National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center 

Everglades National Park Mosquito Risk Assessment Pilot 

Results of Focus Groups and Interviews 

Natural Resource Report NPS/BRMD/NRR—2010/189 
ON THE COVER 

Everglades National Park District Ranger Tony Terry in Flamingo, responding to visitors locked out of their car. 

Photograph courtesy of Everglades National Park. 
Everglades National Park Mosquito Risk Assessment Pilot 

Results of Focus Groups and Interviews 

Natural Resource Report NPS/BRMD/NRR—2010/189 

Kirsten M. Leong 

National Park Service 

Biological Resource Management Division 

1201 Oakridge Dr., Suite 200 

Fort Collins, CO 80524 

April 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado 
The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies 

in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the 

achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum 

for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page 

limitations. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal 

peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using methods based on 

established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the guidelines of 

the protocols. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute 

endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the Biological Resource Management Division 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/biology) and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Leong, K. M. 2010. Everglades National Park mosquito risk assessment pilot: results of focus 

groups and interviews. Natural Resource Report NPS/BRMD/NRR—2010/189. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 160/102003, April 2010 

ii 
iii 

Contents 

Page 

Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 2

Findings........................................................................................................................................... 3

Primary impacts ....................................................................................................................... 4

Health .................................................................................................................................. 4

Safety ................................................................................................................................... 6

Other impacts ...................................................................................................................... 6

Self-efficacy actions and their collateral impacts .................................................................... 7

Adapting routines ................................................................................................................ 7

Use of PPE and other actions ............................................................................................. 8

Collateral impacts ............................................................................................................... 8

Societal-efficacy actions and their collateral impacts ............................................................. 9

PPE ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Insecticides ........................................................................................................................ 10

Other actions ..................................................................................................................... 12

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 17

Appendix I: Background information and question guide ............................................................ 19
Tables 

Page 

Table 1. Proposed activities for mosquito risk assessment. ........................................................... 2 

iv
Executive Summary 

The National Park Service (NPS) Office of Public Health, Biological Resource Management 

Division, and Everglades National Park are conducting studies to learn more about risks to 

employees and residents in Everglades National Park from interactions with mosquitoes and 

mosquito management. As part of this work, a series of focus groups and interviews were 

conducted in the park from June 8-12, 2009. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed, 

and interviewees were given the option opt out of audio recording. Discussions followed a 

questioning guide, with room for elaboration on other associated topics interviewees wished to 

discuss. Interviews were analyzed with respect to perceptions of: (1) impacts from mosquitoes 

and mosquito management, (2) self-efficacy actions, measures that individuals can use to reduce 

their personal risk from mosquitoes, (3) societal efficacy actions, efforts by NPS to reduce 

employee exposure to risk from mosquitoes, and (4) collateral impacts related to the choice and 

implementation self-efficacy and societal efficacy actions. 

Key findings: 

• Perception of risk from mosquitoes generally focused on immediate risks of being bitten, 

ranging from nuisance to distraction to potential safety hazard, and included informal 

assessments of trade-offs between potential measures that could reduce the likelihood of 

being bitten and the collateral impacts of those measures. 

• Collateral impacts from most protective measures were described as inconvenient but 

acceptable, with the exception of protective measures that involved chemicals (i.e., 

repellents and insecticides). While some were unconcerned about potential health effects 

from these chemicals, others believed risks from chemical exposure were worse than 

risks associated with mosquito bites. 

• Risk perception includes assessments of both “hazard” (probability of harm) and 

“outrage” (emotional response). Existing human health and safety statistics indicate that 

hazards associated with mosquitoes are low. Interviewees identified actions NPS can take 

to reduce outrage factors, by improving certainty, controllability, and reducing dread. 

• Interviewees acknowledged variation in individual levels of tolerance and desired a suite 

of tools they could use to control exposure to risk, based on individual preferences. These 

included providing: a range of PPE for all employees, with information outlining pros 

and cons of each; information about vector-borne disease risks; and information about 

any management actions undertaken by NPS and their collateral impacts. 

• Interviewees desired greater voice when a decision-making process is initiated and 

identified lack of trust between divisions and with higher levels of NPS management as 

impediments in the past. Improving communication could begin to address trust issues 

and may reveal other potential alternatives that have not been identified to date. 

v 

Introduction 

Mosquitoes play an important role in maintaining ecosystem balance and, like all wildlife, are 

protected under National Park Service policy. In subtropical habitats, such as Everglades 

National Park (EVER), mosquitoes can affect human activities, particularly during the summer 

months of the rainy season when population density increases significantly. Mosquitoes also are 

potential vectors for human diseases, including West Nile virus (WNV) infection and Eastern 

equine encephalitis. 

Over the last few decades, EVER has utilized pesticides to temporarily control mosquito 

populations in residential and other developed areas of the park to varying degrees. Under NPS 

policy, pesticides should not be used in parks unless certain conditions are met (National Park 

Service 2006); at EVER, potential conditions that could allow for mosquito management include 

threats to human health and safety. The disease risk at EVER is generally considered low, based 

on existing data from surrounding areas of Dade and Monroe counties. However, no data are 

routinely collected within the park. The NPS Office of Public Health, Biological Resource 

Management Division (BRMD), and Everglades National Park are examining risks to employees 

from interactions with mosquitoes and mosquito management, based on data collected within the 

park. This information will be used to develop a strategy to manage employee and resident 

interactions with mosquitoes and inform and update Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

compliance documents. 

Primary collaborating agencies and divisions for the overall project include: National Park 

Service Office of Public Health, Biological Resource Management Division Human Dimensions 

of Biological Resource Management Program and Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM), 

Risk Management Division (RMD), Everglades National Park, Southeast Regional Office 

(SERO); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Florida Department of Health, Miami-Dade and 

Monroe county health departments; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and 

other medical entomologists and arboviral research groups. This group identified three activities 

that collectively would assess risks and provide the needed foundation for development of a 

mosquito management strategy: (1) focus groups and key informant interviews, (2) 

environmental surveys, and (3) site assessments (see Table 1 for full descriptions). The focus 

groups and key informant interviews are the subject of this report. 

The overall project seeks to achieve three objectives; this report address portions in bold: 

1. Describe the assessed and perceived risks from living and working with mosquitoes at 

EVER; 

2. Describe knowledge and practices of park employees regarding risks associated with 

mosquitoes and their prevention; and 

3. Determine the need/support for and feasibility of developing a mosquito-borne disease 

monitoring and risk communication program at EVER. 

1 
Table 1. Proposed activities for mosquito risk assessment. 

Activity Description Status 

Focus groups 

and key 

informant 

interviews 

Among EVER managers, employees required to live in park 

housing, and employees who work frequently in the field, focus 

groups and exploratory interviews were conducted to better 

understand knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceptions of risk 

from interactions with mosquitoes and mosquito management 

Complete (subject 

of this report) 

Environmental 

surveys 

At the Flamingo and Pine Island areas of EVER, baseline environmental 

surveys will be conducted to collect data associated with mosquitoborne disease transmission risk. The surveys will be conducted over a 

12-month period and, at a minimum, will measure a) prevalence and 

seasonal variability of mosquito species, b) landing rates of mosquitoes, 

and c) if indicated, positivity of select mosquito pools for WNV and other 

pathogens. 

In discussion 

Site assessments Potential areas for mosquito-borne disease surveillance activities (e.g. 

placement of captive sentinel chicken flocks) at the Flamingo and Pine 

Island areas of ENP will be identified, evaluated for suitability, and 

discussed with park managers. The feasibility of conducting dead bird 

surveillance for WNV also will be explored. 

In discussion 

Methods 

Target audiences for focus groups and interviews were identified by discussions among NPS 

staff, including: EVER Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Chief of Biological Resources; 

BRMD IPM Program Manager and Human Dimensions Program Manager; Office of Public 

Health Medical Epidemiologist; and Southeast Region IPM Coordinator. The following target 

audiences were identified: EVER Division Chiefs, employees who work in remote field settings 

(e.g., Natural Resource staff, Fire Cache staff), employees living at Pine Island, employees living 

at Flamingo, and no more than 9 non-federal employees (e.g., concessionaires, volunteers, family 

members not employed by the federal government). 

Four focus groups were held with residents and staff at Pine Island (N=4), Maintenance staff at 

Flamingo (N=15), Fire Cache staff (N=10), and Natural Resource staff (N=6). A focus group 

was originally scheduled for Law Enforcement rangers at Flamingo; however, most were new 

and had not experienced a rainy season. Individual interviews were conducted instead of a focus 

group. The Information Technology staff were originally scheduled for individual interviews, but 

ended up participating in a group interview, which served essentially as a fifth focus group 

(N=3). Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals or in pairs. 

Respondents included Division Chiefs who did not participate in focus groups (N=4), Law 

Enforcement rangers who had lived in Flamingo for at least one rainy season (N=2), and others 

who were unable to participate in focus groups due to scheduling (N=3). One former Flamingo 

resident chose to send written responses to questions via e-mail. Potential interviewees received 

background information and the questioning guide in advance (Appendix I). The question guide 

relied on open-ended questions, and follow-up questions and probes were used to clarify 

intended meaning where necessary. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed; 

interviewees had the option to opt out of audio recording, hand-written notes were written up as 

soon as possible following the interview (within one day). Focus group discussions ranged in 

2 
duration from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 45 minutes. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. 

All but four interviews were audio recorded. All focus groups and interviews were conducted 

during regular business hours from June 8-12, 2009. 

Interviews were analyzed with respect to perceptions of: (1) impacts from mosquitoes and 

mosquito management, (2) self-efficacy actions, measures that individuals can use to reduce their 

personal risk from mosquitoes, (3) societal efficacy actions, efforts by NPS to reduce employee 

exposure to risk from mosquitoes, and (4) collateral impacts related to the choice and 

implementation self-efficacy and societal efficacy actions. For the purposes of this report, 

impacts are defined as the socially-determined important effects of events or interactions 

involving mosquitoes, humans and mosquitoes, and mosquito management interventions 

(Decker, Brown, and Siemer 2001). Wildlife managers distinguish between primary impacts, 

which result from interactions between people and wildlife, and collateral impacts, which are 

created by the choice and implementation of management actions designed to address primary 

impacts (Decker et al. 2009). Perceived risk has been defined as “hazard + outrage” (Covello and 

Sandman 2001), where hazard refers to the amount of harm likely to occur and outrage refers to 

the emotional response. Both were included in types of impacts identified. Self-efficacy refers to 

a person’s belief that he or she can take some adaptive response to reduce personal risk, whereas 

societal-efficacy refers to knowledge of actions that societal entities can take to reduce exposure 

to risk (Evensen and Clarke 2009). Self-efficacy actions thus encompass any practices used by 

individuals to reduce their exposure to mosquitoes or impacts related to mosquitoes, while 

societal-efficacy actions include actions taken by NPS on behalf of employees. 

Transcriptions and interview notes were analyzed for common themes using qualitative research 

analysis software Atlas.ti (version 6.1.8, Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin). An 

iterative process generated codes as thematic concepts and categories emerged in the interviews. 

Codes were assigned to incidents, i.e., segments of text (Corbin and Strauss 1990), in the first 

interview as themes appeared. Each of these codes was then applied to text from the next 

interview. If the next interview introduced new themes, they were added to the coding scheme 

and previous interviews were re-scored to assure that codes were applied uniformly. One 

incident could contain multiple codes, for example, the incident, “There’s not much you can do. 

Wipe poisonous chemicals into your skin or wear a, extremely hot ...garment,” contains the 

codes “collateral impacts—barriers” and “collateral impacts—repellents (health concerns).” 

Throughout the coding process, incidents were sorted to reveal key concepts, relationships 

between them, and the broader phenomena they described, as steps in fine-tuning the coding 

scheme. A single researcher performed all coding and analysis, with the intent that validity of the 

findings from this study will be reviewed by interviewees and assessed in future discussions with 

managers. Interviewees reviewed the initial draft report for accuracy and clarity of concepts. 

Findings 

Research was conducted towards the beginning of the rainy season. Mosquito conditions in the 

park and in park housing at the time were similar to what would be expected in a country in the 

tropics with limited development. Mosquito densities were high enough that a significant number 

follow people into cars, buildings, and houses and become trapped there. A few live mosquitoes 

were always present in any enclosed area, as were signs of mosquitoes squashed on walls. 

3 
To situate discussions, respondents were asked to compare current conditions to typical 

conditions they experienced. Most agreed that while there were certain areas of the park where 

conditions were comparable, densities in general were lower than what is typical during the 

height of the rainy season. Respondents described times of high mosquito density when they 

could not recognize co-workers because their faces were black with mosquitoes, and times when 

their yellow nomex shirts had become black. They also referred to a “5 mosquito day,” when one 

might inhale 5 mosquitoes at once at any given time. 

All interviews and focus groups identified multiple primary and collateral impacts, and many 

interviewees explicitly talked about trade-offs between the potential efficacy measures that could 

reduce primary impacts and the collateral impacts of those measures. Each of these areas is 

summarized below. 

Primary impacts 

Key primary impacts included concerns about health, safety, lifestyle, nuisance, work efficiency, 

and relationships with visitors. Less frequently mentioned impacts included concerns about pets 

and native wildlife (mentioned in fewer than 5 interviews/focus groups). 

Health 

Potential for disease transmission was identified as a potential impact in all interviews and focus 

groups, although most perceived low disease risk because the symptoms/consequences of 

diseases known to be present were not distinguishable from a common flu. Interviewees 

identified West Nile virus and eastern equine encephalitis as diseases known to be in the area and 

many stated that they might be more concerned if they were in a demographic group that was 

known to be at high risk for consequences of the disease. Notably, some employees living in 

park housing have elderly relatives living with them, for whom this could be a concern. Young 

children were less of a concern for residents at Flamingo because park housing conditions were 

seen by most as incompatible with having a family (distance to town, schools, hospitals; lack of 

child care). 

Some compared West Nile virus to other diseases as rationale for their low or high perceptions of 

risk. One interviewee thought that park employees were likely exposed to greater risk from 

Hanta virus due to rats in buildings than any mosquito-borne illnesses. Others named diseases 

such as Lyme disease, malaria, Dengue fever, and yellow fever as examples of vector-borne 

diseases that would be of higher concern if present due to the greater consequences from 

contracting them. Some interviewees were concerned about the potential risk from these diseases 

with low probability of occurrence, but high consequences if contracted. While these diseases 

were not known to be present in the park, interviewees were concerned that the high level of 

international visitation could bring diseases like H1N1 or malaria. They believed that the sheer 

number of mosquito bites they received (described by some as 200-300 per day; however, other 

interviewees believed this number was excessively high or low) increased their risk for a rare 

transmission. Some mentioned concerns about blood-borne pathogens in general, noting that 

these concerns were heightened after killing a mosquito that results in a contact with someone 

else’s blood. One person mentioned that even though she knew intellectually that HIV cannot be 

transmitted that way, it was still her instinctual reaction whenever she killed a mosquito and saw 

blood. While not a disease risk to humans, some also were concerned about increased risk for 

heartworm for dogs, as many park residents have pets. 

4 
Many interviewees believed they did not know enough about the various diseases, in terms of 

prevalence and transmission pathways, and relied predominantly on the media, especially 

television, for their information. A few interviewees mentioned briefings and other information 

provided by the park, and one person even mentioned a West Nile virus fact-sheet that their 

division used during employee orientation. However, most interviewees did not remember 

receiving much information from the park or indicate that they had sought information from the 

park. 

In addition to diseases, interviewees described other health impacts. Many discussed reactions to 

mosquito bites. Some believed that the prolonged reaction to mosquito bites made them worse 

than bites from other insects such as deer flies whose bites hurt for only a short time. Others 

mentioned developing a sensitivity to mosquito bites over time, with allergic reactions ranging 

from large welts that lasted up to a month to physiological effects similar to a flu. On the other 

hand, some described developing a resistance to mosquito bites, and even noticed reduced 

reactions by the end of a season. Some desired information on how this resistance develops. 

More notably, almost every interview and focus group discussed psychological impacts. They 

described mosquito conditions as being overbearing, depressing, requiring constant mental 

preparation and strategizing, and resulting in a siege mentality and hopelessness. Interviewees 

explained: 

“But after living here for six months I couldn’t wait to leave. I was like, all right, I’m 

going to get my own place outside the park. Because I actually felt like my nerves were 

shot. Like if I got bit by one more mosquito I would actually kind of run and hide 

screaming...” 

“...you just do the best you can. I mean, there’s nothing that you can do to compensate, I 

don’t believe. I mean, take breaks and maybe not work as hard, you know, go in and out 

of vehicles to get away from them, keep your sanity a little bit.” 

These descriptions reflect a feeling of dread associated with mosquitoes, the rainy season, and 

lack of control over conditions. This knowledge of what to expect led to psychological impacts 

from mosquitoes, even when interviewees were not physically exposed to them: 

“It’s just the knowing of the aggravation that’s going to come. It’s just, it’s an 

aggravation that you can’t do anything about, but it’s sooo, it can get so intense, like... 

doing hurricane set up last year to close the park, there was no wind whatsoever and it 

was super humid, and it was just, it was an awful, awful night. We were all so crabby 

because the mosquitoes were just so bad. And it’s that kind of, it’s just like an 

apprehension of knowing that aggravation’s coming.” 

“The feeling of dread comes from the knowledge that you will be constantly under attack, 

that no matter what you do, you will get bitten every day and suffer every day until the 

end of the rainy season.” 

Many noted that there were field conditions that they accepted as part of their conditions of 

employment, but that were harder to handle when they came back to the office or park housing. 

They believed they could mentally prepare for and tolerate mosquito conditions in the field but 

5 
were less able to tolerate similar conditions when they came in from the field to a developed area 

that is already unnatural—for example, mosquitoes at their desk or biting in the bathroom. In 

addition, some noted that people who live outside of the park know they will have a 

psychological break when they leave work for the day, while those who live in park housing do 

not. Even those who did not live in park housing remarked that mosquitoes were a constant 

during the rainy season: 

“It was unrelieved torture, because even though I was able to get away from the park at 

the end of every day, you still itched from the bites you got at work. I also still have scars 

from where I accidentally scratched too hard. Even on the weekend you itched. It is a 

torment you can't escape.” 

Safety 

Almost all interviews and focus groups discussed safety impacts. Most of the staff interviewed 

work outside or in buildings that cannot be fully enclosed. For the most part, safety concerns 

were related to the distraction caused by mosquitoes that magnified work hazards, e.g., working 

with heavy machinery, electrical boxes, motors, and power tools, all of which require focused 

attention to avoid accidents. While few substantial accidents have been recorded, interviewees 

described many potentially severe near misses as well as a generally higher threat of a significant 

accident due to the constant distraction caused by mosquitoes. Other safety concerns included car 

accidents, trips/falls, and other types of accidents, also amplified by distracting conditions. As 

described by one interviewee, “It’s not life-threatening, but you make poor decisions. It’s a 

safety hazard, you run. It’s like a swarm of bees. You’re getting out of there, you’re not paying 

attention to what you’re doing.” 

Interviewees acknowledged that many of these accidents were not reported to the park, for a 

number of reasons. First, in some cases interviewees were too embarrassed to report accidents. 

One even said, 

“I’d rather not be on the list for doing something dumb. Plus, you have to explain to the 

board how you could have done your job better. I could have not run up the stairs in my 

flip flops. If you’re going in front of the board, you want it to be for something that isn’t 

dumb.” 

Others did not want to deal with the paperwork for reporting accidents, or feared that if they 

reported every mosquito-related injury they would be seen as a liability and their job could be at 

stake. Some mentioned that in the past, injuries were never attributed to mosquitoes but were 

considered the fault of the employee. 

Members of law enforcement also were concerned about distractions during required safety 

checks of equipment and vehicles, including preparation of rescue vehicles. They believed that 

they were not always as thorough as they might be in this process because of the mosquito 

conditions. 

Other impacts 

Lifestyle and nuisance impacts also were noted in almost all interviews. Lifestyle impacts refer 

to restrictions in lifestyle attributed to mosquitoes. Residents were frustrated at the major 

alterations they had to make in their lifestyle just to complete seemingly simple tasks like 

6 
bringing in groceries, washing/working on cars, walking dogs, and jogging or other physical 

activity (often, but not always related to physical training requirements). They felt like they 

could never relax on their day off. Some took offense at people calling mosquitoes a “quality of 

life” issue. They believed that it was not about quality of life but rather being able to have a 

semblance of a life. Many described the rainy season as the end of social interactions and 

enjoyment of the park. Some even said that with “...year-round residence you’re not ever 

comfortable, just halfway normal,” and, “You’re a prisoner in your own house for the summer.” 

It was especially claustrophobic for those living in RV’s. While most acknowledged the 

seasonality of mosquito impacts, they did not necessarily have expectations for a different 

lifestyle during that season and desired the ability to spend time outside, picnic, barbeque, or 

other activities typically associated with summers in the United States. Only a minority of 

interviewees drew the analogy between summers in South Florida and winters in the northern 

U.S.: you hunker down and don’t go outside. In addition to mosquitoes, the heat, humidity, and 

constant threat of hurricanes also were cited as making life difficult during that time of year. 

Most interviewees also described nuisance from mosquitoes. Nuisance was distinguished from 

other impacts as reference to annoyance, irritation, and other terminology that described 

mosquitoes as bothersome. Nuisance occurred in many contexts, but was generally used as a 

descriptor of conditions, rather than as a reason for mosquito management. 

Half of the interviews and focus groups included descriptions of impacts to work efficiency due 

to mosquitoes. These included a need for more frequent breaks, fewer hours spent in the field 

during the rainy season, accidents with machinery, less thorough maintenance of equipment, and 

tasks that are abandoned before completion. 

Almost half of interviews and focus groups mentioned impacts to relationships with visitors, 

such as reduced visitation and enjoyment of the park during the rainy season. However, 

interviewees did not go into the same level of depth for this topic as with the other topics 

described above. 

Self-efficacy actions and their collateral impacts 

Staff used a number of measures to protect themselves from mosquitoes. Almost all interviews 

and focus groups included discussion of: adapting routines; use of bug jackets, long sleeves, or 

other barriers; and use of personal repellents. More than half of the interviews and focus groups 

mentioned bug-zapping racquets, and half included driving practices to expel mosquitoes from 

cars or efforts by employees to learn about conditions in the park prior to accepting their 

positions. Less frequently used actions included use of fans, dragonfly beepers and light zappers 

(both described as ineffective), mosquito bed nets, and insecticide. 

Adapting routines 

The most frequently described tactic was adapting routines to reduce exposure to mosquitoes, 

either by changing the timing of routines, or by doing things differently. For residents, this was a 

distinguishing factor between the work week and weekends—during time off, they had more 

flexibility to alter their routines depending on mosquito conditions. Others cited the ability to 

alter routines as the difference between their position and maintenance or law enforcement. For 

those who worked in offices, they felt that at least they had some relief, whereas other positions 

had less control over their work environment. Adaptations included: avoiding being outside at 

7 
dawn and dusk in general; entering buildings in stages (e.g., porch first, keeping doors shut 

between sections in office buildings, not using entrance doors that are heavily shaded or 

otherwise provide good mosquito habitat); taking more breaks; keeping indoor temperatures cold 

to keep mosquitoes sluggish; exercising indoors; planning errands for times of day with fewer 

mosquitoes; only unloading perishable groceries right away and leaving non-perishables in the 

car until the middle of the day; consolidating trips to and from the car to spend less time outside; 

and moving more quickly when outside. 

While adaptations to mosquitoes generally were described as an inconvenience, they also served 

as a form of solidarity and a way to identify those with more experience at the park, especially in 

contrast to inexperienced visitors. One interviewee even described an unspoken social etiquette 

that evolved around mosquitoes at Flamingo: 

“For example, if you have a guest over for dinner and they’re a good guest, they run 

straight into you house and slam the door. If you know someone is coming over, you 

leave the door open and they don’t knock or anything, they just run from their car into the 

house. You turn on the porch light, set the fan facing outside to blow out of the house. If 

you’re the guest, as soon as you get in, it’s your job to swat away any bugs you brought 

in with you. That’s the hallmark of a good guest.” 

Use of PPE and other actions 

Use of barriers such as long sleeve shirts, long pants, and bug jackets was the next most 

frequently described approach to protection. Almost all interviewees used bug jackets. There 

were differing opinions on which type of bug jacket was most effective (number of layers of 

mesh, fineness of mesh, etc.), which seemed to correspond to different work conditions (amount 

of time outside, exposure to heat, exposure to plants likely to rip fabric), as well as personal 

preference. 

Mosquito bed nets were only mentioned by two park residents, although a number of 

interviewees described nuisance or dread from mosquitoes buzzing or biting at night. While bed 

nets typically are used where malaria or other fatal mosquito-borne illnesses are prevalent, these 

interviewees pointed out the effectiveness of bed nets in providing a good night’s sleep. 

Individual use of insecticide appears low. It was mentioned by only three individuals, all in the 

context of park housing. All mentioned insecticide spray, one also burned mosquito coils that 

contained insecticide. Others in the focus groups did not corroborate use of insecticides, and one 

person countered that mosquito coils were not supposed to be used inside. For the interviewee 

who used mosquito coils, protection against mosquito bites was deemed more important than 

potential health impacts from the smoke. 

Collateral impacts 

Adaptation of routines, use of mechanical devices (bug-zapper racquets, fans) and mosquito nets, 

and efforts to learn about conditions in the park before arrival did not have any appreciable 

collateral impacts. That is, interviewees did not identify negative side effects from practicing any 

of these activities. There were some collateral impacts from personal barriers, namely heat 

exhaustion and reduction of the senses—added layers exacerbated already hot and humid 

conditions and head nets made it difficult to see and even breathe. Interviewees compensated for 

8 
these constraints by drinking more water, taking breaks, and zipping jackets or putting on hoods 

only when conditions became unbearable. All of these counter measures were described as 

inconvenient, but acceptable. 

On the other hand, use of personal repellents (especially those containing DEET) was almost 

always described with reservations about potential side effects. Often, the collateral impacts of 

repellents were believed to be worse than the relief they provided. Many interviewees relied less 

on repellents the longer they worked at the park, either because they had different concerns about 

prolonged exposure than short-term use, or because of personal experience that made them 

question potential health impacts. Typical experiences that affected use of repellents containing 

DEET were both physiological (e.g., lips going numb, insomnia, dizziness, headaches, or other 

nervous system effects), as well as observations of what it could do to other objects (e.g., melting 

plastic, removing paint). Most interviewees relied more heavily on other self-protective measures 

and utilized repellents containing DEET only when “it’s really bad,” although this threshold 

varied by personal tolerance. 

There were varying assessments of “natural” or non-DEET repellents. Some stated that they did 

not work, while others believed they worked well. Still others said they worked but had to be 

applied more frequently. These differing opinions are likely due to differential working 

conditions, as well as different levels of personal tolerance. For example, many with more 

favorable assessments of non-DEET repellents spent more time in offices where the density of 

mosquitoes is lower. It also appeared that some interviewees did not mind applying non-DEET 

repellents more frequently, while for others the duration of relief factored more strongly in 

determination of effectiveness. Some interviewees were sensitive to chemicals or preferred not to 

use any type of repellent on their bodies. 

Collateral impacts also were almost always associated with the “Flamingo flush,” driving with 

doors or windows open to expel mosquitoes out of the car, which was mentioned in seven 

interviews/focus groups. There were differing opinions as to the effectiveness of this practice, 

but most described it as unsafe and widespread. 

Societal-efficacy actions and their collateral impacts 

Interviewees also discussed actions NPS had or could put into place to protect employees from 

mosquitoes. Interviewees offered opinions about desired actions as well as actions that NPS had 

tried but were not seen to be effective, or practices currently in place that interviewees did not 

agree with. Almost all interviews and focus groups mentioned providing personal protective 

equipment (PPE) and spraying insecticide, and over half the interviews and focus groups 

mentioned mosquito magnets and improved communication/education. Other commonly 

identified actions included improving maintenance of buildings, providing mechanical devices 

such as fans or blowers, and providing staff with accurate expectations for working/living 

conditions. Less frequently mentioned actions included altering work routines based on seasonal 

conditions, considering building design, and offering voluntary disease testing for employees. 

PPE 

EVER supplied PPE, namely bug jackets and repellents, for employees whose job functions 

included a significant amount of time outside. Each division was responsible for providing these 

safety items, and each approached the task differently. Some divisions allowed employees to 

9 
choose the type of bug jacket they preferred, others bought a standard type that was distributed to 

employees. Some supervisors only learned about the option to purchase bug jackets through 

word of mouth. The park typically did not provide bug jackets for staff who worked primarily in 

office settings, although many bought personal bug jackets when they were not provided. Both 

field and office staff described days when they would wear bug jackets at their desks due to high 

concentrations of mosquitoes indoors. 

All repellents purchased with federal funds must be on a list of products approved by the national 

IPM Coordinator. Pesticide Use Proposals (PUPs) for each repellent are submitted annually by 

the park IPM Coordinator for approval by the regional or national IPM Coordinator. Repellents 

with and without DEET were approved for use at EVER, but most interviewees were unaware 

that any repellents without DEET had been approved. In addition, the park IPM coordinator was 

open to submitting additional items for approval but did not receive many requests for new 

products even when she solicited them. Most interviewees purchased non-DEET repellents on 

their own, without using NPS funds. Some interviewees suggested adding the bug-zapping 

racquets as an additional approved safety items. These items are currently bought as personal 

items, but were common in almost all offices visited. Many staff kept one in the office and one in 

their car. In some work groups, employees organized bulk purchases of the racquets to reduce 

costs. 

The only collateral impact from NPS purchasing PPE was related to differential treatment of 

staff based on work function. This was not a common concern, although some suggested that 

providing the option of PPE for all staff, not just field staff, would be appreciated: “I think that it 

would be really nice for the park to buy each of the employees a bug jacket and the racquet if 

that’s what they want...If it makes them feel personally better that they can concentrate when 

they get to the office...” In addition, one interviewee noted that for incidents such as hurricane 

preparedness all staff are called on to work outside. Extra PPE may or may not be available for 

those who do not have it as standard issue, but could be provided with some advanced planning. 

Insecticides 

Insecticide spraying, on the other hand, often was discussed within the context of collateral 

impacts, primarily ecological impacts and health impacts. Interviewees did not universally 

support or oppose spraying, and many offered beliefs about severity of collateral impacts to 

support their position. Ecological impacts were discussed in 10 out of 14 interviews and focus 

groups. Effects on butterflies was mentioned the most, likely because concerns from the North 

American Butterfly Association initiated the scrutiny of the park’s spraying program. Proponents 

of spraying were unconvinced of effects on non-target organisms, or believed that the effects 

were not severe enough to warrant reduction in spraying. They also voiced the opinion that 

opponents of spraying cared more about the butterflies than the people who worked to keep the 

park together. This belief appeared to reflect a lack of trust and communication between 

divisions in general. Similarly, some proponents of spraying desired participation in studies that 

evaluate environmental impacts of actual practices at EVER as they did not trust results of 

studies that had been conducted under different conditions. Opponents of spraying were 

concerned about effects on butterflies as well as other non-target organisms, including other 

insects and crocodiles. In addition, a number of interviewees mentioned concerns about spraying 

insecticides so close to water. 

10 
Discussions of health impacts from spraying insecticides occurred almost as frequently as 

discussions of ecological impacts. Yet, unlike ecological impacts, beliefs about health impacts, 

when expressed, were uniformly negative. Some were concerned about the cumulative exposure 

to chemicals from repellents and insecticides, others were concerned about being exposed to 

insecticides against their will. Others also mentioned concerns about health of pets. While they 

did notice a reduction in mosquito density after spraying, they preferred exposure to mosquitoes 

over exposure to chemicals: 

“I just have haunting memories of them fogging right under my window as I was waking 

up in the morning, and the windows weren’t completely sealed, and I know it’s not the 

best chemical in the world to be inhaling, and to me it was a tough tradeoff for a half hour 

of keeping mosquitoes away.” 

Many of these interviewees noted a lack of available information about risks from the 

insecticides that were being used. They suggested that if spraying was going to occur, MSDS 

sheets and a spraying schedule should be available in residences so that employees could make 

informed decisions about potential risks and alter their routines (or not) depending on their 

comfort level with exposure to the specific pesticides used. 

Insecticide spraying was described by most as reducing mosquitoes noticeably for half an hour to 

two hours, with some who believed the effect lasted all day (i.e., although numbers increased 

throughout the day, it would be worse if no spraying occurred in the morning). Most residents 

described this time period as providing a window of opportunity that could be used to schedule 

daily routines—taking out the trash, walking the dog, bringing in groceries, etc. For many, this 

window of opportunity was psychologically very important. Some believed that regardless of 

actual effectiveness in reducing mosquitoes, spraying boosted morale and sent a signal to 

employees that NPS was watching out for them. Those who did not agree with spraying cited the 

small window of effectiveness as a reason not to spray, while those who desired spraying cited 

the small window of effectiveness as indication that significant impacts to non-target organisms 

were unlikely. 

No one advocated spraying insecticides beyond the developed areas of the park. As one 

interviewee explained, 

“I definitely recognize that we need to have mosquitoes here in the park, they’re part of 

the food chain, and they’re essential...this place wouldn’t be here without them...I 

certainly don’t think that we should spray everywhere, it’s just where we have people and 

are expecting them to do certain jobs.” 

A few spoke of mosquitoes as protecting the park from development: 

“Most of us acknowledge that the great protector of the Everglades is not the National 

Park Service but mosquitoes. South Florida would have been completely overrun with 

humans before we got here if it was a nirvana, but it isn’t. So, it’s a cruel relationship we 

have with them.” 

Many emphasized the small area of the developed zones in comparison to the rest of the park, 

and some pointed out that these areas were already environmentally degraded. Some voiced 

11 
concerns that if visitors discovered that the park was spraying insecticides for employee safety, 

they would put pressure on the park to spray for visitors. Some thought this was a justification to 

spray all developed areas, others thought this would not be an issue if there were very specific 

criteria that were used to determine where and when spraying occurred. A few were concerned 

that if spraying were discontinued there would be an increase in the use of unregulated pesticides 

by staff. One interviewee believed that “If they stopped spraying, people would likely take things 

into their own hands. That could be worse because then you would have untrained people putting 

God-knows-what, unregulated, into the environment.” 

Other actions 

Mosquito magnets were mentioned in nine of 14 interviews and focus groups, and always as an 

example of something the park had tried but that did not work. They are designed to attract 

mosquitoes away from an area where people will be spending time outside. At EVER, the 

mosquito density was great enough that although the magnets succeeded in attracting 

mosquitoes, there were enough replacement mosquitoes that no relief was provided. In addition, 

the bags filled up quickly, clogging the machinery. While interviewees appreciated the attempt 

by the park to try other techniques, they were frustrated at the amount of money that was spent 

on mosquito magnets that turned out to be ineffective. Thus, one collateral impact related to 

mosquito magnets was a decrease in credibility of decision makers who chose to purchase large 

numbers of the magnets before determining their effectiveness under park conditions. 

Improved communication or education and training were identified as needs in relation to a 

number of topics. One set of suggestions focused on providing information to help staff make 

informed decisions about personal exposure to risk. Desired information included: availability of 

various types of repellents as well as side effects; information about insecticides and spraying 

schedules; and types of mosquitoes present and associated risk of mosquito-borne illnesses, 

including prevalence, severity, and treatability. Interviewees also suggested improving efforts to 

help staff form accurate expectations for living/working conditions. Most staff were aware that 

mosquitoes were, “bad. No, I mean really bad,” before accepting positions. However, most 

believed that even though they had been told, they had no real frame of reference for what to 

expect. They desired better description of conditions in position descriptions; consistent 

orientation protocols for new employees that include discussion of conditions as well as 

information about the pros and cons of various tools available to protect themselves from 

mosquitoes; and periodic trainings or reminders of the advent of rainy season, similar to the 

hurricane preparedness updates. One interviewee also suggested that if insecticides will be used 

in the park, MSDS sheets, a spraying schedule, and this report should be provided for potential 

employees (especially those with required housing) so they can make informed decisions about 

accepting the job depending on their comfort level with exposure to the specific pesticides used. 

In addition, this interviewee believed that employees should be required to sign a waiver that 

acknowledges their awareness of mosquito conditions and/or park use of insecticides. 

Other suggestions included: use of visual aids such as a “mosquito meter” that was used at 

Flamingo in the past; providing information on any studies that have been done; providing better 

information about conditions/criteria that were used to determine when and where insecticide 

spraying would occur; and developing more inclusive research and decision-making processes 

for mosquito management. This perceived lack of communication reinforced a belief by some 

that decisions were being made by people who had never been to the park or experienced the 

12 
conditions under which staff lived and worked. For example, multiple interviewees noted that the 

person with the pesticide applicator’s license is personally responsible to the state of Florida for 

pesticide application and should be more involved in the development of spraying protocols or 

associated research. 

Interviewees also identified a number of other actions that would improve physical conditions 

for staff. These included: improving routine maintenance, such as keeping the grass near 

buildings short; repairing screens (including screens over air conditioners); and controlling pests, 

such as the rats that chewed holes in screens in the first place. Others suggested providing fans or 

blowers, while others mentioned landscaping considerations, e.g., not planting shade trees near 

building entrances. They preferred the heat to the mosquitoes. All of these actions could be taken 

immediately and would not require policy or other review. As summarized by one interviewee, 

“...if [the park] would just do the things that they know they can do, like mow the lawns, fix the 

screens, provide blowers if requested by a building. Those are things completely within their 

control that are not as controversial as spraying.” Interviewees recognized that these suggestions 

put additional burden on maintenance staff, but some noted that they would be willing to help 

with these activities when they had down time between other projects. 

Some infrequently mentioned actions also merit consideration. For example, a few interviewees 

noted that supervisors altered work routines based on seasonal conditions where possible. There 

may be additional situations where this kind of reprioritization is possible. Similar to the 

discussion of landscaping, a few interviewees mentioned building design. They noted that the 

way some of the older buildings had been designed created micro-habitats preferred by 

mosquitoes near entrances. They suggested that any new building design, such as the new Visitor 

Center complex in Flamingo, should take these considerations into account. Two interviewees 

suggested voluntary disease testing for employees who desired it, perhaps as part of a larger 

education or morale boosting event that indicates to staff that the park recognizes the conditions 

employees endure during the rainy season. One interviewee also suggested testing mosquitoes 

for diseases. Finally, one interviewee thought that alternatives had not been explored enough, 

that people assumed too quickly that there was nothing else that could be done. 

Discussion 

Interviewees identified multiple dimensions of risk from living and working in high densities of 

mosquitoes. While many initially suggested reasons they believed the park should or should not 

consider insecticide spraying, they also identified a number of other actions the park could 

initiate immediately that would reduce contact with mosquitoes or improve employee confidence 

in their ability to protect themselves adequately. In addition, they identified a number of 

information needs, ranging from the pros and cons of potential tools available to employees or 

provided by NPS to reduce exposure to mosquitoes (including effects of insecticides on the 

environment and human health), to risks of disease transmission from mosquito bites. 

Perception of risk from mosquitoes generally focused on immediate risks of being bitten, ranging 

from nuisance to distraction to potential safety hazard, and included individual informal 

assessments of trade-offs between potential measures that could reduce the likelihood of being 

bitten and the collateral impacts of those measures. Disease risk was mentioned frequently, but 

believed to be low by most. For many, an important consideration appeared to be the low 

13 
probability and consequences of disease transmission from mosquitoes vs. the certainty of 

physiological reactions to mosquito bites and collateral impacts from most protective measures. 

Any collateral impacts from engineering alternatives (e.g., fans, racquets, blowers, landscaping, 

maintenance), physical barriers (bug jackets, other protective clothing), or 

communication/education generally were described as inconvenient but acceptable. 

On the other hand, there were differing opinions and a broad range of perceptions of risk 

regarding protective measures that involved chemicals (i.e., repellents and insecticides). While 

some were unconcerned about potential health effects from these chemicals, others believed risks 

from chemical exposure were worse than risks associated with mosquito bites. Much of the 

variation in response was attributed to personal levels of tolerance for risks from mosquitoes vs. 

chemicals, although many desired more information to help them better assess this trade-off for 

themselves. They indicated that their comfort level would be greater with information that 

increased their certainty about (1) health and safety risk assessments for the specific conditions 

experienced by employees at EVER, and (2) potential negative health impacts from any chemical 

protective measures. 

In addition to uncertainty, a number of other “outrage factors” appeared to play an important role 

at EVER: uncontrollability, man-made origin, and dread. These outrage factors are generally 

recognized as contributing to greater perceptions of risk than activities with more certainty, 

greater controllability, of natural origin, or that are not dreaded, even if the risk hazard (e.g., 

probabilities of disease, serious injury) is the same (Slovic 2001; Covello and Sandman 2001). 

Addressing outrage factors can be as important as addressing the hazard itself, especially when 

hazard probability is low. Control was important in terms of ability to control both exposure to 

mosquitoes and control over collateral impacts of protective measures. Given the varying levels 

of tolerance to both sets of risks, interviewees desired access to a broader suite of tools so that 

individuals would feel empowered to pick and choose those that matched their comfort level. 

Mosquitoes were identified by most as only one in a number of cumulative impacts that affected 

living/working conditions during the rainy season. Others included heat, humidity, and 

hurricanes, none of which can be controlled under outdoor conditions. Providing protective 

measures against mosquitoes is the one area where there is potential for NPS to improve outdoor 

conditions during the rainy season. In residences and offices, heat and humidity are controlled, 

which may have contributed to the desire for better protection against mosquitoes in these 

contexts as well. Interviewees also indicated differential tolerance of risk in natural vs. 

developed areas of the park, and no one advocated spraying outside of developed areas. In 

natural areas, mosquitoes were more accepted as part of the native ecology. In developed areas, 

tolerance was much lower and the same risks were less acceptable. Thus, staff are likely to be 

critical of criteria developed for protection of natural areas that are applied directly to developed 

areas. Engaging staff in dialogue that contributes to determining appropriate criteria would 

address this concern as well as build trust between divisions, especially since many felt that they 

lacked voice in decisions that affected their lifestyle and working conditions. 

Lack of control also may be linked to perceptions of dread (Slovic et al. 2005). Dread is 

associated with risks that evoke fear, terror, or anxiety, which have been shown to be judged as 

greater risks than activities that do not arouse such feelings or emotions (Covello and Sandman 

2001). As previously noted, these emotional reactions were present in almost every interview 

14 
and focus group. Residents described a constant state of dread throughout the rainy season, with 

mental preparation and strategizing as a part of life. The “window of opportunity” provided by 

insecticide spraying appeared to be as important in providing a break from the dread associated 

with mosquitoes as providing reduction in mosquito density, as observed by interviewees who 

described this activity as boosting morale. Improving maintenance and landscaping to more 

effectively keep mosquitoes out of buildings or developing other activities that provide a 

psychological break also would be appreciated. 

While most interviewees acknowledged seasonality of mosquito impacts, in general, they did not 

speak of expectations that were in line with actual living and working conditions. Many 

acknowledged that they were aware there would be high densities of mosquitoes when they 

accepted their position, yet, after they arrived realized they had no frame of reference for actual 

conditions. Providing all employees with mosquito nets for beds, bug jackets, rackets, and 

repellents would send a signal that living/working conditions in the park are very different than 

in other areas in the U.S. This information could be included when potential employees are 

considering a position in the park, so they are clearly aware of the conditions of employment 

they are accepting. If providing such safety equipment for all employees is cost prohibitive, 

EVER could at minimum provide all employees with information describing the pros and cons of 

various options, including approximate costs and how to acquire them. 

NPS Management Policies (2006) section 4.4.5, Pest Management, states that native pests will 

be allowed to function unimpeded unless control is necessary to: 

“...conserve listed, rare or unique species or communities...preserve cultural resources, 

protect plants, animals, and facilities in developed areas; prevent outbreaks of a pest from 

invading uninfested areas outside the park; manage a human health hazard when advised 

to do so by the U. S. Public Health Service...or otherwise protect against a significant 

threat to human safety” (p.48). 

The NPS Office of Public Health and Risk Management Program have reviewed available data 

and did not find evidence of significant human health or safety risks. However, there are areas 

where additional data could be gathered. Currently, health risks are based on passive surveillance 

based on county data. Active surveillance to test mosquitoes in EVER would provide more 

accurate determination of disease risk in the park and would address interviewee desires for 

better information about exposure to health risks in the park. In addition, resolving some of the 

conditions that affect safety reporting, such as streamlining reporting procedures and addressing 

the degree to which increased accident reporting would affect employee retention, are necessary 

to improve the accuracy of safety assessments. 

Because the existing body of science on health, safety, and resource impacts does not support the 

application of pesticides in the housing and maintenance areas to control native mosquito species 

under current NPS policy, any consideration of use of pesticides will require policy review and 

NEPA compliance, which can be a lengthy process. In the mean time, interviewees identified a 

suite of actions the park can implement immediately that would improve their living/working 

conditions and would not require policy review. Many of these actions include dialogue or 

communication between divisions (e.g., joint participation in studies, coordination of orientation 

15 
materials), which could begin to address trust and may reveal other potential alternatives that 

have not been identified to date. 

16 
17 

Literature Cited 

Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative 

criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13 (1):3-21. 

Covello, V. T., and P. M. Sandman. 2001. Risk communication: Evolution and revolution. In 

Solutions to an Environment in Peril, edited by A. Wolbarst, 164-178. Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University Press. Available at 

http://www.psandman.com/articles/covello.htm. Last accessed February 15, 2010. 

Decker, D. J., T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer. 2001. Human dimensions of wildlife management 

in North America. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society. 

Decker, D. J., W. F. Siemer, K. M. Leong, S. J. Riley, B. A. Rudolph, and L. H. Carpenter. 2009. 

Conclusion: What is Wildlife Management? In Wildlife and Society: The Science of 

Human Dimensions, edited by M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker and 

E. A. Duke, 315-327. Washington, DC: Island Press 

Evensen, D. T. N., and C. E. Clarke. 2009. Efficacy Information in Media Coverage of Infectious 

Disease Risks: An Ill Predicament? Paper read at Association for Education in Journalism 

and Mass Communication Annual Convention, at Boston, MA. 

National Park Service. 2006. Management policies 2006. Washington, DC: National Park 

Service. 

Slovic, P. 2001. The risk game (Reprinted from 'The risk game'). Journal of Hazardous 

Materials 86 (1-3):17-24. 

Slovic, P., E. Peters, M. L. Finucane, and D. G. MacGregor. 2005. Affect, risk, and decision 

making. Health Psychology 24 (4):S35-S40. 

Appendix I: Background information and question guide 

The National Park Service (NPS) Office of Public Health and Biological Resource Management 

Division (BRMD) and Everglades National Park (EVER) are conducting studies to learn more 

about risk to employee health and safety from interactions with mosquitoes. As part of this 

work, we would like to learn more about employee perceptions, attitudes, and practices related to 

mosquito management in EVER to inform future management. You were selected as a possible 

participant because you live in a community in EVER or work in backcountry conditions. 

Kirsten Leong, BRMD Human Dimensions Program Manager, will be conducting focus groups 

and interviews in the park from June 8-12. Focus groups will be audio recorded and transcribed, 

interviewees can opt out of audio recording. Discussions will follow the questions outlined 

below, with room for elaboration on other associated topics you wish to discuss. 

If you would like to participate, please sign up for one of the available times with Janice Lynch. 

Question guide: 

1. What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think about mosquitoes at EVER? 

2. Please describe the living/field conditions at EVER with respect to your interactions with 

mosquitoes. 

a. How do these conditions compare to your expectations when accepting your 

position/housing situation? 

3. What concerns do you have, if any, related to your interactions with mosquitoes at 

EVER? 

a. How have your concerns changed over time? 

b. How are they different in work/non-work settings in EVER? 

c. How are they different from concerns when in other areas of south Florida? 

4. What do you do to protect yourself from being bitten? Why or why not? 

a. How did you learn about or decide to use these practices? 

5. What would help you better protect yourself from mosquitoes? 

6. What does NPS do to protect you from mosquitoes? 

a. How effective are these measures? Why or why not? 

b. How do these measures affect your lifestyle (positively and/or negatively)? 

c. How satisfied are you with the level of protection provided by NPS? Why? 

7. What could NPS do better to ensure you are adequately protected against mosquitoes? 

19
20 

Background: Mosquitoes play an important role in maintaining ecosystem balance and, like all 

wildlife, are protected under National Park Service policy. In subtropical habitats, such as 

Everglades National Park (EVER), mosquitoes can affect quality of life, particularly during the 

summer months, when dense populations significantly affect human activities. Mosquitoes are 

also potential vectors for human diseases, including West Nile virus infection and Eastern equine 

encephalitis. 

EVER is developing a pilot project to examine the impacts of mosquito spraying in developed 

areas when specified criteria have been met. NPS policy allows for the implementation of 

mosquito management actions when the threat of mosquito-borne diseases is imminent. At 

EVER, the disease risk is generally considered low, based on existing data from surrounding 

areas of Dade and Monroe counties. However, no data are routinely collected within the park. 

Overall project objectives: We are conducting public health and environmental surveys to 

achieve three objectives. Focus groups and interviews will focus on portions in bold. 

1) Describe the assessed and perceived risks for mosquito-borne disease transmission and 

identify other risks from living with mosquitoes at EVER 

2) Describe knowledge and practices of park employees regarding mosquito-borne 

diseases and their prevention 

3) Determine the need/support for and feasibility of developing a mosquito-borne disease 

monitoring and risk communication program at EVER 

Risks and Benefits of Participation: If you decide to participate in these discussions you may 

encounter the following risks: volunteering your time to participate and not reaping any tangible 

benefits of the study and being asked potentially uncomfortable questions regarding mosquitoborne disease management in Everglades National Park. You may also experience the following 

benefits: you will contribute to improving NPS understanding of employee perceptions, attitudes 

and practices related to mosquito-borne disease management in EVER which will lead to 

development of a quantitative survey, as well as contribute to management recommendations. 

Compensation: You will receive no compensation for your participation in this study. 

Voluntary Nature of Participation: Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect 

your current or future relations with the National Park Service. If you decide to participate, you 

are free to withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships. 

Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report we might 

publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you. Audio 

transcriptions and interview notes will be kept in a locked file; only the interviewer will have 

access to the records. Transcribed interviews will be kept at the BRMD Human Dimensions 

Program. 

Contacts and Questions: 

For more information, or if you have any questions, please contact: 

Kirsten Leong, BRMD Human Dimensions Program: 970-267-2191, Kirsten_Leong@nps.gov

David Hallac, Chief, Biol. Resources Branch, EVER: 305-224-4239, David_Hallac@nps.gov

Janice Lynch, Ecologist, EVER: 305-242-7867, Janice_Lynch@nps.gov
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities. 

NPS 160/102003, April 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM