Table 1 Summary of articles on wildfire smoke exposure risk communication approaches
From: A scoping review of wildfire smoke risk communications: issues, gaps, and recommendations
Article | Location | Sample Description | Study Design | Key Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Randomized Controlled Trial | ||||
Postma JM, et al. Promoting risk reduction among young adults with asthma during wildfire smoke: A feasibility study. 2022 [49]. | Western US | N = 60 young adults (18–26 years old) with asthma diagnosis | Three-arm, unblinded, randomized controlled trial. Recruiting via university student listservs | - Smoke Sense app with features integrated by Urbanova was usable and acceptable by participants. Increased use of certain features (e.g. peer message boards) would improve app engagement. |
Quantitative Study | ||||
Cao Y, et al. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Evaluating the effectiveness of maps for delivering wildfire warning information. 2016 [50]. | Western Australia | N = 261 residents of three fire-prone areas | Quantitative study. Pre-post experimental design. Online convenience survey, sampling from invitation postcards. | - Hybrid approach, combining maps (improved risk perceptions and comprehension) and text messages (describe locations e.g. shelters) was effective in communicating wildfire information. |
Hano MC, et al. Knowing Your Audience: A Typology of Smoke Sense Participants to Inform Wildfire Smoke Health Risk Communication. 2020 [51]. | United States | N = 5018 responses | Quantitative study. Post-intervention design. Individual level data from the Smoke Sense app | - Targeted approaches to risk communication should be based on participants’ perspective of smoke as a health risk. |
Mott JA, et al. Wildland forest fire smoke: health effects and intervention evaluation, Hoopa, California, 1999. 2002 [52]. | Humboldt County, California | N = 289 residents of the Hoopa Valley National Indian Reservation | Quantitative study. Retrospective design. Community survey of individuals treated at the reservation medical center and from randomly sampled households | - PSAs via radio/telephone reduced respiratory symptoms to wildfire smoke, PSAs + behavioral interventions are more effective, prioritize persons with pre-existing cardiopulmonary conditions, distribution of HEPA filters is effective. |
Spano G, et al. Is Experience the Best Teacher? Knowledge, Perceptions, and Awareness of Wildfire Risk. 2021 [53]. | Italy | N = 775 participants; n = 260 with direct wildfire experience, and n = 515 without direct wildfire experience | Quantitative study. Cross-sectional design. Single survey questionnaire comparing 2 groups. | - Those with direct fire-related experience had more knowledge of both wildfires and smoke exposure than those without direct experience. - Those with direct fire-related experience asked for more information about the topic of wildfires and smoke exposure. |
Mixed Methods Study | ||||
Chapple DR, et al. Communicating bushfire risk in the Blue Mountains: a case study of the Fire Stories film. 2017 [54]. | Australia | N = 104 online questionnaires (84 from the cinema audience and 20 from the YouTube/DVD audience) | Mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative case study. Online survey from film audience database and other recruitment marketing | - Watching a video with real-life wildfire footage increased protective behaviors and concerns for wildfire smoke. |
Sugerman DE, et al. Emergency Health Risk Communication During the 2007 San Diego Wildfires: Comprehension, Compliance, and Recall. 2012 [36]. | San Diego, California | N = 1,802, those who received mass media messages during October 2007 wildfire | Mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative study. Random digit dialing survey from a landline database and census data | - Messages should include technical (e.g., masks) and non-technical (e.g., close windows) information. - Dissemination suggestions: TV, radio, newspaper, internet. |
Literature Reviews | ||||
Fish JA, et al. Effectiveness of public health messaging and communication channels during smoke events: A rapid systematic review. 2017 [44]. | Varies, multiple locations | N = 10 studies included from North Rockies, South-Central US, Victoria Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales Australia, California, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, North Carolina | Rapid systematic review of evidence check, qualitative, quantitative, and editorial papers | - Messaging should be clear, current, and consistent. - Dissemination strategies: TV, radio, local papers, road signs, interpersonal communications, etc. - Build on trust among neighbors and local residents and in communication channels and sources. |
Heaney E, et al. Efficacy of Communication Techniques and Health Outcomes of Bushfire Smoke Exposure: A Scoping Review. 2021 [35]. | Varies, multiple locations | N = 67 studies included from 20 Australia, 32 US, 8 Canada, 2 global, 1 of each: Southeast Asia, United Kingdom, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Belgium, China | Scoping review, PubMed and ProQuest databases | - Use messaging that is clear, current, and consistent. - Include information on locations, hazards and consequences, public-facing health and safety actions. - Tailor messaging to local contexts. - Combine traditional sources (e.g., TV) with non-traditional (e.g., social media). - Messages for at-risk populations should include actions to reduce wildfire smoke exposure. |
Keegan SA, et al. Health protection messaging for populations susceptible to air pollution during landscape fire smoke events: an integrative review. 2021 [55]. | Australia | N = 26 articles | Integrative review of articles related to health protection message pathways, databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL) and gray literature search | - Deliver messages as early as possible, on both traditional (radio and television) and non-traditional (digital) information sources. - Collaboration between agencies is critical for future success. |
Stieb DM, et al. Using maps to communicate environmental exposures and health risks: Review and best-practice recommendations. 2019 [37]. | Canada | N = 37, 32 primary studies, 5 reviews/commentaries, half are in the US | Systematic literature review of commentaries, reviews, and primary studies (experimental, qualitative or mixed methods, cross-sectional) | - Map developers should engage with map users to develop maps. - Maps for risk communications need visual cognitive science (e.g. color, patterns) and actionable information. |
Qualitative Study | ||||
Burns R, et al. From hypothetical scenario to tragic reality: A salutary lesson in risk communication and the Victorian 2009 bushfires. 2010 [33]. | Australia | N = 4 focus groups, 28 participants: landcare members (including fire volunteers), community health workers, two ‘new parents’ groups | Qualitative study. Brief questionnaire followed by focus group discussion of communications from different sources | - Include fire location, safety of situation, and contact information for evacuation centers. - Deliver information in local places and trusted local organizations (police, Red Cross) for those over 40 years old. - Deliver information via TV, word of mouth for those under 40 years old. |
Damon SA, et al. Public communication in unplanned biomass burning events. 2010 [56]. | Montana, Georgia | Sample size not available, participants in a break-out session | Qualitative analysis of interview/discussion hand-recorded notes. Verbal discussion in 90-min break-out session at a conference | - Annually update risk communications to maintain the public’s perception of risk. - Use ‘message blanketing’ at all local media outlets to promptly disseminate information. |
Dodd W, et al. Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. 2018 [57]. | Northwest Territories, Canada | N = 30 participants from Tribal Nations with 10 in Yellowknife, 7 in N’Dilo, 6 in Detah, 7 in Kakisa | Qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with purposive sampling | - Community-based initiatives, including clearing flammable materials, increasing social support, and improving food security, can increase knowledge and lead to behavior change and reduce smoke exposure. |
Errett NA, 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. 2019 [58]. | Washington State, US | N = 76 practitioners and academics | Stakeholder synthesis, “World Cafe” meeting | - Government agencies and academic organizations desire more research related to smoke exposure, health risk, risk communications, behavior change and interventions, and legal and policy issues to increase the public’s knowledge of wildfire smoke risk. |
Hano MC, et al. Scaling Up: Citizen Science Engagement and Impacts Beyond the Individual. 2020 [34]. | Western US | N = 8 individuals, 3 employees of public organizations at the local level, 4 at the state level, and 1 at the tribal level in the western United States | Qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews for 45–60 min, with purposive sampling | - The Smoke Sense app is a good tool for individuals to use to increase knowledge about smoke risk to protect themselves and their families. - The app can be used on individual, organizational, and community levels for smoke risk communication. - More can be done for specific populations based on their unique needs. |
Marfori MT, et al. Public Health Messaging During Extreme Smoke Events: Are We Hitting the Mark? 2020 [38]. | Tasmania, Australia | N = 24 households in the Huron Valley | Qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with convenience sampling | - Short and simple communication messages resulted in better recall. - Digital communications from public health and emergency services resulted in good recall yet also concerns about trustworthiness. - Communication about smoke was more often shared on social media compared to wildfire communications shared on other platforms. |
Olsen CS, et al. Communicating About Smoke from Wildland Fire: Challenges and Opportunities for Managers. 2014 [59]. | California, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina | N = 60, individuals in four research locations varying in geography, ecology, and social conditions | Case-study. Semi-structured interviews for 45–90 min, (key informants and small group) with purposive sampling | - Prioritize staff training in fire and smoke communications and outreach. - Coordinate messaging across agencies for better consistency, audience reach, and public trust. |
Riden HE, et al. Wildfire Smoke Exposure: Awareness and Safety Responses in the Agricultural Workplace. 2020 [60]. | San Joaquin, Imperial, and Salinas Valleys in California | N = 16 employers of farmworker N = 9 focus groups with 7–10 farmworkers each | Qualitative study. Semi-structured telephone interviews for 30–90 min and focus groups for 45–68 min Formative study. | - Safety precautions are limited for farmworkers. - Employers are unaware of safety guidelines to protect farmworkers. - Better resources are needed to assist employers and supervisors with complying to wildfire smoke safety regulations. |
Thomas M, et al. Unpacking the Realities and Complexities of Sensemaking: Government Practitioners’ Experiences of Emergency Risk Communication. 2021 [61]. | Victoria, Australia | N = 15 Emergency Risk Communication professionals | Qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews for 60 min, with purposive and snowball sampling | - Past experiences influence professionals’ abilities to make informed decisions during emergencies. - There is pressure for professionals to provide accurate information and during quickly moving time frames. - Making informed decisions was easier when working with the same set of stakeholders. |
Van Deventer D, et al. Wildfire Smoke Risk Communication Efficacy: A Content Analysis of Washington State’s 2018 Statewide Smoke Event Public Health Messaging. 2020 [62]. | Washington State, US | N = 273, message examples of wildfire smoke risk information from local and state government organizations and mainstream media in 8 counties | Qualitative content analysis. Purposive sample of counties, messages sampled from websites, deductive and qualitative methods. | - Wide variation exists in wildfire message content. - Improve coordination of information about health risks, smoke exposure reduction, and feedback from vulnerable populations. |