ArticlePDF Available

Clearing the air: evaluating institutions’ social media health messaging on wildfire and smoke risks in the US Pacific Northwest

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Background Wildfire smoke contributes substantially to the global disease burden and is a major cause of air pollution in the US states of Oregon and Washington. Climate change is expected to bring more wildfires to this region. Social media is a popular platform for health promotion and a need exists for effective communication about smoke risks and mitigation measures to educate citizens and safeguard public health. Methods Using a sample of 1,287 Tweets from 2022, we aimed to analyze temporal Tweeting patterns in relation to potential smoke exposure and evaluate and compare institutions’ use of social media communication best practices which include (i) encouraging adoption of smoke-protective actions; (ii) leveraging numeric, verbal, and Air Quality Index risk information; and (iii) promoting community-building. Tweets were characterized using keyword searches and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software. Descriptive and inferential statistics were carried out. Results 44% of Tweets in our sample were authored between January-August 2022, prior to peak wildfire smoke levels, whereas 54% of Tweets were authored during the two-month peak in smoke (September-October). Institutional accounts used Twitter (or X) to encourage the adoption of smoke-related protective actions (82% of Tweets), more than they used it to disseminate wildfire smoke risk information (25%) or promote community-building (47%). Only 10% of Tweets discussed populations vulnerable to wildfire smoke health effects, and 14% mentioned smoke mitigation measures. Tweets from Washington-based accounts used significantly more verbal and numeric risk information to discuss wildfire smoke than Oregon-based accounts (p = 0.042 and p = 0.003, respectively); however, Tweets from Oregon-based accounts on average contained a higher percentage of words associated with community-building language (p < 0.001). Conclusions This research provides practical recommendations for public health practitioners and researchers communicating wildfire smoke risks on social media. As exposures to wildfire smoke rise due to climate change, reducing the environmental disease burden requires health officials to leverage popular communication platforms, distribute necessary health-related messaging rapidly, and get the message right. Timely, evidence-based, and theory-driven messaging is critical for educating and empowering individuals to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from harmful exposures. Thus, proactive and sustained communications about wildfire smoke should be prioritized even during wildfire “off-seasons.”
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
RESEARCH Open Access
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The
Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available
in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17907-1 BMC Public Health
*Correspondence:
Catherine E. Slavik
cslavik@uoregon.edu
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Abstract
Background Wildre smoke contributes substantially to the global disease burden and is a major cause of air
pollution in the US states of Oregon and Washington. Climate change is expected to bring more wildres to this
region. Social media is a popular platform for health promotion and a need exists for eective communication about
smoke risks and mitigation measures to educate citizens and safeguard public health.
Methods Using a sample of 1,287 Tweets from 2022, we aimed to analyze temporal Tweeting patterns in relation to
potential smoke exposure and evaluate and compare institutions’ use of social media communication best practices
which include (i) encouraging adoption of smoke-protective actions; (ii) leveraging numeric, verbal, and Air Quality
Index risk information; and (iii) promoting community-building. Tweets were characterized using keyword searches
and the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software. Descriptive and inferential statistics were carried out.
Results 44% of Tweets in our sample were authored between January-August 2022, prior to peak wildre smoke
levels, whereas 54% of Tweets were authored during the two-month peak in smoke (September-October).
Institutional accounts used Twitter (or X) to encourage the adoption of smoke-related protective actions (82% of
Tweets), more than they used it to disseminate wildre smoke risk information (25%) or promote community-building
(47%). Only 10% of Tweets discussed populations vulnerable to wildre smoke health eects, and 14% mentioned
smoke mitigation measures. Tweets from Washington-based accounts used signicantly more verbal and numeric
risk information to discuss wildre smoke than Oregon-based accounts (p = 0.042 and p = 0.003, respectively);
however, Tweets from Oregon-based accounts on average contained a higher percentage of words associated with
community-building language (p < 0.001).
Conclusions This research provides practical recommendations for public health practitioners and researchers
communicating wildre smoke risks on social media. As exposures to wildre smoke rise due to climate change,
reducing the environmental disease burden requires health ocials to leverage popular communication platforms,
distribute necessary health-related messaging rapidly, and get the message right. Timely, evidence-based, and theory-
driven messaging is critical for educating and empowering individuals to make informed decisions about protecting
themselves from harmful exposures. Thus, proactive and sustained communications about wildre smoke should be
prioritized even during wildre “o-seasons.
Clearing the air: evaluating institutions’
social media health messaging on wildre
and smoke risks in the US Pacic Northwest
Catherine E.Slavik1,2*, Daniel A.Chapman1,2, Alex SegrèCohen1,2, NahlaBendefaa1 and EllenPeters1,2,3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 2 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Background
Wildre smoke contributes substantially to the global
disease burden, and it is getting worse with climate
change [1, 2]. e Pacic Northwest region of the United
States (US) has seen an especially large increase in the
quantity and scope of wildres, and populations there
already face increased risks of health harms attribut-
able to smoke exposure [3]. e region’s poor air quality
due to wildre smoke is a signicant and growing public
health challenge [4].
Wildre smoke contains several compounds hazardous
to health, such as Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), car-
bon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, methane, trace metals,
and carcinogens like formaldehyde, polycycle aromatic
hydrocarbons, and acrolein [5]. Although adverse health
impacts associated with wildre smoke can aect all pop-
ulations, sensitive groups like children, pregnant people,
and those with existing respiratory and cardiovascular
conditions are especially at risk [6].
To prevent diseases attributable to wildre smoke, pub-
lic education and risk communication about smoke risks
and exposure mitigation measures are needed [7]. Smoke
education and communication eorts require a variety of
actors, each responsible for communicating specic types
of information to particular audiences [8]. Smoke travels
across geographic boundaries following wind patterns,
and thus, can impact air quality in places far from the
original source [9]. As a result, communications emerge
from local, regional, and national sources. In addition,
since air quality risks are both environmental and public
health issues, government agencies and communicators
from both domains tend to undertake risk communica-
tion activities around wildre smoke [10].
During wildre events, individuals have displayed a
keen sense of place and seek region-specic updates con-
cerning re impact and wildre smoke [11, 12]. While
conveying health risks across diverse geographic areas
presents obstacles, populations gain from messages that
highlight the unique conditions of an ongoing emergency,
and from information that feels genuine and are useful to
them [13]. Some evidence also suggests that the public
trusts local sources of wildre smoke information more
than state-level or federal-level sources [14]. Despite
large demand for hyper-local wildre risk information in
the US, eective communications that promote risk com-
prehension and awareness of exposure mitigation mea-
sures are lacking [15].
Twitter (now “X”) is a popular social media platform
used by government agencies and ocials to dissemi-
nate information, providing citizens with a direct link
to those leading the response to environmental hazards
and public health emergencies [1618]. In the US, most
federal government ocials have had a Twitter account,
and some sources indicate that about a quarter of the
public used Twitter as recently as 2021 [19, 20]. Twitter
is a common tool for health promotion and risk com-
munication [21, 22], and in some areas of the US Pacic
Northwest—a region that includes the states of Washing-
ton and Oregon—the platform has served as a popular
means for citizens to express wildre smoke concerns,
seek updates on risks, and learn about intervention strat-
egies [23, 24]. In these states, the percentage of adults
with a Twitter account was estimated to be 27% in 2021
[25]. Van Deventer et al. found that the majority of gov-
ernment-authored communications about wildre smoke
in this region were disseminated via Twitter and other
social media platforms [10]. An active social media pres-
ence is increasingly viewed as important for ocials to
communicate smoke risks to communities proactively
[26]; however, in practice, advice from governments on
smoke-protective actions is often reactive and/or comes
too late after a smoke event [10, 27, 28]. e US Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that o-
cials communicate smoke risks and instruct households
on what preparations to make during wildre o-seasons
[29].
Prior research studying institutional health messaging
on Twitter and communication best practices found that
Tweets authored by public health organizations generally
served at least one of three message functions [30, 31].
ese message functions, originally conceptualized by
Lovejoy and Saxton, can be classied based on whether
Tweets: (i) encourage members of the public to adopt an
action or behavior (“action”); (ii) provide information to
the public (“information”); or (iii) promote community-
building, give recognition and thanks to community
members, or otherwise signal community engagement
(“community”) [32].
Although limited studies have tied social media com-
munications like Tweets directly to healthy behavior
change [33, 34], governments increasingly consider their
communications to be key for motivating the public to
take individual actions that reduce exposure to wildre
smoke [35]. One way to encourage action-taking may be
through application of constructs from Protection Moti-
vation eory, which is a model of disease prevention in
social psychology and health promotion. e theory pos-
its that people’s intentions to protect themselves from
harm are inuenced by four cognitions: risk severity, like-
lihood of experiencing harm, eectiveness of mitigative
Keywords Wildre smoke, Public health, Risk communication, Social media, Protection motivation theory,
Environmental health
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
measures to protect from harm, and the belief, known as
self-ecacy, that one can successfully execute these mea-
sures [36]. Health agencies and ocials have employed
messaging based on these Protection Motivation eory
cognitions in public education campaigns [3739], and
their use has been shown to increase people’s intentions
to take action to avoid harm from a variety of environ-
mental health hazards [4042]. Although the application
of Protection Motivation eory constructs in pub-
lic health messaging on Twitter has not been studied
directly, previous studies analyzing communications
authored by public health agencies have found that
“action” Tweets, which may bolster self-ecacy beliefs,
and Tweets specically referencing hazard severity, gar-
ner higher engagement from users [17, 43].
Institutional health communications that primarily
serve to inform users about a hazard also have an impor-
tant function on Twitter [44], particularly during wildre
events [45]. Best practices in health risk communication
point to using numeric information to promote accurate
perceptions of risks, as people seem to prefer receiving
risk information that contains numbers (especially the
highly numerate) [4648], or that contain numbers in
combination with verbal labels [49, 50]. ey also nd
messages with numbers more useful. In one study, partic-
ipants found websites with numeric information clearer
and more useful than a site without it, and they were
also more motivated to use the information [51]. is
preference for numbers may be partly attributed to the
imprecision of risk information when expressed verbally,
for example, words like “signicant” may lead to varying
interpretations among individuals [52].
Additionally, numerical risk information may increase
intentions to act to reduce environmental risks [53], as
it increases other health-protective intentions [54, 55].
Health risks attributable to poor air quality are gener-
ally communicated by referencing a specic hazard cat-
egory from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s
Air Quality Index (AQI), which helps the public evalu-
ate how hazardous the air is on a scale from 0 (good) to
500+ (hazardous) [56]. Importantly, using interpretative
labels to denote dierent categories of risk on a scale has
been found to aid people’s health decision making and
their interpretation of numeric information [57]. Some
research also suggests health-based AQI risk labels like
those used in the US (e.g., unhealthy, hazardous, etc.) are
more eective at motivating protective action intentions
than non-health-based air quality risk labels (e.g., poor,
polluted, etc.) [58]. However, to our knowledge, only one
previous study has explored how institutions or ocials
inform the public about air quality health risks on Twitter
during wildre smoke events [10].
Institutional use of social media like Twitter cen-
ters around engaging users and building (virtual)
communities. It is generally viewed as an important
way to promote public participation in health promo-
tion and decision making [59]. Some evidence suggests
that encountering Tweets about community-building
or social practices like care and compassion can inu-
ence the adoption of prosocial behaviors [60]. Further,
communications encouraging dialogue between com-
munity members and public engagement may increase
trust and other favorable perceptions of institutions and
government organizations [61], which have been found
to increase people’s intentions to adhere to public health
recommendations during events like natural disasters
[62]. Despite this, health agencies appear to author fewer
Tweets that focus on “community”, relative to the “action”
and “information” functions [30, 31].
e literature reviewed above suggests that extensive
research points towards how to craft eective social
media messages about a variety of health risks. However,
our understanding of the actual communication practices
of governments—especially as they pertain to wildre
smoke—remains limited. is study aimed to: [1] ana-
lyze temporal Tweeting patterns in relation to potential
wildre smoke exposure in Washington and Oregon, and;
[2] evaluate and compare institutions’ use of three best
practices for communicating on social media. Based on
our ndings, we generated practical recommendations
for public health practitioners and researchers communi-
cating about wildre smoke risks on social media. Each
Tweet in our dataset was coded for language that could
encourage action-taking, its use of risk information, and
for language that could promote community-building.
e research questions we sought to answer were:
1. Do temporal Tweeting patterns about wildre and
smoke align with daily average AQI values?
2. Do institutional Tweets about wildres and smoke
apply social media communication best practices,
which:
a) Encourage the adoption of protective actions for
reducing smoke exposure based on predictions
from Protection Motivation eory?
b) Inform users about the health risks associated
with smoke exposure by leveraging verbal cues,
numeric information, and AQI risk labels?
c) Promote community-building through references
to social interactions and/or social behaviors?
3. How does the use of health messaging across these
dimensions compare by institutional characteristics
including type, regional scale, and location?
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 4 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Methods
Tweet retrieval
An initial scoping review of online information sources
identied key government institutions and agencies
serving as ocial disseminators of air quality informa-
tion to citizens residing in Oregon and Washington.
Relevant institutions included national and state-level
environmental and health agencies, as well as local health
departments. Using the Twitter interface to manually
search the names of these government organizations, 34
Twitter accounts were identied from which to draw the
sample of Tweets from (See Supplemental Table 1). is
study did not include Tweets from organizations related
to wildre emergency response, such as local re depart-
ments, as these accounts tended to disseminate informa-
tion about re spread and evacuation notices as opposed
to health-related information about wildres and air
quality. Of note, Twitter was renamed “X” in July 2023
several months after data collection for this study had
taken place.
Twitter data was downloaded in January 2023 from the
34 Twitter accounts selected for this study using a Twit-
ter Application Programming Interface (API) accessed
through R using the ‘rtweet’ package [63]. An R script
was developed to download the maximum number of
Tweets from each account (i.e., the most recent 3,200
Tweets) permitted for account-specic searches required
by Twitter’s API. e download yielded a dataset of
85,406 Tweets authored by the 34 accounts of inter-
est published between April 2009 and January 2023. We
limited our analysis to include only Tweets authored
between January 1st, 2022, and December 31st, 2022, as
this represented the most complete dataset; all but two
Twitter accounts (out of 34) ‘Tweeted’ during this time,
resulting in 24,430 Tweets authored by 32 accounts.
We further restricted our analysis to Tweets about
wildres and smoke, based on whether they contained
the keywords “smoke” or “re”, and excluded any Tweets
containing the words “tobacco”, “cigarette” or “second-
hand”. Tweets that did not contain any text (e.g., con-
tained an image only), would have also been screened
out at this stage. is step resulted in a sample of 1,879
Tweets. Next, two coders worked together to screen out
any Tweets not about wildres or smoke that remained
in the dataset. e two coders engaged in discussions,
deliberating on any coding discrepancies between indi-
vidual Tweets until they reached a consensus. Tweets
screened out at this stage included, for example, those
discussing air pollution from household replaces or
wood stoves, or air pollution due to reworks (N = 593).
Wood-heating in homes is common across many regions
of the US Pacic Northwest during the winter months
and can account for the majority of smoke produced
(and the PM2.5 recorded) during that season [64]. Tweets
that referenced air pollution due to forest management
res (e.g., prescribed forest burns) were retained in our
analysis, yielding a nal dataset—authored by 30 dierent
accounts—of 1,287 Tweets about wildres and smoke.
Twitter account classication
e 30 Twitter accounts that authored the Tweets in our
dataset were classied based on three categorical vari-
ables. First, an account’s location was either classied
as Washington (WA) (N = 20 accounts, N = 830 Tweets),
Oregon (OR) (N = 7 accounts, N = 323 Tweets) or USA-
based (N = 3 accounts, N = 134 Tweets) based on whether
the institution was located in one of the two states or
belonged to an account attached to a national agency
(e.g., the US EPAs Oce of Air and Radiation), respec-
tively. Second, an account was classied by its regional
scale as either local (N = 21 accounts, N = 384 Tweets) or
as a state-level or national-level account (N = 9 accounts,
N = 903 Tweets) based on whether the account served
citizens from a county, or citizens across an entire state
(or multiple states), respectively. For example, Twitter
accounts classied as local would have included local
public health departments (e.g., Seattle and King Coun-
ty’s @KCPubHealth account), while Twitter accounts
classied as regional would have included both state
agencies (e.g., Oregon’s Department of Environmental
Quality @OregonDEQ) and national agencies (e.g., US
EPAs AirNow Program @AIRNow). Lastly, accounts
were classied as either environmental (N = 10 accounts,
N = 882 Tweets) or health (N = 20 accounts, N = 405
Tweets) based on their institutional mandate.
AQI data retrieval and analysis
is study used daily AQI values for PM2.5 to indicate
potential wildre smoke exposure. Exposure to PM2.5
from wildre smoke has been associated with increased
incidences of all-cause mortality and respiratory mor-
bidity, including exacerbations to asthma and COPD,
pneumonia and bronchitis [65]. Further, Burke et al. pre-
viously found that wildre smoke caused more than 75%
of exceedances in daily PM2.5 concentrations in Wash-
ington and Oregon between 2020 and 2022 [66]. us,
PM2.5 is frequently used as an indicator of wildre smoke
exposure. Daily air quality summary statistics for PM2.5
in Oregon and Washington states were downloaded from
the US EPA for the year 2022 to examine temporal trends
in both states’ levels of wildre smoke [67]. e data is
based on the EPAs Air Quality System, which leverages
air quality measurements for various criteria pollutants
from multiple state monitoring sites and undergoes val-
idation. Daily maximum AQI values (ranging from 0 to
500 based on the US AQI) were aggregated by state and
by month.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 5 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Protection motivation theory scoring and analysis of
tweets
We searched for keywords associated with each of the
four dimensions of Protection Motivation eory [36] to
devise a total score out of 7 for each Tweet (see Table1).
e rst dimension, “severity”, was assessed using three
sub-dimensions. For the rst sub-dimension, “conse-
quences”, a Tweet would receive a score of 1 if it men-
tioned any health consequence or health eect associated
with wildre smoke exposure (e.g., asthma, coughing,
etc.). For the second sub-dimension, “threat”, a Tweet
would receive a score of 1 if it mentioned words associ-
ated with wildre smoke threats to health (e.g., PM2.5,
pollution, etc.). For the third sub-dimension, “magni-
tude”, a Tweet would receive a score of 1 if it mentioned
how severe the threat to health was (e.g., severe, seri-
ous, etc.). us, a Tweet could receive a maximum score
of 3 for the “severity” Protection Motivation eory
dimension if it used messaging satisfying all three of the
sub-dimensions.
e second Protection Motivation eory dimension,
“likelihood”, was assessed using two sub-dimensions.
For the rst sub-dimension, “probability”, a Tweet would
receive a score of 1 if it mentioned how likely the threat
to health was (e.g., uncertain, predicted, etc.). For the
second sub-dimension, “vulnerability”, a Tweet would
receive a score of 1 if it mentioned any vulnerable groups
more likely to experience health consequences from
smoke exposure (e.g., children, pregnant people, etc.).
us, a Tweet could receive a maximum score of 2 for the
“likelihood” Protection Motivation eory dimension if it
used messaging satisfying both of sub-dimensions.
For the third Protection Motivation eory dimen-
sion, “mitigation”, a Tweet would receive a score of 1 if it
mentioned any mitigation measures from smoke expo-
sure (e.g., air purier, staying indoors, etc.). Lastly, for
the fourth Protection Motivation eory dimension,
“self-ecacy”, a keyword search for the terms “protect”,
“safe” and “can” was carried out; Tweets containing one
or more of these words were read to examine the context
surrounding the use of the words and whether they were
used to describe people’s ability to protect themselves,
stay safe or execute some specic action (e.g., “Learn how
you can protect your health from wildre smoke…”). e
“self-ecacy” dimension of the Protection Motivation
eory score was also scored as a binary variable out of 1,
denoting a presence or absence of self-ecacy language.
Protection Motivation eory scores were created for
each Tweet by tallying up the presence of each Protection
Motivation eory dimension/sub-dimension. We fol-
lowed a similar approach to one adopted by Zhang et al.,
who also linked keywords from Tweets to specic con-
structs of a health behavior theory in order to examine
the usage of these constructs in health-related Twitter
discussions [68]. In this study, each Tweet obtained a
Protection Motivation eory score ranging from 0 (no
Protection Motivation eory dimensions present) to 7
(all Protection Motivation eory dimensions and sub-
dimensions present).
Risk information scoring and analysis of tweets
In addition to Protection Motivation eory scores,
Tweets were also coded based on the presence or absence
of dierent types of risk information and specically
whether: (i) verbal cues were used; (ii) numeric infor-
mation was used; and/or (iii) AQI risk labels were refer-
enced. Table1 highlights which words were used to create
a verbal risk information score, where the presence of any
single word would lead to a score of 1 for that category. A
Tweet received a score of 1 in the numeric category if it
contained a number (i.e., any Arabic integer) in reference
to a risk quantity relevant to wildres and/or smoke, for
example, describing a percent likelihood of re spread or
the number of acres burning. Finally, a Tweet received a
score of 1 for the AQI risk label category if it referenced
any one of the six AQI hazard categories commonly used
to quantify risks from poor air quality in the US.
Assessment and analysis of tweets about community-
building
Further, this study used a dictionary-based approach with
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software (LIWC-22)
to assess linguistic dierences in word use about com-
munity-building across the Twitter accounts studied.
Boyd et al. provides an overview of the development of
the LIWC dictionary and the reliability and validity of
the various dimensions the software generates [69]. In
essence, each LIWC dimension is composed of a select
list of dictionary words that have been found to capture
its meaning based on an extensive text corpus of approxi-
mately 31million words from various sources (including
thousands of Tweets). We selected two dimensions from
LIWC-22 relevant to community-building, and ran all
Tweets in our sample through the software to give each
Tweet two LIWC scores, representing percentages of
total words within a text for two dimensions of interest:
“social behavior” and “prosocial behavior”. Prior research
has found that the social dimensions LIWC uses are a
reliable indicator of social connections and closeness
[70]. e “social behavior” dimension captures words
associated with social interactions and includes terms
like “said” and “share”; e “prosocial behavior” dimen-
sion captures a subset of words from the “social behav-
ior” category, but specically targets terms associated
with social behaviors that benet society or promote car-
ing about others, for example, “care” and “thank” [69].
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 6 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were performed for the Protection
Motivation eory scores and the individual dimensions
used to describe the presence/absence of these scores
across dierent groupings of interest (i.e., by institution
type [environmental vs. health], regional scale [local vs.
state-level or national-level], and location [OR vs. WA
vs. USA]). Descriptive statistics were also performed to
describe the presence/absence of dierent risk language
in the Tweets, as well as dierences in the LIWC dimen-
sions, across institution type, regional scale and location.
Models were constructed to test dierences between
institution types, regional scales, and locations on the
outcomes of interest including the Protection Motiva-
tion eory score, risk language, and LIWC score. For
the Protection Motivation eory and LIWC scores, pre-
liminary analyses revealed potential violations of homo-
geneity of variance and normality of residuals. erefore,
non-parametric statistical tests were employed for the
Protection Motivation eory and LIWC models. To
test for dierences between institution type and regional
scale, Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon tests—the non-para-
metric equivalent of independent samples t-tests—were
used. e results of these models were accompanied by
Vargha and Delaney’s ‘A’ as an eect size measure, for
which benchmarks recommended by the developers were
provided [71].
For dierences across the three locations, the Krus-
kal-Wallis test (i.e., non-parametric one-way analysis
of variance) was used, accompanied by post-hoc tests
to compare each location using Dunn’s method and the
Benjamini-Hochberg p-value adjustment for multiple
comparisons [72, 73]. Epsilon-squared (E2) was reported
as an eect size measure for the Kruskal-Wallis test. As
the outcomes were binary for the models of risk lan-
guage, logistic regression models were employed. Stan-
dard logistic regression results with odds ratios as an
indicator of eect size were reported. For the model of
location, post-hoc pairwise comparison results were
reported based on the marginal means, again using the
Benjamini-Hochberg p-value adjustment for multiple
comparisons.
Results
Temporal patterns in institutional tweeting and potential
smoke exposure
is study examined whether temporal trends in insti-
tutional Tweeting about wildre smoke corresponded to
changes in daily AQI values (i.e., an indicator for poten-
tial population exposure to wildre smoke). Results in
Fig.1 show that values for maximum daily AQI (averaged
by month) were highest in September and October 2022
and AQI levels were generally higher in Oregon than in
Washington state. Across all accounts, 44% of all Tweets
in our sample were authored prior to that year’s wild-
re smoke season during the period January to August
2022, while 54% of all Tweets were authored during
the two-month peak in smoke levels (during the period
September-October 2022) (data not displayed). Both in
Washington and also in Oregon, each Twitter account
Table 1 Keyword search strategies for Protection Motivation Theory and risk language scoring by dimension/sub-dimension
Variables for keyword search Keywords
Protection Motivation Theory dimensions Sub-dimensions (if
present)
Severity Consequences Asthma; breath*; cardiovascular; chest pain; condition; cough;
damag*; disease; eect; eye; headache; health problem; heart;
illness; lung; respirat*; throat; wheez*
Threat Air quality; AQI; degraded; hazard; partic*; PM; pollut*; risk; threat
Magnitude Danger*; extreme; harm*; serious; severe; unhealthy
Likelihood Probability Canǂ; chance; could; expect; forecast; frequent; likel*; may;
might; possib*; potential; predict; probab*; uncertain; will
Vulnerability Asthma; cardiovascular; child; elderly; kid; old; pregnant; respira-
tory; sensitive; worker
Mitigation NA HEPA; indoor; inside; mask; MERV; monitor; outdoor; outside;
purier; respirator; sensors; shelter; space; window
Self-ecacy NA Canǂ; protect; safe
Risk information dimensions
Verbal cues NA Big; decline; decrease; elevated; fewer; heavy; high; increase;
large; less; low; many; more; most; reduce; rise; rising; small; tiny
Numeric information NA [number]; %; percent*
Air Quality Index Risk Labels NA Good; hazardous; moderate; unhealthy
Note: *Wild card search queries wer e carried out on cert ain words to capture groups of s imilar words with diere nt endings
ǂTwo possible uses of the word ‘can’ existed in this search and we re treated as dierent key words, rst ‘can’ as a verb for possibility (i.e., can be sm oky), and second
‘can’ as a verb for ab ility (i.e., you can take t his action to protect yo urself)
The word ‘unhea lthy’ appears in three o f the six Air Quality Ind ex risk labels: Unhealthy f or sensitive groups, Unh ealthy, Very unh ealthy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 7 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
authored on average 18 wildre-smoke Tweets during the
period prior to peak smoke levels, which corresponded to
44% and 39% of each state’s annual total Tweets, respec-
tively. Each USA-based account authored on average 24
wildre-smoke Tweets during the period of time preced-
ing peak wildre smoke levels (54% of their annual total
Tweets). During the two-month peak period of wildre
smoke, accounts in Washington each authored on aver-
age 22 Tweets, while accounts in Oregon appeared to
take a more responsive approach and authored an aver-
age of 27 Tweets each (54% vs. 58% of their annual total
Tweets, respectively). Accounts across the USA each
authored an average of 20 Tweets during the peak wild-
re smoke period (44% of their annual total Tweets).
Use of tweets promoting adoption of protective actions
from wildre-smoke exposure
is study explored whether institutional Tweets about
wildre and smoke encouraged the adoption of protec-
tive actions to mitigate smoke exposure by applying
constructs from Protection Motivation eory. Results
indicate that no Tweet authored by the accounts in the
dataset contained all seven Protection Motivation e-
ory dimensions/sub-dimensions studied (data not dis-
played). However, most Tweets contained messaging
satisfying at least one of the seven Protection Motivation
eory dimensions (N = 1054, 82%). Only 15 Tweets used
messaging consistent with each of the four Protection
Motivation eory cognitions (i.e., severity, likelihood,
mitigation, self-ecacy) by satisfying at least one of three
sub-dimensions for “severity”, one of two sub-dimensions
for “likelihood”, as well as the “mitigation” and “self-e-
cacy” dimensions.
Table2 summarizes the use of Protection Motivation
eory dimensions in the sample of Tweets studied. e
most frequently used “severity” sub-dimension in Tweets
Table 2 Frequency of use of Protection Motivation Theory
health messaging in Tweet sample (N = 1,287 Tweets).
Percentages add up to more than 100% because a Tweet could
be represented in each dimension and sub-dimension
Protection Mo-
tivation Theory
dimension
Sub-dimension (if
present)
Frequency % of
total
Tweets
Severity Consequences 87 7
Threat 615 48
Magnitude 220 17
Likelihood Probability 595 46
Vulnerability 123 10
Mitigation NA 178 14
Self-ecacy NA 305 24
Fig. 1 Summed frequencies of wildre and smoke Tweets authored by institutional accounts (left) and maximum daily AQI values (for PM2.5) (right) in
2022 aggregated by account location and month. Data sources: Twitter and US EPA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 8 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
was “threat” (N = 615, 48%), followed by “magnitude”
(N = 220, 17%). Only 2% of Tweets (N = 26) used all three
sub-dimensions of the “severity” dimension and 56% of
Tweets contained at least one “severity” sub-dimension
(N = 716) (data not displayed).
e most frequently used “likelihood” sub-dimension
in Tweets was “probability” (N = 595, 46%) (Table2). 10%
of Tweets analyzed contained information about vulnera-
ble populations (N = 123); e most frequently mentioned
terms pertaining to the “vulnerability” sub-dimension
were “sensitive” (N = 77), “asthma” (N = 27), “child” or
“kids” (N = 30), and “elderly” or “old” (N = 25). Less fre-
quently mentioned terms for the “vulnerability” sub-
dimension were “pregnant” (N = 9), “respiratory” (N = 8),
“worker” (N = 1) and “cardiovascular” (N = 1). Only 7% of
Tweets (N = 88) used both “likelihood” sub-dimensions in
their health messaging (data not displayed).
14% of Tweets used messaging to satisfy the “mitiga-
tion” Protection Motivation eory dimension and dis-
cussed measures to mitigate exposure to wildre smoke
(N = 178) (Table2). Terms pertaining to staying indoors
(“indoor” N = 61, “inside” N = 14, “shelter” N = 13) or lim-
iting outdoor time (“outside” N = 34, outdoor” N = 23)
were most frequently mentioned. e term “monitor”
was also used (N = 46). Other mitigation measures refer-
enced in the Tweets included the terms “mask” (N = 20),
“window” (N = 18), “HEPA” or “purier” (N = 12). Nearly
a quarter of Tweets used health messaging that satised
the “self-ecacy” Protection Motivation eory dimen-
sion, which referred to Twitter users’ capacity to execute
a smoke-protective behavior (N = 305, 24%).
is study also examined how the application of Pro-
tection Motivation eory in Tweets varied by institu-
tional characteristics. No signicant dierences emerged
between institutional use of Protection Motivation e-
ory dimensions across environmental vs. health insti-
tutions (W = 177,206, p = 0.815, Vargha and Delaney
A = 0.50) (Table 3). However, a signicant dierence
existed between regional scales; local accounts that serve
county-level populations used Protection Motivation
eory health messaging more frequently in their Tweets
compared to state- or national-level accounts that serve
larger populations (W = 200,098, p < 0.001, Vargha and
Delaney A = 0.58).
Tweets authored by Twitter accounts located in Ore-
gon, Washington, and across the USA signicantly
diered in their Protection Motivation eory scores (X2
(2, N = 1287) = 17.17, p < 0.001, E2 = 0.013) (Table4). Post-
hoc comparisons revealed that accounts located in Wash-
ington used health messaging with content aligned with
Protection Motivation eory more frequently in Tweets
compared to accounts located in Oregon (p < 0.001) and
accounts across the USA (p = 0.053), which did not dier
from each other (p = 0.552).
Use of tweets containing risk information
We further investigated whether institutional Tweets
about wildre and smoke informed people about the
health risks associated with smoke exposure through use
of verbal risk cues, numeric risk information and AQI
risk labels. ree hundred and sixteen Tweets (25% of
total sample) included risk information containing some
verbal cues in their health messaging (e.g., “Central WA
has experienced fewer smoky days than normal…”). e
term “large” (N = 22) was the most frequently used ver-
bal cue for risk information; it quantied the size of res
contributing to wildre smoke. Just sixty-four Tweets
(5%) contained numeric risk language (e.g., “An AIR
QUALITY ALERT is in place for another 48 hours…”).
Two hundred and thirteen Tweets (17%) explicitly used
risk language referring to one or more of the AQI risk
labels (e.g., “Air quality has reached the level of unhealthy
for sensitive groups across most of #Seattle. Smoke is com-
ing from #BoltCreekFire near Skykomish”).
is study also explored how accounts’ use of the three
types of risk information varied by institutional charac-
teristics. ere was no signicant dierence between
environmental and health institutions and their use
of verbal risk language (OR = 1.13, p = 0.360) (Table 5).
Table 3 Mean Protection Motivation Theory scores by institution
type and regional scale
Protection Moti-
vation Theory
score (standard
error)
Vargha and
Delaney’s A
(eect size)
Wp
Institution
type
Environmental 1.24 (0.04) 0.50
(negligible)
177,206 0.815
Health 1.30 (0.06)
Regional scale
State or national 1.53 (0.04) 0.58 (small) 200,098 < 0.001
Local 1.92 (0.07)
Table 4 Mean Protection Motivation Theory scores by location with post hoc pairwise comparisons
Protection Motivation Theory score (standard error) Ε2χ2 pDunn’s post hoc
USA OR WA
1.51 (0.10) 1.46 (0.07) 1.75 (0.04) 0.013 17.17 < 0.001 USA vs. OR
USA vs. WA*
WA vs. OR***
Note: *p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.0 01
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 9 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
ere was also no signicant dierence between environ-
mental and health institutions’ use of numeric risk lan-
guage, (OR = 1.07, p = 0.812) nor in their use of AQI risk
labels, (OR = 0.78, p = 0.145). Local accounts did not dif-
fer in their use of verbal risk language when compared
to accounts at the state- or national-level (OR = 0.84,
p = 0.218) (Table 5). However, accounts at a state- or
national-level scale were more likely than local accounts
to provide numeric risk information (OR = 1.89, p = 0.05)
and less likely to provide AQI risk labels (OR = 0.55,
p < 0.001).
ere was signicant variance predicted by the loca-
tions of accounts’ Tweets and their use of verbal risk
language (X2 (2, N = 1287) = 10.775, p = 0.005). In terms
of predicted probabilities, accounts in Washington had
a 27.3% probability of using verbal risk language, com-
pared to a 20.4% probability in Oregon accounts and
a probability of 17.2% in USA-based accounts (Fig. 2).
Pairwise comparisons revealed that Tweets from Wash-
ington-based accounts used signicantly more verbal
risk language than both Oregon (p = 0.024) and USA-
based accounts (p = 0.024), but Tweets from Oregon
and USA-based accounts did not dier signicantly
(p = 0.422).
For numeric risk language, none of the USA-based
accounts included numeric risk information. erefore,
this model was simplied to compare only Oregon and
Washington. ere was a signicant eect of location
such that a greater percentage of Tweets authored by
Washington-based accounts included numeric risk lan-
guage (6.9%) than Tweets authored by Oregon-based
accounts (2.2%), (OR = 3.33, p = 0.003) (Fig .2).
All three locations (OR, WA, USA) were included in the
AQI risk information model. ere was signicant vari-
ance predicted by the dierent locations for references
to AQI risk labels, (X2 (2, N = 1287) = 80.27, p < 0.001).
Tweets authored by Washington-based accounts had a
22.9% probability of referencing AQI risk labels, accounts
in Oregon had a 5.6% probability and the USA accounts
had a probability of 3.7% (Fig.2). Pairwise comparisons
revealed that Tweets from Washington-based accounts
contained signicantly more AQI risk labels than both
Oregon-based accounts (p < 0.001) and USA accounts
Table 5 Counts and likelihood of Tweets containing the three types of risk information studied (verbal cues, numeric information, and
AQI risk labels) by institution type and regional scale
Verbal cues (e.g.,
“large”)
Odds ratio
(95% C.I.)
Numeric informa-
tion (e.g., “[#]”)
Odds ratio
(95% C.I.)
AQI risk labels (e.g.,
“unhealthy”)
Odds
ratio
(95% C.I.)
Institution type Yes None Yes None Yes None
Environmental 210 627 1.13
(0.86, 1.48)
43 839 1.07
(0.61, 1.80)
155 727 0.78
(0.56, 1.08)
Health (ref) 106 299 21 384 58 347
Regional scale Yes None Yes None Ye s None
State or national 213 690 0.84
(0.64, 1.11)
52 851 1.89
(1.03, 3.76)
126 777 0.55
(0.41, 0.75)
Local (ref) 103 281 12 372 87 297
Fig. 2 Probability of Tweets containing each of the three types of risk information studied (verbal cues, numeric information, and AQI risk labels) by loca-
tion. Error bars reect 95% condence intervals
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 10 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
(p < 0.001); Tweets from Oregon and USA accounts did
not dier (p = 0.415).
Use of tweets promoting community-building
is research explored institutions’ use of messaging in
Tweets to promote community-building through refer-
ences to social interactions and social behaviors. Across
our sample of Tweets, 1.70% of the words in each Tweet,
on average, were words associated with social behaviors
(data not displayed). e Tweet with the highest propor-
tion of social behavior words was authored by a local
health department located in Washington state, in which
15.38% of the Tweet constituted social process words.
Across the whole sample, on average, fewer than 1% of
words per Tweet constituted words related to the pro-
social behavior dimension (N = 0.52%). Out of the 1,287
total Tweets, 611 contained at least one social behavior
word (47%), and 236 contained at least one prosocial
behavior word (18%).
is study also examined how the use of Tweets pro-
moting community-building varied by institutional
characteristics. e LIWC analysis indicated that the
use of social behavioral words diered signicantly
between environmental and health institutions (p = 0.024)
(Table 6); words associated with this dimension were
used more frequently by health institutions compared to
environmental institutions. However, the use of words
associated specically with prosocial behaviors (p = 0.464)
did not signicantly dier across institution types. When
examining community language use by regional scale, no
signicant dierences were found between local versus
state- or national-level institutions’ use of social behav-
ioral (p = 0.443) or prosocial (p = 0.574) words.
As summarized in Table 7, use of words related to
social behaviors signicantly diered by location (X2 (2,
N = 1287) = 91.26, p < 0.001) (Table7). Institutional Twit-
ter accounts based in Oregon, on average, authored
Tweets with higher percentages of words associated with
social behaviors (2.47%) relative to Tweets authored by
accounts located across the USA (2.17%, p = 0.043) and
accounts based in Washington state (1.33%, p < 0.001).
Accounts based in Washington authored Tweets contain-
ing a signicantly smaller proportion of words associated
with social behaviors compared to USA-based Twitter
accounts (p < 0.001). e use of words associated with
prosocial behaviors did not dier signicantly between
account locations (X2 (2, N = 1287) = 0.32, p = 0.851) and
none of the pairwise comparisons were signicant.
Discussion
Wildre smoke is and likely will continue to be a major
cause of air pollution in Oregon and Washington [4, 66].
In these regions, environmental and public health agen-
cies are advised to communicate to the public about air
quality issues, provide advice on strategies to limit expo-
sure to wildre smoke, and generally view public educa-
tion as an important part of their institutional mandate
[14, 29, 74]. is research evaluated wildre and smoke
communications authored by Oregon, Washington and
USA-based accounts on the social media platform Twit-
ter and examined how health messaging varied by insti-
tutions. First, we explored temporal Tweeting patterns
Table 6 Mean percentage of words per Tweet referring to community-building by institution type and by regional scale. Means
are expressed as the percentage of total words within a Tweet that are words associated with a given LIWC category of community
language
LIWC category Mean word percentage
(standard error)
Vargha and Delaney’s A
(eect size)
Wp
Environmental Health
Social behavior 1.60 (0.07) 1.92 (0.12) 0.46 (negligible) 165,702 0.024
Prosocial behavior 0.52 (0.04) 0.52 (0.07) 0.51 (negligible) 181,668 0.464
State or national Local
Social behavior 1.66 (0.07) 1.80 (0.12) 0.51 (negligible) 177,700 0.443
Prosocial behavior 0.53 (0.04) 0.51 (0.07) 0.49 (negligible) 171,059 0.574
Table 7 Mean percentage of words per Tweet referring to community language by location. Means are expressed as the percentage
of total words within a Tweet that are words associated with a given LIWC category of community language
LIWC category Mean word percentage (standard error) Ε2χ2 pDunn’s Post
hoc
USA OR WA
Social behavior 2.17 (0.22) 2.47 (0.13) 1.33 (0.07) 0.071 91.25 < 0.001 USA vs. OR*
USA vs. WA***
WA vs. OR***
Prosocial behavior 0.57 (0.12) 0.60 (0.08) 0.48 (0.04) 0.0003 0.32 0.851 USA vs. OR
USA vs. WA
WA vs. OR
Note: *p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.0 01
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 11 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
in relation to potential smoke exposure. We found that
more than half of all Tweets authored by accounts in Ore-
gon and Washington were Tweeted during peak smoke
levels (58% and 54% of annual total Tweets, respectively).
ese results indicated that institutions in Oregon and
Washington took a responsive approach to communi-
cate to citizens about wildre smoke when the risk of
exposure was highest. In comparison, the three USA-
based accounts Tweeted a smaller proportion of Tweets
during peak smoke levels (44% of annual total Tweets).
is result may be attributed to the fact that these three
accounts represent national agencies that communicate
about air quality issues across the USA, and thus, one
might expect these accounts to Tweet less frequently in
response to specic wildre and smoke events occur-
ring in a particular region. Still, the ndings from this
analysis indicate that communicators in Oregon and
Washington are generally following the US EPAs recom-
mendations around communicating about wildre smoke
even during wildre o-seasons [29]; in both states, each
Twitter account authored, on average, the same number
of Tweets (18 Tweets) during the period prior to peak
smoke levels.
We also examined whether institutions followed best
practices for communicating on social media by leverag-
ing three message functions: (i) encouraging the adoption
of smoke-protective actions; (ii) informing the public
about health risks using verbal cues, numeric informa-
tion and AQI risk labels; and (iii) promoting commu-
nity-building. Use of these message functions has been
associated with advancing numerous public health goals.
For example, messaging encouraging the adoption of
protective actions and community-building can lead to
changes to behavior that help mitigate health risks asso-
ciated with exposure to environmental hazards [41, 42,
62], and leveraging numeric, verbal, and AQI risk infor-
mation appears to aid individuals’ health decision mak-
ing and understanding of risks [49, 57]. Our ndings
indicated that institutional accounts used Twitter to pro-
mote smoke-related behavior change (as indexed through
dimensions of Protection Motivation eory) more often
than they used it to disseminate wildre smoke risk infor-
mation or promote community-building.
Specically, the majority of Tweets we analyzed (82%)
included some form of protection motivation con-
structs—messaging that has been found to generate
greater willingness to adopt actions to reduce exposure
to hazards [42]. However, less than half of the Tweets in
our sample used language associated with community-
building (47%), and only a quarter reported any kind of
risk information (25% verbal, 5% numeric, 17% AQI).
Furthermore, we found dierences in institutions’ use
of action-, information- and community-based mes-
saging across account types, highlighting the challenges
for institutions to communicate about wildre smoke
consistently.
Individuals are increasingly turning to online sources
for information about wildre smoke [23, 24, 27]. Given
the limited research evaluating ocial online wildre
smoke communications [10, 12, 45], our study addressed
an important knowledge gap by shedding light on how
institutions communicate about wildre smoke to highly
exposed populations through social media. is research
also oers lessons for how institutions can improve
health messaging about wildre smoke in the future by
leveraging messaging that is evidence-based, timely and
theory-driven. As exposures to environmental risks like
wildre smoke become more frequent and more intense
with climate change [1], reducing the burden of disease
attributable to these hazards will require that health o-
cials not only eectively leverage popular communica-
tion channels and distribute relevant communications
rapidly, but also get the message right. We make four
recommendations.
1. Institutional messaging requires more integration with
protection motivation theory constructs
Individuals and communities can adopt several measures
to minimize and mitigate exposure to wildre smoke,
for example, by using respirators and at-home air puri-
ers, reducing time outdoors during smoke events, and
upgrading building ventilation [75]. Since applying con-
structs from Protection Motivation eory in health
communications has previously been found to encourage
action-taking [42], the high frequency of Tweets in our
sample containing Protection Motivation eory messag-
ing indicates that institutions appeared to use language
promoting behavior change to reduce the threat of smoke
exposure and health harms. is was the case especially
among local accounts serving county-level populations,
which used this type of messaging more frequently in
their Tweets compared to state-level or national-level
accounts that serve larger populations. is nding may
reect local health departments being better positioned
to implement health promotion interventions and drive
behavior change at the community level compared to
state and national institutions [31], for example, in orga-
nizing clean air spaces during smoke events and encour-
aging local community members to access them.
Out of the seven Protection Motivation eory con-
structs we studied, “threat” and “probability” were most
used in Tweets, appearing in nearly half of all Tweets
in our sample (48% and 46%, respectively). us, insti-
tutions appeared to be eective at leveraging certain
elements from the Protection Motivation eory to
describe the hazard that smoke poses and the probability
of individuals encountering it.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 12 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Only 15 Tweets used messaging to satisfy at least some
elements from each of the four main Protection Motiva-
tion eory cognitions (i.e., severity, likelihood, mitiga-
tion, self-ecacy). Consistent with research by Marfori
et al. [27], only 7% of Tweets discussed the health conse-
quences of smoke exposure, which may have impacts on
individuals’ abilities to make informed decisions about
smoke risks and taking appropriate precautions. Further,
the small proportion of total Tweets discussing popula-
tions vulnerable to smoke-related health eects and spe-
cic mitigation measures (10% and 14%, respectively)
represents an important area where health messaging
could improve—especially since individuals in vulner-
able groups seem to seek-out information about wildre
smoke more frequently and could benet from tailored
messaging [6, 12]. Moreover, increasing people’s per-
ceived vulnerability to wildre risks, and providing them
with actionable solutions to reduce smoke exposure,
appear to be important motivators for undertaking risk-
mitigating actions [3941].
Our analysis also found that terms instructing people
to stay indoors or limit time outdoors were more fre-
quently mentioned than terms related to other mitigation
measures like air purier use or ventilation systems to
improve air quality. is nding was consistent with Van
Deventer and colleagues’ research on health messaging in
Washington state during a 2018 smoke event [10], sug-
gesting that ocials instructed individuals to stay inside
without necessarily providing guidance on how to make
indoor spaces safer. Since the prevalence of residential
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in cit-
ies like Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon con-
sistently rank lower than many other major US cities
[76], and smoke particles can approach 70–100% of the
outdoor concentrations in homes without air condition-
ing [29], staying indoors may not always oer people
substantial health benets and may not be feasible for
everyone.
2. Combined numeric information, verbal cues, and AQI
risk labels should be leveraged in communications about
wildre smoke
e percentage of Tweets in our sample that informed
users about how much wildre smoke risk was pres-
ent using verbal and numeric risk terms (25% and 5%,
respectively) was smaller than the percentage of Tweets
containing Protection Motivation eory constructs
described above. is nding presents two challenges to
risk communicators in Oregon and Washington. First,
messaging promoting behavior change appears to be
most eective when supplied with information about
levels of risk [42], suggesting the frequency of “action”
and “information” Tweets should be more similar. Sec-
ond, since many people appear to prefer to receive risk
information containing numbers alone or numbers with
verbal cues [49, 50]. e large discrepancy between ver-
bal and numeric risk information reported by institutions
in our sample should be addressed by institutions going
forward.
Nearly a fth of Tweets in our sample referenced AQI
risk labels to inform audiences about how clean or pol-
luted the air was. As prior research has indicated that
risk labels may improve individuals’ health-related judg-
ments and even improve use of numeric information in
decisions [57, 77], the use of AQI risk labels in health
messaging on wildre smoke should be continued. Our
results indicated that local organizations were more likely
to reference AQI risk labels (e.g., “hazardous”) compared
to state-level or national-level accounts. is nding can
be explained by the fact that AQI information is obtained
using local monitors to reect hazard levels, and thus,
Twitter accounts representing individual counties more
often report local AQI levels while state-level or national-
level accounts likely report broader regional trends in
air quality. Since the public generally expects to have
access to locally-relevant information about smoke levels
in their community [11, 12] and tends to report higher
levels of trust in local sources of information [14], local
accounts should continue to report local AQI risks in
their health messaging when disseminating information
about smoke risks. On the other hand, state- or national-
level accounts could play a role in re-directing their
online audiences to follow local accounts for risk infor-
mation [31].
3. Engaging, bi-directional smoke communications are
needed
Our study examined whether institutions encouraged
community-building through references to social inter-
actions and/or social behaviors, which may have impli-
cations for encouraging public participation in health
promotion and trust in government institutions [60, 61].
On average, less than 2% of words in each Tweet in our
sample constituted community language. Nearly half the
Tweets in our sample (47%) contained at least one word
associated with community-building. is proportion
of Tweets containing community language is relatively
higher than the 22–35% reported in other studies exam-
ining public health Twitter communications; however,
previous studies relied on manual thematic coding of
Tweets, and consequently, direct comparisons are di-
cult to draw [30, 31]. To assess community language use
across various accounts, we used the percentage of words
per Tweet containing social behavior words as a more
conservative metric summarizing how much each Tweet
met the community language criteria, rather than only
relying on the presence or absence of themes in a text.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 13 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Our analysis of community-building messaging by
institution did not reveal any signicant dierences
in how various accounts used language about proso-
cial behavior. However, it did reveal that terms associ-
ated with any social behavior appeared more in Tweets
authored by health institutions compared to environ-
mental institutions. is nding could be explained by
the fact that health institutions, focused on community
health, appear to leverage more human-centered mes-
saging compared to environmental institutions, which
primarily prioritize environmental protection. Since citi-
zens with less knowledge about wildre risks appear to
rely more on community cues as motivation for engaging
in wildre-protective behaviors [41], our nding suggests
environmental institutions may benet from the use of
more community language to promote the uptake of AQI
messaging. e public’s desire for smoke messaging that
engages community members [26] further demonstrates
that this is an important message function that ocials
should prioritize.
4. Take advantage of smoke o-seasons” to implement
a proactive approach to wildre and smoke health
messaging
Large-scale wildres (and wildre smoke) are not unprec-
edented in the US Pacic Northwest, and both Oregon
and Washington have amassed considerable experience
managing public health risks attributable to this hazard
[78]. In fact, our analyses indicated that, on average, pop-
ulations in both states appeared to experience similar lev-
els of smoke exposure in 2022 based on maximum daily
AQI values, which was also corroborated by research
from Burke et al. [66]. Yet, our study suggests that institu-
tions in both states took slightly dierent approaches to
communicate about wildre and smoke on social media.
Accounts based in Washington Tweeted a higher per-
centage of annual total Tweets (44% vs. 39% for Oregon-
based accounts) between January-August, suggesting
these accounts may have taken a more proactive commu-
nication approach prior to the two-month peak period
in wildre smoke compared to Oregon-based accounts.
Proactive communication is viewed as critical for help-
ing households prepare for wildre smoke and eectively
mitigate health harms associated with smoke exposure
[29]. Washington-based accounts also appeared to pri-
oritize wildre and smoke messaging that encouraged
the adoption of protective actions and informed people
about risks using verbal, numeric and AQI formats. On
the other hand, accounts in Oregon seemed to prioritize
messaging that focused more on community-building
by using more community language per Tweet. ese
dierences in communication strategies could be inten-
tionally tailored to their respective populations, or they
may simply reect dierences in resources (e.g., trained
communications sta) allocated to communications and
smoke information dissemination. Future research could
oer signicant insights into these state-by-state dier-
ences by conducting interviews with communications
sta and personnel to gather more information.
Practical implications for public health
e ndings of this study can provide numerous lessons
to public health practitioners and researchers regard-
ing communication strategies for environmental health
hazards like wildres and smoke. First, our work points
to the importance of proactive and sustained communi-
cations informing the public about wildres and smoke
before they are likely to encounter these hazards. Timely
communications are key for educating and empowering
individuals to make informed decisions about protect-
ing themselves from harmful exposures. is research
also demonstrates how theories of health promotion
like the Protection Motivation eory can be leveraged
to craft more eective messages for behavior change.
Additionally, we highlight the need for communicators
to employ numeric information, verbal cues, and AQI
risk labels, to help individuals quantify and compare risk
levels across time and space and mitigate impacts on
health. Finally, we call attention to the need for commu-
nications to increase engagement with communities and
for social media to generate more interaction between
public health stakeholders and citizens. Although this
paper focuses on health messaging related to wildre and
smoke, insights can be drawn for communicating risks
associated with exposure to many other environmental
hazards.
Limitations
is research’s main limitations stem from its reliance
on Twitter data. In this study, we analyzed Tweets
by various governmental institutions in the US that
Tweeted in 2022; however, the public likely receives
information from numerous other sources (both
offline and online), and likely also encounters wildfire
and smoke communications on Twitter from accounts
that were not captured in our sample. Although simi-
larities likely exist between what an agency Tweets
and what they communicate on other channels, our
research cannot draw conclusions about all wildfire
and smoke communications that the public may view
in the US Pacific Northwest; research on other infor-
mation sources is needed.
It is also important to note that not all individu-
als use Twitter, and its future as a key governmen-
tal communication platform remains uncertain as
it has transitioned into a new platform called “X”.
Our results may not reflect the current social media
landscape and our analysis only captured a limited
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 14 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
number of accounts that Tweeted about wildfire and
smoke events in the Pacific Northwest region of the
US during the study period (2022). Thus, this study
examines smoke communication practices on Twitter
at a particular snapshot in place and time and future
research should be extended to other regions and time
periods. We could have used a portion of the total
dataset of 85,406 Tweets published between April
2009 and December 31st 2021 and compared these
to the January 1st 2022 through December 31st 2022
Tweets that were selected and analyzed for this study
to measure changes in messaging from the earlier
time period to the time period we selected. However,
since earlier time periods did not contain a complete
Tweeting history from some accounts, we selected
only Tweets from a single year (i.e., 2022) in order to
conduct a more in-depth analysis of wildfire smoke
communications.
Additionally, we relied on select keywords to score
institutions’ use of Protection Motivation Theory
dimensions and risk language. Although this approach
was informed by prior literature and based on an initial
scan of the Tweets, the list of keywords selected likely
did not capture an exhaustive list of words that could
be associated with the dimensions (or sub-dimensions)
scored. We also did not quantify the public’s engage-
ment to Tweets in this research, nor did we measure
real behavior change in response to health messaging.
Future work could expand on this research consider-
ably by measuring the effectiveness of wildfire smoke
communications on behavioral intentions through
experimental research. More research is also needed to
compare the impacts of communications disseminated
during smoke off-seasons versus during peak smoke
levels on citizens’ smoke preparedness. Such research
on the effectiveness of proactive versus reactive health
communications in motivating behavior change would
guide health officials in determining the most strategic
approach to safeguarding public health during wildfire
smoke events. Still, our work offers valuable insights
that public health stakeholders can apply to other
means of communication that dominate the media
landscape going forward.
Conclusion
Reducing population exposure to wildfire smoke is a
major public health challenge in the US Pacific North-
west and effective health messaging is needed to edu-
cate the public about smoke-related health risks and
how they can mitigate them. This research analyzed
Twitter communications about wildfires and smoke
from 2022 authored by institutional public health and
environmental accounts in Washington and Oregon.
This study compared Tweeting patterns over time, in
connection with potential wildfire smoke exposure,
and evaluated communications based on whether
they encouraged the adoption of smoke-protective
actions, informed the public about health risks, and
promoted community-building. Overall, we found
that institutional Tweeting generally coincided with
rising wildfire smoke levels, suggesting institutions
tailored their messaging in response to potential popu-
lation exposures to wildfire smoke. This research also
found that accounts mostly used Twitter to promote
smoke-related behavior change and used it less for the
purposes of disseminating wildfire smoke risk infor-
mation or promoting community-building. This study
fills an important knowledge gap around institutional
communication practices and social media health
messaging about wildfire smoke to highly exposed
populations.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12889-024-17907-1.
Supplementary Material 1: Supplemental Table 1. List of Twitter ac-
counts used to construct Tweet sample for analysis, their characteristics,
and the number of Tweets they generated in the year 2022
Acknowledgements
We express our sincere gratitude to J Connor Darlington for his invaluable
contribution in assisting with Tweet data collection and providing study
materials, crucial to the successful execution of this research. We would also
like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which greatly
improved this work.
Author contributions
CES led the study’s conceptualization, data collection, and data analysis
strategy and took a lead role writing the manuscript. DC carried out data
analyses, prepared all manuscript gures and assisted with manuscript
writing. ASC assisted with the study’s data analysis strategy and assisted
with manuscript writing. Both CES and ASC collaborated on Tweet coding
to generate the Tweet study sample. NB assisted with data analyses and
manuscript writing. EP assisted with manuscript writing and provided project
guidance.
Funding
This research did not receive any funding.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study were obtained
from Twitter (now ‘X’) using an API, thus, they are not publicly available but are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 15 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
Author details
1School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, 1715
Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
2Center for Science Communication Research, University of Oregon,
Eugene, OR, USA
3Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Received: 10 November 2023 / Accepted: 27 January 2024
References
1. Clarke H, Cirulis B, Borchers-Arriagada N, Bradstock R, Price O, Penman T.
Health costs of wildre smoke to rise under climate change. npj Clim Atmos
Sci. 2023;6(1):1–4.
2. Xu R, Yu P, Abramson MJ, Johnston FH, Samet JM, Bell ML, et al.
Wildres, global climate change, and human health. N Engl J Med.
2020;383(22):2173–81.
3. Doubleday A, Schulte J, Sheppard L, Kadlec M, Dhammapala R, Fox J, et al.
Mortality associated with wildre smoke exposure in Washington state,
2006–2017: a case-crossover study. Environ Health. 2020;19(1):4.
4. Burke M, Driscoll A, Heft-Neal S, Xue J, Burney J, Wara M. The changing
risk and burden of wildre in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2021;118(2):e2011048118.
5. McBride DL. Protecting children from wildre smoke. J Pediatr Nurs.
2021;60:300–2.
6. Keegan SA, Rahman KM. Health protection messaging for populations sus-
ceptible to air pollution during landscape re smoke events: an integrative
review. Rev Environ Health. 2021;36(4):599–609.
7. Slavik CE, Philipsborn R, Peters E. Educating families about the impacts of
wildre smoke on children’s health: opportunities for healthcare profession-
als. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2023;7(1):e002187.
8. Errett NA, Roop HA, Pendergrast C, Kramer CB, Doubleday A, Tran KA et
al. Building a practice-based research agenda for wildre smoke and
health: a report of the 2018 Washington wildre smoke risk communica-
tion stakeholder synthesis symposium. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.
2019;16(13):2398.
9. Balmes JR, Holm SM. Increasing wildre smoke from the climate crisis:
impacts on asthma and allergies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;152(5):1081–3.
10. Van Deventer D, Marecaux J, Doubleday A, Errett N, Isaksen TMB. Wildre
smoke risk communication ecacy: a content analysis of Washington State’s
2018 statewide smoke event public health messaging. J Public Health Manag
Pract. 2021;27(6):607–14.
11. Wang Z, Ye X, Tsou MH. Spatial, temporal, and content analysis of Twitter for
wildre hazards. Nat Hazards. 2016;83(1):523–40.
12. Shellington EM, Nguyen PDM, Rideout K, Barn P, Lewis A, Baillie M, et al. Pub-
lic health messaging for wildre smoke: cast a wide net. Public Health Front.
2022;10:1–7.
13. Graham MW, Avery EJ, Park S. The role of social media in local government
crisis communications. Public Relat Rev. 2015;41(3):386–94.
14. Wood LM, D’Evelyn SM, Errett NA, Bostrom A, Desautel C, Alvarado E, et al.
When people see me, they know me; they trust what I say: characterizing the
role of trusted sources for smoke risk communication in the Okanogan River
Airshed Emphasis Area. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2388.
15. Rappold AG, Hano MC, Prince S, Wei L, Huang SM, Baghdikian C, et al. Smoke
sense initiative leverages citizen science to address the growing wildre-
related public health problem. GeoHealth. 2019;3(12):443–57.
16. Thackeray R, Neiger BL, Smith AK, Van Wagenen SB. Adoption and use
of social media among public health departments. BMC Public Health.
2012;12(1):242.
17. Vos SC, Sutton J, Yu Y, Renshaw SL, Olson MK, Gibson CB, et al. Retweet-
ing risk communication: the role of threat and ecacy. Risk Anal.
2018;38(12):2580–98.
18. Pourebrahim N, Sultana S, Edwards J, Gochanour A, Mohanty S. Understand-
ing communication dynamics on Twitter during natural disasters: a case
study of Hurricane Sandy. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019;37:101176.
19. Devlin K, Widjaya R, Cha J. For global legislators on Twitter, an engaged
minority creates outsize share of content. Pew Research Center; 2020
May [cited 2023 Aug 30]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/
global/2020/05/18/for-global-legislators-on-twitter-an-engaged-minority-
creates-outsize-share-of-content/
20. Mitchell A, Shearer E, Stocking G. News on Twitter: consumed by most users
and trusted by many. Pew Research Center; 2021 Nov [cited 2023 Aug 30].
Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/11/15/
news-on-twitter-consumed-by-most-users-and-trusted-by-many/
21. Ghahramani A, de Courten M, Prokoeva M. The potential of social media in
health promotion beyond creating awareness: an integrative review. BMC
Public Health. 2022;22(1):2402.
22. Merchant RM, Elmer S, Lurie N. Integrating social media into emergency-
preparedness eorts. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(4):289–91.
23. Postma JM, Marko T, Meyer M, DeNike A, Thomas J, Walden V, et al. Assessing
community response to wildre smoke: a multimethod study using social
media. Public Health Nurs. 2023;40(1):153–62.
24. Coughlan MR, Huber-Stearns H, Clark B, Deak A. Oregon wildre smoke
communications and impacts: an evaluation of the 2020 wildre season.
Ecosystem Workforce Program; University of Oregon; Oregon Health
Authority; 2022. Available from: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/
handle/1794/27179
25. Jackson M, McKinstr y J, McPhee C, Raghunathan T, Singh L, Traugott M et al.
Understanding who uses Twitter: State level estimates of those on Twitter.
Measuring Online Social Attitudes and Information Collaborative; 2021 Nov.
(MOSAIC Methods Brief: November 2021). Available from: https://mosaic.
mdi.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/MOSAIC-Methods-Brief-
State-Level-Twitter-Use_11092021.pdf
26. Thomas M, Kaufman S, Klemm C, Hutchins B. The co-evolution of govern-
ment risk communication practice and context for environmental health
emergencies. J Risk Res. 2023;26(1):83–96.
27. Marfori MT, Campbell SL, Garvey K, McKeown S, Veitch M, Wheeler AJ, et al.
Public health messaging during extreme smoke events: are we hitting the
mark? Public Health Front. 2020;8:1–11.
28. D’Evelyn SM, Wood LM, Desautel C, Errett NA, Ray K, Spector JT, et al. Learning
to live with smoke: characterizing wildland re and prescribed re smoke risk
communication in rural Washington. Environ Res: Health. 2023;1(2):025012.
29. Stone SL, Anderko L, Berger M, Butler CR, Cascio WE, Clune A, et al. Wildre
smoke, a guide for public health ocials. US EPA; California Air Resources
Board; California Oce of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; U.S. Forest Service; 2019.
Available from: https://www.airnow.gov/sites/default/les/2021-09/wildre-
smoke-guide_0.pdf
30. Neiger BL, Thackeray R, Burton SH, Thackeray CR, Reese JH. Use of Twitter
among local health departments: an analysis of information sharing, engage-
ment, and action. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e2775.
31. Slavik CE, Darlington JC, Buttle C, Sturrock SL, Yiannakoulias N. Has public
health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic reected local risks to
health? A content analysis of tweeting practices across Canadian geogra-
phies. Health Place. 2021;69:102568.
32. Lovejoy K, Saxton GD. Information, community, and action: how non-
prot organizations use social media. J Comput Mediat Commun.
2012;17(3):337–53.
33. Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves AL, Gallagher AM, Kaplan R, Mor timer N, et al. The
inuence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):243–56.
34. Faus M, Alonso F, Javadinejad A, Useche SA. Are social networks eective in
promoting healthy behaviors? A systematic review of evaluations of public
health campaigns broadcast on Twitter. Public Health Front. 2022;10:1–12.
35. Hagler GSW, Henderson SB, McCarey S, Johnston FH, Stone S, Rappold A,
et al. Editorial: understanding and communicating wildland re smoke risk.
Front Public Health. 2021;9:721823.
36. Rogers R. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude
change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R,
editors. 1983. p. 153–77.
37. Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. A meta-analysis of research on protec-
tion motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30(2):407–29.
38. Ruiter RAC, Kessels LTE, Peters GJY, Kok G. Sixty years of fear appeal research:
current state of the evidence. Int J Psychol. 2014;49(2):63–70.
39. Pope JP, Pelletier L, Guertin C. Starting o on the best foot: a review of mes-
sage framing and message tailoring, and recommendations for the compre-
hensive messaging strategy for sustained behavior change. Health Commun.
2018;33(9):1068–77.
40. Kotcher J, Feldman L, Luong KT, Wyatt J, Maibach E. Advocacy messages
about climate and health are more eective when they include information
about risks, solutions, and a normative appeal: evidence from a conjoint
experiment. J Clim Chang Health. 2021;3:100030.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 16 of 16
Slavik et al. BMC Public Health (2024) 24:379
41. Martin IM, Bender H, Raish C. What motivates individuals to protect them-
selves from risks: the case of wildland res. Risk Anal. 2007;27(4):887–900.
42. Neuwirth K , Dunwoody S, Grin RJ. Protection motivation and risk communi-
cation. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):721–34.
43. Slavik CE, Buttle C, Sturrock SL, Darlington JC, Yiannakoulias N. Examining
tweet content and engagement of canadian public health agencies and
decision makers during COVID-19: mixed methods analysis. J Med Internet
Res. 2021;23(3):e24883.
44. Wong R, Harris JK, Staub M, Bernhardt JM. Local health departments tweeting
about Ebola: characteristics and messaging. J Public Health Manag Pract.
2017;23(2):e16–24.
45. Abedin B, Babar A. Institutional vs. non-institutional use of social media
during emergency response: a case of Twitter in 2014 Australian bush re. Inf
Syst Front. 2018;20(4):729–40.
46. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Zwick R, Kemp SM. Preferences and reasons for
communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull
Psychon Soc. 1993;31(2):135–8.
47. Vahabi M. The impact of health communication on health-related decision
making: a review of evidence. Health Educ. 2007;107(1):27–41.
48. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM.
Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective
numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.
49. Lipkus IM, Numeric. Verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks:
suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making.
2007;27(5):696–713.
50. Andreadis K, Chan E, Park M, Benda NC, Sharma MM, Demetres M, et al.
Imprecision and preferences in interpretation of verbal probabilities in health:
a systematic review. J GEN INTERN MED. 2021;36(12):3820–9.
51. Lazard AJ, Byron MJ, Vu H, Peters E, Schmidt A, Brewer NT. Website designs
for communicating about chemicals in cigarette smoke. Health Commun.
2019;34(3):333–42.
52. Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. 6: principles of risk communication. Risk commu-
nication: a handbook for communicating environmental, safety and health
risks. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley; 2018. pp. 203–40.
53. Yang X, Zhang L. Message presentation is of importance as well: the asym-
metric eects of numeric and verbal presentation of fear appeal messages in
promoting waste sorting. Environ Commun. 2022;16(8):1059–76.
54. Peters E, Hart PS, Tusler M, Fraenkel L. Numbers matter to informed patient
choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis
Making. 2014;34(4):430–42.
55. Shoots-Reinhard B, Lawrence ER, Schulkin J, Peters E. Excluding numeric
side-eect information produces lower vaccine intentions. Vaccine.
2022;40(31):4262–9.
56. AirNow. Current air quality. 2023 [cited 2023 Dec 20]. Available from: https://
www.airnow.gov/
57. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Väställ D, Mertz CK, Slovic P, Hibbard JH. Bringing
meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J Exp
Psychol Appl. 2009;15(3):213–27.
58. Wu Y, Zhang L, Wang J, Mou Y. Communicating air quality index information:
eects of dierent styles on individuals’ risk perception and precaution inten-
tion. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19):10542.
59. Heldman AB, Schindelar J, Weaver JB. Social media engagement and public
health communication: implications for public health organizations being
truly social. Public Health Rev. 2013;35(1):13.
60. Boulianne S, Minaker J, Haney TJ. Does compassion go viral? Social media,
caring, and the Fort McMurray wildre. Inf Commun Soc. 2018;21(5):697–711.
61. Yang SU, Kang M, Johnson P. Eects of narratives, openness to dialogic com-
munication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through
organizational blogs. Commun Res. 2010;37(4):473–97.
62. Eisenman DP, Williams MV, Glik D, Long A, Plough AL, Ong M. The public
health disaster trust scale: validation of a brief measure. J Public Health
Manag Pract. 2012;18(4):E11–8.
63. Kearney MW, Heiss A, Briatte F. rtweet: collecting Twitter data. 2020 [cited
2020 Oct 5]. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rtweet
64. Kotchenruther RA. Source apportionment of PM2.5 at multiple Northwest
U.S. sites: assessing regional winter wood smoke impacts from residential
wood combustion. Atmos Environ. 2016;142:210–9.
65. Cascio WE. Wildland re smoke and human health. Sci Total Environ.
2018;624:586–95.
66. Burke M, Childs ML, de la Cuesta B, Qiu M, Li J, Gould CF et al. The contribu-
tion of wildre to PM2.5 trends in the USA. Nature. 2023;1–6.
67. US EPA. Download daily data. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 13]. Available from:
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/download-daily-data
68. Zhang H, Wheldon C, Dunn AG, Tao C, Huo J, Zhang R, et al. Mining Twitter
to assess the determinants of health behavior toward human papillomavirus
vaccination in the United States. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(2):225–35.
69. Boyd RL, Ashokkumar A, Seraj S, Pennebaker JW. The development and
psychometric properties of LIWC-22. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin;
2022. Available from: https://www.liwc.app
70. Tausczik YR, Pennebaker JW. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and
computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2010;29(1):24–54.
71. Vargha A, Delaney HD. A critique and improvement of the CL common
language eect size statistics of McGraw and Wong. J Educ Behav Stat.
2000;25(2):101–32.
72. Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics.
1964;6(3):241–52.
73. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol).
1995;57(1):289–300.
74. Dye TS, Chan AC, Anderson CB, Strohm DE, Wayland RA, White JE. From
raw air quality data to the nightly news: an overview of how EPA’s AIRNow
program operates. In Seattle, WA: American Meteorological Society; 2004.
Available from: https://archive.epa.gov/international/air/web/pdf/airnow.pdf
75. Rice MB, Henderson SB, Lambert AA, Cromar KR, Hall JA, Cascio WE, et al.
Respiratory impacts of wildland re smoke: future challenges and policy
opportunities. An ocial American thoracic Society Workshop Report. Annals
ATS. 2021;18(6):921–30.
76. US Census Bureau. Table Creator. 2019 [cited 2023 Oct 14].
American Housing Survey (AHS). Available from: https://www.
census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/interactive/ahstablec-
reator.html?s_areas=38900&s_year=2019&s_tablename=Tables
3&s_bygroup1=1&s_bygroup2=1&s_ltergroup1=1&s_ltergroup2=1.
77. Peters E. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Ann N Y
Acad Sci. 2008;1128(1):1–7.
78. Reilly MJ, Zuspan A, Halofsky JS, Raymond C, McEvoy A, Dye AW, et al. Casca-
dia burning: the historic, but not historically unprecedented, 2020 wildres in
the Pacic Northwest. USA Ecosphere. 2022;13(6):e4070.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional aliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... Additionally, while current research has focused more on hurricane and earthquake events, the application of social media in WUI community responses remains underdeveloped. Research has primarily focused on wildfire detections (Gong et al. 2024;Michail et al. 2024), evacuation measures (Hocevar 2024;Li et al. 2021), and smoke dispersion modeling (Slavik et al. 2024;VanderMolen et al. 2024), which exposes a significant gap in understanding of dynamic community reactions. Traditional analytical methods also lack the robust quantitative tools that decision-makers need to effectively compare impacts across different regions. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
The increasing frequency and severity of wildfires pose significant risks to communities, infrastructure, and the environment, especially in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas. Effective disaster management requires understanding how the public perceives and responds to wildfire threats in real-time. This study uses social media data to assess public responses and explores how these responses are linked to city-level community characteristics. Specifically, we leveraged a transformer-based topic modeling technique called BERTopic to identify wildfire response-related topics and then utilized the Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) model to compute two key metrics associated with wildfire responses - awareness and resilience indicators. Additionally, we used GIS-based spatial analysis to map wildfire locations along with four groups of city-level factors (racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, demographic, and wildfire-specific). Our findings reveal significant geographic and socio-spatial differences in public responses. Southern California cities with larger Hispanic populations demonstrate higher wildfire awareness and resilience. In contrast, urbanized regions in Central and Northern California exhibit lower awareness levels. Furthermore, resilience is negatively correlated with unemployment rates, particularly in southern regions where higher unemployment aligns with reduced resilience. These findings highlight the need for targeted and equitable wildfire management strategies to improve the adaptive capacity of WUI communities.
... Furthermore, social media application for broader societal communication has been examined in contexts such as health risk management and public sentiment during crises. Slavik et al. [50] demonstrated how social media platforms were crucial in disseminating timely and accurate information about health risks, such as wildfire smoke, to the public. Similarly, Qi et al. [42] analyzed public sentiment during the COVID-19 lockdowns, revealing valuable insights into public attitudes that could inform government policies. ...
Article
Full-text available
Universities increasingly leverage social media platforms, especially Twitter, for news dissemination, audience engagement, and feedback collection. King Faisal University (KFU) is dedicated to enhancing its institutional identity (ID), grounded in environmental sustainability and food security, encompassing nine critical areas. This study aims to assess the impact of KFU’s Twitter interactions on public awareness of its institutional identity using systematic analysis and machine learning (ML) methods. The objectives are to: (1) Determine the influence of KFU’s Twitter presence on ID awareness; (2) create a dedicated dataset for real-time public interaction analysis with KFU’s Twitter content; (3) investigate Twitter’s role in promoting KFU’s institutional identity across 9-ID domains and its changing impact over time; (4) utilize k-means clustering and sentiment analysis (TFIDF and Word2vec) to classify data and assess similarities among the identity domains; and (5) apply the categorization method to process and categorize tweets, facilitating the assessment of word meanings and similarities of the 9-ID domains. The study also employs four ML models, including Logistic Regression (LR) and Support Vector Machine (SVM), with the Random Forest (RF) model combined with Word2vec achieving the highest accuracy of 100%. The findings underscore the value of KFU’s Twitter data analysis in deepening the understanding of its ID and guiding the development of effective communication strategies.
Article
Full-text available
Exposure to wildfire smoke (WFS) is associated with detrimental physical and mental health. Periods of sustained WFS are predicted to increase with climate change, affecting populations globally. Using a retrospective cross-sectional study, we assessed perceptions of and responses to WFS in a cohort of New York State (NYS) residents in Summer 2023. Data were collected using an online survey from October to November 2023. Descriptive statistics summarized respondent experiences, while exploratory analyses identified high-risk populations using chi-square and t-tests. Our sample consisted of 609 primarily healthy, white, and well-educated individuals who spent most of their time in NYS during Summer 2023. Of the 99% that reported experiencing WFS, 92% received and 91% sought out WFS-related air quality information. While only 25% reported a WFS-related illness, 87% experienced at least one symptom with WFS, frequently citing watery eyes (63%), irritated throat (50%), and headaches (49%), with women reporting symptoms more frequently than men (89.1% vs. 81.6%; p = 0.034). A majority (93%) reported taking mitigation actions, including avoiding outdoor activities (75%) and wearing masks (54%). Our results highlight widespread impacts of wildfires in NYS during Summer 2023, with nearly all respondents reporting sustained periods of WFS. Most reported at least one adverse health symptom despite taking preventative measures, indicating that current protective strategies may be insufficient and more effective interventions are needed.
Article
Full-text available
Steady improvements in ambient air quality in the USA over the past several decades, in part a result of public policy1,2, have led to public health benefits1–4. However, recent trends in ambient concentrations of particulate matter with diameters less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5), a pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act¹, have stagnated or begun to reverse throughout much of the USA⁵. Here we use a combination of ground- and satellite-based air pollution data from 2000 to 2022 to quantify the contribution of wildfire smoke to these PM2.5 trends. We find that since at least 2016, wildfire smoke has influenced trends in average annual PM2.5 concentrations in nearly three-quarters of states in the contiguous USA, eroding about 25% of previous multi-decadal progress in reducing PM2.5 concentrations on average in those states, equivalent to 4 years of air quality progress, and more than 50% in many western states. Smoke influence on trends in the number of days with extreme PM2.5 concentrations is detectable by 2011, but the influence can be detected primarily in western and mid-western states. Wildfire-driven increases in ambient PM2.5 concentrations are unregulated under current air pollution law⁶ and, in the absence of further interventions, we show that the contribution of wildfire to regional and national air quality trends is likely to grow as the climate continues to warm.
Article
Full-text available
Extreme smoke events from wildland fires are increasing in frequency and intensity across the country. Risk communication around wildland and prescribed fires is an essential component of both smoke-readiness and resilience. To date, little research has been conducted on how smoke exposure risks can be communicated effectively, especially within the context of rural and tribal communities, who experience a disproportionate burden of smoke risks and impacts. This qualitative study analyzed how tribal and non-tribal communities in the Okanogan River Airshed Emphasis Area (ORAEA) receive and share information about smoke exposure to highlight gaps and communication opportunities for smoke risk communication. The ORAEA is a region of north-central Washington that is frequently blanketed with smoke year-round from wildland fire in the summer, prescribed fire in the fall and spring, and wood burning stoves in the winter. This study was the result of a partnership between the Okanogan River Airshed Partnership, the Natural Resource Division for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Colville Environmental Trust Air Quality Program, and the University of Washington. The study team conducted seventeen key informant interviews and six focus groups to identify community perceptions of smoke exposure and describe its impact. A thematic analysis of interview and focus group data identified five themes around wildfire smoke risk communication: (1) perception of the health risks of smoke; (2) current ways of sharing information about smoke; (3) trusted sources of information; (4) gaps and communication opportunities; and (5) perceptions of prescribed fire. Based on these themes, we developed a set of six recommended actions. To create effective smoke risk communication that may be applicable to smoke-impacted regions across the country, messaging must address barriers to action, be rooted in community perceptions of risk, and be delivered through trusted channels.
Article
Full-text available
Background Developing strategies to change health behaviour is one of the biggest challenges of health promotion programs. Social media, as a popular and innovative communication and education tool, offers opportunities to modify health behaviour. While literature on using social media for health promotion campaigns is growing, there is a need to evaluate the approaches used to change health behaviour, rather than only creating awareness. Objective The paper reviewed the literature on application of social media in health promotion campaigns with a particular focus on the methodologies used in assessing the outcome of the programs for behaviour change. This fills the void in collating evidence to extend health promotion campaigns to effect sustainable behavioural change. Method Peer-reviewed articles were identified through multiple science databases. A systematic electronic search was conducted to retrieve review and original papers published between January 2010 and April 2022. The titles and abstracts of the articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. All authors independently read the full texts and discussed them to reach a consensus about the themes. Concept mapping was used to present results from analysis of the included papers. Results Of the 674 citations, 28 (4.1%) studies were included in this review. The methodology approaches of 18 (2.7%) papers, that aimed to evaluate the impact of social media in health promotion campaigns towards behaviour change, were analysed further using concept mapping. The results showed that 10 studies (55.5%) adopted quantitative methods and five studies (27.7%) used mixed methods and three studies (16.6%) used qualitative methods. Facebook and YouTube were used more for intervention purposes to change health behaviour. Twitter and Instagram were used more to observe the trend of changes in health behaviour. Six studies (33.3%) adopted Social Cognitive Theory and one study (5.5%) applied the Transtheoretical Model as the framework to evaluate the outcome. Overall, the results show that though social media has potential in promoting behaviour change, the estimation of this change in long-term lies outside the scope of social media health campaigns. This is also reflected in the methodologies used in existing studies to assess such sustainable changes. The employed measures usually target immediate behaviour or social media engagement rather than addressing the change on a behavioural level. Conclusion Evaluating the performance of social media campaigns to promote health behaviours towards a sustainable outcome is a complex process. Emerging research is focused on evaluating the potential of social media as an opportunity to create awareness. Such measures require less effort in quantifying and isolating the effect. The design of the campaigns is required to be aligned in relation to stages of the behaviour change. The study provides suggestions on how this can be achieved.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction As wildfire smoke events increase in intensity and frequency in the Pacific Northwest, there is a growing need for effective communication on the health risks of smoke exposure. Delivery through a trusted source or intermediary has been shown to improve reception of risk communication messages. This is especially salient in rural and tribal communities who may be hesitant to trust information from state and federal agency sources. This study aims to identify and characterize trusted sources for smoke risk information in the Okanogan River Airshed Emphasis Area (ORAEA), a rural region of North Central Washington state that is heavily impacted by smoke from wildfires and prescribed fire. Methods The research team conducted a qualitative study using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups to assess the role of various sources and intermediaries in disseminating smoke risk information. We used a consensual coding approach in NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software to sort data into preliminary categories, which were grouped into themes using a thematic analysis approach. We used member checking and iterative feedback processes with local project partners throughout the project to ensure credibility of results. Results Through the analysis, we identified three themes characterizing trusted sources for smoke risk communication in the ORAEA. These themes were: (1) local and tribal sources of information are perceived as more trustworthy than state and federal government sources, (2) trustworthiness is determined by an evaluation of multiple factors, in particular, perceived credibility, quality of information, and relationship with the source, and (3) conservative political ideology and perceived parallels with COVID-19 communication influence perception of trust. Within each theme, we identified several sub-themes, which contributed additional nuance to our analysis. Conclusion This study provides insights into which sources of information are trusted by rural and tribal community members in the ORAEA and why. Results from our study emphasize the importance of relationships and collaboration with local and tribal partners in smoke risk communication. In this paper, we discuss implications for state and federal agency practitioners and present recommendations for how to work with local and tribal partners on smoke risk communication.
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of fear appeal messages to promote public engagement with municipal solid waste (MSW) sorting in China using the extended parallel process model (EPPM). By adding information format to the EPPM as guided by the construal-level theory, the study examined whether the interaction effects of threat and efficacy on behavioral intention varied in terms of verbal and numeric information format. The 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment revealed a significant main effect for efficacy. The threat, albeit having no significant main effect itself, moderated the effect of efficacy on behavioral intention. Moreover, the significant three-way interaction effect of threat, efficacy, and information format suggested that individuals who received low-threat and high-efficacy messages in numeric format had the highest intention to perform MSW sorting. Findings from this study imply that how messages are presented is of just as much importance as what to communicate to the public when designing environmental campaigns.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction While public health campaigns disseminated through Twitter have multiple theoretical advantages over other strategies (e.g., a high potential reach and low economic cost), the effectiveness of social networks as facilitators of attitudinal and behavioral changes in the population seems to remain weakly supported. Therefore, this systematic review was aimed to analyze the degree of impact of healthy behavior-related campaigns as documented in scientific literature. Methods Strictly following the PRISMA methodology, a total of 109 indexed articles were obtained, of which only 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. In addition to accessing the literature available on WOS, Scopus, BVS, Medline, Cochrane Library and PubMed, the quality of the existing studies was assessed through the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) protocol. Results The results of this systematic review revealed a small number of evaluations of the effectiveness of social campaigns disseminated on Twitter, although the quality of these studies was considerably good. Most of the research used statistics and metrics for evaluation, with residual use of other measurement methodologies. However, their effectiveness and impact on public health-related behaviors remain arguable, in view of the existence of marked tendencies to: (i) not evaluate these campaigns; (ii) evaluate them through excessively brief, ambiguous, or potentially biased indicators; and (iii) not carry out systematic follow-ups over time. Discussion Although there is no strong evidence of the suitability of Twitter as a suitable medium for raising public health awareness on behavioral health affairs, the actual limitations identified in this review would help to optimize this paradigm and enhance the quality, reach, and effectiveness of such communication strategies.
Article
Full-text available
Wildfires devastated communities in Oregon and Washington in September 2020, burning almost as much forest west of the Cascade Mountain crest (“the westside”) in 2 weeks (~340,000 ha) as in the previous five decades (~406,00 ha). Unlike dry forests of the interior western United States, temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest have experienced limited recent fire activity, and debates surrounding what drove the 2020 fires, and management strategies to adapt to similar future events, necessitate a scientific evaluation of the fires. We evaluate five questions regarding the 2020 Labor Day fires: (1) How do the 2020 fires compare with historical fires? (2) How did the roles of weather and antecedent climate differ geographically and from the recent past (1979–2019)? (3) How do fire size and severity compare to other recent fires (1985–2019), and how did forest management and prefire forest structure influence burn severity? (4) What impact will these fires have on westside landscapes? and (5) How can we adapt to similar fires in the future? Although 5 of the 2020 fires were much larger than any others in the recent past and burned ~10 times the area in high‐severity patches >10,000 ha, the 2020 fires were remarkably consistent with historical fires. Reports from the early 1900s, along with paleo‐ and dendro‐ecological records, indicate similar and potentially even larger wildfires over the past millennium, many of which shared similar seasonality (late August/early September), weather conditions, and even geographic locations. Consistent with the largest historical fires, strong east winds and anomalously dry conditions drove the rapid spread of high‐severity wildfire in 2020. We found minimal difference in burn severity among stand structural types related to previous management in the 2020 fires. Adaptation strategies for similar fires in the future could benefit by focusing on ignition prevention, fire suppression, and community preparedness, as opposed to fuel treatments that are unlikely to mitigate fire severity during extreme weather. While scientific uncertainties remain regarding the nature of infrequent, high‐severity fires in westside forests, particularly under climate change, adapting to their future occurrence will require different strategies than those in interior, dry forests.
Article
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess health-related responses to wildfire smoke on social media. We examined whether seasonal wildfire smoke is an active topic on Twitter, the correlation between fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) and Twitter search terms, and dimensions of community-level expression to wildfire smoke through tweets. Design: Search terms were identified using a conceptual model developed and refined by healthcare providers and public health experts. Wildfire-related tweets were downloaded from Twitter users in Spokane, Washington during the 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons. PM2.5 data were correlated with the search terms. A subset of tweets was deductively and then inductively coded to identify perceptions and behavioral responses to wildfire smoke. Results: Seasonal wildfire smoke is an active topic on Twitter. The term "smoke" was strongly correlated with poor air quality and "unhealthy" was moderately correlated. Deductive analyses revealed a multidimensional response to wildfire smoke. Inductive analysis identified new areas of concern, such as pet and animal health. Conclusions: Social media is a lens through which public health professionals can assess and respond to local community needs. Findings will be used to broaden the conceptual model, enhance ongoing surveillance of community-identified health risks, and communicate protective actions.