Background
Methods
Study location and motivation
Characteristics of the industry
Study design
Sample size determination and sampling procedure
Methodology
Data collection
Quantitative data management and analysis
Qualitative data management
Ethics statement
Results and discussion
Results
Descriptive statistics
District/Sub-location
| Overall (n %) | District A | District B |
pvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S-location 1 | S-location 2 | Slocation 3 | S-location 4 | S-location 5 | ||||
Questionnaires |
Qs given
| 423 | 143 | 50 | 50 | 110 | 70 | |
Qs Compltd
| 367 (87%)
| 111 (78%)
| 50 (100%)
| 40 (80%)
| 108 (98%)
| 58 (83%)
| ||
Gender |
M
| 205 (56%)
| 54 (49%)
| 33 (66%)
| 26 (65%)
| 57 (53%)
| 35 (60.5%)
| 0.073 |
F
| 154 (42%)
| 57 (51%)
| 17 (34%)
| 14 (35%)
| 49 (45%)
| 17 (29%)
| ||
Missing
| 8 (2%) | 2 (2%) | 6 (10.5%) | |||||
Education (% Completed high school) | 162 (44%)
| 56 (51%)
| 24 (49%)
| 18 (45%)
| 37 (34%)
| 27 (47%)
| 0.154 | |
Employment (% Employed) | 81 (22%)
| 28 (25%)
| 13 (26%)
| 9 (23%)
| 20 (19%)
| 11 (19%)
| 0.694 | |
Household income | Up to 5,000 | 44 (12%)
| 5 (5%)
| 6 (12%)
| 1 (3%)
| 22 (20%)
| 10 (17%)
| 0.004* |
5,001-10,000 | 17 (5%)
| 4 (4%)
| 4 (8%)
| 0 (0%)
| 7 (6%)
| 2 (3%)
| ||
> 10,000 | 21 (6%)
| 8 (7%) | 2 (4%)
| 1 (3%)
| 4 (4%)
| 6 (10%)
| ||
Missing | 266 (72%)
| 92 (83%)
| 38 (76%)
| 38 (95%)
| 58 (54%)
| 40 (69%)
| ||
NA | 19 (5%)
| 2 (2%)
| 0 (0%)
| 0 (0%)
| 17 (16%)
| 0 (0%)
| ||
Family member worked for the factory | 70 (19%)
| 36 (32%)
| 10 (20%)
| 2 (5%)
| 18 (18%)
| 4 (7%)
| <0.001* | |
Child in household (%) | 312 (85%)
| 80 (72%)
| 44 (88%)
| 34 (85%)
| 100 (93%)
| 54 (93%)
| <0.001* | |
Distance from the factory |
0 – 2 km
| 147 (40%)
| 93 (84%)
| 16 (32%)
| 10 (25%)
| 17 (16%)
| 11 (16%)
| <0.001* |
2 – 5 km
| 220 (60%)
| 18 (16%)
| 34 (68%)
| 30 (75%)
| 91 (84%)
| 47 (84%)
| ||
Lived there for >20 years | 213 (59%)
| 57 (52%)
| 28 (56%)
| 34 (87%)
| 62 (57%)
| 32 (59%)
| 0.004* | |
Lived >10 years | 286 (83%)
| 75 (79%)
| 39 (78%)
| 36 (92%)
| 92 (85%)
| 44 (82%)
| 0.315 |
Gender
Employment status
Occupation
Employment with the factory
Education
Environmental awareness and risk perception
Risk factors | Perception of risk and control | Association with air pollution perception ( p-value) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reporting medium or high risk | Reporting medium or high control | Perception of risk | Perception of control | |
Overpopulation | 218 (63%)
| 212 (62%)
| <0.001* | 0.185 |
Destruction of Forests | 254 (75%)
| 211 64%)
| 0.028* | 0.451 |
Water Pollution | 235 (68%)
| 214 (64%)
| <0.001* | 0.118 |
Air Pollution | 275 (82%) | 156 (48%)
|
-
| <0.001* |
Industrial Noise | 246 (73%)
| 144 (44%)
| <0.001* | 0.526 |
Industrial Odor | 271 (81%)
| 157 (48%)
| <0.001* | 0.453 |
Industrial Dust/Smoke | 271 (82%)
| 168 (53%)
| <0.001* | 0.288 |
Motor Vehicle Accidents | 233 (70%) | 180 (57%)
| 0.040* | 0.288 |
Motor Vehicle Pollution | 197 (61%) | 176 (55%)
| <0.001* | 0.561 |
Poor Housing | 209 (65%)
| 200 (63%)
| <0.001* | 0.036* |
Cooking with Firewood | 191 (57%)
| 178 (55%)
| 0.113 | 0.515 |
Agricultural Chemicals | 187 (56%)
| 188 (58%)
| <0.001* | 0.454 |
Waste/Plastic Bags | 215 (66%)
| 200 (63%)
| 0.003* | 0.230 |
Cigarette smoking | 270 (80%)
| 235 (72%)
| 0.019* | 0.560 |
Working Conditions | 194 (62%)
| 167 (55%) | <0.001* | 0.284 |
HIV/AIDS | 269 (80%)
| 217 (67%)
| 0.002* | 0.320 |
Drought | 189 (58%)
| 169 (55%)
| 0.341 | 0.297 |
Famine | 205 (63%)
| 183 (59%)
| 0.010* |
0.057
|
Flooding | 104 (33%)
| 171 (57%)
| 0.106 | 0.507 |
Soil Erosion | 166 (51%)
| 214 (68%)
|
0.055
| 0.513 |
Risk perception
Perception of control
Association between risk variables
Believes PPM has exposed him/her to hazardous chemicals | Felt he/she was coughing, breathless or wheezing due to something in the air | Believes the industry will affect children born in the future in the community | Believes the industry will expose him/her to hazards if it opens in the future | Worries about getting health problems in the future because of a polluted environment | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||
Demographic | Distance from PPM | 2.747* | 1.199-6.295 | 1.039‡
| 0.560-1927 | 1.132‡
| 0.502-2.554 | ||||
Presence of a child in the HH | 34.769* | 1.390-869.96 | |||||||||
Respondent completed HS | 3.105* | 1.394-6.918 | 2.553* | 1.086-6.004 | |||||||
Employment Status | 0.434‡
| 0.188-1.004 | 0.383* | 0.167-0.879 | 0.365* | 0.150-0.886 | |||||
HH health Indicators | Perception of health | 0.527‡
| 0.239-1.162 | 0.479* | 0.261-0.878 | 0.299* | 0.135-0.660 | 0.237** | 0.108-0.517 | 0.332* | 0.149-0.738 |
Somebody in the HH has one of the conditions (heart, respiratory or skin disease) | 1.788‡
| 0.755-4.237 | 1.980* | 1.031-3.802 | 2.192‡
| 0.963-4.990 | 2.594* | 1.096-6.143 | |||
Respiratory symptoms | Coughed phlegm daily for ≥ 2 months, 2 yrs in a row | 2.907* | 1.127-7.498 | ||||||||
Had an attack of whistling or noisy sound in the chest when breathing | 2.881* | 1.402-5.920 | |||||||||
Role of Industrial plant | Family depended on industry | 2.287* | 1.001-5.228 | 2.792* | 1.234-6.319 | ||||||
Community benefited from industry | 2.289* | 0.997-5.257 | |||||||||
Environmental awareness/knowledge | Ever actively looked for environmental health information | 1.883* | 1.002-3.537 | ||||||||
Willing to participate in environmental campaigns | 2.297‡
| 0.713-7.396 | 2.985* | 1.031-8.645 | 3.127* | 1.100-8.888 | |||||
Main Information source | Friends/relatives | 2.553* | 1.198-5.438 | 0.411* | 0.180-0.937 | 0.451* | 0.207-0.981 | ||||
Church/Community leaders | 3.148* | 1.303-7.602 | 2.368* | 1.090-5.147 | 2.447* | 1.089-5.499 | |||||
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients | Model (Sig.) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
Correctly predicted observations on average | 85.6% | 79.7% | 84.6% | 86% | 84.4% |
Multivariate analysis
Discussion
Awareness and perception
Association between perception of air pollution and perception of control
Conclusion
Limitations of the study
-
The study area was limited to 5 km radius of the paper mill
-
The factory closed down due to financial problems implying views of the long-term residents and regular workers of the factory were not captured.
-
Lack of health facility data to confirm or contradict respondents’ claims.
-
The fact that most respondents felt the factory did not benefit them as much as ‘foreigners’ may have biased the study.