4.7 Review

Obstacles influence on existing urban canyon ventilation and air pollutant concentration: A review of potential measures

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 214, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108905

关键词

Passive methods; Pollutant dispersion; Urban canyon; Obstacles; Air quality; Urban planning

资金

  1. Dipartimento di Eccellenza- Ph.D. XXXVI cycle-University of Salento
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [RTI2018-099138-B-I00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Air pollution in cities poses a significant long-term health risk to urban populations. Research has explored passive methods, such as using "obstacles," to alter urban canyon airflow and enhance pollutant dispersion. This paper summarizes newer studies, their findings, and challenges in implementing these measures for existing urban canyons, aiming to develop urban design guidelines that improve air quality in the urban environment.
Air pollution in cities, especially in existing urban canyons, poses a global significant long-term health risk to the urban population, and urban planners are faced with the challenge of increasing the transport of pollutants out of cities. In recent years, many research and review articles have explored passive methods of altering the urban canyon geometry using 'obstacles' that alter the dispersion of air flow in these canyons, thereby enhancing pollutant dispersion. These obstacles have been categorised (in previous review articles) into porous and nonporous barriers. Porous barriers include vegetated shrubs and trees, while non-porous barriers include parked cars, low boundary walls, roadside barriers, wind catchers and solar chimneys. This paper expands on previous reviews to highlight newer studies, their findings, and challenges in implementing these measures for existing urban canyons. In addition, it attempts to bring us one step closer to developing urban design guidelines that improve air quality in the urban environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据