Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39253221›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Examining public preferences for wood smoke mitigation policies in the sub-Arctic.

Nathan P Kettle, Laura D Carsten Conner, Krista Heeringa, William R Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nathan P KettleInternational Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA.
Laura D Carsten ConnerGeophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA.
Krista HeeringaInternational Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA.
William R SimpsonGeophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outdoor air pollution is a significant problem worldwide. Policies developed to mitigate air pollution require support from local residents to be successful. While some research has examined various social and psychological metrics associated with support for some types of pollution mitigation, less is known about what variables are critical in resident support for different types of policies that help mitigate air pollution associated with woodsmoke. This research examined the extent that perceived health and economic risks, perceived uncertainties in measuring air quality and estimating risks, trust in government, and affect relate to support for three different types of outdoor wood smoke mitigation policies in Alaska. Using a multiple regression analysis of data obtained from a mail-based survey (n = 442), we characterized local affective associations with wood burning, economic concerns and health risks around heat options, perceived uncertainties, and levels of trust in government. The research identified several social and psychological variables that were important in understanding support for air pollution policies associated with wood smoke. Significantly, we found that perceived economic risk of not taking actions to mitigate outdoor air pollution from wood smoke was related to support for all three policy options. Trust in local government was positively correlated to support for education and regulatory policies, and perceived uncertainty was inversely related to support for regulations. The research also confirmed other known findings with respect to variables associated with support for air pollution regulation policies including perceived health risks and affect.

Identifiers

PMID39253221
PMCPMC11381602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.