Skip to Content
Version 1.1 by Emily West on 2022/01/19 10:17
Show last authors
1 = 5.14 Avoided costs for air pollution control measures =
2
3 Project Name: URBAN GreenUP
4
5 (% class="table-bordered" %)
6 |=(% style="width: 237px;" %)Pillar of Sustainable Development|=(% style="width: 646px;" %)Societal challenge
7 |(% style="width:237px" %)Planet|(% style="width:646px" %)5 - Air Quality
8
9 (% class="table-bordered" %)
10 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
11 ====== **Description** ======
12 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
13 This KPI values green infrastructure in economic units taking into account other than conventional functionalities.
14
15 Tool described below estimates the impact of nature-based solutions on various air pollutants, in tonnes per year, and from those quantities it can estimate the avoided costs of other measures to remove from the air sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10. The tool uses a benefit transfer method based upon the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Study by the USDA Forest Service (Nowak et al, 1994).
16 )))
17 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
18 ====== **Scale as linked to D2.2 framework** ======
19 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
20 * National
21 * City
22 * Neighborhood
23 * Street
24 )))
25 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
26 ====== **Data source [ link to data framework]** ======
27 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
28 * Proposed NBS intervention
29 )))
30 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
31 ====== **Data needs** ======
32 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
33 * General information about green infrastructure
34 )))
35 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
36 ====== **Expected Outputs** ======
37 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
38 * The toolkit looks at how the range of green infrastructure benefits derived from an asset or investment can be shown: • in monetary terms – applying economic valuation techniques where possible • quantitatively – for example with reference to jobs, hectares of land, visitors • qualitatively – referencing case studies or important research where there appears to be a link between green infrastructure and economic, social or environmental benefit but where the scientific basis for quantification and/or monetisation is not yet sufficiently robust.
39 )))
40 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
41 ====== **Calculation methods** ======
42 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
43 * GI-Val is The Mersey Forest's green infrastructure valuation toolkit. The current prototype is free and open source, and can be downloaded under a Creative Commons License from: https:~/~/www.merseyforest.org.uk/services/gi-val/.
44 * It takes the form of a spreadsheet calculator and a user manual. GI-Val Tool 4.6, can estimate the impact of nature-based solutions on various air pollutants, in tonnes per year, and from those quantities it can estimate the avoided costs of other measures to remove from the air sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10.
45 * The tool uses a benefit transfer method based upon the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Study by the USDA Forest Service (Nowak et al, 1994).
46 * The toolkit provides a set of calculator tools, to help assess an existing green asset or proposed green investment. They are organised under eleven key benefits of green infrastructure
47 * The toolkit uses standard valuation techniques to assess the potential benefits provided by green infrastructure within a defined project area. These benefits are assessed in terms of the functions that the green infrastructure may perform, support or encourage, depending upon the type of project.
48 * The USDA Forest Service’s Chicago Urban Forest Climate Study provided monetary values per metric tonne for pollution emission prevention, based upon control strategies available at the time of study publication. The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Study calculated pollution absorption capacity and typical monetary values at individual tree level. The values determined in 1994 ranged from US$0.04 per year for small trees to more than US$2 per year for large trees. Accounting for 76.3% inflation 1994-2020 and currency conversion from USD to EUR (1 USD ≈ 0.9 EUR), the values determined in the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Study range from the 2020 equivalent of US$0.07 (0.08 €) per year for small trees to more than US$3.53 (4.26 €) per year for large trees in 2020. Tool 4.6 is based on these data
49 )))
50 |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
51 ====== **Links and references** ======
52 )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
53 * [[http:~~/~~/www.merseyforest.org.uk/services/gi-val/>>http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/services/gi-val/]]
54 * Nowak, McPherson and Rowntree, 1994. Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. United States Department of Agriculture US Forest Service.
55 * Air Pollution in the UK 2015. [[https:~~/~~/uk air.defra.gov.uk/library/annualreport/index>>https://uk air.defra.gov.uk/library/annualreport/index]]
56 * Bottalico, F., Chirici, G., Giannetti, F., De Marco, A., Nocentini, S., Paoletti, E., Salbitano, F., Sanesi, G., Serenelli, C., Travaglini, D., 2016. Air pollution removal by green infrastructures and urban forests in the city of Florence. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 8, 243–251. doi:10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.099.
57 * SDG indicator 3.9.1 https:~/~/unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-03- 09-01.pdf
58 * SDG indicator 11.6.2. https:~/~/unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-11- 06-02.pdf
59 )))
60
61 (% class="lead" %)
62 Revisions
63
64 (% class="success" %)|(% style="width:68px" %)**Version**|(% style="width:179px" %)**Name**|(% style="width:112px" %)**Date**|(% style="width:636px" %)**Changes made**
65 (% class="active" %)|(% style="width:68px" %)**0.1**|(% style="width:179px" %)Emily (EcoWise)|(% style="width:112px" %)19/01/2022|(% style="width:636px" %)Factsheet created
66 (% class="active" %)|(% style="width:68px" %) |(% style="width:179px" %) |(% style="width:112px" %) |(% style="width:636px" %)
67
68