| Literature DB >> 30754664 |
Hung Chak Ho1,2, Sawaid Abbas3, Jinxin Yang4, Rui Zhu5, Man Sing Wong6,7.
Abstract
Climate variability has been documented as being key to influencing human wellbeing across cities as it is linked to mortality and illness due to changes in the perceived weather cycle. Many studies have investigated the impact of summer temperature on human health and have proposed mitigation strategies for summer heat waves. However, sub-tropical cities are still experiencing winter temperature variations. Increasing winter perceived temperature through the decades may soon affect city wellbeing, due to a larger temperature change between normal winter days and extreme cold events, which may cause higher health risk due to lack of adaptation and self-preparedness. Therefore, winter perceived temperature should also be considered and integrated in urban sustainable planning. This study has integrated the increasing winter perceived temperature as a factor for developing spatiotemporal protocols for mitigating the adverse impact of climate change. Land surface temperature (LST) derived from satellite images and building data extracted from aerial photographs were used to simulate the adjusted wind chill equivalent temperature (AWCET) particularly for sub-tropical scenarios between 1990 and 2010 of the Kowloon Peninsula, Hong Kong. Compared with perceived temperature based on the representative station located at the headquarters of the Hong Kong Observatory, the temperature of half the study area in the Kowloon Peninsula has raised by 1.5 °C. The areas with less green space and less public open space in 2010 show higher relative temperatures. Socioeconomically deprived areas (e.g., areas with lower median monthly income) may suffer more from this scenario, but not all types of socioeconomic disparities are associated with poor sustainable planning. Based on our results and the "no-one left behind" guideline from the United Nations, climate change mitigation should be conducted by targeting socioeconomic neighborhoods more than just aging communities.Entities:
Keywords: climate change; community design; socioeconomic deprivation; sustainable planning; urban morphology
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30754664 PMCID: PMC6388248 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16030497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study site. Red dotted lines are the boundary of the study area. Blue symbols are the weather stations within or close to the study area.
Satellite images (Landsat 5 TM) for training regression for air temperature prediction.
| Retrieved Dates of Landsat Images for Data Training of Air Temperature Prediction | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3 March 2011 | 2 February 2011 | 1 January 2011 |
| 29 October 2010 | 30 November 2010 | 18 September 2010 |
| 26 March 2010 | 14 January 2010 | 4 December 2009 |
| 3 February 2009 | 18 January 2009 | 2 January 2009 |
| 1 December 2008 | 17 December 2008 | 4 March 2008 |
| 29 January 2007 | 13 January 2007 | 28 December 2006 |
Satellite images (Landsat 5 TM) for estimating average air temperature during the representative days.
| Retrieved Dates of Landsat Images for Predicting Air Temperature at the Representative Dates (Same as the Retrieved Date) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 December 1990 | 30 December 1995 | 11 February 2000 | 23 January 2005 | 23 December 2010 |
Figure 2Comparison between predicted and observed data. Y-axis represents the values of predicted data from the regression in this study. X-axis represents the values of observed data from weather stations.
Figure 3Predicted air temperature across study area in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Figure 4Predicted wind speed across study area in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.
Figure 5The average of relative AWCET between 1990 and 2010. Red indicates areas with higher relative AWCET and green indicates areas with lower relative AWCET.
Figure 6The average increase of relative AWCET of every five years between 1990 and 2010. Red indicates areas with higher increase of relative AWCET and green indicates areas without increase of relative AWCET.
Comparison of the average increase in AWCET for every five years and areas with poorer/better sustainable planning in the current year in general environment. Bold text indicates results with significantly lower percentages for urban environments that can act as protective areas in areas with an increase in AWCET than in areas without an increase in AWCET based on the T-test.
| Urban Environmental Factor | Radius for Spatial Averaging | Average Increase in Relative AWCET for Every 5 Years (1990–2010) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) of Areas with Increase | Mean (SD) of Areas without Increase | |||
| Percentage of Vegetation coverage | 100 m |
|
|
|
| 200 m |
|
|
| |
| 300 m |
|
|
| |
| 400 m |
|
|
| |
| 500 m |
|
|
| |
| Percentage of Public Open Space | 100 m | 9.0% (19.0%) | 8.7% (17.0%) | 0.34 |
| 200 m | 8.6% (13.7%) | 8.9% (12.1%) | 0.19 | |
| 300 m |
|
|
| |
| 400 m |
|
|
| |
| 500 m |
|
|
| |
| Percentage of Road Network | 100 m | 23.4% (16.6%) | 26.7% (16.4%) | <0.05 |
| 200 m | 23.1% (12.9%) | 26.3% (13.3%) | <0.05 | |
| 300 m | 22.9% (11.3%) | 25.8% (11.7%) | <0.05 | |
| 400 m | 22.8% (10.2%) | 25.4% (10.5%) | <0.05 | |
| 500 m | 22.7% (9.2%) | 25.0% (9.4%) | <0.05 | |
| Average Sky View Factor | 100 m | 0.70 (0.14) | 0.63 (0.13) | <0.05 |
| 200 m | 0.69 (0.13) | 0.64 (0.12) | <0.05 | |
| 300 m | 0.69 (0.12) | 0.64 (0.11) | <0.05 | |
| 400 m | 0.68 (0.11) | 0.65 (0.10) | <0.05 | |
| 500 m | 0.68 (0.10) | 0.65 (0.10) | <0.05 | |
Figure 7Areas with higher and lower socioeconomic deprivation based on different demographic factors retrieved by the 2010 census of Hong Kong.
Comparison of the average increase in AWCET for every five years with areas with poorer/better sustainable planning in the current year, for each type of socioeconomically deprived neighborhood. Bold text indicates results with significantly lower percentages of urban environments that can act as protective areas in areas with an increase in AWCET than in areas without an increase in AWCET based on the T-test.
| Socioeconomic Deprived Areas | Urban Environmental Factor | Radius for Spatial Averaging | Average Increase in Relative AWCET for Every 5 Years (1990–2010) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) of Areas with Increase | Mean (SD) of Areas without Increase | ||||
| Areas with higher percentage of senior population (age >= 65) | Percentage of Vegetation coverage | 100 m |
|
|
|
| 200 m | 18.7% (14.6%) | 19.1% (17.6%) | 0.32 | ||
| 300 m | 19.3% (12.1%) | 18.9 (13.4%) | 0.17 | ||
| 400 m | 19.4% (9.9%) | 18.7% (10.6%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 19.1% (8.5%) | 18.5% (8.7%) | <0.05 | ||
| Percentage of Public Open Space | 100 m | 15.0% (25.8%) | 13.1% (22.0%) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 14.4% (18.3%) | 12.5% (15.0%) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 13.6% (13.0%) | 12.2% (10.6%) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 12.5% (9.4%) | 11.9% (8.1%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 11.7% (7.1%) | 11.5% (6.7%) | 0.35 | ||
| Percentage of Road Network | 100 m | 24.0% (13.7%) | 25.3% (13.9%) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 23.7% (10.1%) | 25.0% (10.5%) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 23.4% (8.4%) | 24.7% (8.4%) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 23.5% (7.3%) | 24.5% (6.9%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 23.6% (6.5%) | 24.3% (5.9%) | <0.05 | ||
| Average Sky View Factor | 100 m | 0.64 (0.11) | 0.61 (0.10) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 0.64 (0.09) | 0.62 (0.09) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 0.65 (0.08) | 0.02 (0.08) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 0.64 (0.07) | 0.63 (0.07) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 0.64 (0.06) | 0.63 (0.06) | <0.05 | ||
| Areas with higher percentage of children and young adolescent populations (age <= 14) | Percentage of Vegetation coverage | 100 m | 12.8% (16.5%) | 13.3% (21.1%) | 0.22 |
| 200 m | 13.3% (14.1%) | 12.9% (16.7%) | 0.33 | ||
| 300 m | 13.4% (12.2%) | 12.8% (13.4%) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 13.6% (10.5%) | 12.7% (11.1%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 13.8% (9.4%) | 12.8% (9.5%) | <0.05 | ||
| Percentage of Public Open Space | 100 m | 13.8% (23.2%) | 10.6% (19.3%) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 12.4% (16.8%) | 10.8% (14.1%) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 11.2% (12.1%) | 10.9% (10.5%) | 0.42 | ||
| 400 m | 10.5% (9.0%) | 10.8% (8.0%) | 0.27 | ||
| 500 m |
|
|
| ||
| Percentage of Road Network | 100 m | 27.7% (15.3%) | 30.4% (15.6%) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 27.0% (11.2%) | 29.7% (12.6%) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 26.6% (10.0%) | 29.0% (11.1%) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 26.1% (9.1%) | 28.2% (10.0%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 25.6% (8.4%) | 27.3% (9.1%) | <0.05 | ||
| Average Sky View Factor | 100 m | 0.66 (0.10) | 0.61 (0.10) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 0.65 (0.09) | 0.62 (0.09) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 0.65 (0.08) | 0.63 (0.08) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 0.65 (0.08) | 0.63 (0.08) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 0.66 (0.07) | 0.64 (0.08) | <0.05 | ||
| Areas with lower median monthly income from main employment of working population excluding unpaid family workers | Percentage of Vegetation coverage | 100 m |
|
|
|
| 200 m |
|
|
| ||
| 300 m |
|
|
| ||
| 400 m |
|
|
| ||
| 500 m |
|
|
| ||
| Percentage of Public Open Space | 100 m |
|
|
| |
| 200 m |
|
|
| ||
| 300 m |
|
|
| ||
| 400 m |
|
|
| ||
| 500 m |
|
|
| ||
| Percentage of Road Network | 100 m | 24.4% (18.4%) | 28.8% (17.9%) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 23.8% (15.5%) | 28.5% (15.4%) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 23.4% (14.0%) | 28.0% (13.8%) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 23.1% (12.7%) | 27.4% (12.5%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 23.0% (11.4%) | 26.7% (11.3%) | <0.05 | ||
| Average Sky View Factor | 100 m | 0.72 (0.16) | 0.64 (0.15) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 0.72 (0.15) | 0.65 (0.14) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 0.71 (0.14) | 0.65 (0.13) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 0.71 (0.13) | 0.66 (0.12) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 0.70 (0.12) | 0.66 (0.12) | <0.05 | ||
| Areas with lower percentage of labor force participation rate | Percentage of Vegetation coverage | 100 m |
|
|
|
| 200 m |
|
|
| ||
| 300 m | 16.3% (11.4%) | 16.5% (13.6%) | 0.62 | ||
| 400 m | 16.8% (9.9%) | 16.4% (10.9%) | 0.13 | ||
| 500 m | 16.8% (8.8%) | 16.3% (9.0%) | <0.05 | ||
| Percentage of Public Open Space | 100 m |
|
|
| |
| 200 m |
|
|
| ||
| 300 m |
|
|
| ||
| 400 m |
|
|
| ||
| 500 m |
|
|
| ||
| Percentage of Road Network | 100 m | 26.8% (13.9%) | 27.8% (14.8%) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 26.2% (10.6%) | 27.5% (11.5%) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 25.8% (9.3%) | 26.9% (9.6%) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 25.5% (8.2%) | 26.5% (8.2%) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 25.3% (7.3%) | 25.9% (7.1%) | <0.05 | ||
| Average Sky View Factor | 100 m | 0.63 (0.10) | 0.61 (0.10) | <0.05 | |
| 200 m | 0.63 (0.09) | 0.61 (0.08) | <0.05 | ||
| 300 m | 0.63 (0.07) | 0.62 (0.07) | <0.05 | ||
| 400 m | 0.63 (0.06) | 0.62 (0.07) | <0.05 | ||
| 500 m | 0.63 (0.06) | 0.63 (0.06) | 0.51 | ||