Reducing Aedes albopictus breeding sites through education: A study in urban area

Abstract

Aedes albopictus tends to proliferate in small, often man-made bodies of water, largely present in urban private areas. For this reason, education and community participation are considered crucial for source reduction and mosquito control. In the current study, we identify mosquito breeding habitat and evaluate the effectiveness of resident education. Since 2010 several outbreaks of West Nile virus infection occurred in Greece however urban population has no previous experience with mosquito-borne disease related to Aedes species, such as Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya. After the introduction of Ae. albopictus in Greece, urban areas have been considered to be at risk of epidemic arboviral outbreaks and identifying effective control strategies is imperative. Our study examines the relationship between mosquito breeding sources and socioeconomic or demographic characteristics of different households in a Greek municipality and evaluates efficacy of resident education. The results revealed that only a minority of residents knew where mosquitoes breed (18.6%) and only 46% felt that residents had any responsibility for managing breeding habitat. Our findings strongly suggest that only the presence of scientific staff inspecting possible habitats in their properties, could be enough to stimulate practices towards source reduction. However, educational interventions alone with printed education material cannot enhance significant community participation and source reduction.

Fig 1. Distribution of under study households in the municipality of Palaio Faliro (Region of Attica- Greece; see more details for control and treatment households in text).

Fig 2. Diagram of the practice followed with KAP questionnaires and educational material for managing mosquito breeding sites.

Fig 3. Mean (±SE) number of containers by type of container (yard, structural, trash, total) in the 1^st and 2^nd visit for the control group.

Fig 4. Mean (±SE) number of containers by type of container (yard, structural, trash, total) in the 1^st and 2^nd visit for the treatment group.

Fig 5. Mean (±SE) total containers during the 1^st visit by education level.

Fig 6. Mean (±SE) total containers during the 2nd visit by education level.

Fig 7. Mean (±SE) motivation score whether the respondent was a building administrator or not.

Fig 8. Mean (±SE) motivation score by ownership status.

Fig 9. Mean (±SE) motivation score by education level.