The impacts of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions have provided a valuable global experiment into the extent of improvements in air quality possible with reductions in vehicle movements. Mexico City, London and Delhi all share the problem of air quality failing WHO guideline limits, each with unique situations and influencing factors. We determine, discuss and compare the air quality changes across these cities during the COVID-19, to understand how the findings may support future improvements in their air quality and associated health of citizens. We analysed ground-level PM
10
, PM
2.5
, NO
2
, O
3
and CO changes in each city for the period 1st January to August 31, 2020 under different phases of lockdown, with respect to daily average concentrations over the same period for 2017 to 2019. We found major reductions in PM
10
, PM
2.5
, NO
2
and CO across the three cities for the lockdown phases and increases in O
3
in London and Mexico City but not Delhi. The differences were due to the O
3
production criteria across the cities, for Delhi production depends on the VOC-limited photochemical regime. Levels of reductions were commensurate with the degree of lockdown. In Mexico City, the greatest reduction in measured concentration was in CO in the initial lockdown phase (40%), in London the greatest decrease was for NO
2
in the later part of the lockdown (49%), and in Delhi the greatest decrease was in PM
10
, and PM
2.5
in the initial lockdown phase (61% and 50%, respectively). Reduction in pollutant concentrations agreed with reductions in vehicle movements. In the initial lockdown phase vehicle movements reduced by up to 59% in Mexico City and 63% in London. The cities demonstrated a range of air quality changes in their differing geographical areas and land use types. Local meteorology and pollution events, such as forest fires, also impacted the results.
It is becoming clear that fires in boreal forests are not uniformly stand-replacing. On the contrary, marked variation in fire severity, measured as tree mortality, has been found both within and among individual fires. It is important to understand the conditions under which this variation can arise. We integrated forest sample plot data, tree allometries and historical forest fire records within a diameter class-structured model of 1.0 ha patches of mono-specific black spruce and jack pine stands in northern Québec, Canada. The model accounts for crown fire initiation and vertical spread into the canopy. It uses empirical relations between fire intensity, scorch height, the percent of crown scorched and tree mortality to simulate fire severity, specifically the percent reduction in patch basal area due to fire-caused mortality. A random forest and a regression tree analysis of a large random sample of simulated fires were used to test for an effect of fireline intensity, stand structure, species composition and pyrogeographic regions on resultant severity. Severity increased with intensity and was lower for jack pine stands. The proportion of simulated fires that burned at high severity (e.g. >75% reduction in patch basal area) was 0.80 for black spruce and 0.11 for jack pine. We identified thresholds in intensity below which there was a marked sensitivity of simulated fire severity to stand structure, and to interactions between intensity and structure. We found no evidence for a residual effect of pyrogeographic region on simulated severity, after the effects of stand structure and species composition were accounted for. The model presented here was able to produce variation in fire severity under a range of fire intensity conditions. This suggests that variation in stand structure is one of the factors causing the observed variation in boreal fire severity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.