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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |