An Open Access Journal
Table 1 Summary of the statements regarding coping appraisal. The particular topics as discussed by the participants during the focus groups and examples retrieved from the focus group discussion transcripts
Coping appraisal (deductively developed from PMT) | Topic discussed (inductively developed out of the data) | Description (examples) |
|---|---|---|
Self-efficacy | Protective actions | Increased distance to emitter Cover nose/cover ear/hold breath |
Alternative routes | (Perceivably) less polluted routes are searched | |
Alternative modes | Change towards less exposed modes (bicycle instead of subway) | |
Emotion focused coping | Exposure is (mentally, in a psychological sense) suppressed to protect oneself | |
Feeling powerless | Changing mobility practices is difficult Changing routes does not have desired effect (cf. response efficacy) | |
Resignation / Prioritizing | Protective actions contradict with more important factors (e.g. safety, aesthetics, time, directness) | |
Response efficacy | Perceived health and wellbeing improved | Using headphones with calm music suppresses exposure Covering nose leads to a healthier feeling Changing mode is good for “body and soul” |
Refuse (and feeling that it is useless) to change route | Routes are already optimized Route changes are not possible (due to built environment) Changed routes have equally high exposure levels | |
Importance of other factors | Changed route negatively impacts other factors (time, safety, aesthetics) | |
Lack of political trustworthiness | Political actions are demanded to improve health/wellbeing en route, instead of individuals who have to find an efficient response to stressors |