Changes to the methodology since the NEC report #2 M. Amann, W. Asman, I. Bertok, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont, W. Schöpp, F. Wagner Changes to the methodology since the NEC report #2 Meeting of the NECPI working group, March 29-30, 2007

Methodological changes 5-years meteorological conditions Different assumptions on emissions from non-EU countries and ship regions City-delta methodology

Multi-year meteorology Atmospheric dispersion based on meteorological conditions of 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003 Sensitivity analysis with 2003

Loss in statistical life expectancy computed with different meteorological conditions (for 2000)

Estimates of mortality from ozone for year 2000 emissions for different meteorological conditions

Estimates of unprotected forest area for year 2000 emissions for different meteorological conditions

Estimates of ecosystem area with excess nitrogen deposition for year 2000 emissions for different meteorological conditions

Summary 1997 represents indeed rather typical conditions for the five years analyzed For EU-27, PM and ozone impacts from 5-yrs meteorology very similar to 1997. Acidification ~10% higher, eutrophication ~5% higher But different trends in different regions across Europe 2003 produces higher health impacts for PM and ozone

Changed boundary conditions Optimization includes Bulgaria, Romania and Russia Emissions for non-EU countries and ship regions assuming the 2020 projections (2010 projections were assumed in CAFE) Sensitivity analysis for 2010 boundary conditions

Recent 2020 emission projections for non-EU regions relative to the earlier projections for 2010

Changes to City-delta methodology New population and city-domain data (“compact” city shapes including ~70% of population) Target metric: population-weighted PM2.5 concentration for health impact assessment Refined results from the three urban models Revised functional relationship Multi-year meteorology Modified assumptions on urban emissions

Compact urban shapes for which the urban increment is computed Paris London Lisbon Krakow Milan Berlin

Urban increments computed by the three models for the 5 Urban increments computed by the three models for the 5*5 km center grid cell and population-weighted

Urban increments computed by Chimere, CAMx, RCG, compared with the City-delta regression

Hypothesis of the City-delta functional relationship Δc … concentration increment computed with the 3 models α. β … regression coefficients D … city diameter U … wind speed Δq … change in emission fluxes d … number of winter days with low wind speed

Urban per-capita emissions by SNAP sector

Emission densities (red) and computed urban increments (blue)

Contribution of long-range transport (blue) and local primary PM emissions (red) to urban PM2.5 AT BE Bulgaria FI France

Contribution of long-range transport (blue) and local primary PM emissions (red) to urban PM2.5 Italy Netherlands NO Poland PT

Contribution of long-range transport (blue) and local primary PM emissions (red) to urban PM2.5 Germany GR HU

Contribution of long-range transport (blue) and local primary PM emissions (red) to urban PM2.5 United Kingdom

Sectoral contributions to background concentrations of primary PM2 Sectoral contributions to background concentrations of primary PM2.5 components from urban sources AT BE Bulgaria FI France

Sectoral contributions to background concentrations of primary PM2 Sectoral contributions to background concentrations of primary PM2.5 components from urban sources United Kingdom

Summary Substantial revisions of methodology and input data Health impact assessment based on population-weighted increments – conservative assumption? Largest uncertainties associated with quality of urban emission estimates. Large discrepancies cannot be readily explained More plausible on emissions assumptions improve estimates Validation hampered by lack of quality-controlled monitoring data Sensitivity analysis explored implications on optimization results