Analysis of NO 2 and PM 1 Air Pollution and Social Deprivation Steve Pye NETCEN AEA Technology Environment
Study Objectives Link between air quality and inequality existence of spatial correlation Implications for policy makers - disproportionate benefits for targeted policy strategies
Background to study Follows an initial pilot study (King and Stedman 2) Similar GIS methodologies using more up-to-date deprivation data and air quality maps Specific urban analysis areas selected by devolved administrations involved in study
Urban analysis areas Greater London (all boroughs) Birmingham City District Greater Belfast (includes Belfast, North Down, Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey, Lisburn and Castlereagh) Cardiff City Council
GIS Methodology Average pollutant concentrations derived for each ward Pollutant concentrations plotted against ward deprivation values Assessment of correlation between two parameters
Deprivation Index - Greater London
Data sources Pollutant concentration maps from air quality modelling work undertaken by netcen Social Deprivation Statistics from work by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre at Oxford University
Social Deprivation Data Each deprivation index set is made up of 6-7 domains A deprivation score for each domain is attributed to each ward Domains aggregated to produce overall multiple deprivation index
Deprivation index domains Domain categories include: Income Employment Health Education Housing Access to services Social environment (NI)
1998 Greater London NO 2 vs. Multiple Deprivation 7 Bloomsbury 6 West London Southwark 5 NO 2 (ug/m 3 ) 4 3 Bexley N. Kensington Brent Sutton Eltham 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index NO2 1998 Monitoring sites Regression (NO2 1998)
1998 Greater London PM 1 vs. Multiple Deprivation 35 3 Bloomsbury 25 Eltham Bexley Brent PM 1 (ug/m 3 ) 2 15 N. Kensington 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index PM1 1998 Monitoring sites Regression (PM1 1998)
1998 Birmingham PM 1 vs. Multiple Deprivation 3 25 Birmingham Centre 2 Birmingham East PM 1 (ug/m 3 ) 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index PM1 1998 Monitoring sites Regression (PM1 1998)
1998 Greater Belfast PM 1 vs. Multiple Deprivation 4 35 3 25 Belfast Centre PM 1 (ug/m 3 ) 2 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Deprivation Index PM1 1998 Monitoring sites Regression (PM1 1998)
1998 Cardiff NO 2 vs. Multiple Deprivation 5 45 4 Cardiff Centre 35 NO 2 (ug/m 3 ) 3 25 2 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Deprivation Index NO2 1998 Monitoring sites Regression (NO2 1998)
Deprivation Index - Cardiff City Council
Average NO 2 Concentrations - Cardiff City Council
Greater London Banded Average Plot Analysis 5 3 Average pollutant concentration (ug/m 3 ) 4 3 2 2 1 Ward count Ward count NO2 1998 NO2 21b NO2 21wm PM1 1998 PM1 21b PM1 21wm 1-5 5-1 1-15 15-2 2-25 25-3 3-35 35-4 4-45 45-5 5-55 55-6 6-65 65-7 7-75 75-8 Deprivation score range
Greater Belfast Banded Average Plot Analysis 4 1 8 Average pollutant concentration (ug/m 3 ) 3 2 1 6 4 Ward count Ward count NO2 1998 NO2 21b NO2 21wm PM1 1998 PM1 21b PM1 21wm 2-5 5-1 1-15 15-2 2-25 25-3 3-35 35-4 4-45 45-5 5-55 55-6 6-65 65-7 7-75 75-8 Deprivation score range
Does relationship exist? London, Birmingham and Belfast appear to show positive correlation, suggesting increased levels of pollution in the more deprived wards Cardiff does not appear to show any significant relationship Statistical analysis backs these visual assumptions up
Analysis of index domains Specific indicators may get hidden within the multiple deprivation index Provides more detailed analysis of different aspects of deprivation and the spatial relationship with NO 2 and PM 1
Greater London 1998 NO 2 vs. Housing deprivation domain 7 6 5 NO 2 (ug/m 3 ) 4 3 2 1-3 -2-1 1 2 3 4 Specific indicator score (Housing)
Greater London 1998 NO 2 vs. Education deprivation domain 35 3 25 PM 1 (ug/m 3 ) 2 15 1 5-3 -2-1 1 2 3 Specific indicator score (Education)
Greater London 1998 NO 2 vs. Access deprivation domain 35 3 25 PM 1 (ug/m 3 ) 2 15 1 5-3 -2.5-2 -1.5-1 -.5.5 1 1.5 Specific indicator score (Access)
Specific indicators of deprivation Positively correlated domains tend to be the most heavily weighted in the overall deprivation index Education - no apparent significant correlation Access - negatively correlated Degree of significance differs between analysis areas
Projected improvements in air quality Where do reductions in concentrations between baseline and 21 scenarios fall spatially? Driving policy strategy by directing resources where marginal benefits will be greatest
Reductions in NO 2 between 1998 and 21 in Greater London 2 Baseline NO 2 reduction between 1998 and 21 (ug/m 3 ) 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index
Reductions in PM1 between 1998 and 21 in Greater London 1 Baseline PM 1 reduction between 1998 and 21 (ug/m 3 ) 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index
Reductions in PM1 between 21b and 21wm in Greater London 2.5 Additional PM 1 reduction from the 21 baseline arising from additional measures (ug/m 3 ) 2. 1.5 1..5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index
Roadside NO 2 vs. Deprivation Index
1998 Greater London Roadside PM 1 vs. Multiple Deprivation 6 5 Average PM1 Concentration (ug/m3) 4 3 2 Marylebone Road A3 Roadside Sutton Camden Haringey 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Deprivation Index Roadside PM1 1998 Monitoring Sites
Roadside NO 2 and PM 1 by Deprivation score range in Greater London 7 25 6 Average Pollutant Concentration (ug/m3) 5 4 3 2 1 2 15 1 5 Count of Roads -5 5-1 1-15 15-2 2-25 25-3 3-35 35-4 4-45 45-5 5-55 55-6 6-65 65-7 7-75 Deprivation Score Range Count of Roads NO2 1998 PM1 1998
Conclusions Evidence of higher levels of air pollution in wards with higher deprivation levels Different relationships exist between air pollution and specific deprivation domains Potentially increased marginal benefits for more deprived areas if resources targeted