Factors motivating the use of respiratory protection against volcanic ashfall: A comparative analysis of communities in Japan, Indonesia and Mexico

Abstract

Communities living near active volcanoes may be exposed to respiratory hazards from volcanic ash. Understanding their perception of the risks and the actions they take to mitigate against those risks is important for developing effective communication strategies. To investigate this issue, the first comparative study of risk perceptions and use of respiratory protection was conducted on 2003 residents affected by active volcanoes from three countries: Japan (Sakurajima volcano), Indonesia (Merapi and Kelud volcanoes) and Mexico (Popocatépetl volcano). The study was designed to test the explanatory value of a theoretical framework which hypothesized that use of respiratory protection (i.e., facemask) would be motivated by two cognitive constructs from protection motivation theory: threat appraisal (i.e., perceptions of harm/ worry about ash inhalation) and coping appraisal (i.e., beliefs about mask efficacy). Using structural equation modelling (SEM), important differences in the predictive ability of the constructs were found between countries. For example, perceptions of harm/ worry were stronger predictors of mask use in Japan and Indonesia than they were in Mexico where beliefs about mask efficacy were more important. The SEM also identified differences in the demographic variants of mask use in each country and how they were mediated by the cognitive constructs. Findings such as these highlight the importance of contextualising our understanding of protection motivation and, thus, the value of developing targeted approaches to promote precautionary behaviour.

The Sources of Belief in Personal Capability: Antecedents of Self‐Efficacy in Private Adaptation to Flood Risk

“…One of the theoretical frameworks that are most widely used to explain decision making of disaster‐prone households is the protection motivation theory (PMT). The theory has been applied in the context of different natural hazards, ranging from flooding (Babcicky & Seebauer, 2019; Bubeck, Botzen, Kreibich, & Aerts, 2013; Grothmann & Reusswig, 2006), landslides (Mertens et al., 2018), hurricanes (Stewart, 2015), wildfires (Martin, Bender, & Raish, 2008), and volcanic eruption (Covey et al., 2019) to earthquakes (Mulilis & Lippa, 1990). Central to the PMT are two cognitive processes leading to protection motivation and, in turn, to protective action: threat appraisal and coping appraisal .…”

Merapi multiple: Protection around Yogyakarta’s celebrity volcano through masks, dreams, and seismographs

“…3 The 2010 eruption brought havoc and destruction, but also new forms of protection and social organization. Amongst the forms of protection available, the wide use of masks to avoid ash inhalation has emerged as the norm: 99% of inhabitants surveyed in a different part of this study, in 2016, reported usingmostly surgicalmasks during recent ash exposures (Covey et al 2019). This prevalence is of great interest for the Health Interventions in Volcanic Eruptions (henceforth HIVE) consortium (of which this study is part), since the principal aim of our comparative research has been to examine how and why people protect from inhaling ash, and what influences the use of respiratory protection in three distinct volcanic settings: Popocatépetl in Mexico (Schwartz-Marin et al n.d.), Sakurajima in Japan, and Merapi in Indonesia.…”

“…Ibu Varela, urban dweller and mother of two, told her children about the 'iron in the ash'. Another woman voiced her concerns about the 'poisonous sulphuric gases' that are avoided by wearing masks (despite the fact that surgical masks, which are most often used around Merapi (Covey et al 2019;Horwell et al 2019) will not prevent the inhalation of gases), and some interviewees told us that they rub grinded coffee on the external side of their masks to avoid the smells and the shortness of breath. Even one of the most eminent scientists and monitoring authorities in the area stated that 'there are crystals in ash, not in common ash … if we look at it under the microscope it is very dreadful … and if it goes inside the lungs it will wound you.…”

Health Impact Assessment of Volcanic Ash Inhalation: A Comparison With Outdoor Air Pollution Methods

“…The overall extent and expediency of clean-up activities, or lack thereof, as well as the large-scale provision, and/or widespread ownership, of facemasks as well as other exposure reduction interventions such as staying indoors, could significantly increase or decrease concentrations to which the population is exposed; however, this will depend on the specific setting (e.g., homes in tropical, low income countries may be designed to optimize ventilation, thus providing less protection). These scenarios can be addressed by changing exposure assumptions in an HIA, particularly those that may be quantified, such as reduced ash exposure from wearing respiratory protection; reductions would depend on the amount and type of masks distributed to the population (Steinle et al, 2018), as well as the likelihood of uptake of such protection in communities (Covey et al, 2019).…”