Assessment of Exposure of Elementary Schools to Traffic Pollution by GIS Methods
Language English Country Czech Republic Media print
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
27434240
DOI
10.21101/cejph.a4149
PII: cejph.a4149
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- GIS, health effects, particulate matter, schools, traffic density, traffic pollution,
- MeSH
- Child MeSH
- Geographic Information Systems MeSH
- Risk Assessment MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Urban Population MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Schools * MeSH
- Vehicle Emissions analysis MeSH
- Environmental Exposure analysis MeSH
- Check Tag
- Child MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Czech Republic MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Vehicle Emissions MeSH
AIM: The susceptibility of children to polluted air has been pointed out several times in the past. Generally, children suffer from higher exposure to air pollutants than adults because of their higher physical activity, higher metabolic rate and the resultant increase in minute ventilation. The aim of this study was to examine the exposure characteristics of public elementary schools in Prague (the capital of the Czech Republic). METHODS: The exposure was examined by two different methods: by the proximity of selected schools to major urban roads and their location within the modeled urban PM10 concentration fields. We determined average daily traffic counts for all roads within 300 m of 251 elementary schools using the national road network database and geographic information system and calculated by means of GIS tools the proximity of the schools to the roads. In the second method we overlapped the GIS layer of predicted annual urban PM10 concentration field with that of geocoded school addresses. RESULTS: The results showed that 208 Prague schools (almost 80%) are situated in a close proximity (<300 m) of roads exhibiting high traffic loads. Both methods showed good agreement in the proportion of highly exposed schools at risk; however, we found significant differences in the locations of schools at risk determined by the two methods. CONCLUSION: We argue that results of similar proximity studies should be treated with caution before they are used in risk based decision-making process, since different methods may provide different outcomes.
References provided by Crossref.org