Cargando…

Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations

The potential to capture additional air pollutants by introducing more vegetation or changing existing short vegetation to woodland on first sight provides an attractive route for lowering urban pollution. Here, an atmospheric chemistry and transport model was run with a range of landcover scenarios...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nemitz, Eiko, Vieno, Massimo, Carnell, Edward, Fitch, Alice, Steadman, Claudia, Cryle, Philip, Holland, Mike, Morton, R. Daniel, Hall, Jane, Mills, Gina, Hayes, Felicity, Dickie, Ian, Carruthers, David, Fowler, David, Reis, Stefan, Jones, Laurence
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7536036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32981438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0320
_version_ 1783590481940185088
author Nemitz, Eiko
Vieno, Massimo
Carnell, Edward
Fitch, Alice
Steadman, Claudia
Cryle, Philip
Holland, Mike
Morton, R. Daniel
Hall, Jane
Mills, Gina
Hayes, Felicity
Dickie, Ian
Carruthers, David
Fowler, David
Reis, Stefan
Jones, Laurence
author_facet Nemitz, Eiko
Vieno, Massimo
Carnell, Edward
Fitch, Alice
Steadman, Claudia
Cryle, Philip
Holland, Mike
Morton, R. Daniel
Hall, Jane
Mills, Gina
Hayes, Felicity
Dickie, Ian
Carruthers, David
Fowler, David
Reis, Stefan
Jones, Laurence
author_sort Nemitz, Eiko
collection PubMed
description The potential to capture additional air pollutants by introducing more vegetation or changing existing short vegetation to woodland on first sight provides an attractive route for lowering urban pollution. Here, an atmospheric chemistry and transport model was run with a range of landcover scenarios to quantify pollutant removal by the existing total UK vegetation as well as the UK urban vegetation and to quantify the effect of large-scale urban tree planting on urban air pollution. UK vegetation as a whole reduces area (population)-weighted concentrations significantly, by 10% (9%) for PM(2.5), 30% (22%) for SO(2), 24% (19%) for NH(3) and 15% (13%) for O(3), compared with a desert scenario. By contrast, urban vegetation reduces average urban PM(2.5) by only approximately 1%. Even large-scale conversion of half of existing open urban greenspace to forest would lower urban PM(2.5) by only another 1%, suggesting that the effect on air quality needs to be considered in the context of the wider benefits of urban tree planting, e.g. on physical and mental health. The net benefits of UK vegetation for NO(2) are small, and urban tree planting is even forecast to increase urban NO(2) and NOx concentrations, due to the chemical interaction with changes in BVOC emissions and O(3), but the details depend on tree species selection. By extrapolation, green infrastructure projects focusing on non-greenspace (roadside trees, green walls, roof-top gardens) would have to be implemented at very large scales to match this effect. Downscaling of the results to micro-interventions solely aimed at pollutant removal suggests that their impact is too limited for their cost–benefit analysis to compare favourably with emission abatement measures. Urban vegetation planting is less effective for lowering pollution than measures to reduce emissions at source. The results highlight interactions that cannot be captured if benefits are quantified via deposition models using prescribed concentrations, and emission damage costs. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Air quality, past present and future’.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7536036
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher The Royal Society Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75360362020-10-07 Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations Nemitz, Eiko Vieno, Massimo Carnell, Edward Fitch, Alice Steadman, Claudia Cryle, Philip Holland, Mike Morton, R. Daniel Hall, Jane Mills, Gina Hayes, Felicity Dickie, Ian Carruthers, David Fowler, David Reis, Stefan Jones, Laurence Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci Articles The potential to capture additional air pollutants by introducing more vegetation or changing existing short vegetation to woodland on first sight provides an attractive route for lowering urban pollution. Here, an atmospheric chemistry and transport model was run with a range of landcover scenarios to quantify pollutant removal by the existing total UK vegetation as well as the UK urban vegetation and to quantify the effect of large-scale urban tree planting on urban air pollution. UK vegetation as a whole reduces area (population)-weighted concentrations significantly, by 10% (9%) for PM(2.5), 30% (22%) for SO(2), 24% (19%) for NH(3) and 15% (13%) for O(3), compared with a desert scenario. By contrast, urban vegetation reduces average urban PM(2.5) by only approximately 1%. Even large-scale conversion of half of existing open urban greenspace to forest would lower urban PM(2.5) by only another 1%, suggesting that the effect on air quality needs to be considered in the context of the wider benefits of urban tree planting, e.g. on physical and mental health. The net benefits of UK vegetation for NO(2) are small, and urban tree planting is even forecast to increase urban NO(2) and NOx concentrations, due to the chemical interaction with changes in BVOC emissions and O(3), but the details depend on tree species selection. By extrapolation, green infrastructure projects focusing on non-greenspace (roadside trees, green walls, roof-top gardens) would have to be implemented at very large scales to match this effect. Downscaling of the results to micro-interventions solely aimed at pollutant removal suggests that their impact is too limited for their cost–benefit analysis to compare favourably with emission abatement measures. Urban vegetation planting is less effective for lowering pollution than measures to reduce emissions at source. The results highlight interactions that cannot be captured if benefits are quantified via deposition models using prescribed concentrations, and emission damage costs. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Air quality, past present and future’. The Royal Society Publishing 2020-10-30 2020-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7536036/ /pubmed/32981438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0320 Text en © 2020 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Articles
Nemitz, Eiko
Vieno, Massimo
Carnell, Edward
Fitch, Alice
Steadman, Claudia
Cryle, Philip
Holland, Mike
Morton, R. Daniel
Hall, Jane
Mills, Gina
Hayes, Felicity
Dickie, Ian
Carruthers, David
Fowler, David
Reis, Stefan
Jones, Laurence
Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
title Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
title_full Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
title_fullStr Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
title_full_unstemmed Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
title_short Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
title_sort potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7536036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32981438
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0320
work_keys_str_mv AT nemitzeiko potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT vienomassimo potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT carnelledward potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT fitchalice potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT steadmanclaudia potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT crylephilip potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT hollandmike potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT mortonrdaniel potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT halljane potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT millsgina potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT hayesfelicity potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT dickieian potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT carruthersdavid potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT fowlerdavid potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT reisstefan potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations
AT joneslaurence potentialandlimitationofairpollutionmitigationbyvegetationanduncertaintiesofdepositionbasedevaluations