Citation:
Semenza, Jan C., Daniel J. Wilson, Jeremy Parra, Brian D. Bontempo, Melissa Hart, David J. Sailor, and Linda A. George. "Public Perception and Behavior Change in Relationship to Hot Weather and Air Pollution." Environmental Research 107, no. 3 (2008): 401-11. Accessed September 27, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.03.005.
Abstract
Background
Changes in climate systems are increasing heat wave frequency and air stagnation, both conditions associated with exacerbating poor air quality and of considerable public health concern.
Objectives
Heat and air pollution advisory systems are in place in many cities for early detection and response to reduce health consequences, or severity of adverse conditions. Whereas the ability to forecast heat waves and/or air pollution episodes has become increasingly sophisticated and accurate, little is known about the effectiveness of advisories in altering public behavior.
Methods
Air quality and meteorological conditions were measured during advisory and control days in Portland, OR and Houston, TX in 2005 and 2006 and 1962 subjects were interviewed by telephone about their perception and response to these conditions.
Results
Elevated ambient temperatures were accurately recognized regardless of air conditioning use; in Portland, respondents resorted to active cooling behavior (AC, fan, etc.), while in Houston no such change was observed. More heat-related symptoms were reported in Portland compared to Houston, probably due to low air conditioning use in the northwest. One-third of study participants were aware of air quality advisories but only ∼10–15% claimed to have changed activities during such an episode. Not the advisory, however, drove their behavior change, but rather the perception of poor air quality, which was not related to PM2.5 or ozone measurements.
Conclusions
Messages are not reaching the public during potentially hazardous weather and air quality conditions. Climatic forecasts are increasingly predictive but public agencies fail to mount an appropriate outreach response.
Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project.
Jan C. Semenza taught in the Oregon Masters Program of Public Health, he is interested in climate change's effects on health, and his work has been referenced in many climate change adaptation policies for metropolitan areas. He currently leads work on environmental and climatic determinants of infectious disease at the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control in Stockholm, Sweden.
Daniel J. Wilson is a Stastical Associate at Mountain Measurement Inc. and is interested in community formation and adjustment to social change.
Jeremy Parra works in environmental sciences management at Portland State University.
Brian B. Bontempo is the Principal Consultant at Mountain Measurement Inc, he works with item response theory, and large scale computer testing.
Melissa Hart works in the school of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales in Australia. She is a member of the Climate Change Research Center and is interested in how land-use and anthropomorphic activities affect the climate.
David J. Sailor is a mechanical & materials engineering professor at Portland State University, and he studies interactions between built infrastructure and urban climates.
Linda A. George is a professor of environmental sciences and management at Portland State University. She is interested in monitoring and modeling urban air pollutants, and the effects the pollutants may have on humans.
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
The article determined that messages are not reaching the Public during times of potentially hazardous air quality conditions. They do not believe that the passive systems of outreach, currently employed by Portland, OR and Houston, TX, are producing change in the community, and that people do not understand the seriousness of the hazard for at-risk populations.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
Their data is from random telephone surveys conducted in the two cities, and air quality and meteorological data from the Texas Comission on Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, each reputable sources.
Other studies they mention, some in Portland, some in Chicago, have had similar results; people do not change their behavior even when informed about environmental hazzards
The sample in the study was slightly skewed to a higher level of education than average. The authors comment on this, and say that those with higher education pay mor attention to the announcements; on average, people would change at even lower rates than those shown by this study.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
"Only a small segment of the participants (10.5% in Portland, 9.7% in Houston) actually changed their activities during poor air quality episodes, and if so it was primarily motivated by perception of poor air quality rather than by the advisory ( Fig. 5). Moreover, no car-related behavior changes, such as reduced driving or postponed refueling, was observed for either advisory or control days for either city."
"Approximately one-third of the study population was aware that air quality advisories existed and the source of that knowledge was similar in Portland and Houston, with television being the major source (40% and 50%, respectively) followed by radio (23% and 20%), newspaper (13% and 9%), word-of-mouth (9% and 7%), highway signs (7% and 11%), e-mail messages (6% and 2%), and workplace notices (3% and 1%)."
"Respondents were more likely to report changes in their behavior if they considered the air quality to be poor (Fig. 5). However, these self-reports of perceived poor air quality did not correlate with environmental measurements of air quality indicators such as PM2.5 or ozone (Fig. 6). No environmental indicator of air quality such as ozone or particular matter correlated with health symptoms, reports of smell, or visual air pollution"
"Results from this study indicate that public awareness about Clean Air Action Days is minimal at best and that behavior changes in response to the alerts is virtually non-existent."
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
The responses were gotten through randomized telephone surveys, and the weather and air quality information came from databases maintained by the Texas Comission on Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
They break down respondents by income, education, race, and age:
"Despite the demographic differences in the sample between the cities (Table 2), similarities in the demographic profile for perception and response emerge (Table 4). Individuals with lower income and educational attainment (a surrogate for socio-economic status) and non-whites appear to have been more perceptive and responsive to air quality and extreme heat. While perception of air quality was not related to actual measurements (Fig. 6, see above), AC saturation in these populations is lower compared to the general population (AHS, 2002) and thus indicates a true susceptibility to extreme heat."
Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
Cited by this article referencing the apathetic response to air pollution in Nairobi because the residents are "used to it".
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
One source is this article about advisories and change in emissions. They also found that people do not change behavior based on advisories, and suggest using alternative methods, such as raising bus fare furring advisory periods, to change behavior instead. I thought this was interesting, but also that it distributes the costs unfairly through the population. It raises interesting questions about what it will actually take to get people to take air pollution seriously. (there were also some great related articles that may be helpful even though they are not specific to this city)
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?
I thought it was so interesting that no one changes their behavior during times when alerts are issued, because in each organization that I reviewed, a big part of their operations was to get the word out. I believe the authors of this paper would advocate for stronger messages to be sent to the public.
According to this study, people are more likely to change behavior based on their own perceptions; if they felt the extreme heat or polluted air for themselves, then they would make the change, but would not make a change preemptively. This will be a difficult mindset to work around.
At one point, the paper mentions efforts in Chicago who's effects were "statically significant, but actual change was relatively small". And this made me wonder about effectiveness of educational campaigns. Because isn't some small change better than none?
LINK TO ARTICLE
Citation:
Semenza, Jan C., Daniel J. Wilson, Jeremy Parra, Brian D. Bontempo, Melissa Hart, David J. Sailor, and Linda A. George. "Public Perception and Behavior Change in Relationship to Hot Weather and Air Pollution." Environmental Research 107, no. 3 (2008): 401-11. Accessed September 27, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.03.005.
Abstract
Background
Changes in climate systems are increasing heat wave frequency and air stagnation, both conditions associated with exacerbating poor air quality and of considerable public health concern.Objectives
Heat and air pollution advisory systems are in place in many cities for early detection and response to reduce health consequences, or severity of adverse conditions. Whereas the ability to forecast heat waves and/or air pollution episodes has become increasingly sophisticated and accurate, little is known about the effectiveness of advisories in altering public behavior.Methods
Air quality and meteorological conditions were measured during advisory and control days in Portland, OR and Houston, TX in 2005 and 2006 and 1962 subjects were interviewed by telephone about their perception and response to these conditions.Results
Elevated ambient temperatures were accurately recognized regardless of air conditioning use; in Portland, respondents resorted to active cooling behavior (AC, fan, etc.), while in Houston no such change was observed. More heat-related symptoms were reported in Portland compared to Houston, probably due to low air conditioning use in the northwest. One-third of study participants were aware of air quality advisories but only ∼10–15% claimed to have changed activities during such an episode. Not the advisory, however, drove their behavior change, but rather the perception of poor air quality, which was not related to PM2.5 or ozone measurements.Conclusions
Messages are not reaching the public during potentially hazardous weather and air quality conditions. Climatic forecasts are increasingly predictive but public agencies fail to mount an appropriate outreach response.