School and childcare facility air quality decision-makers’ perspectives on using low-cost sensors for wildfire smoke response
Tóm tắt
During wildfire smoke episodes, school and childcare facility staff and those who support them rely upon air quality data to inform activity decisions. Where ambient regulatory monitor data is sparse, low-cost sensors can help inform local outdoor activity decisions, and provide indoor air quality data. However, there is no established protocol for air quality decision-makers to use sensor data for schools and childcare facilities. To develop practical, effective toolkits to guide the use of sensors in school and childcare settings, it is essential to understand the perspectives of the potential end-users of such toolkit materials. We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with school, childcare, local health jurisdiction, air quality, and school district personnel regarding sensor use for wildfire smoke response. Interviews included sharing PM2.5 data collected at schools during wildfire smoke. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts were coded using a codebook developed both a priori and amended as additional themes emerged. Three major themes were identified by organizing complementary codes together: (1) Low-cost sensors are useful despite data quality limitations, (2) Low-cost sensor data can inform decision-making to protect children in school and childcare settings, and (3) There are feasibility and public perception-related barriers to using low-cost sensors. Interview responses provided practical implications for toolkit development, including demonstrating a need for toolkits that allow a variety of sensor preferences. In addition, participants expected to have a wide range of available time for monitoring, budget for sensors, and decision-making types. Finally, interview responses revealed a need for toolkits to address sensor uses outside of activity decisions, especially assessment of ventilation and filtration.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Westerling ALR. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0178.
Spracklen DV, Mickley LJ, Logan JA, et al. Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the western United States. J Geophys Res. 2009;114(D20301):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010966.
Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(9):1334–43. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/124/9/ehp.1409277.alt.pdf.
Cascio WE. Wildland Fire smoke and human health. Sci Total Environ. 2018;624:586–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.086.
Doubleday A, Schulte J, Sheppard L, et al. Mortality associated with wildfire smoke exposure in Washington state, 2006–2017: a case-crossover study. Environ Heal. 2020;19(4):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-0559-2.
Brumberg HL, Karr CJ. Ambient air pollution: Health hazards to children. Pediatrics. 2021;147(6). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-051484.
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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-020-00267-4.
Durkin A, Gonzalez R, Busch Isaksen T, Walker E, Errett NA. Establishing a community air monitoring network in a wildfire smoke-prone rural community: the motivations, experiences, challenges, and ideas of Clean Air Methow’s Clean Air Ambassadors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8393):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228393.
Bales E, Nikzad N, Quick N, Ziftci C, Patrick K, Griswold WG. Personal pollution monitoring: mobile real-time air quality in daily life. Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2019;23:309–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01206-3.
Park YM, Chavez D, Sousan S, Figueroa-Bernal N, Alvarez JR, Rocha-Peralta J. Personal exposure monitoring using GPS-enabled portable air pollution sensors: a strategy to promote citizen awareness and behavioral changes regarding indoor and outdoor air pollution. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2022;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00515-9.
Kureshi RR, Thakker D, Mishra BK, Barnes J. From raising awareness to a behavioural change: a case study of indoor air Quality Improvement using IoT and COM-B model. Sensors. 2023;23(3613). https://doi.org/10.3390/s23073613.
Jiang Q, Bregt AK, Kooistra L. Formal and informal environmental sensing data and integration potential: perceptions of citizens and experts. Sci Total Environ. 2018;619–620:1133–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.329.
Delp WW, Singer BC. Wildfire smoke Adjustment factors for low-cost and Professional PM2.5 monitors with Optical Sensors. Sensors. 2020;20:3683. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20133683.
Singer BC, Delp WW. Response of consumer and research grade indoor air quality monitors to residential sources of fine particles. Indoor Air. 2018;28(4):624–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12463.
Stampfer O, Zuidema C, Allen RW et al. Practical considerations for using low-cost sensors to assess wildfire smoke exposure in school and childcare settings. Manuscript in preparation.
Mandinach EB. A perfect time for data use: using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educ Psychol. 2012;47(2):71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064
Gaumer Erickson AS, Noonan PM. Data-Driven decision making. In: Frey BB, editor. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2018. pp. 465–6. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.
Marsh JA, Farrell CC. How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: a framework for understanding capacity building. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2015;43(2):269–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214537229.
Davies D, Dodd J. Qualitative Research and the question of Rigor. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(2):279–89.
Mitchell W, Irvine A. I’m Okay, You’re okay?: Reflections on the Well-being and Ethical Requirements of Researchers and Research Participants in conducting qualitative Fieldwork interviews. Int J Qual Methods. 2008;7(4):31–44.
Thwaites R. (Re)examining the Feminist interview: Rapport, gender matching, and emotional labour. Front Sociol. 2017;2(18):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00018.
Hamberg K, Johansson EE. Practitioner, researcher, and gender conflict in a qualitative study. Qual Health Res. 1999;9(4):455–67.
Plummer M, Young LE. Grounded theory and Feminist inquiry: revitalizing links to the past. West J Nurs Res. 2010;32(3):305–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945909351298.
Tangenberg K. Marginalized epistemologies: a Feminist approach to understanding the experiences of mothers with HIV. Affilia. 2000;15(1):31–48.
Dedoose. Version 9.0.90, cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC www.dedoose.com; 2023.
Mejía JF, Choy SL, Mengersen K, Morawska L. Methodology for assessing exposure and impacts of air pollutants in school children: data collection, analysis and health effects - a literature review. Atmos Environ. 2011;45:813–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.11.009.
Zhang H, Srinivasan R. A systematic review of air quality sensors, guidelines, and measurement studies for indoor air quality management. Sustain. 2020;12(9045):1–38. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219045.