| Literature DB >> 31817416 |
Widya Liadira Kusuma1, Wu Chih-Da2, Zeng Yu-Ting3, Handayani Hepi Hapsari1, Jaelani Lalu Muhamad1.
Abstract
Air pollution has emerged as a significant health, environmental, economic, and social problem all over the world. In this study, geospatial technologies coupled with a LUR (Land Use Regression) approach were applied to assess the spatial-temporal distribution of fine particulate (PM2.5). In-situ observations of air pollutants from ground monitoring stations from 2016-2018 were used as dependent variables, while the land-use/land cover, a NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) from a MODIS sensors, and meteorology data allocations surrounding the monitoring stations from 0.25-5 km buffer ranges were collected as spatial predictors from GIS and remote sensing databases. A linear regression method was developed for the LUR model and 10-fold cross-validation was used to assess the model robustness. The R2 model obtained was 56% for DKI Jakarta, Indonesia, and 83% for Taipei Metropolis, Taiwan. According to the results of the PM2.5 model, the essential predictors for DKI Jakarta were influenced by temperature, NDVI, humidity, and residential area, while those for the Taipei Metropolis region were influenced by PM10, NO2, SO2, UV, rainfall, spring, main road, railroad, airport, proximity to airports, mining areas, and NDVI. The validation of the results of the estimated PM2.5 distribution use 10-cross validation with indicated R2 values of 0.62 for DKI Jakarta and 0.84 for Taipei Metropolis. The results of cross-validation show the strength of the model.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; air pollutions; fine particulate matter (PM2.5); land use regression (LUR); remote sensing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31817416 PMCID: PMC6950409 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16244924
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Distribution of PM2.5 monitoring stations, (a) in DKI Jakarta, Indonesia and (b) in Taipei Metropolis, Taiwan.
Figure 2Land use map of (a) DKI Jakarta and (b) Taipei Metropolis.
Figure 3Comparison of time series trend of PM2.5 concentrations between DKI Jakarta and Taipei Metropolis from 2016 to 2018.
Coefficient estimates of the developed LUR (Land Use Regression) model for DKI Jakarta.
| Variable |
|
| VIF | Partial R2 | Model Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −60.566 | 0.360 | R2 = 0.56 | ||
| Temperature | 5.797 | <0.001 | 1.57 | 0.325 | ADJ R2 = 0.52 |
| NDVI1500 m | −77.419 | <0.001 | 1.07 | 0.098 | RMSE = 8.19 |
| NDVI4750 m | −54.467 | <0.05 | 1.04 | 0.044 | |
| NDVI1750 m | −50.729 | <0.01 | 1.20 | 0.27 | |
| Relative humidity | −0.779 | <0.005 | 1.82 | 0.36 | |
| Residential Area4250 m | 0.039 | <0.05 | 1.39 | 0.26 |
Descriptive statistics of the selected predictors.
| Variable (Unit) | Min | Max | Standard Deviation | Variance | Medium (25–75% Percentile) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a NDVI1500 m | 1.43 × 10−1 | 3.36 × 10−1 | 5.27 × 10−2 | 2.79 × 10−3 | 0.256 (2.00 × 10−1–2.86 × 10−1) |
| b NDVI1750 m | 1.08 × 10−1 | 3.43 × 10−1 | 5.99 × 10−2 | 3.59 × 10−3 | 0.272 (2.29 × 10−1–2.93 × 10−1) |
| c NDVI4750 m | 1.35 × 10−1 | 2.97 × 10−1 | 4.22 × 10−2 | 1.79 × 10−3 | 0.236 (1.91 × 10−1–2.63 × 10−1) |
| Relative humidity | 67.603 | 94.194 | 4.985 | 24.858 | 78.409 (75.741–80.981) |
| Temperature | 30.357 | 33.872 | 7.43 × 10−1 | 0.5522 | 32.614 (32.085–32.897) |
| d Residential area4250 m | 337.099 | 451.852 | 57.778 | 3,338.41 | 394.476 (337.099–451.852) |
a Average NDVI within a radius of 1500 m; b Average NDVI within a radius of 1750 m; c Average NDVI within a radius of 4750 m; d Residential area within a radius of 4250 m.
Coefficient estimates of the developed LUR model for Taipei Metropolis.
| Variable |
|
| VIF | Partial R2 | Model Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.978 | 0.16 | R2 = 0.84 | ||
| PM10 | 0.302 | <0.001 | 2.37 | 0.56 | ADJ R2 = 0.84 |
| NO2 | 0.266 | <0.001 | 2.98 | 0.09 | RMSE = 2.57 |
| SO2 | 2.101 | <0.001 | 2.37 | 0.01 | |
| UV | −0.326 | <0.001 | 2.39 | 0.01 | |
| Rainfall | −0.074 | 0.07 | 1.16 | 0.001 | |
| Fall | −0.501 | 0.05 | 1.21 | 0.002 | |
| Spring | 1.828 | <0.001 | 1.94 | 0.001 | |
| Major Road250 m | 6.42 × 10−3 | <0.001 | 1.38 | 0.01 | |
| Railway4000 m | 1.151 | <0.001 | 1.51 | 0.02 | |
| Railway5000 m | 0.615 | <0.001 | 1.47 | 0.02 | |
| Airport2500 m | 0.092 | <0.001 | 1.75 | 0.11 | |
| Airport5000 m | 0.043 | <0.001 | 2.94 | 0.01 | |
| Airportnearest distance | −1.03 × 10−4 | <0.01 | 2.81 | 0.004 | |
| Quarryingsite5000 m | 0.346 | <0.001 | 1.29 | 0.003 | |
| NDVI4000 m | −4.46 × 10−4 | <0.001 | 1.56 | 0.01 |
Descriptive statistics of the selected predictors of Taiwan.
| Variable (Unit) | Min | Max | Standard Deviation | Variance | Medium (25–75% Percentile) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM10 | 7.1 | 58.3 | 8.79 | 77.2 | 33.6 (30–41.9) |
| NO2 | 2.8 | 34.1 | 4.6 | 21.2 | 19.2 (17.1–22.1) |
| SO2 | 1.73 | 4.11 | 0.457 | 0.21 | 2.75 (2.45–3.13) |
| UV | 1.83 | 10.62 | 2.35 | 5.51 | 5.9 (3.76–8.21) |
| Rainfall | 0.04 | 14.39 | 2.68 | 7.2 | 2.28 (1.38–3.89) |
| Fall | 0 | 1 | 0.434 | 0.189 | 0 (0–1) |
| Spring | 0 | 1 | 0.432 | 0.187 | 0 (0–0) |
| a Major Road250 m | 0 | 586.4 | 144.8 | 20,989 | 30.9 (0–123.4) |
| b Railway4000 m | 0 | 2.863 | 0.709 | 0.502 | 0.124 (0–0.622) |
| c Railway5000 m | 0 | 6.29 | 1.97 | 3.9 | 0.318 (0–0.875) |
| d Airport2500 m | 0 | 77.8 | 17.9 | 320.5 | 0 (0–0) |
| e Airport5000 m | 0 | 54.7 | 19.7 | 387 | 0 (0–8.12) |
| f Airportnearest distance | 1433 | 17,289 | 4431.3 | 19,636,747 | 7356 (4425.5–11,242) |
| g Quarryingsite5000 m | 0 | 5.73 | 1.33 | 1.77 | 0 (0–0.318) |
| h NDVI4000 m | 585 | 9985 | 1335.3 | 1,783,200 | 8826 (7985–NA) |
a Major road within a radius of 250 m; b Railway within a radius of 4000 m; c Railway within a radius of 5000 m; d Airport within a radius of 2500 m; e Airport within a radius of 5000 m; f Airport within the nearest distance; g Quarry site within a radius of 5000 m; h Average NDVI within a radius of 4000 m.
Figure 4Prediction maps of spatial-temporal variability of PM2.5 concentration using the developed LUR model in DKI Jakarta: (a) 2016–2018, (b) 2016, (c) 2017, (d) 2018.
Figure 5Prediction maps of spatial-temporal variability of PM2.5 concentration using the developed LUR model in Taipei Metropolis: (a) 2016–2018, (b) 2016, (c) 2017, (d) 2018.
Figure 6Result of 10-fold cross-validation of (a) DKI Jakarta and (b) Taipei Metropolis.