Wildfire activity in Canada is spatially and temporally variable but occurs most frequently in western provinces (1). In 2021, 5,200 fires burned 4.3 million ha across British Columbia (BC), Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, which accounted for 90% of the total area burned in Canada (2). The 2021 fire season saw an 18% increase in fire starts and a 61% increase in the total area burned compared to the previous 10-year Canadian average (2). The impacts of wildfires on communities near forested areas in BC are typically more significant than in other regions of Canada (3). For example, BC has the highest number of wildfire evacuations and evacuees in Canada. Between 1998 and 2021, the wildfire seasons forced the evacuation of over 125,000 British Columbians (3–5). Accelerating global climate change has led to increasingly longer, more frequent, and more severe wildfire seasons (6).

Wildfire smoke consists of different air pollutants, including gases and particulate matter (PM) that degrade air quality (1). Although wildfires often start in more remote and less densely populated areas, the smoke can be carried thousands of kilometers from the fire and linger for hours to weeks, potentially impacting the health of large populations (1). Evidence shows that wildfire smoke exposure increases the risk of adverse health effects, especially for populations with respiratory or cardiovascular disease, older adults, pregnant people, infants and children, and marginalized groups (7–9). Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) from wildfire smoke may impose more significant health risks than the PM_2.5 emitted from conventional sources (8, 10). Therefore, public health messages related to wildfire smoke are essential for protecting vulnerable (disproportionately exposed) and or susceptible (disproportionately at risk for adverse effects, independent of exposure level) populations. Information is most impactful if it reaches the intended audience and motivates behavior change to minimize smoke exposure (11).

Wildfire smoke communication consists of air quality alerts and public health messages. In Canada, federal, provincial, and regional government agencies manage wildfire smoke communication strategies. For example, the federal government issues Special Air Quality Statements and most provinces use an adapted version of the national Air Quality and Health Index (AQHI), termed AQHI-Plus, tailored to communicate air quality conditions during wildfire episodes (12). Also, regional agencies issue Smoky Skies Bulletin messages to provide details on smoke severity, locality, expected duration, and information on how to reduce smoke exposure (13). In addition, the BC Center for Disease Control (BCCDC), along with the BC health authorities, aims to provide accessible information on the health effects of wildfire smoke exposure through multiple communication channels, including mass media (radio, television, and newspaper), social media, and fact sheets in lay language (14, 15).

There has been limited evaluation of the effectiveness of public health communication about wildfire smoke (15, 16). To fill this gap, an online survey was created to assess how people in BC receive and understand advice and implement strategies to reduce their exposure during wildfire smoke events (14). The survey was disseminated in the autumn of 2020 following a significant wildfire smoke event in BC due to long-range transport from California, Washington, and Oregon (17). The survey found that British Columbians accessed wildfire smoke information most commonly through websites, followed by social media, radio, and television. Local radio was also important, especially for Indigenous people, rural residents, and trade workers (14).

Survey findings were disseminated to relevant federal, provincial, and regional government organizations in the Wildfire Smoke Communication Workshop series held in February 2022. The workshop series was designed to share the survey findings, identify priorities, and motivate the development of improved wildfire smoke communication strategies. Workshop participants identified coordination (e.g., roles and responsibilities and transparency), data and evidence collection, message content development, and message delivery as key priorities and strategies for optimizing wildfire smoke communication (18, 19). Their input was collated and distributed in the workshop summary report entitled “Stakeholder Engagement to Improve Wildfire Smoke Messaging in Canada Workshop Summary” (19). Figure 1 provides a flow diagram of the past project work conducted to improve wildfire smoke communication in Canada, which led to the work described here.

Wildfire smoke communication requires coordination across jurisdictions from the federal to local level. It is not uncommon for government organizations to invest time and resources (financial and human resources) in workshops, knowledge translation, and discussions (20). However, it is infrequent that these discussions (and investments of time and money) are evaluated to determine if they result in any meaningful or measurable changes (20). As far as authors were aware, there has not been an evaluation to examine the utility of engagement methods to initiate change to wildfire smoke communication plans.

We sought to evaluate the Wildfire Smoke Communication Workshop series and the workshop summary report to determine if workshop participants initiated changes to wildfire smoke communication plans within their organization (18, 19). The overarching goal was to determine if this type of engagement (i.e., the workshop series) was an effective use of participants’ time and resources to optimize public health communication and coordination between organizations. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework dimensions and Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model (PRISM) contextual domains and elements were used as guides to measure the engagement impact and to determine the leverage points for changes (21, 22). Through evaluating the workshop engagement methods, government organizations can determine the value of workshops and identify areas to optimize public communication and coordination between organizations. This evaluation will provide a lens for the strengths and limitations of one-off workshops and highlight where different resources for optimization may be required.

Following the engagement methods consisting of a workshop series and a workshop summary report, we conducted a series of three surveys to determine whether individuals or organizations initiated changes to optimize wildfire smoke communication in Canada. On average, workshop participation and the workshop summary report helped interested parties (individuals and their organizations) initiate changes identified in workshop discussions toward optimizing wildfire smoke communication, such as simplifying message content.

In survey 2, which followed the dissemination of the workshop summary report, there was an observed increase in the proportion of respondents who intended to take action (68 and 69%, Table 5). Thus, workshop participation exclusively could be considered insufficient to initiate change; however, the summarization of workshop findings, which included specific actions, provided a pathway for change within organizations’ strategies for wildfire smoke communication. However, we may observe a bias in respondents’ intentions toward those more likely to enact changes over time. As far as the authors are aware, no previous studies have evaluated the utility of a post-event summary report. Evaluations of other engagement events with similar post-event summary reports were not evaluated to understand if the event or the report helped initiate change toward their respective engagement aims (23, 24, 30).

In survey 3 (post-wildfire season, 7 months post-workshop), the engagement methods had a continued impact on optimizing simple changes to wildfire smoke communication plans. Importantly, the actions taken by organizations aligned with the public’s desired changes to wildfire smoke communication could support increased understanding and uptake of wildfire smoke communication (19). This alignment supports that the engagement methods had their intended effect of sharing the public’s concerns with diverse government organizations and co-develop tailored support for organizations. Further, the engagement methods supported organizations to initiate changes toward addressing barriers (e.g., language gaps in communication) faced by the public and aligning goals and priorities within and between organizations to optimize wildfire smoke communication (19). A similar engagement initiative saw the alignment of goals and priorities with the public. A 2-day event that aimed to develop a regional physical activity research program agenda, had community members in attendance to incorporate the public and patient voice in their engagement approach (30). Their engagement evaluation revealed that they successfully met their project aims with public and patient perspectives aligned with researchers and incorporated into their research program agenda (30). However, another engagement initiative, Praxis 2016, identified that their event participants voiced the need to increase the event attendance representation of patients and increase the involvement of patients in the creation of future research engagement events (23, 24). Through different approaches in aligning public and organization objectives were used in the various studies, it appears that the overall representation of public matters. A mechanism should include as many voices as possible to ensure diverse public voices are heard and represented.

Survey respondents were more likely to make changes within their respective mandates and jurisdictions than to work more closely with other organizations. There was a lack of action toward more complex organization-level issues, such as coordination, even though the workshop summary report identified a need for enhanced coordination between organizations (19). The qualitative feedback from survey 3 indicated this might be due to the need for more clarity about the roles and jurisdictional responsibilities within and between organizations, along with human and financial resource constraints (Supplementary Table 3). A strategic recommendation to help overcome coordination challenges includes investing in knowledge translation (KT) capacity building and mentorship within organizations (20).

Notably, the proportion of intended actions differed from actions taken to improve wildfire smoke communication between the second and third surveys (pre- and post-wildfire season). For example, reaching out to high-risk populations, including Indigenous, rural, and remote communities, was the second-most intended action to be taken, which was a top priority identified in the workshop series; however, it was one of the least reported actions taken [(19), Table 5]. Similarly, simplifying message content was the most intended action to be taken, but only about half of the respondents reported that this action was actually taken. This inconsistency may be due to human and financial resource limitations and inadequate clarity on organizational roles and responsibilities [(19), Supplementary Table 3]. A similar engagement event, Praxis 2016, a 2-day conference event aimed to bring interested parties together to develop solutions to address the challenges of translating spinal cord injury (SCI) research into practice, supports our observed challenges with intention to action (23, 24). They observed that most of their participants post-event did not appear to maintain or change their behavior of expressing a need (intention) to actually working (action) with some groups in the SCI community 9 months post-event (23, 24). They too suggest that limited resources were a contributor and that proper additional resources are needed post-conference to move any action plans forward (23, 24). There is no easy solution to overcoming resources and capacity limitations without explicit investment or political will to make desired changes.

While these previous engagement studies are specific in their consultation, report, and evaluation processes (and in their respective research fields), the lessons and overarching findings of the studies can be adapted to other engagement initiatives. The limited previous literature support and align with our descriptive understanding that the investment of time and money into an engagement workshop series and a workshop summary report that brought organizations together was beneficial to discuss optimizing wildfire smoke communications. However, across studies, we found that challenges remain in moving from intention to action, particularly for system-level challenges. We observe from our study and others, that there may be more desire to align with the public and patient perspective than working on inter-organizational challenges.

A limitation of this evaluation was that less than half of the workshop series attendees responded to the surveys; thus, this small number of participants restricted our ability to understand how such engagement methods can continue to motivate individuals within organizations to overcome the associated challenges toward optimizing wildfire smoke communication (23). The participant number was small and previous literature is consistent with our survey response rates, indicating this remains a limitation of this type of survey work that is worth further methodological exploration (23, 31, 32). The low response rates to complete the evaluation surveys could be due to the loss of interest from workshop participants. For example, the difference in reported intentions between the pre-wildfire and post-wildfire season may have resulted from initial optimism and good intentions followed by decreased motivation and engagement because of the time lapse between survey 2 (3 months post-workshop series) and survey 3 (7 months post-workshop series). Low response rates could also be due to no actions to improve wildfire smoke communication or role responsibilities for wildfire response being prioritized with the limited capacity and resources within organizations to optimize wildfire smoke communication plans since the third survey was available during the peak wildfire season for 2022. Future engagement evaluations should identify more effective formats (e.g., interviews) and incentives (e.g., higher value of prizes) to increase the response rate to surveys and other evaluation assessments.

We evaluated whether the methods to engage interested parties (the workshop series and workshop summary report) initiated changes in wildfire smoke communication plans. For example, most respondents indicated that their organizations plan to continue the actions taken in the future (simplify message content, use diverse modes of communication, and increase the frequency of messages before and during the wildfire season). We did not measure the impact of those changes. Based on the qualitative survey responses, the organizational capacity to do this evaluation work needs to be improved (Supplementary Table 3). Also, there has yet to be a commitment to act on deeper coordination and jurisdictional issues, which may provide a ceiling effect of optimizing wildfire smoke communication.

Despite the challenges identified by this evaluation, western Canada has excellent wildfire smoke communication developed over more than 10 years of ongoing work in wildfire preparedness and communication. Experts and government organizations continually work to optimize wildfire smoke communication. A collaborative atmosphere that allows for sharing experiences and learning between provinces and jurisdictions supports their efforts to reduce health risks for Canadians from wildfire smoke.

An observed strength from this evaluation was the combination of the workshop series and the workshop summary report—not just the workshop engagement alone—that supported initiating change within organizations. The workshop attendees had an accessible summary report that summarized key strategies, priorities, and challenges identified in the workshop series. This report provided a more precise direction for individuals and their organizations to decide and initiate actions to improve wildfire smoke communication.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

This work was done under a quality improvement lens. Under Article 2.5 of Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS2), the Canadian policy framework governing research ethics, approval from an ethics board was not required (https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2022_chapter2-chapitre2.html#5).

AC: Formal Analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. ES: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KR: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. MR: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. PJ: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. CC: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.