Tobollik Myriam, Keuken Menno, Sabel Clive, Cowie Hilary, Tuomisto Jouni, Sarigiannis Denis, Künzli Nino, Perez Laura, Mudu Pierpaolo
School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany; German Environment Agency, Section Exposure Assessment and Environmental Health Indicators, Corrensplatz 1, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
Netherlands Applied Research Organization (TNO), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Environ Res. 2016 Apr;146:350-8. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.01.014. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
Green house gas (GHG) mitigation policies can be evaluated by showing their co-benefits to health.
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) was used to quantify co-benefits of GHG mitigation policies in Rotterdam. The effects of two separate interventions (10% reduction of private vehicle kilometers and a share of 50% electric-powered private vehicle kilometers) on particulate matter (PM2.5), elemental carbon (EC) and noise (engine noise and tyre noise) were assessed using Years of Life Lost (YLL) and Years Lived with Disability (YLD). The baseline was 2010 and the end of the assessment 2020.
The intervention aimed at reducing traffic is associated with a decreased exposure to noise resulting in a reduction of 21 (confidence interval (CI): 11-129) YLDs due to annoyance and 35 (CI: 20-51) YLDs due to sleep disturbance for the population per year. The effects of 50% electric-powered car use are slightly higher with a reduction of 26 (CI: 13-116) and 41 (CI: 24-60) YLDs, respectively. The two interventions have marginal effects on air pollution, because already implemented traffic policies will reduce PM2.5 and EC by around 40% and 60% respectively, from 2010 to 2020.
The evaluation of planned interventions, related to climate change policies, targeting only the transport sector can result in small co-benefits for health, if the analysis is limited to air pollution and noise. This urges to expand the analysis by including other impacts, e.g. physical activity and well-being, as a necessary step to better understanding consequences of interventions and carefully orienting resources useful to build knowledge to improve public health.
温室气体(GHG)减排政策可通过展示其对健康的协同效益来进行评估。
采用健康影响评估(HIA)来量化鹿特丹温室气体减排政策的协同效益。使用生命损失年数(YLL)和残疾生存年数(YLD)评估了两项单独干预措施(私人车辆行驶公里数减少10%以及电动私人车辆行驶公里数占比50%)对颗粒物(PM2.5)、元素碳(EC)和噪音(发动机噪音和轮胎噪音)的影响。基线为2010年,评估结束时间为2020年。
旨在减少交通流量的干预措施与噪音暴露减少相关,每年因烦恼导致的YLD减少21(置信区间(CI):11 - 129),因睡眠干扰导致的YLD减少35(CI:20 - 51)。使用50%电动汽车的效果略高,分别减少26(CI:13 - 116)和41(CI:24 - 60)个YLD。这两项干预措施对空气污染的影响较小,因为从2010年到2020年,已实施的交通政策将分别使PM2.5和EC减少约40%和60%。
如果分析仅限于空气污染和噪音,那么对仅针对交通部门的气候变化政策相关计划干预措施的评估可能对健康产生较小的协同效益。这促使通过纳入其他影响因素(如身体活动和幸福感)来扩展分析,这是更好地理解干预措施后果并谨慎配置用于积累知识以改善公众健康的资源的必要步骤。