Health and equity implications of individual adaptation to air pollution in a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future climate change can cause more days with poor air quality. This could trigger more alerts telling people to stay inside to protect themselves, with potential consequences for health and health equity. Here, we study the change in US air quality alerts over this century due to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), who they may affect, and how they may respond. We find air quality alerts increase by over 1 mo per year in the eastern United States by 2100 and quadruple on average. They predominantly affect areas with high Black populations and leakier homes, exacerbating existing inequalities and impacting those less able to adapt. Reducing emissions can offer significant annual health benefits ($5,400 per person) by mitigating the effect of climate change on air pollution and its associated risks of early death. Relying on people to adapt, instead, would require them to stay inside, with doors and windows closed, for an extra 142 d per year, at an average cost of $11,000 per person. It appears likelier, however, that people will achieve minimal protection without policy to increase adaptation rates. Boosting adaptation can offer net benefits, even alongside deep emission cuts. New adaptation policies could, for example: reduce adaptation costs; reduce infiltration and improve indoor air quality; increase awareness of alerts and adaptation; and provide measures for those working or living outdoors. Reducing emissions, conversely, lowers everyone’s need to adapt, and protects those who cannot adapt. Equitably protecting human health from air pollution under climate change requires both mitigation and adaptation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".