Christine McHugh - DMUG 2014
-
Upload
institution-of-environmental-sciences -
Category
Environment
-
view
284 -
download
0
Transcript of Christine McHugh - DMUG 2014
Comparison of Air Quality in World CitiesDr. Christine McHugh, Amec Foster WheelerDispersion Modelling Users Group, 2nd December 2014
Contents
The Scope of the Report
Ranking Method
About the Monitoring Data Type of the monitoring sites Siting criteria Number of monitoring sites
About the Air Quality Limits
Comparison of London with Other Cities
Summary
1
Disclaimer:This presentation is based on a report prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited for the GLA and TfL
The Scope of the Report
2
The Scope of the Report
http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/clearing-londons-air/useful-documents
A global comparison - air quality in London is compared with airquality in cities around the world, based on monitored data
The global comparison goes beyond previous studies in terms of thebreadth of cities considered, the number of pollutants included and useof recent data
To make a wide global comparison (39 cities) using the availabledata, only annual averages of pollution (long term) have been used
The ranking methodology developed is flexible enough that it could beused to look at short term measures of pollutions for those cities withsuitable data
3
The Ranking Method
4
Issues to Consider
Quality and quantity of data
Number, location and type of monitoring station
Geographical and meteorological factors
An index of multiple pollutants
The role of short term exceedences
5
Existing Ranking Methods
The European Environment Agency - State and Outlook 2010 (EEA)
Aphekom Project 2008-2011
Air Pollution at Street Level in European Cities (EEA)
Soot-free for the Climate!
Perception of Air Quality 2009 - Urban Audit
WHO Urban Outdoor Air Pollution Database
Environment Canada
Some methods are highly subjective!
6
Existing Ranking Methods
Aphekom Project 2008-2011 Respondents were asked for
their perception of a wide varietyof issues within their city, theseincluded air quality and poverty.
Size of the city seems to matter.
17 out of the 23 cities where themajority of respondents thoughtthat air pollution was not a majorproblem have 500,000 or fewerinhabitants.
9 out of the 13 cities with themost unfavourable perception ofair pollution have more than500,000 inhabitants.
7
Existing Ranking Methods
Soot-free for the Climate! Data gathered by questionnaire, some cities even if questionnaire not
returned Information supplied by the cities unlikely to be comparable e.g. reduction
success, participation, information A measure such as increasing public awareness carried the same weight
as a measure such as the implementation of an LEZ such as the LondonLEZ, and the London LEZ that is rigorously enforced could be given thesame weight as an LEZ that has no system of enforcement;
Differences in governance between cities would account for differences inresponses
Most measures relate to changes in policy rather than measuringimprovement of present concentrations. High rankings attached towillingness to improve, regardless of whether air quality actually improvesand regardless of the current levels of pollution
The only category relating to the reduction of measured concentrationsonly considers PM10
8
Existing Ranking Methods
Hairy nose index
Based on the joke premisethat the more polluted a city’sair is, the more nasal hairpeople will need to be able to“survive without clean air”.
9
http://cleanairasia.org/hairynose/home
Existing Indices Reporting Air Pollution Levels
UK Air QualityIndex
CITEAIRCommon AirQuality Index,CAQI (right).Also a yearaverage index(YACAQI)
WHO AirQualityGuidelines
10
The Ranking Method
A multi-pollutant weighted index of annual average concentrations
Concentrations are normalised with respect to an annual average valuesuch as the EU limit value
The ranking methodology proposed is flexible
The index used has a pollutant mixture and weighting suitable for amixture of traffic, industrial and fossil-fuelled heating sources Citywide - general - NO2: 0.3; PM10: 0.3; SO2:0.3; PM2.5: 0.1;
Sensitivity tests considered a weighting scheme suitable for cities withtraffic as the dominant source and a weighting that reflects the relativehealth impacts of different pollutants: Citywide/Traffic Focussed - NO2: 0.4; PM10: 0.4; PM2.5: 0.2; Health Impacts - NO2: 0.02; SO2:0.03; PM10: 0.71; PM2.5: 0.24.
11
About the Monitoring Data
12
About the Monitoring Data: Type
Monitoring sites can be classified as: Traffic/ UrbanBackground/Suburban/Rural/Industrial
Classifications can vary, in some cities traffic monitoring sites are atleast 10m from the kerb
Not all countries/cities report the type of the monitoring sites
Amongst cities reporting site type, London has a high proportion oftraffic sites, as do Brussels, Milan, Munich and Stuttgart (but Londonhas by far the greatest number of sites)
13
About the Monitoring Data: Siting Requirements
EU Directive – European Cities Monitoring Programmes Responsibility of the Member State Purpose is for judging compliance – sites must be representative
UK Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Responsibility of local government Purpose – can vary, may investigate hot spots
14
About the Monitoring Data: Siting Requirements
EU Directive – European Cities Monitoring Programmes “Sampling points shall in general be sited in such a way as to avoid
measuring very small micro-environments in their immediate vicinity, whichmeans that a sampling point must be sited in such a way that the airsampled is representative of air quality for a street segment no less than100 m length at traffic-orientated sites”;
“The inlet probe shall not be positioned in the immediate vicinity of sourcesin order to avoid the direct intake of emissions unmixed with ambient air”.
UK Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) “The site should not be close to local or point emissions sources, unless
these have been specifically targeted for investigation”; “Try to site the monitors as near to the point of public exposure as possible”.
15
About the Monitoring Data: Number of Sites
London has a very large number of automatic monitoring sites: 157
By comparison, Paris has 32 year-round sites
In EU cities, there tend to be few monitoring sites other than the officialsites for EU reporting – except in London
In London there are 17 official sites for EU reporting, the remainder(139) have been located by local government
London has almost 2 monitoring stations per 100,000 habitants,bettered only by Amsterdam and Vancouver
London has 1 monitoring site per 0.1km2, bettered only by Barcelona,Brussels and Vancouver
16
Considering individual sites reportedto the EU for compliance
In 2010 the highest NO2 concentration was recorded in Florence,followed by a site in Stuttgart, then Munich, then Marylebone Road inLondon
In 2011, the sites in Florence and Stuttgart recorded higherconcentrations than Marylebone Road.
In 2013, one site in Paris recorded higher concentrations thanMarylebone Road
Concentrations at Marylebone Road have fallen each year from 2009:107.0 µg/m3 >> 98.3 µg/m3 >> 97.2 µg/m3 >> 94.0 µg/m3 >>80.6µg/m3
17
About the Air Quality Limits
18
About the Air Quality Limits
Limits for annual average NO2 across the world
EU: 40 µg/m3
US: 101 µg/m3 (53ppb) http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
Chinese API based on daily averages Excellent: up to 80 µg/m3
Good: 81-120 µg/m3
19
http://www.mep.gov.cn/
Comparison of London with Other Cities
20
The world’s most polluted cities (PM10)
October 2013, Quartz using WHO data on PM10
1. Ahwaz, Iran
2. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
3. Sanandaj, Iran
4. Ludhiana, India
5. Quetta, Pakistan
6. Kermanshah, Iran
7. Peshawar, Pakistan
8. Gaborone, Botswana
9. Yasouj, Iran
10. Kanpur, India
21
http://science.time.com/2013/10/18/the-10-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world/
The world’s most polluted cities (PM10)
http://science.time.com/2013/10/18/the-10-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world/
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
[1st] Ahwaz [10th] Kampur London
AnnualAverage
Concentrationof PM10(mg/m3)
22
Comparison for PM10
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
23
Non-EU City PM10 (mg/m3)
Cairo 140Beijing 122Mumbai 103Shanghai 81Mexico City 56Rio de Janeiro 55Jakarta 53Istanbul 53Hong Kong 48Los Angeles 39Sao Paulo 37Singapore 27London 25
EU City PM10 (mg/m3)
Milan 44Bucharest 40Warsaw 36Budapest 33Rome 32Paris 32Stuttgart 30Barcelona 30Brussels 28Munich 28Prague 27Berlin 27Vienna 27Amsterdam 26London 25
Comparison for PM10
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
24
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Non-EU Cities, PM10 (mg/m3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50EU Cities, PM10 (mg/m3)
Comparison for PM2.5
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
25
Non-EU City PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Cairo 140Beijing 122Mumbai 103Shanghai 81Mexico City 56Rio de Janeiro 55Jakarta 53Istanbul 53Hong Kong 48Los Angeles 39Sao Paulo 37Singapore 27London 25
EU City PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Milan 44Bucharest 40Warsaw 36Budapest 33Rome 32Paris 32Stuttgart 30Barcelona 30Brussels 28Munich 28Prague 27Berlin 27Vienna 27Amsterdam 26London 25
Comparison for PM2.5
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Non-EU Cities, PM2.5 (mg/m3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
EU Cities, PM2.5 (mg/m3)
Comparison for SO2
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
27
EU City SO2 (mg/m3)
Bucharest 10Madrid 8Warsaw 7Budapest 6Munich 5Prague 4Brussels 4London 4
Non-EU City SO2 (mg/m3)Jakarta 52Shanghai 38Beijing 34Cairo 31Hong Kong 21Mumbai 18Mexico City 15New York 12Singapore 10Istanbul 8Sao Paulo 7Tokyo 5Rio de Janeiro 5Chicago 5London 4
Comparison for SO2
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
28
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
EU Cities, SO2 (mg/m3)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Non-EU Cities, SO2 (mg/m3)
Comparison for NO2
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
29
EU City NO2 (mg/m3)
Stuttgart 71
Milan 60
Munich 56
London 52
Non-EU City NO2 (mg/m3)
Mexico City 103
Hong Kong 69
Istanbul 66
Beijing 53
Shanghai 53
London 52
Comparison for NO2
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
EU Cities, NO2 (mg/m3)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Non-EU Cities, NO2 (mg/m3)
Comparison of NO2 for traffic sites only
Average of 5 years annual averages (2008-2012)
31
EU City NO2 (mg/m3)
Mexico City* 102
Stuttgart 82
Paris 72
Hong Kong* 70
Munich 69
Rome 68
Milan 66
Istanbul* 65
Bucharest 65
London 63
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NO2 at traffic sites (mg/m3)
*all monitoring stations, not just traffic sites
Summary
32
Citywide Index - Ranking
33
City Rank
Vancouver 1Sydney 2Stockholm 3Vienna 4Berlin 5Amsterdam 6Chicago 7Singapore 8Prague 9Frankfurt 10Brussels 11Paris 12Budapest 13Los Angeles 14London 15Barcelona 16New York 17Madrid 18
City Rank
Tokyo 19Warsaw 20Rome 21Munich 22Sao Paulo 23Moscow 24Bucharest 25Stuttgart 26Rio de Janeiro 27Milan 28Istanbul 29Hong Kong 30Mexico city 31Jakarta 32Mumbai 33Shanghai 34Beijing 35Cairo 36
Citywide/Traffic Focussed Index - Ranking
34
City Rank
Vancouver 1Sydney 2Singapore 3Stockholm 4Chicago 5Vienna 6New York 7Prague 8Berlin 9Amsterdam 10Moscow 11Madrid 12Frankfurt 13Brussels 14Budapest 15Warsaw 16London 17Paris 18
City Rank
Barcelona 19Los Angeles 20Sao Paulo 21Jakarta 22Munich 23Bucharest 24Rome 25Stuttgart 26Tokyo 27Milan 28Rio de Janeiro 29Hong Kong 30Istanbul 31Shanghai 32Mexico city 33Beijing 34Cairo 35Mumbai 36
Health Impacts Index - Ranking
35
City RankVancouver 1Sydney 2New York 3Stockholm 4Chicago 5Madrid 6Tokyo 7Frankfurt 8London 9Moscow 10Amsterdam 11Prague 12Vienna 13Singapore 14Munich 15Berlin 16Brussels 17Barcelona 18
City RankStuttgart 19Paris 20Rome 21Budapest 22Sao Paulo 23Los Angeles 24Warsaw 25Bucharest 26Milan 27Hong Kong 28Mexico city 29Istanbul 30Rio de Janeiro 31Jakarta 32Shanghai 33Mumbai 34Beijing 35Cairo 36
Summary
How does London’s air quality compare with that in cities around theworld? There are many cities around the world with exceedingly high levels of particulate
pollution Considering the pollutants of concern in the EU, London has low levels of PM10, PM2.5
and SO2
On a citywide basis the NO2 concentration in London is lower than that in Stuttgart,Milan and Munich (and cities outside the EU)
Considering traffic sites only, the NO2 concentration in London is lower than that inStuttgart, Paris, Munich, Rome, Milan, Bucharest (and cities outside the EU).
London has many more automatic monitoring sites than other EU cities with high qualitydata and easy, transparent access
Many of the monitoring sites have been sited by local government investigating hotspots rather than by Member States looking for representative locations. Note that insome (non-EU) cities traffic sites are at least 10m from the kerb.
36