Difference between revisions of "Health impacts of urban heat island mitigation in Europe"
From Testiwiki
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===Results=== | ===Results=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Uncertainties related to the heat exposure assessment==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *The temperature estimates modelled for the future are uncertain due to both assumptions and simplifications in the model as well as assumptions made in the IPCC scenarios on world development. | ||
| + | *The temperature data data may lead to underestimation of heat exposure in coastline cities. This is especially the case for those cities, or parts of the cities, which are located in grid cells where greater part of the cell area consists of sea. | ||
| + | *In the UHI mitigation policy analysis, uncertainties relate to both estimates on the amount of surface area that could be redeveloped from one surface cover type to another, as well as the actual cooling effects of these changes. It is unknown how well the estimates from the mitigation study conducted in New York City translate to the average European urban setting. | ||
| + | *Heat exposure assessment is complicated because urban areas contain numerous microclimates. The actual heat exposure of the city inhabitants, therefore, depends on the microclimatic conditions in which people actually spend their time. It is unclear how changes in the urban surface energy budget and average urban heat island intensity relate to changes in actual heat exposure. | ||
| + | *It is assumed in the assessment, that the absolute air humidity stays the same regardless of the implementation of UHI mitigation measures. This may very well not be true. For example, increasing urban vegetation would likely increase air humidity through higher evapotranspiration. This would subsequently be reflected in the level of discomfort related to a given level of air temperature. | ||
| + | *The interpretation of the results is complicated because the health impact of heat island intensity is actually embedded in the exposure-response function. Thus, in reality the cooling effect of the mitigation measures would be reflected in the association between background ambient temperature and mortality risk in a city, not in the used exposure indicator. In addition, the urban infrastructure is also likely to go through other changes in the future, which is ignored in the assessment. For example, the use of air conditioning could increase in European cities because of the increasing summer temperatures, which would lead to less severe heat exposure even if ambient temperatures rise. These types of factors would also be reflected in the exposure-response function. | ||
===Conclusions=== | ===Conclusions=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are many significant significant sources of uncertainty related to the assessment. However, when conducting an assessment on the scale of the whole Europe, it is necessary to make many simplifying assumptions. It is also evident, that there is a lack of simple modelling tools for this type and scale of assessment. The majority of the studies that are conducted on urban heat island mitigation are more local in their nature and make use of complex regional climate models. This kind of approach is not feasible in the time and budget frame of this particular assessment. Given these constraints, the validation of the used methodology is also difficult, as it would require comparisons with more sophisticated modelling approaches. Nevertheless, despite the various sources of uncertainty, the simple methodology used in this assessment can provide valuable insight into the magnitude of health impacts caused by heat exposure in Europe, as well as the potential and relative effectiveness of different policy options in mitigating urban heat island effect and heat exposure in cities. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 08:40, 14 December 2010
This page is a assessment.
The page identifier is Op_en4699 |
|---|
| Moderator:Virpi Kollanus (see all) |
| This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here. |
| Upload data
|
This assessment aims to quantify health impacts of heat exposure in large European cities and the effectiveness of different urban heat island mitigation policies in reducing these effects. It is a part of the Intarese Common Case Study.
Contents
Scope
Purpose
What are the current and future annual health impacts of heat exposure in large European cities? What is the potential and relative effectiveness of different urban heat island mitigation measures in reducing these impacts?
Boundaries
- Year: 2010, 2020, 2030, 2050
- Geographical area: EU-27, excluding Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania
- North-continental region: Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Sweden
- Mediterranean region: Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain
- Health impacts:
- Natural mortality
- Cardiovascular mortality
- Respiratory mortality
Scenarios
Future climate scenarios:
- IPCC A1B
- IPCC B1
Intended users
- Intarese Common Case Study
- Anyone interested
Participants
- The National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Finland
- University of Stuttgart
Definition
Upload a causal diagram and change the right name here.
Decision variables
- Options to mitigate urban heat island effect
- 1) Business-as-usual (BAU)
- No new UHI mitigation measures
- 2) Increasing urban forestry
- Trees are planted on open areas and street curbsides
- 10.8% of the total urban area is redeveloped from open grass to trees (open area planting)
- 6.7% of the total urban area is redeveloped from street to trees (curbside planting)
- 3) Increasing urban albedo
- Impervious roof and street surfaces are replaced by light colored surfaces
- 13.6% of the total urban area is redeveloped from impervious roof surface to light roof surface
- 34.4% of the total urban area is redeveloped from impervious street surface to light street surface
- 4) Increasing urban forestry and albedo
- 10.8% of the total urban area is redeveloped from open grass to trees (open area planting)
- 6.7% of the total urban area is redeveloped from street to trees (curbside planting)
- 13.6% of the total urban area is redeveloped from impervious roof surface to light roof surface
- 34.4% of the total urban area is redeveloped from impervious street surface to light street surface
- 1) Business-as-usual (BAU)
The fraction of the total urban area in large European cities available to be redeveloped from one land use or surface cover type to another is based on an urban heat island mitigation study conducted in New York City [1]
Indicators
Other variables
- Ambient air temperature in Europe
- Effect of urban land use change on ambient air temperature
- Heat exposure in Europe
- Population of Europe
- Mortality in Europe
- ERF of ambient temperature on mortality
- Following WP3.7-work and WP4.3-screening, DRF will be based on the PHEWE project, which investigated the acute health effects of weather in 15 European cities and provided both pooled estimates (Mediterranean region and North-Continental region) of the impact of heat on mortality (Michelozzi et al. 2007; Baccini et al. 2008). DRFs are based on a linear threshold model. Heat exposure is defined as follows: °C Daily maximum Apparent Temperature over threshold temperature, warm season (April-September).
- Assumption: Threshold and the DRF differ for the Mediterranean region and the North-continental region; we therefore assume that the EU-27 can be divided into two larger regions with different DRF.
- Assumption: Temperatures above thresholds will only occur in warm season (April-September)
- Assumption: DRF for mortality due to natural causes can be applied to total mortality
Analyses
Qualitative and quantitative uncertainty analyses
Indices
Result
Results
- The temperature estimates modelled for the future are uncertain due to both assumptions and simplifications in the model as well as assumptions made in the IPCC scenarios on world development.
- The temperature data data may lead to underestimation of heat exposure in coastline cities. This is especially the case for those cities, or parts of the cities, which are located in grid cells where greater part of the cell area consists of sea.
- In the UHI mitigation policy analysis, uncertainties relate to both estimates on the amount of surface area that could be redeveloped from one surface cover type to another, as well as the actual cooling effects of these changes. It is unknown how well the estimates from the mitigation study conducted in New York City translate to the average European urban setting.
- Heat exposure assessment is complicated because urban areas contain numerous microclimates. The actual heat exposure of the city inhabitants, therefore, depends on the microclimatic conditions in which people actually spend their time. It is unclear how changes in the urban surface energy budget and average urban heat island intensity relate to changes in actual heat exposure.
- It is assumed in the assessment, that the absolute air humidity stays the same regardless of the implementation of UHI mitigation measures. This may very well not be true. For example, increasing urban vegetation would likely increase air humidity through higher evapotranspiration. This would subsequently be reflected in the level of discomfort related to a given level of air temperature.
- The interpretation of the results is complicated because the health impact of heat island intensity is actually embedded in the exposure-response function. Thus, in reality the cooling effect of the mitigation measures would be reflected in the association between background ambient temperature and mortality risk in a city, not in the used exposure indicator. In addition, the urban infrastructure is also likely to go through other changes in the future, which is ignored in the assessment. For example, the use of air conditioning could increase in European cities because of the increasing summer temperatures, which would lead to less severe heat exposure even if ambient temperatures rise. These types of factors would also be reflected in the exposure-response function.
Conclusions
There are many significant significant sources of uncertainty related to the assessment. However, when conducting an assessment on the scale of the whole Europe, it is necessary to make many simplifying assumptions. It is also evident, that there is a lack of simple modelling tools for this type and scale of assessment. The majority of the studies that are conducted on urban heat island mitigation are more local in their nature and make use of complex regional climate models. This kind of approach is not feasible in the time and budget frame of this particular assessment. Given these constraints, the validation of the used methodology is also difficult, as it would require comparisons with more sophisticated modelling approaches. Nevertheless, despite the various sources of uncertainty, the simple methodology used in this assessment can provide valuable insight into the magnitude of health impacts caused by heat exposure in Europe, as well as the potential and relative effectiveness of different policy options in mitigating urban heat island effect and heat exposure in cities.
