Traffic-related air pollution and health co-benefits of alternative transport in Adelaide,South Australia |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Population Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia;2. The Department for Health and Ageing, South Australia, Australia;3. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;4. Environment Protection Authority, South Australia, Australia;1. Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States;2. Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States;3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States;1. Department of Natural Resources, TERI University, 10, Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, India;2. Department of Energy and Environment, TERI University, 10, Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, India;1. Centre for Air Pollution, Energy and Health Research, Australia;2. The University of Sydney, University Centre for Rural Health, School of Public Health, Sydney, Australia;3. Centre for Research and Action in Public Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia;4. School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia;5. South West Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Australia;6. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;7. The Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub & School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Australia;8. Woolcock Institute of Medical Research & South West Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;9. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia;10. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia;11. The University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney, Australia;12. Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;13. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales & Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, Australia;1. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland;2. University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland;3. Lufthygieneamt beider Basel, Departement für Wirtschaft, Soziales und Umwelt Basel-Stadt, Germany;4. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, United Kingdom;5. TNO, Netherlands Organization for Applied Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands;6. WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Bonn, Germany;7. Université de Montréal, Département de santé environnementale et santé au travail, École de santé publique, Canada;8. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Chemical Engineering, Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Thessaloniki, Greece;9. Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Chemical Process and Energy Resources Institute, Thermi, Greece;10. Bielefeld University, School of Public Health, Department 7 Environment & Health, Bielefeld, Germany;11. Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Section for Exposure Assessment and Health Indicators, Germany;12. Department of Environmental Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Kuopio, Finland;13. School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundMotor vehicle emissions contribute nearly a quarter of the world's energy-related greenhouse gases and cause non-negligible air pollution, primarily in urban areas. Changing people's travel behaviour towards alternative transport is an efficient approach to mitigate harmful environmental impacts caused by a large number of vehicles. Such a strategy also provides an opportunity to gain health co-benefits of improved air quality and enhanced physical activities. This study aimed at quantifying co-benefit effects of alternative transport use in Adelaide, South Australia.MethodWe made projections for a business-as-usual scenario for 2030 with alternative transport scenarios. Separate models including air pollution models and comparative risk assessment health models were developed to link alternative transport scenarios with possible environmental and health benefits.ResultsIn the study region with an estimated population of 1.4 million in 2030, by shifting 40% of vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) by passenger vehicles to alternative transport, annual average urban PM2.5 would decline by approximately 0.4 μg/m3 compared to business-as-usual, resulting in net health benefits of an estimated 13 deaths/year prevented and 118 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) prevented per year due to improved air quality. Further health benefits would be obtained from improved physical fitness through active transport (508 deaths/year prevented, 6569 DALYs/year prevented), and changes in traffic injuries (21 deaths and, 960 DALYs prevented).ConclusionAlthough uncertainties remain, our findings suggest that significant environmental and health benefits are possible if alternative transport replaces even a relatively small portion of car trips. The results may provide assistance to various government organisations and relevant service providers and promote collaboration in policy-making, city planning and infrastructure establishment. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
