Foster, Andrew, and Naresh Kumar. "Health effects of air quality regulations in Delhi, India." Atmospheric Environment 45, (January 1, 2011): 1675-1683. ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2015).
Abstract
This, the first systematic study, quantifies the health effects of air quality regulations in Delhi, which adopted radical measures to improve air quality, including, for example, the conversion of all commercial vehicles to compressed natural gas (CNG), and the closure of polluting industries in residential areas from 2000 to 2002. Air pollution data, collected at 113 sites (spread across Delhi and its neighboring areas) from July–December 2003, were used to compute exposure at the place of residence of 3989 subjects. A socio-economic and respiratory health survey was administered in 1576 households. This survey collected time-use, residence histories, demographic information, and direct measurements of lung function with subjects. The optimal interpolation methods were used to link air pollution and respiratory health data at the place of their residence. Resident histories, in combination with secondary data, were used to impute cumulative exposure prior to the air-quality interventions, and the effects of recent air quality measures on lung function were then evaluated. Three important findings emerge from the analysis. First, the interventions were associated with a significant improvement in respiratory health. Second, the effect of these interventions varied significantly by gender and income. Third, consistent with a causal interpretation of these results, effects were the strongest among those individuals who spend a disproportionate share of their time out-of-doors.
Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project.
Andrew Fosteris a Professor of Economics and Health Services at Brown University Recently, much of his work has been centered on India.
Naresh Kumar is a Professor of Environmental Health at the University of Miami. He is interested in the links between public health and environment in developing and developed countries.
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
The air quality regulations put in place between 1997-2002 had great effects on public health, most notably among low-expenditure households.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
To begin with, people living in the city were exposed to more pollution and had worse lung function than people who were able to live in less crowded areas outside the city.
When regulations were enacted, pollution exposure in the city lessened, so people who couldn't afford to move away from the pollution sites were exposed to less emissions.
The health of these individuals, as reported per household and measured by lung-function tests, had improved once the regulations were put in place.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
"one might conclude that the difference in lung function between an individual who spent his entire life exposed to the PM2.5 currently inside Delhi compared with one who spent his life exposed to the PM2.5 currently outside Delhi, would on average have a difference in lung function of 7.624 points: a difference that is comparable, given the corresponding coefficients on age between the average lung function of a 65 year-old and that of a 20 year-old."
"those residents outside the Delhi city limits have higher current but lower lifetime exposure, and that those who have been resident in the same households for longer have higher lifetime exposure."
"we find that the effects are significant and negative among the lower-expenditure households, while they are not significantly different from zero for the better-off households. Evidently, the better-off households are better protected from the adverse effects of exposure to ambient air pollution, perhaps reflecting differences in protection from air (e.g., air conditioning, houses better-protected from roads), or differences in overall health or nutritional status."
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
They are using air pollution data collected by the Central Pollution Control Board in Delhi, collected from 113 sites around the city. To collect health data, 1576 houses were surveyed around the city (from a randomized sample of 2000 homes). Surveys included a lung-function test that measured vital capacity and strength of exhales.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
This paper looks at how different economic classes were effected by the regulations, and found that regulations didn't really change anything for high-expenditure household, but improved conditions and health for lower income households. They hypothesize this is because the higher-income households could afford to shield themselves from pollutants with tools such as air conditioners or by buying in less polluted locations.
Where has this article or report been referenced or discussed? (In some journals, you can see this in a sidebar.)
This article is cited in other articles focused on public health in India, as well as public health in other countries.
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
Some of the references (such as Have CNG regulations in Delhi done their job?) are criticisms of the regulations and enforcement of regulations in the area. I feel this article is a response to these papers. I also think this paper is a little overly optimistic about the scope and speed the regulations have had on public health.
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?
I looked into the "Have CNG regulations in Delhi done their job?" article and they found that while regulations have improved air quality minimally, it so far has not improved to a great extent. And that regulations have caused some emission sites to move to places with less regulation enforcement, adversely affecting air pollution in those areas.
Foster, Andrew, and Naresh Kumar. "Health effects of air quality regulations in Delhi, India." Atmospheric Environment 45, (January 1, 2011): 1675-1683. ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost (accessed October 13, 2015).
Abstract
This, the first systematic study, quantifies the health effects of air quality regulations in Delhi, which adopted radical measures to improve air quality, including, for example, the conversion of all commercial vehicles to compressed natural gas (CNG), and the closure of polluting industries in residential areas from 2000 to 2002. Air pollution data, collected at 113 sites (spread across Delhi and its neighboring areas) from July–December 2003, were used to compute exposure at the place of residence of 3989 subjects. A socio-economic and respiratory health survey was administered in 1576 households. This survey collected time-use, residence histories, demographic information, and direct measurements of lung function with subjects. The optimal interpolation methods were used to link air pollution and respiratory health data at the place of their residence. Resident histories, in combination with secondary data, were used to impute cumulative exposure prior to the air-quality interventions, and the effects of recent air quality measures on lung function were then evaluated. Three important findings emerge from the analysis. First, the interventions were associated with a significant improvement in respiratory health. Second, the effect of these interventions varied significantly by gender and income. Third, consistent with a causal interpretation of these results, effects were the strongest among those individuals who spend a disproportionate share of their time out-of-doors.