1. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. 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 Acidification ~10% higher, eutrophication ~5% higher
But different trends in different regions across Europe
2003 produces higher health impacts for PM and ozone

9. 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

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

11. 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

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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. Urban per-capita emissions by SNAP sector

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

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

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

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

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

22. 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

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

24. 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