Wildfire Smoke Clean Air Centers: Identifying Barriers and Opportunities for Improvement from California Practitioner and Community Perspectives

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Ryan J. Treves, E. Liu, Stephanie Fischer, Ever Rodriguez, G. Wong‐Parodi
{"title":"Wildfire Smoke Clean Air Centers: Identifying Barriers and Opportunities for Improvement from California Practitioner and Community Perspectives","authors":"Ryan J. Treves, E. Liu, Stephanie Fischer, Ever Rodriguez, G. Wong‐Parodi","doi":"10.1080/08941920.2022.2113487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As wildfire risk is projected to increase across most of the world, exposure to wildfire smoke is a growing global health issue. Clean air centers (CACs), public buildings designated to provide improved air quality to the public during a wildfire smoke event, have emerged as a community-oriented public health response to smoke. Some experts see CACs as the most effective way to reduce population exposure to wildfire smoke. Yet how and why smoke-vulnerable groups utilize CACs, as well as how CACs may be improved to meet their needs, is not well understood. Here, we explore these questions through exploratory interviews with two groups of stakeholders in California CAC development: practitioners and members of a community vulnerable to wildfire smoke. Our findings suggest that a gap remains between California’s CACs and the needs of vulnerable groups. By comparing community and practitioner perspectives, we identify opportunities to close this gap.","PeriodicalId":48223,"journal":{"name":"Society & Natural Resources","volume":"36 1","pages":"1078 - 1097"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society & Natural Resources","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2113487","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract As wildfire risk is projected to increase across most of the world, exposure to wildfire smoke is a growing global health issue. Clean air centers (CACs), public buildings designated to provide improved air quality to the public during a wildfire smoke event, have emerged as a community-oriented public health response to smoke. Some experts see CACs as the most effective way to reduce population exposure to wildfire smoke. Yet how and why smoke-vulnerable groups utilize CACs, as well as how CACs may be improved to meet their needs, is not well understood. Here, we explore these questions through exploratory interviews with two groups of stakeholders in California CAC development: practitioners and members of a community vulnerable to wildfire smoke. Our findings suggest that a gap remains between California’s CACs and the needs of vulnerable groups. By comparing community and practitioner perspectives, we identify opportunities to close this gap.
野火烟雾清洁空气中心:从加州从业者和社区的角度识别改进的障碍和机会
随着野火风险预计将在世界大部分地区增加,暴露于野火烟雾是一个日益严重的全球健康问题。清洁空气中心(CACs)是一种公共建筑,用于在野火烟雾事件期间向公众提供改善的空气质量,它已经成为一种面向社区的公共卫生应对烟雾的方式。一些专家认为cac是减少人们接触野火烟雾的最有效方法。然而,吸烟易感人群如何以及为什么使用cac,以及如何改进cac以满足他们的需求,都没有得到很好的了解。在这里,我们通过对加州CAC发展的两组利益相关者的探索性访谈来探讨这些问题:从业者和易受野火烟雾影响的社区成员。我们的研究结果表明,加州的社区服务中心与弱势群体的需求之间仍然存在差距。通过比较社区和从业者的观点,我们发现了缩小这一差距的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
8.00%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: Society and Natural Resources publishes cutting edge social science research that advances understanding of the interaction between society and natural resources.Social science research is extensive and comes from a number of disciplines, including sociology, psychology, political science, communications, planning, education, and anthropology. We welcome research from all of these disciplines and interdisciplinary social science research that transcends the boundaries of any single social science discipline. We define natural resources broadly to include water, air, wildlife, fisheries, forests, natural lands, urban ecosystems, and intensively managed lands. While we welcome all papers that fit within this broad scope, we especially welcome papers in the following four important and broad areas in the field: 1. Protected area management and governance 2. Stakeholder analysis, consultation and engagement; deliberation processes; governance; conflict resolution; social learning; social impact assessment 3. Theoretical frameworks, epistemological issues, and methodological perspectives 4. Multiscalar character of social implications of natural resource management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信