Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 11, Issue 9, pp 1109–1119 | Cite as

Public support for wood smoke mitigation policies in south-central Chile

  • Àlex Boso
  • Alvaro Q. HofflingerEmail author
  • Christian Oltra
  • Boris Alvarez
  • Jaime Garrido


This study analyzes the role of the affect heuristic, risk perceptions, and air quality and sociodemographic factors in the support for policies to control urban air pollution. The sample includes 489 participants residing in Temuco and Padre Las Casas, suburban areas located in southern Chile, affected by the smoke that wood-burning stoves and cookers produce. In line with previous studies, the results show that the rejection of pollution mitigation policies is associated with a positive affect to heat homes with wood. Awareness and risk perception also seem to be relevant factors, but the effect of the latter on the support for policies ceases to be significant when it is controlled by key sociodemographic variables such as household income. The study findings contribute to the theories of processing information about risk, when suggesting that emotions and awareness play an important role in the support for policies to control air pollution and that, also, structural factors like household income cannot be avoided. Finally, the implications for urban energy transition processes are discussed.


Air pollution Risk perception Affect heuristic Air quality 


Funding information

This paper is part of the project FONDECYT Iniciación 11150262, funded by the Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT), Chile.


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen S, Gaunt M, Rye T (2006) An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh. Trasp Eur 32:95–113Google Scholar
  3. Bäfver LS, Leckner B, Tullin C, Berntsen M (2011) Particle emissions from pellets stoves and modern and old-type wood stoves. Biomass Bioenergy 35(8):3648–3655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck MJ, Rose JM, Hensher DA (2013) Environmental attitudes and emissions charging: an example of policy implications for vehicle choice. Transp Res A Policy Pract 50:171–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker MH (1974) The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Educ Monogr 2(4):409–419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhullar N, Hine DW, Marks A, Davies C, Scott JG, Phillips W (2014) The affect heuristic and public support for three types of wood smoke mitigation policies. Air Qual Atmos Health 7:347–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bickerstaff K, Walker G (2001) Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Glob Environ Chang 11(2):133–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Börjesson M, Eliasson J, Hamilton C (2016) Why experience changes attitudes to congestion pricing: the case of Gothenburg. Transp Res A Policy Pract 85:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boso À, Ariztía T, Fonseca F (2017) Usos, resistencias y aceptación de tecnologías energéticas emergentes en el hogar. El caso de la política de recambio de estufas en Temuco, Chile. Rev Int Sociología 75(4):e078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boso À, Astorga F, Álvarez B, Garrido J (2018) Narrativas de resistencia al cambio energético sustentable: el caso de la calefacción y las cocinas a leña en las ciudades de Temuco y Padre Las Casas, Chile. In: Vallejos-Romero A, Valencia J, Boso À (eds) Riesgos, Gobernanza y Conflictos Socioambientales. Ediciones Universidad de la frontera, Temuco, pp 155–182Google Scholar
  11. Casen (2015). Región de la Araucanía. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (INE) Retrieved from Accessed 6 May 2018
  12. Díaz-Robles L, Cortés S, Vergara-Fernández A, Ortega JC (2015) Short term health effects of particulate matter: a comparison between wood smoke and multi-source polluted urban areas in Chile. Aerosol Air Qual Res 15:306–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dons E, Laeremans M, Anaya-Boig E et al (2018) Concern over health effects of air pollution is associated to NO2 in seven European cities. Air Qual Atmos Health 11(5):591–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eliasson J, Jonsson L (2011) The unexpected ‘yes’: explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm. Transp Policy 18(4):636–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksson L, Garvill J, Nordlund AM (2008) Acceptability of single and combined transport policy measures: the importance of environmental and policy specific beliefs. Transp Res A Policy Pract 42(8):1117–1128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finucane ML, Holup JL (2006) Risk as value: combining affect and analysis in risk judgments. Journal of Risk Research 9(2):141–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedberg E, Kristensson A, Ohlsson M, Johansson C, Johansson PA, Swietlicki E, Vesely V, Wideqvist U, Westerholm R (2002) Chemical and physical characterization of emissions from birch wood combustion in a wood stove. Atmos Environ 36(30):4823–4837. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hine DW, Marks AD, Nachreiner M, Gifford R, Heath Y (2007) Keeping the home fires burning: the affect heuristic and wood smoke pollution. J Environ Psychol 27(1):26–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hine DW, Bhullar N, Marks A, Kelly P, Scott J (2011) Comparing the effectiveness of education and technology in reducing wood smoke pollution: a field experiment. J Environ Psychol 31(4):282–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howel D, Moffatt S, Bush J, Dunn CE, Prince H (2003) Public views on the links between air pollution and health in Northeast England. Environ Res 91(3):163–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas. (2015). Medio ambiente, informe anual 2015.
  23. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2010) Household use of solid fuels and high-temperature frying. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  24. Jagers SC, Matti S, Nilsson A (2017) How exposure to policy tools transforms the mechanisms behind public acceptability and acceptance—the case of the Gothenburg congestion tax. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 11(2):109–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King J, Slovic P (2014) The affect heuristic in early judgments of product innovations. J Consum Behav 13(6):411–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lan GL, Yuan ZK, Maddock JE, Cook A, Chu YY, Pan BB, Tu H, Fan S, Liao X, Lu Y (2016) Public perception of air pollution and health effects in Nanchang, China. Air Qual Atmos Health 9(8):951–959. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levesque B, Allaire S, Gauvin D, Koutrakis P, Gingras S, Rhainds M, Prud’Homme H, Duchesne JF (2001) Wood-burning appliances and indoor air quality. Sci Total Environ 281(1–3):47–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loewenstein G, O'Donoghue T, Bhatia S (2015) Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. Decis 2(2):55–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente (MMA) (2016). Estado de calidad del aire por regiones del país y zonas de interés para alertas sanitarias. Seguimiento norma MP2.5, decreto n°12 del MMA.
  31. Molina C, Toro AR, Morales SRG et al (2017) Particulate matter in urban areas of south-Central Chile exceeds air quality standards. Air Qual Atmos Health 10(5):653–667. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naeher LP, Brauer M, Lipsett M, Zelikoff JT, Simpson CD, Koenig JQ, Smith KR (2007) Woodsmoke health effects: a review. Inhal Toxicol 19(1):67–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oltra C, Sala R (2016) Perception of risk from air pollution and reported behaviors: a cross-sectional survey study in four cities. J Risk Res 22:1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reeve I, Scott J, Hine DW, Bhullar N (2013) “This is not a burning issue for me”: how citizens justify their use of wood heaters in a city with a severe air pollution problem. Energy Policy 57:204–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rivas E, Barrios S, Dorner A, Osorio X (2008) Fuentes de contaminación intradomiciliaria y enfermedad respiratoria en jardines infantiles y salas cunas de Temuco y Padre Las Casas, Chile. Rev Med Chil 136(6):767–774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saksena S (2011) Public perceptions of urban air pollution risks. Risk, Hazards, & Crisis in Public Policy (RHCPP) 2(1):19–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanhueza PA, Torreblanca MA, Diaz-Robles LA, Schiappacasse LN, Silva MP, Astelle TD (2009) Particulate air pollution and health effects for cardiovascular and respiratory causes in Temuco, Chile: a wood-smoke-polluted urban area. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 59:1481–1488. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schade J, Schlag B (2003) Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transp Res F 6(1):45–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schauer JJ, Kleeman MJ, Cass GR, Simoneit BR (2001) Measurement of emissions from air pollution sources. 3. C1–C29 organic compounds from fireplace combustion of wood. Environ Sci Technol 35(9):1716–1728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwartz SH (1977) Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology Vol. 10. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 221–279Google Scholar
  41. Slovic P (2016) Understanding perceived risk: 1978–2015. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 58(1):25–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slovic P, Peters E (2006) Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15(6):322–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slovic AD, Ribeiro H (2018) Policy instruments surrounding urban air quality: the cases of São Paulo, New York City and Paris. Environ Sci Pol 81:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing R, Albers W (eds) Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333–1352. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2014) The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal 34(5):937–948. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Unosson J, Blomberg A, Sandström T, Muala A, Boman C, Nyström R, Westerholm R, Mills NL, Newby D, Langrish J, Bosson JA (2013) Exposure to wood smoke increases arterial stiffness and decreases heart rate variability in humans. Part Fibre Toxicol 10(1):20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Valeri E, Gatta V, Teobaldelli D, Polidori P, Barratt B, Fuzzi S, Kazepov Y, Sergi V, Williamns M, Maione M (2016) Modelling individual preferences for environmental policy drivers: empirical evidence of Italian lifestyle changes using a latent class approach. Environ Sci Pol 65:65–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang S, Wei W, Du L, Li G, Hao J (2009) Characteristics of gaseous pollutants from biofuel-stoves in rural China. Atmos Environ 43(27):4148–4154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wells EM, Dearborn DG, Jackson LW (2012) Activity change in response to bad air quality, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007–2010. PLoS One 7(11):e50526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. World Health Organization (2016) Ambient air pollution: a global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. World Health Organization, Geneva Google Scholar
  53. Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inference. Am Psychol 35(2):151–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang L, Yuan Z, Maddock JE, Zhang P, Jiang Z, Lee T, Zou J, Lu Y (2014) Air quality and environmental protection concerns among residents in Nanchang, China. Air Qual Atmos Health 7(4):441–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de la FronteraTemucoChile
  2. 2.CIEMATMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations