"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.

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.

Credible Threat: Perceptions of Pandemic Coronavirus, Climate Change and the Morality and Management of Global Risks.

Prior research suggests that the pandemic coronavirus pushes all the "hot spots" for risk perceptions, yet both governments and populations have varied in their responses. As the economic impacts of the pandemic have become salient, governments have begun to slash their budgets for mitigating other global risks, including climate change, likely imposing increased future costs from those risks. Risk analysts have long argued that global environmental and health risks are inseparable at some level, and must ultimately be managed systemically, to effectively increase safety and welfare. In contrast, it has been suggested that we have worry budgets, in which one risk crowds out another. "In the wild," our problem-solving strategies are often lexicographic; we seek and assess potential solutions one at a time, even one attribute at a time, rather than conducting integrated risk assessments. In a U.S. national survey experiment in which participants were randomly assigned to coronavirus or climate change surveys (N = 3203) we assess risk perceptions, and whether risk perception "hot spots" are driving policy preferences, within and across these global risks. Striking parallels emerge between the two. Both risks are perceived as highly threatening, inequitably distributed, and not particularly controllable. People see themselves as somewhat informed about both risks and have moral concerns about both. In contrast, climate change is seen as better understood by science than is pandemic coronavirus. Further, individuals think they can contribute more to slowing or stopping pandemic coronavirus than climate change, and have a greater moral responsibility to do so. Survey assignment influences policy preferences, with higher support for policies to control pandemic coronavirus in pandemic coronavirus surveys, and higher support for policies to control climate change risks in climate change surveys. Across all surveys, age groups, and policies to control either climate change or pandemic coronavirus risks, support is highest for funding research on vaccines against pandemic diseases, which is the only policy that achieves majority support in both surveys. Findings bolster both the finite worry budget hypothesis and the hypothesis that supporters of policies to confront one threat are disproportionately likely also to support policies to confront the other threat.

Health and safety risk perceptions and needs of app-based drivers during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: App-based drivers face work disruptions and infection risk during a pandemic due to the nature of their work, interactions with the public, and lack of workplace protections. Limited occupational health research has focused on their experiences. METHODS: We surveyed 100 app-based drivers in Seattle, WA to assess risk perceptions, supports, and controls received from the company that employs them, sources of trust, stress, job satisfaction, COVID-19 infection status, and how the pandemic had changed their work hours. Data were summarized descriptively and with simple regression models. We complemented this with qualitative interviews to better understand controls and policies enacted during COVID-19, and barriers and facilitators to their implementation. RESULTS: Drivers expressed very high levels of concern for exposure and infection (86%-97% were "very concerned" for all scenarios). Only 31% of drivers reported receiving an appropriate mask from the company for which they drive. Stress (assessed via PSS-4) was significantly higher in drivers who reported having had COVID-19, and also significantly higher in respondents with lower reported job satisfaction. Informants frequently identified supports such as unemployment benefits and peer outreach among the driver community as ways to ensure that drivers could access available benefits during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: App-based drivers received few protections from the company that employed them, and had high fear of exposure and infection at work. There is increased need for health-supportive policies and protections for app-based drivers. The most effective occupational and public health regulations would cover employees who may not have a traditional employer-employee relationship.