Accountability in Air Quality Management -

1. Accountability in Air Quality Management - Assessing the Effectiveness of Local and National Policies Benjamin Barratt, King’s College London

2. Accountability in air qualitymanagement - assessing the effectiveness of local and national policies Ben Barratt, King’s College London A Clearer Future Conference, 22nd September 2010

3. Contents • What is Accountability? • Why do we need Accountability? • How can we carry out an Accountability Study? • Some examples • Conclusions and advice

4. IMPROVED ACTION Regulatory or other action Emissions Compliance, effectiveness Atmospheric transport, chemical transformation and deposition Ambient air quality Human time-activity patterns in relation to indoor and outdoor air quality. Uptake, deposition clearance, retention in body Exposure / dose Susceptibility factors; physiologic mechanisms of damage and repair Human health response What is Accountability? Regulatory or other action Emissions Ambient air quality Exposure / dose Human health response From HEI, 2003

5. Why do we need accountability? • Atmospheric science is complicated and difficult to predict. • People are even more complicated and difficult to predict! • Very little proof of how effective our AQM actions are. • Was the policy successful in reducing concentrations? • What area was affected? • Were there unexpected effects? • Was it financially/socially/(politically) worthwhile? • How could it be improved/evolved? • Forming a body of evidence

6. We need accountability because...

7. We need accountability because...

8. How do we carry out a study? • A) Emissions modelling • Most commonly used method, often in planning stage • Use modelling to influence the policy – scenario testing • Depends on good emissions inventories • B) Pollutant monitoring • More difficult but essential until body of evidence established • What areas are likely to experience the greatest effect? • What are the target pollutants? • Is there sufficient traffic and pollutant monitoring in place in these locations or is more required? • Monitoring should commence well in advance of implementation.

9. How do we carry out a study? • C) Health effects assessment • Very difficult! Only for large or very targeted schemes • Exposure / Dose response can be implied from other data or directly monitored using sample population. • Health Response can be assessed using hospital records, GP databases, questionnaires • Established risk factors for certain pollutants, i.e., estimated change in number of deaths per 10 µg m-3 change in the pollutant concentration.

10. Example accountability studies • National policy - Irish coal bans • Localised policy/intervention – waste transfer site • TiO2 coatings – a solution to all our NO2 problems? • Pre-planned study – London Low Emission Zone

11. Dublin coal bans (black smoke) Source: Dockery et al, 2010 (in preparation)

12. Interventions at waste transfer site (PM10) Source: Barratt & Fuller, 2008

13. Interventions at waste transfer site (PM10) Source: Barratt & Fuller, 2008

14. Camden TiO2 Paint trial • A oxidising additive the reacts with NO and NO2, therefore seen as a ‘silver bullet’ for NO2 problems. • Many flawed studies but very little robust evidence in the real world. • Three year study within a courtyard in central London

15. Camden TiO2 Paint trial • Continuous measurements of NO, NO2 and NOX at 0.1 m & 1.5 m from the painted wall. • ‘Paint effect’ quantified by comparing concentrations recorded by each analyser and other surrounding analysers prior to and following the intervention. • Three phases: • Co-location (both inlets at 1.5 m): 7 weeks. • Pre-intervention (inlets separated, no paint): 16 months. • Post intervention (inlets separated, paint): 9 months.

16. Camden TiO2 Paint trial • Diurnal variation in controlled NOX (NW sector only) • Change occurs in August, not at intervention in April

17. Camden TiO2 Paint trial • Will NOX concentrations increase again?...

18. London LEZ full accountability study • Modelled scenarios • Monitoring network – pollution and traffic • Compliance data • Pollutant analysis, including particle metrics • Toxicity • Health response studies

19. London LEZ study – modelled scenarios

20. LEZ study – monitoring network Source: Barratt et al, 2009

21. London LEZ study - compliance rates Source: Barratt et al, 2009

22. LEZ study - Reduction in CBLK Source: Barratt et al, 2009

23. London LEZ study - vehicle flows Cars & Taxis HGVs Source: Barratt et al, 2009

24. London LEZ study – PM2.5& CBLK Weekdays Weekends Source: Barratt et al, 2009

25. London LEZ study – EXHALE • Sampling of year 4 children in ten East London primary schools. • Annual 2008 – 2012 • 150 children • Spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide, questionnaire, buccal swab, urine, induced sputum, saliva.

26. Accountability in climate change • Urban CO2 monitoring network for London. • Assessing the effectiveness of vehicle-related CO2 reduction initiatives.

27. Some practical advice • LAQM process is now at the action stage – take accountability seriously or we may all bark up the wrong tree! • Planning is required, but a lot can be achieved with a well planned study. • Use targeted monitoring, including traffic data for traffic schemes, active well in advance of implementation. • Accessible analysis methods are being developed to assist you – e.g., openair (openair-project.org), CUSUM. • A body of evidence for LAQM options will follow.

28. benjamin.barratt@kcl.ac.uk020 7848 4034 Thank you For more specific advice & method explanation: