Comparison of static and dynamic exposures to air pollution, noise, and greenness among seniors living in compact-city environments

GPS technology and tracking study designs have gained popularity as a tool to go beyond the limitations of static exposure assessments based on the subject's residence. These dynamic exposure assessment methods offer high potential upside in terms of accuracy but also disadvantages in terms of cost, sample sizes, and types of data generated. Because of that, with our study we aim to understand in which cases researchers need to use GPS-based methods to guarantee the necessary accuracy in exposure assessment. With a sample of 113 seniors living in Barcelona (Spain) we compare their estimated daily exposures to air pollution (PM2.5, PM10, NO2), noise (dB), and greenness (NDVI) using static and dynamic exposure assessment techniques. Results indicate that significant differences between static and dynamic exposure assessments are only present in selected exposures, and would thus suggest that static assessments using the place of residence would provide accurate-enough values across a number of exposures in the case of seniors. Our models for Barcelona's seniors suggest that dynamic exposure would only be required in the case of exposure to smaller particulate matter (PM2.5) and exposure to noise levels. The study signals to the need to consider both the mobility patterns and the built environment context when deciding between static or dynamic measures of exposure assessment.

Automated summary

GPS technology and tracking study designs are increasingly used to overcome the limitations of static exposure assessments based on residence. Our study aims to determine when researchers need to use GPS-based methods to ensure accurate exposure assessment. Comparing static and dynamic exposure assessment techniques for 113 seniors in Barcelona, our results suggest that static assessments based on residence are accurate enough for multiple exposures, except for smaller particulate matter and noise levels. Considering both mobility patterns and the built environment context is crucial when deciding between static or dynamic exposure assessment measures.