OBJECTIVES: Interventions for reducing air pollution are important means for improving public health. The role of psychological factors in understanding annoyance and health symptoms due to air pollution is limited and further investigation is required. This study aimed to investigate the effects of an intervention to reduce air pollution (predominantly dust and soot) with respect to perceived pollution, risk perception, annoyance and health symptoms. Another objective was to test a model that describes inter-relations between air pollution, perceived pollution, health risk perception, annoyance and health symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: An interventional, population-based questionnaire study. METHODS: Surveys were performed before (pre-test) and after (post-test) closure of a sinter plant. Instead, pellets were shipped to the community's harbour for steel production. Individuals in the community aged 18-75 years were selected at random for participation in the pre-test (n=738; 74% of the sample participated) and post-test (n=684; 68% of the sample participated). The two samples were representative of the populations at the two points in time, and thus not identical. RESULTS: After the sinter plant was closed, the environment was perceived as being less dusty, the residents were more positive in their risk perception, and they reported less annoyance due to dust, soot and odorous substances. No difference was found for health symptoms between the pre-test and the post-test. Based on path analyses, a model is proposed of inter-relations between air pollution, perceived pollution, health risk perception, annoyance and health symptoms. CONCLUSION: The intervention was successful with respect to perceived dust and soot pollution; to annoyance attributed to dust, soot and odorous substances; and to risk perception. The path analyses suggest that perceived pollution and health risk perception play important roles in understanding and predicting environmentally induced annoyance and health symptoms.
OBJECTIVES: Interventions for reducing air pollution are important means for improving public health. The role of psychological factors in understanding annoyance and health symptoms due to air pollution is limited and further investigation is required. This study aimed to investigate the effects of an intervention to reduce air pollution (predominantly dust and soot) with respect to perceived pollution, risk perception, annoyance and health symptoms. Another objective was to test a model that describes inter-relations between air pollution, perceived pollution, health risk perception, annoyance and health symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: An interventional, population-based questionnaire study. METHODS: Surveys were performed before (pre-test) and after (post-test) closure of a sinter plant. Instead, pellets were shipped to the community's harbour for steel production. Individuals in the community aged 18-75 years were selected at random for participation in the pre-test (n=738; 74% of the sample participated) and post-test (n=684; 68% of the sample participated). The two samples were representative of the populations at the two points in time, and thus not identical. RESULTS: After the sinter plant was closed, the environment was perceived as being less dusty, the residents were more positive in their risk perception, and they reported less annoyance due to dust, soot and odorous substances. No difference was found for health symptoms between the pre-test and the post-test. Based on path analyses, a model is proposed of inter-relations between air pollution, perceived pollution, health risk perception, annoyance and health symptoms. CONCLUSION: The intervention was successful with respect to perceived dust and soot pollution; to annoyance attributed to dust, soot and odorous substances; and to risk perception. The path analyses suggest that perceived pollution and health risk perception play important roles in understanding and predicting environmentally induced annoyance and health symptoms.
Authors: Hans Orru; Henrik Olstrup; Annika Hagenbjörk; Steven Nordin; Kati Orru Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Magda Brattoli; Antonio Mazzone; Roberto Giua; Giorgio Assennato; Gianluigi de Gennaro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gösta Axelsson; Leo Stockfelt; Eva Andersson; Anita Gidlof-Gunnarsson; Gerd Sallsten; Lars Barregard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 3.390