Ferguson, L; Taylor, J; Zhou, K; Shrubsole, C; Symonds, P; Davies, M and Dimitroulopoulou, S (2021) Systemic inequalities in indoor air pollution exposure in London, UK. Buildings & Cities, 2(1), pp. 425-448. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Deprived communities in many cities are exposed to higher levels of outdoor air pollution, and there is increasing evidence of similar disparities for indoor air pollution exposure. There is a need to understand the drivers for this exposure disparity in order to develop effective interventions aimed at improving population health and reducing health inequities. With a focus on London, UK, this paper assembles evidence to examine why indoor exposure to PM<sub>2.5</sub>, NO<sub>x</sub> and CO may disproportionately impact low-income groups. In particular, five factors are explored, namely: housing location and ambient outdoor levels of pollution; housing characteristics, including ventilation properties and internal sources of pollution; occupant behaviours; time spent indoors; and underlying health conditions. Evidence is drawn from various sources, including building physics models, modelled outdoor air pollution levels, time–activity surveys, housing stock surveys, geographical data, and peer-reviewed research. A systems framework is then proposed to integrate these factors, highlighting how exposure to high levels of indoor air pollution in low-income homes is in large part due to factors beyond the control of occupants, and is therefore an area of systemic inequality. Policy relevance: There is increasing public and political awareness of the impact of air pollution on public health. Strong scientific evidence links exposure to air pollution with morbidity and mortality. Deprived communities may be more affected, however, with limited evidence on how deprivation may influence their personal exposure to air pollution, both outdoors and indoors. This paper describes different factors that may lead to low-income households being exposed to higher levels of indoor air pollution than the general population, using available data and models for London (i.e. living in areas of higher outdoor air pollution, in poor-quality housing, undertaking more pollution-generating activities indoors and spending more time indoors). A systems approach is used to show how these factors lead to systemic exposure inequalities, with low-income households having limited opportunities to improve their indoor air quality. This paper can inform actions and public policies to reduce environmental health inequalities, considering both indoor and outdoor air.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | air quality; deprivation; environmental health; housing; indoor air pollution; inequalities; particulates; public health; systems thinking |
| Index terms: | occupant behaviour, indoor air pollution, housing, public policy, disparity, exposure, deprivation, evidence, air quality, mortality, inequality, low-income group, income, indoor air quality, household, population, London, public health, environmental health, particulate, survey, ventilation, housing stock, pollution, systems thinking, air pollution, systems framework |
| Subjects: | air quality, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, construction type, climate science, health behaviours and lifestyles, public policy, analytical methods, economic analysis, health monitoring assessment and metrics, public and environmental health, Geography, social justice, sociology, demography, environmental health, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Ethics, Governance, Sustainability, Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here