was heavily involved in revising the manuscript. HB prepared Figure 1 and revised the manuscript. MHV and HB prepared Table 1. MHV, HB, SLI, and LN prepared Table 2. SH provided subject matter expertise and was heavily involved in revising the manuscript. LN (PI) oversaw these processes, provided subject matter expertise, and was heavily involved in revising the manuscript. All authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan H. Vien.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vien, M.H., Ivey, S.L., Boyden, H. et al. A scoping review of wildfire smoke risk communications: issues, gaps, and recommendations. BMC Public Health 24, 312 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17681-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17681-0

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us