Effect of Using an Indoor Air Quality Sensor on Perceptions of and Behaviors Toward Air Pollution (Pittsburgh Empowerment Library Study): Online Survey and Interviews

BACKGROUND: Air quality affects us all and is a rapidly growing concern in the 21st century. We spend the majority of our lives indoors and can be exposed to a number of pollutants smaller than 2.5 microns (particulate matter, PM(2.5)) resulting in detrimental health effects. Indoor air quality sensors have the potential to provide people with the information they need to understand their risk and take steps to reduce their exposure. One such sensor is the Speck sensor developed at the Community Robotics, Education and Technology Empowerment Lab at Carnegie Mellon University. This sensor provides users with continuous real-time and historical PM(2.5) information, a Web-based platform where people can track their PM(2.5) levels over time and learn about ways to reduce their exposure, and a venue (blog post) for the user community to exchange information. Little is known about how the use of such monitors affects people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors with respect to indoor air pollution. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether using the sensor changes what people know and do about indoor air pollution. METHODS: We conducted 2 studies. In the first study, we recruited 276 Pittsburgh residents online and through local branches of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, where the Speck sensor was made available by the researchers in the library catalog. Participants completed a 10- to 15-min survey on air pollution knowledge (its health impact, sources, and mitigation options), perceptions of indoor air quality, confidence in mitigation, current behaviors toward air quality, and personal empowerment and creativity in the spring and summer of 2016. In our second study, we surveyed 26 Pittsburgh residents in summer 2016 who checked out the Speck sensor for 3 weeks on the same measures assessed in the first study, with additional questions about the perception and use of the sensor. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a subset of those who used the Speck sensor. RESULTS: A series of paired t tests found participants were significantly more knowledgeable (t(25)=−2.61, P=.02), reported having significantly better indoor air quality (t(25)=−5.20, P<.001), and felt more confident about knowing how to mitigate their risk (t(25)=−1.87, P=.07) after using the Speck sensor than before. McNemar test showed participants tended to take more action to reduce indoor air pollution after using the sensor (χ(2)(25)=2.7, P=.10). Qualitative analysis suggested possible ripple effects of use, including encouraging family and friends to learn about indoor air pollution. CONCLUSIONS: Providing people with low- or no-cost portable indoor air quality monitors, with a supporting Web-based platform that offers information about how to reduce risk, can help people better express perceptions and adopt behaviors commensurate with the risks they face. Thus, thoughtfully designed and deployed personal sensing devices can help empower people to take steps to reduce their risk.