500/6 Bizpoint 10
Canal Rd, Maehia, Chiang Mai 50100
Ph : 093-698-4884
Email : reception@chiangmaidoctor.com
CHIANG MAI BURNING SEASON
This webpage is a short summary of the composition of air pollution in Chiang Mai and Northern Thailand. Further information and references can be found in 'Comprehensive Review of the Annual Haze Episode in Northern Thailand (Pirard & Charoenpanwutikul, 2023)'.
Go directly to:
Previous Page: Environmental Effects of Air Pollution
Next Page: Official Actions on Air Pollution
PUBLIC PERCEPTION
Haze Episode Severity
The burning season has been described more than a century ago and probably existed for centuries before that. Until recently, the population has been quite indifferent to the issue but fear and resentment have developed in the urban population since 2007. This fear has been mostly entertained by the media, usually using misleading or false head lines such as 'continuous haze since 2007', 'worst in the world', 'extremely toxic smog', 'constantly getting worse', etc. but also government, activists and even academics who, for various purposes, target specific groups and/or often paint a situation worse than it is in such cases.
The public perception of long term trends show that the urban population is convinced of a worsening situation while the rural population has a wider range of opinions (30% decrease; 20% unchanged; 30% increase and 20% fluctuating). The only honest scientific assessment of the long term trends is that it indeed fluctuates with no clear trend (see physical properties).
The urban population is also prone to racial and social stereotyping of air pollution emission sources by targetting non-Thai (hilltribes) as guilty of deforestation, open burning, etc. or rural Thai burning agricultural fields and forests. Such framing of the situation is often made to absolve a specific group or an explanation to the lack of progress in solving the haze situation. A similar observation is made on occasion to explain the incidence of flooding in Chiang Mai (see flooding causes) It is most obvious with urban, rural and official positions easily blaming pollution produced by neighbouring countries to explain the failure of some regional actions.
Figure 28: Weekly variations of air pollution as PM10 concentration between 2002 and 2016 with published long term trends set at 100 μg/m3. The strongest trend has barely a scientific statistical significance after 2 decades let alone a public significance.
Health Impact
The health impact of haze is acknowledged by all population groups. The urban population is overall more familiar and experiences more effects from serious haze than rural population, partly due to topographic and weather features but also the level of education and have developed protection habits accordingly (see prevention). However, a significant proportion of the educated urban population has developed a disproportionate and sometimes unfounded fear of haze when compared to similar populations in other polluted (ex: large cities) environments. In the worst cases, it creates a cognitive dissonance where all negative aspects of environment-related life in Chiang Mai is seen through the prism of two months of air pollution and any clear evidence that would rationalize (let alone diminish) the negative opinion on the effects of pollution in Northern Thailand is seen as negligence or worse.
Most of the rural population is aware of the haze effects on vulnerable people but rarely take action to limit emission and only apply some basic preventive habits to avoid health impacts of haze. It is partly due to financial constraints; while a basic face mask is affordable for them, air purifiers are not an option they would consider. In highlands areas (>1000 m), populations are less exposed to high air pollution and less knowledgeable regarding health effects.
Measures against haze
The first indirect public involvement with air pollution was ecological activists in the 80s and early 90s trying to protect forested areas from extensive logging & the construction of damaging public projects. In the 90s, a schism appeared between strictly conservationists views (urban) that vilifies any use and exploitation of forested areas and 'forest guardians' that sees human influence has inevitable and seek community participation in sustainable forest management. For the last decade since the 2014 coup, official actions are on the side of urban conservationists, neglecting the needs of the rural population, particularly non-ethnic Thai who are significantly disfranchised.
In all populations (urban, low & high lands rural), the objective of preventive actions to reduce crop residue and forest burning is understood and accepted. Rural populations sees state management policies as acceptable to good while only a minority of rural and most of the urban population sees these actions as insufficient with no long term management to deal with seasonal haze. Strong restrictive regulations are supported by the urban population while farmers and rural residents in general, are not supportive, particularly when no time is given for adaptation and no alternative provided.