Estimating traffic contribution to particulate matter concentration in urban areas using a multilevel Bayesian meta-regression approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantifying traffic contribution to air pollution in urban settings is required to inform traffic management strategies and environmental policies that aim at improving air quality. Assessments and comparative analyses across multiple urban areas are challenged by the lack of datasets and methods available for global applications. In this study, we quantify the traffic contribution to particulate matter concentration in multiple cities worldwide by synthesising 155 previous studies reported in the World Health Organization (WHO)’s air pollution source apportionment data for PM10 and PM2.5. We employed a Bayesian multilevel meta-regression that accounts for uncertainties and captures both within- and between-study variations (in estimation methods, study protocols, etc.) through study-specific and location-specific explanatory variables. The final sample analysed in this paper covers 169 cities worldwide. Based on our analysis, traffic contribution to air pollution (particulate matter) varies from 5% to 61% in cities worldwide, with an average of 27%. We found that variability in the traffic contribution estimates reported worldwide can be explained by the region of study, publication year, PM size fraction, and population. Specifically, traffic contribution to air pollution in cities located in Europe, North America, or Oceania is on average 36% lower relative to the rest of the world. Traffic contribution is 28% lower among studies published after 2005 than those published on or before 2005. Traffic contribution is on average 24% lower among cities with less than 500,000 inhabitants and 19% higher when estimated based on PM10 relative to PM2.5. This quantitative summary overcomes challenges in the data and provides useful information for health impact modellers and decision-makers to assess impacts of traffic reduction policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".