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


2


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


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


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


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


18


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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