Agricultural Employer Perspectives on Occupational Wildfire Smoke Rules.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to examine the perspectives of agricultural employers and managers regarding wildfire smoke-related occupational health and safety protections. The aims were to (1) explore implementation and evaluation of the Washington (WA) State Department of Labor and Industries Wildfire Smoke Rule, (2) develop a survey to explore perspectives on the rule, and (3) examine the relationship between occupational roles and knowledge and training received related to components of the rule.

Methods: We used exploratory sequential mixed methods, including key informant interviews with industry stakeholders, survey design, and online survey administration for agricultural employers and managers. Thematic analysis of interviews informed survey design. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze survey results.

Results: Our team interviewed seven agricultural industry stakeholders. Three themes were identified: (1) competing demands and regulation fatigue, (2) workplace attitude and culture, and (3) suggestions for rule implementation and evaluation. Themes and components of the smoke rule were used to develop the survey. Of the 128 survey respondents, almost half (45.1%) reported owner or grower as their role and 39.3% reported supervisors or managers. Over half (51.6%) of respondents reported fewer than 25 employees in their workplace and 17.2% reported 250 or more employees. Respondents were from multiple WA counties and worked with various crops. Most employers and workers they supervise reported wildfire smoke exposure at work and related adverse symptoms. Almost one-third of respondents reported they had not heard of the smoke rule (33.3%). Over half of respondents have not received training on managing workers with smoke-related symptoms (53.9%). About one-third has not received training on air quality monitoring (40.0%), health effects of exposure (36.8%), and implementing protective controls (31.0%). Differences in knowledge and training on rule components by occupational role were insignificant.

Conclusion: Findings identify gaps in awareness and training regarding protection from wildfire smoke in the agricultural workplace, especially around symptom recognition and management. Barriers to implementing protective controls in the workplace were identified. Findings will inform targeted outreach and educational toolkits for the agricultural industry and support the development and evaluation of protective occupational health rules.