Will London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone improve the city’s health?

London. We think. Not sure, actually. Image: Getty.

A new Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is being introduced in London, to reduce harmful emissions from traffic and improve air quality. Those who drive polluting vehicles into the city centre will face a daily charge – £12.50 for cars, motorcycles and vans, and £100 for lorries, buses and coaches – on top of the existing congestion charge. By October 2021, the scheme will expand to cover an area 18 times larger.

The rationale for the ULEZ is clear: large numbers of people are living in areas with pollution levels well above the legal limits set by the European Union (EU). These limits are based on detailed evidence about the impacts of air pollution on people’s health – which can cause everything from short term effects like worsening asthma symptoms, to a loss of healthy years of life in the longer term.

Other cities across the UK and beyond will be watching closely, as London’s ULEZ is effectively a test bed to gauge the effectiveness of such schemes at clearing up air pollution and improving the health of residents.

Major health problems

Over recent years, several London-based studies have shown that the city’s air pollution is associated with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions, increases in daily deaths, stroke risk and low birth weights, as well as reduced lung volumes in children, dementia among the elderly, and poor mental health in children and adolescents.

Clearly, the polluted air that people breathe in London is having profound effects on their health, throughout their entire lives. So, while some people will lose out – for example, those who need to drive in central London for work – that should be weighed against the clear need for action to reduce pollution, on health grounds.

As well as the current health concerns, there are legal reasons why London authorities have introduced the new charge. Much of the area covered by the ULEZ often exceeds the annual EU limit for nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) – especially near roads, where diesel vehicles are a major source of the gas. The EU annual limit for NO₂ is 40μg/m³ (that’s micrograms per metre cubed).

A map of annual mean NO₂ pollution levels across London, based on data from 2013. Areas coloured from yellow through to red exceed annual targets. Image: London Air/KCL.

There are also other legal limits set by the EU for airborne particulate matter of various sizes. If you consider fine particles – often referred to as PM₂.₅ (generally less than 2.5 microns in diameter) – then the picture looks better. Most of London meets the EU’s annual limit for PM₂.₅, which is 25μg/m³.

But numerous studies have shown there are clear health impacts below this concentration, and the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that an annual target of 10μg/m³ would be best to protect people’s health. If this lower annual exposure limit was to be used, many areas across London would exceed it – just as they currently do with NO₂.

Medicine worth taking

The evidence shows that diesel exhaust emissions are the major driver of poor health outcomes due to air pollution. That doesn’t mean that other pollutant sources, such a biomass burning, agriculture, industry, or particles derived from brake and tyre wear, are not important – but it makes sense for cities to make reducing diesel emissions a priority. Will it work, though?

The ULEZ, like the Low Emission Zone before it, is designed to encourage the uptake of newer, low emission vehicles both by businesses and the general public with the aim of reducing air pollution in the target area. Current evidence does suggest that air pollution concentrations are falling in London as a result of several measures, such as the Low Emission Zone, but these improvements still need to be accelerated to deliver health benefits.


Since the ULEZ targets all vehicles, modelling commissioned by the Greater London Authority predicts that it will have significant impact on air quality, compared with earlier policies, which focused on restricting only certain types of vehicles. But this projection still needs to be validated.

If the ULEZ is the equivalent to the treatment to the air pollution problem, then like a clinical drug trial it requires independent evaluation, measuring both the changes in pollution concentration, and health improvements among Londoners.

Work is already ongoing to address these issues, such as the Children’s Health in London and Luton (CHILL) project, which is examining children’s respiratory health and lung growth across the introduction of the ULEZ. But further work evaluating this scheme is needed, to keep ensuring that policies are developed based on evidence – and prove to the public that this is a medicine worth taking.

The Conversation

Ian Mudway, Lecturer in Respiratory Toxicology, King's College London.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Segregated playgrounds are just the start: inequality is built into the fabric of our cities

Yet more luxury flats. Image: Getty.

Developers in London have come under scrutiny for segregating people who live in social or affordable housing from residents who pay market rates. Prominent cases have included children from social housing being blocked from using a playground in a new development, and “poor doors” providing separate entrances for social housing residents.

Of course, segregation has long been a reality in cities around the world. For example, gated communities have been documented in the US cities since the 1970s, while racially segregated urban areas existed in South Africa under apartheid. Research by myself and other academics has shown that urban spaces which divide and exclude society’s poorer or more vulnerable citizens are still expanding rapidly, even replacing public provision of facilities and services – such as parks and playgrounds – in cities around the world.

Gated developments in Gurgaon, India, have created a patchwork of privatised services; elite developments in Hanoi, Vietnam, offer rich residents cleaner air; and luxury condos in Toronto, Canada, displace local residents in favour of foreign investors. An extreme example is the Eko Atlantic project in Nigeria – a private city being built in Lagos, where the majority of other residents face extreme levels of deprivation and poverty.

A commodity, or a right?

Although these developments come with their own unique context and characteristics, they all have one thing in common: they effectively segregate city dwellers. By providing the sorts of facilities and services which would normally be run by public authorities, but reserving them exclusively for certain residents, such developments threaten the wider public’s access to green spaces, decent housing, playgrounds and even safe sewage systems.

Access to basic services, which was once considered to be the right of all citizens, is at risk of becoming a commodity. Privatisation may start with minor services such as the landscaping or upkeep of neighbourhoods: for example, the maintenance of some new-build estates in the UK are being left to developers in return for a service charge. This might seem insignificant, but it introduces an unregulated cost for the residents.

Privatising the provision of municipal services may be seen by some as a way for wealthier residents to enjoy a better standard of living – as in Hanoi. But in the worst cases, it puts in a paywall in front of fundamental services such as sewage disposal – as happened in Gurgaon. In other words, privatisation may start with insignificant services and expand to more fundamental ones, creating greater segregation and inequality in cities.


A divided city

My own research on branded housing projects in Turkey has highlighted the drastic consequences of the gradual expansion of exclusive services and facilities through segregated developments. These private housing developments – known for their extensive use of branding – have sprung up in Istanbul and other Turkish cities over the past two decades, since the government began to favour a more neoliberal approach.

By 2014, there were more than 800 branded housing projects in Istanbul alone. They vary in scale from a single high-rise building to developments aiming to accommodate more than 20,000 residents. Today, this development type can be seen in every city in Turkey, from small towns to the largest metropolitan areas.

The branded housing projects are segregated by design, often featuring a single tower or an enclosing cluster of buildings, as well as walls and fences. They provide an extensive array of services and facilities exclusively for their residents, including parks, playgrounds, sports pitches, health clinics and landscaping.

Making the same services and facilities available within each project effectively prevents interaction between residents and people living outside of their development. What’s more, these projects often exist in neighbourhoods which lack publicly accessible open spaces such as parks and playgrounds.

This is a city-wide problem in Istanbul since the amount of publicly accessible green spaces in Istanbul is as low as 2.2 per cent of the total urban area. In London, 33 per cent of the city’s area is made up of parks and gardens open to the public – which shows the severity of the problem in Istanbul.

These branded housing projects do not feature any affordable units or social housing, so there are no opportunities for less privileged city-dwellers to enjoy vital facilities such as green spaces. This has knock-on effects on excluded residents’ mental and physical health, contributing to greater inequality in these respects, too.

Emerging alternatives

To prevent increasing inequality, exclusion and segregation in cities, fundamental urban services must be maintained or improved and kept in public ownership and made accessible for every city-dweller. There are emerging alternatives that show ways to do this and challenge privatisation policies.

For example, in some cities, local governments have “remunicipalised” key services, bringing them back into public ownership. A report by Dutch think-tank the Transnational Institute identified 235 cases where water supplies were remunicipalised across 37 countries between 2000 and 2015. The water remunicipalisation tracker keeps track of successful examples of remunicipalisation cases around the world, as well as ongoing campaigns.

It is vitally important to keep urban services public and reverse subtle forms or privatisation by focusing on delivering a decent standard of living for all residents. Local authorities need to be committed to this goal – but they must also receive adequate funds from local taxes and central governments. Only then, will quality services be available to all people living in cities.

The Conversation

Bilge Serin, Research Associate, University of Glasgow.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.