0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessThe 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 NO x 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’.
Eiko Nemitz, Massimo Vieno, Edward Carnell, Alice Fitch, Claudia Steadman, Philip Cryle, Mike Holland, Richard Morton, Jane Hall, Gina Mills, Felicity Hayes, Ian A. Dickie, David Carruthers, D. Fowler, Stefan Reis, Laurence Jones (2020). Potential and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of deposition-based evaluations. , 378(2183), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0320.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2020
Authors
16
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0320
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access