City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

City and Environment Interactions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cacint

Research Articles

A global perspective on national climate mitigation priorities in the context

of air pollution and sustainable development
Qingyang Liu a, b, *, Jill Baumgartner c, d, Benjamin de Foy e, James J. Schauer b, f, **
a
College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China
b
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA
c
Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
d
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
e
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA
f
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Air pollution and climate change are key global challenges for cities and both have large impacts on human health
PM2.5 and economic development. Although there are many long term opportunities to address these issues with inte-
CO2 grated policies, the immediate needs of addressing air pollution and climate change mitigation are not the same for
GHG
all countries in the short run. We examined the relationships between greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, outdoor
Short-term policy
air pollution, and levels of socioeconomic development to identify specific near-term mitigation policy responses to
Public health
climate change and air pollution for countries with different levels of human development. Human development
index, as defined by The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is a measure of achievement in the basic
dimensions of human development across countries, which combines the gross national income index, an education
index and a life expectancy index (http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev). Country-level data were collected on in-
dicators of socioeconomic development, emissions of GHG, and outdoor levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
from the World Bank, the UNDP, and the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution. Differences in GHG
emissions and air pollution concentrations, as well as socioeconomic development indicators, were assessed at
national, sub-national, and global scales. Countries were divided into four categories based on CO2 emissions per
capita and an estimation of outdoor PM2.5: Group A was characterized by high CO2 emissions per capita and low
PM2.5 concentrations, Group B by high CO2 emissions per capita and high PM2.5 concentrations, Group C by low CO2
emissions per capita and low PM2.5 concentrations, and Group D by low CO2 emissions per capita and high PM2.5
concentration. Per-capita emissions of CO2 were strongly correlated with the level of socioeconomic development,
while differences in non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions per capita across the groups were not correlated. Atmo-
spheric PM2.5 concentrations were not correlated with either CO2 emissions per capita or levels of socioeconomic
development. Energy and environmental policies focused on CO2 emission reductions may not inherently lead to
development pathways that sufficiently reduce population exposure to air pollution. Countries with low CO2 and
high air pollution levels should pursue short-term policies to reduce air pollution and increase human development,
beginning to address GHG emissions after critical human health and development needs are met.

1. Introduction
Air pollution and climate change are global issues that are inex-
tricably linked and have major impacts on the environment and on
population health [1–3]. Outdoor particulate matter (PM) ranks as the
6th-leading contributor to the global burden of disease, responsible
for an estimated 4.1 million yearly premature deaths [4,5]. Climate
change may pose health risks through increases in extreme heat and
weather events (e.g., floods and droughts) and reduced agricultural
production [6,7]. Regional climate warming may also impact health
by increasing the concentrations of outdoor air pollutants like ozone
[8,9].
The geographical distribution of the health and environmental im-
pacts of air pollution and climate change is uneven [10]. In particular,

* Corresponding author. College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing, China.
** Corresponding author. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.
E-mail addresses: liuqingyang0807@aliyun.com (Q. Liu), jjschauer@wisc.edu (J.J. Schauer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2019.100003
Received 18 June 2019; Received in revised form 7 September 2019; Accepted 15 September 2019
Available online 8 October 2019
2590-2520/© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Q. Liu et al.
residents of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are the most
vulnerable as a function of their high exposures to air pollution and
changing weather patterns, in addition to their limited capacity to
manage and adapt to these risks [11,12]. Most (97%) LMIC cities did not
meet the World Health Organization (WHO) air quality guideline of
10 μg/m3 for yearly average PM2.5 in 2016, compared to less than half of
high-income countries not meeting the guideline [13]. Climate
change-related stresses such as heat waves, droughts, and flooding are
critical factors for LMIC populations that can be amplified by poverty,
sparse infrastructure, and high dependence on natural resources [14].
Energy use is regarded as the major underlying cause of greenhouse
gas emissions and global air pollution, including short-lived climate
forcers like black carbon. In the next several decades, nearly all of the
global growth in energy demand, fossil fuel use, and associated air
pollution emissions is projected to happen in LMICs [15,16]. The rela-
tionship between economic growth and energy use in LMICs is heavily
influenced by the extent to which growth improves the economic con-
dition of the poor. As poor households move out of poverty and gain
connection to the electric grid, they acquire and use new appliances and
technologies. Expected primary energy demand in LMICs countries may
as much as double by 2040 (107%) from 2016, while in high-countries it
may decrease by 8% during the same period [17].
Mitigation of air pollution and climate change can benefit environment
and health in LMICs and may also facilitate economic development by
updating technologies that reduce local and regional air pollution [18,
19].Yet across many areas of research and policy, outdoor PM and climate
change are historically viewed as two distinct environmental challenges,
even though PM and greenhouse gases (GHGs) share many emission
sources, atmospheric properties, and mitigation options [20,21]. This may
in part be due to policy trade-offs where mitigation of ambient particulate
matter may not benefit climate change, and vice versa [22]. For example,
switching from coal heating to natural gas could substantially reduce PM
and black carbon emissions (30–80%), but CO2 is estimated to slightly
increase [23,24]. Overall, however, there are a number of important
co-benefit strategies where decreasing GHG also decreases outdoor PM
emitted from the same sources [21]. For example, Shindell et al. [25]
indentified 14 measures that could mitigate near-term global climate
change and improve human health and food security simultaneously.
Anenberg et al. [26] examined the relationships between mortality asso-
ciated with exposures of PM and CO2 emission in 250 urban areas across
the world. They found PM2.5 concentrations and mortality decline more
than CO2 emissions with increasing gross domestic product (GDP) in some
urban areas worldwide, where share climate, air quality and health
co-benefits through low-carbon development.
The 21st session of the United Nations Conference of the Parties
(COP21) held in Paris in December 2015 was a major milestone in laying
a foundation to aggressively pursue mitigation efforts for climate change
and air pollution in an integrated manner without adversely impacting
economic growth in LMICs [27,28]. To facilitate a more integrated
strategy for mitigating global climate change and air pollution, we used
country-level data to investigate the magnitude of the global differences
in greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and socioeconomic develop-
ment. We aimed to systematically evaluate and examine the trade-offs
and priorities in mitigation policies and technologies aimed at address-
ing outdoor PM and climate change in countries with different levels of
socioeconomic developments. The results of this study will be used for
policy-makers from different countries to address outdoor PM and
climate change in the context of health and sustainable development.
2. Methods
2.1. Data
Country-level data on GHG emissions, outdoor air pollution, and key
development indicators were obtained from multiple sources
compiled by the World Bank (available at http://data.worldbank.org/
2
City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003
topic/climate-change under the CC-BY 4.0 License) and Task Force on
Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (available at http://www.htap.
org/under the CC-BY 4.0 License), respectively. We obtained complete
data for the 184 countries that were included in the database. Relevant
datasets are available in the Supporting Information (Tables S1-S5). In-
formation about the GHG and outdoor air pollution data used in this
study and their sources are provided in Table 1. We then calculated per-
capita GHG emissions for each country using total population data that
were obtained from the United Nations Population Division [29].
Country-level GHG emission per capita was calculated as follows:
Country-level GHG emission per capita ¼ Country-level GHG emission/
Country-level population (1)
where the inputs of country-level GHG emissions and population data are
from the same year. We used the 2013 dataset for this study because it
was the most recent year that also overlapped with our CO2 emissions
estimates described above.
Indicators that represent multiple domains (e.g., infrastructure, social
and economic development, and health) were obtained from World
Bank's indicators (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator) to provide a
broad conceptualization of socioeconomic development for each country.
For most indicators, we used datasets collected in 2012 because they
were the most recent and complete. However, we used the 2015 data on
the adult literacy rate because 2012 data was not available. Detailed
information on socioeconomic metrics used in this study and their
sources are summarized in.Table S6.
The human development index (HDI) is a composite measure of
metrics relating to health, education, and living standards (http://hdr.un
dp.org/en/humandev). The health dimension is assessed by life expec-
tancy at birth [37] and the education dimension is measured by mean of
years of schooling for adults over 25 years old [38] and expected years of
education for children entering school [38]. The standard of living
dimension is measured by gross national income per capita [39]. The HDI
is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three di-
mensions using the following equation (2).
HDI¼(I health ХI Education Х I Income)1/3 (2)
Detailed information on the methods used to compute the HDI is
available elsewhere [29]. Minimum and maximum values for different
dimensions of human development indicators are set for transforming the
indicators expressed in different units into indices on a scale of 0–1 for
HDI. In this study, we obtained the HDI values that were calculated
annually by UNDP [29]. The HDI dataset for 188 countries is available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi. HDI
data from 2012 was selected for the analysis as this corresponds to the
socioeconomic development dataset obtained from the World Bank. The
UNDP divides the 188 countries into four subgroups based on their HDI
scores: very high human development (0.80 and above), high human
development (0.70–0.79), medium human development (0.55–0.69),
and low human development (below 0.55) [29].
2.2. Standardizing country-level air pollution metrics
To account for the high variability in minimum and maximum values
for GHG emissions and PM2.5 across study countries, we generated
dimensionless indices of air pollution emissions and concentrations using
2 equations. First, we used equation (3) to standardize country-level
differences in per capita emissions.
Standardize value (GHG) ¼ Per capita GHG emission/Per capita global average
GHG emission (3)
A value less than 1 indicates that the per-capita GHG emissions for a
given country are lower than the global average, whereas countries with
values above 1 exceed the global average. Next, we standardized
population-weighted exposure to PM2.5 using formula (4).
Q. Liu et al. City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003

Table 1
Summary of GHG emissions and outdoor air pollution data used in this study.
Item Period Unit Data source Brief description

CO2 1960–2013 Metric tons U.S. Department of Energy's Annual fossil fuel consumption data were obtained from the United Nations
Carbon Dioxide Information Statistics Division's World Energy Dataset and world cement
Analysis Centera manufacturing data were obtained from the U.S. Department of Interior's
Geological Survey [30]
CH4 and N2O 1970–2012 Metric tons Emission Database for Global Data were calculated using the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s
Other GHG, HFC, PFC 2000–2010 of CO2 Atmospheric Researchb energy balances [31] and agricultural activity data [32].
and SF6d equivalents
BC 1970–2010 Metric tons Task Force on Hemispheric Data were compiled from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
of CO2 Transport of Air Pollutionc Environment Canada, the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme,
equivalents the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, the Model
Inter-comparison Study for Asia, and the Emission Database for Global
Atmospheric Research
Population-weighted 2013 μg/m3 World Bank Environment In this database, spatially-resolved (0.1  0.1 ) global estimates of PM2.5
average annual PM2.5 Survey database concentrations were estimated based on satellite-based estimates, chemical transport
concentration model simulations, and ground measurements from 79 different countries at 3–5 year
intervals, using methods described in Brauer et al. [33], and used to generate
country-level, population-weighted concentrations of exposure to ambient PM2.5
a
Estimates of global CO2 emissions are accurate within 10% percent and though country-level CO2 emissions may have larger errors, comparisons across countries
tend to be more accurate (<10% error) [34].
b
EDGAR, Joint Research Centre/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PBL European Commission; The uncertainties for estimations of emissions using
EDGARv4.3.2 ranged from 9% to þ9%. The larger uncertainties of15% were found in non-Annex I countries, while uncertainties of less than5% were obtained for
the 24OECD90 countries (i.e., 24 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as of 1990) [35].
c
Larger uncertainties of30% were presented in the modeled estimations of global BC emissions using HTAP_v2.2. Smaller uncertainties in BC estimations ( 15%)
were observed in countries with well-maintained statistical infrastructures (i.e., OECD countries and India) [36].
d
HFC is hydrofluorocarbons; PFC is perfluorocarbon; SF6 is sulfur hexafluoride; Other GHG is the sum of HFC, PFC, and SF6.

variables. Thus, the variables in each principal component are correlated

Standardize value (PM2.5) ¼ National annual mean PM2.5 concentration/WHO with each other in order to interpret the main components successfully
annual mean guideline of 10 μg/m3 (4) [40].
The principal component was calculated using equations (5) and (6)
A score between 0 and 1 indicates that WHO air quality annual as follows:
guideline (10 μg/m3) was met, whereas a score above 1 indicates that the
guideline was exceeded. PC1 ¼ α1X1þα2 X2þα3X3þ … þαn Xn (5)

PC2 ¼ β1 X1þβ2 X2þβ3X3þ … þβn Xn (6)

2.3. Statistical analysis
2.3.1. Principal component analysis
For statistical analysis in this study, we used 2012 data on CH4 and
N2O emissions, 2013 data on CO2 emissions, 2013 data on PM2.5 con-
centration, and 2010 data on other GHG emissions and black carbon
emissions because they were the most recent datasets available. We
evaluated the correlations between country-level total GHG emissions,
GHG emission per capita, PM2.5 concentration, and our multiple in-
dicators of socioeconomic development to select inputs for principal
component analysis (PCA) [40]. Only variable that had a Pearson cor-
relation coefficient (r > 0.20) was statistically significant (p < 0.05) was
considered (Table 2 and S7).
In this study, we first attempt to discover the possible relationships
between air pollution and a set of socioeconomic metrics. Factor analysis
is most appropriate methodology to examine factor influencing a number
of measured variables. Normally, there are two types of factor analysis,
i.e., exploratory and confirmatory. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is
to test whether a specified set of factor influencing responses in a pre-
dicted way. CFA is not an appropriate methodology for our dataset
because the relationships between air pollution and socioeconomic
metrics are not distinct yet. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is robust
mathematical tool for our dataset because it is able to examine common
factors influencing variables naturally [41].
We used principal component analysis (PCA) to identify potential
factors (principal components) because it could derive a relatively small
number of components that account for the variability found in a rela-
tively large number of measures [40]. PCA is able to examine a group of
variables that are correlated across nations and to isolate new variables
that are called principal components. Each principal component is a
multimodal space that is made up of a linear combination of different
where α and β is the coefficient of regression of the principal components
on the variables, X1, X2, X3 …, Xn describe a group of variables, as well as
PC1 is the first principle component of the variability of X1, X2, X3 …, Xn,
and PC2 is the second principle component of the variability of X1, X2, X3
…, Xn. The Scree Test and eigenvalue criterion are used to find the right
number of components [40].
Prior to our exploratory analysis, we first used the Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) method to check if multilinearity was present across the
different metrics used as inputs to the model. A data matrix with a VIF
value lower than 5 was deemed acceptable for the PCA analysis [42].
Then, we used the Bartlett's test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) test to evaluate sampling adequacy and suitability of our data for
factor analysis. Variables were considered suitable for PCA if the signif-
icance of Bartlett's sphericity was <0.05 and KMO values were >0.50.
The PCA was performed using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normaliza-
tion [40,43]. A scree plot was utilized for checking all principal com-
ponents. The method of choosing components with eigenvalues greater
than 1 (i.e., Kaiser criterion) was used to extract principal components of
the total variability [43]. The PCA technique allows for the identification
of principal components with respect to the levels of correlation value. A
correlation value above 0.7 is significant for factor identification in this
study [40].
2.3.2. Grouping countries
Because UNDP recommended the value of HDI as criteria for grouping
countries with different socioeconomic development, we evaluated the
associations between country-level total GHG emissions, GHG emission
per capita, PM2.5 concentration, and HDI to select suitable metrics of
ambient species for grouping countries with different levels of socio-
economic developments (Supplementary Materials and Table S7). CO2

3
Q. Liu et al. City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003

emission per capita is considered as a metrics for grouping countries with
different levels of socioeconomic development because it is associated
with HDI. Then, we modeled the associations between HDI and CO2
emission per capita using univariate regression models with different
forms: a linear relationship y ¼ αþβx, a linear exponential relationship in
the form of y ¼ exp (αþβx), and a loglinear relationship where y ¼
αþβlnx. We defined HDI as independent variable (x) and computed
dependent variable (y) for determining the cutoff points of CO2 emission
per capita for grouping countries with different levels of socioeconomic
development (Table S8). The Akaike Information Criterion value was
chosen for selecting the fitting model [44]. All the model assumptions
were verified using routine diagnostic analysis of the residuals.
We conducted a number of sensitivity analyses. First, we included
PM2.5 data from different years (2010 and 2013) and CO2 emissions per
capita from different years (2010, 2012 and 2013) in the PCA analysis to
check the relative sensitivities of output associated with the degree of
change in eigenvalues. Then, we assessed the impacts of different human
development indicators (e.g., health, economic, infrastructure) on the
selections of cutoff values for differentiating LMIC countries from upper-
middle and high-income countries (Figures S1 and S2).
The summary statistics for GHG emission per capita, PM2.5 concen-
trations, and socioeconomic development indicators are presented as
means  standard errors (SEs) for each group of countries. The statistical
analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sci-
ences (IBM SPSS Version 13.0).
2.4. Uncertainties associated with data analysis
The country-level estimates of GHG including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC,
PFC, SF6, and BC in this study were obtained from World Bank and
Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) with
consistent emission inventories and modeling method across GHG
emission species [35]. Population-weighted average annual PM2.5 con-
centration was estimated with the consistent method using the combi-
nations of satellite-based estimates, chemical transport model
simulations, and ground measurements [33]. Socioeconomic indicators
were obtained from WHO reports with consistent data coverage and
quality. The uncertainties of estimates are thus independent of data
coverage, estimate method and species. The associations between indi-
vidual GHG emission species and human development metrics were not
considered to be biased due to consistent data quality across dataset of
individual species.
Uncertainty differences of individual GHG estimates were found be-
tween countries with well-maintained statistical infrastructures ( 5%-
15%) and fairly-maintained statistical infrastructures ( 15%–30%).
The geographical comparisons across countries may be biased if the data
set is used. Yet, country-to-country data comparisons from geographical
view were not included in our further analysis.
(Table 2).Total emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, BC, and other GHG species as
well as per-capital emissions of CH4, N2O, BC, and other GHG species
were not correlated with any metrics of human development (r
range ¼ 0.24-0.30, p > 0.05) (Table S7), and thus were excluded from
the factor analysis. From the VIF results, metrics of infrastructure in-
dicators including access to electricity, access to clean household energy,
access to improved sanitation, and access to improved water sources
were collinear with economic indicators (e.g. GDP per capita, GDP per
capita on purchasing power parity, and adjusted net national income per
capita), health indicators (e.g. mortality), and education indicators (e.g.,
adult literacy rate and adolescents out of school) (VIP range ¼ 6–30). In
the factor analysis for the 184 countries, a 2-factor solution with an
eigenvalue higher than 1 described 82% of the total variance of the input
dataset. The calculations of coefficients for the two components are
presented in Table 3.
The first component (PC1), which accounted for 65% of the total
variation, was primarily composed of infrastructure, educational, and
economic indicators, which are indicative of overall socioeconomic
development. Equation (7) shows the linear combination between the
first component (PC1) and variables as follows:
PC1¼(0.63) CO2 emission per capitaþ(-0.07) Annual PM2.5 concen-
trationþ(0.83) Access to electricityþ(0.86) Access to non-solid fuelþ(0.94)
Access to improved sanitationþ(0.87) Improved water sourceþ(0.75) Electric
power consumptionþ(0.71) Fixed broadband subscriptionsþ(-0.84) Adoles-
cents out of schoolþ(-0.91) Death by communicable diseases and maternal,
prenatal and nutrition conditionsþ(-0.92) Mortality rate, under age 5þ(-0.89)
Mortality rate, neonatalþ(0.86) Adult literacy rate, population 15 þ years, both
sexesþ(0.75) GDP per capitaþ(0.78) GDP per capita on purchasing power
parityþ(0.75) Adjusted net national income per capitaþ(0.97)HDI . (7)
The second component was composed mainly of PM2.5 concentrations
(17% of the variance). Equation (8) shows the linear combination be-
tween the first component (PC1) and variables as follows:
PC2¼(0.60) CO2 emission per capitaþ(0.74) Annual PM2.5 concentrationþ(-
0.27) Access to electricityþ(-0.13) Access to non-solid fuelþ(-0.11) Access to
improved sanitationþ(-0.11) Improved water sourceþ(0.60) Electric power
consumptionþ(-0.22) Fixed broadband subscriptionsþ(0.32) Adolescents out
of schoolþ(0.31) Death by communicable diseases and maternal, prenatal and
Table 2
Correlation matrixes (Pearson’ r) of annual PM2.5 mass, CO2 emissions per capita,
and metrics of human development for 184 countries.
Item CO2 emission per Annual PM2.5
capita (n ¼ 184) concentration
(n ¼ 184)
r p r p

Annual PM2.5 concentration 0.12 0.176 – –

3. Results Access to electricity 0.46** <0.01 0.09 0.236
Access to non-solid fuel 0.53** <0.01 0.13 0.321
Access to improved sanitation 0.51** <0.01 0.13 0.362
3.1. Correlation and factor analysis Improved water source 0.42** <0.01 0.09 0.222
Electric power consumption 0.54** <0.01 0.07 0.238
Of 217 study countries, 33 were missing CO2 emissions or air quality Fixed broadband subscriptions 0.44** <0.01 0.22** <0.01
data and thus removed from all of the following analysis (Table S5). For Adolescents out of school 0.48** <0.01 0.41** <0.01
Death by communicable diseases and 0.48** <0.01 0.15 0.154
the remaining 184 countries, CO2 emissions per capita were positively
maternal, prenatal and nutrition
correlated with metrics of socioeconomic development (r conditions
range ¼ 0.40–0.81, p < 0.05) including access to electricity, access to Mortality rate, under age 5 0.45** <0.01 0.22** <0.01
clean household energy, access to improved sanitation, access to Mortality rate, neonatal 0.49** <0.01 0.28** <0.01
improved water sources, fixed broadband subscriptions, GDP per capita, Adult literacy rate, population 15 þ 0.40** <0.01 0.32** <0.01
years, both sexes
GDP per capita on purchasing power parity, adjusted net national income GDP per capita 0.66** <0.01 0.10 0.122
per capita, and HDI, and negatively correlated with neonatal mortality GDP per capita on purchasing power 0.81** <0.01 0.01, 0.132
(r ¼ 0.49, p < 0.05) and child mortality (r ¼ 0.45,p < 0.05). Annual parity
PM2.5 concentrations were weakly correlated (r range ¼ 0.22 to 0.41, Adjusted net national income per capita 0.61**, <0.01 0.13 0.117
HDI 0.59**, <0.01 0.24** <0.01
p < 0.05) with fixed broadband subscriptions, adult literacy rate, ado-
lescents out of school, neonatal mortality, child mortality, and HDI **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4
Q. Liu et al. City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003

Table 3 1000 live births) were higher than those of upper middle and high
Factor analysis of annual PM2.5 mass, CO2 emissions per capita and metrics of development countries (2–20 per 1000 live births (Fig. 1, Figures S1 and
human development in 184 nations. S2)). Considering this reason, these nations are unable to be allocated as
Factor 1 (65% of Factor 2 (17% of countries with high levels of development. Thus, we select 0.60 of global
the total variation) the total variation) average CO2 emissions per capita to differentiate groups of LMICs from
CO2 emission per capita 0.63 0.60 upper-middle and high-income countries.
Annual PM2.5 concentration 0.07 0.74 The average annual PM2.5 concentration for the 184 study countries
Access to electricity 0.83 0.27 was 19.6 μg/m3, (95% confidence interval (CI): 18.3, 20.8). In this study,
Access to non-solid fuel 0.86 0.13
countries with mean annual PM2.5 concentrations higher than 20 μg/m3
Access to improved sanitation 0.94 0.11
Improved water source 0.87 0.11 were characterized as medium and high air pollution areas, while nations
Electric power consumption 0.75 0.60 with mean annual PM2.5 concentrations in the range of 10–20 μg/m3
Fixed broadband subscriptions 0.71 0.22 were characterized as light air pollution areas. Countries with mean
Adolescents out of school ¡0.84 0.31 annual PM2.5 concentrations less than 10 μg/m3 were characterized as
Death by communicable diseases and ¡0.91 0.32
maternal, prenatal and nutrition
clean air pollution areas. 20 μg/m3 was used in the following analysis to
conditions differentiate groups of areas with clean and light air pollution from areas
Mortality rate, under age 5 ¡0.92 0.25 with medium and high air pollution.
Mortality rate, neonatal ¡0.89 0.19
Adult literacy rate, population 15 þ 0.86 0.33
3.3. Global differences in air pollution emissions and concentrations
years, both sexes
GDP per capita 0.75 0.57
GDP per capita on purchasing power 0.78 0.60 Annual mean PM2.5 (2013) concentrations exceeded the WHO
parity guideline in 142 of 184 study countries (77%). Additionally, 52 countries
Adjusted net national income per 0.75 0.51 (28%) had yearly averages that exceed the global average annual outdoor
capita
HDI 0.97 0.16
PM2.5 concentration (Fig. 1). For per capita emissions of CO2, 60 coun-
tries (33%) emitted higher than the global average in 2013 (5.0 metric
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis (PCA); The number is the tonnes per capita) and 36 countries (20%) had emission rates less than
correlation value between the resolved factor and input variable. The bolded
the 10% of the global average (0.5 metric tonnes per capita).
number represents a correlation value between resolved factor and variable
After grouping the countries by the levels of human development and
higher than 0.7, which is significant for factor identification.
outdoor air pollution, average annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and
average per capita CO2 emissions were higher in Group B
nutrition conditionsþ(0.25) Mortality rate, under age 5þ(0.19) Mortality rate,
(PM2.5 ¼ 34.3  2.4 μg/m3; CO2 ¼ 12.5  2.2 metric tonnes per capita)
neonatalþ(-0.33) Adult literacy rate, population 15 þ years, both sexesþ(0.57)
than those of the other three groups (Group A: PM2.5 ¼ 13.1  0.4 μg/m3;
GDP per capitaþ(0.60) GDP per capita on purchasing power parityþ(0.51)
CO2 ¼ 8.1  0.7 metric tonnes per capita; Group C: 12.0  0.5 μg/m3 and
Adjusted net national income per capitaþ(-0.16)HDI . (8)
1.2  0.1 metric tonnes per capita; Group D: PM2.5 ¼ 32.3  1.7 μg/m3;
Factor 1 was associated with levels of human development and Factor CO2 ¼ 0.7  0.1 metric tonnes per capita) (Table S9).
2 was associated with air pollution but without links to development CO2 emissions per capita and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions per
indicators (Table 3). In our sensitivity analyses, we found that the capita (e.g., CH4, N2O, BC, F-GHG) were not correlated within groups or
resolved factors of eigenvalues were relatively consistent across years across all groups (p > 0.05) (Figures S3 and S4). Detailed descriptions of
indicating that combining data from different years did not affect factor results on non-CO2 GHG emission per capita can be found in Supple-
identification in our study. Based on the PCA results, we generated a mentary Materials.
scatter plot that grouped countries by CO2 emission per capita and PM2.5 Socioeconomic development metrics (e.g., access to electricity, mor-
mass, which are the two representative factors associated with socio- tality rate, and GDP per capita) were highest for countries in Group A and
economic development and air pollution, respectively, to investigate the subsequently declined for Group B, Group C, Group D (Fig. 2), in that
environmental and development impacts of future policies (Fig. 1). order which agrees well with the average HDI scores for each group
(Mean  SE: Group A: 0.83  0.01; Group B: 0.77  0.01; Group C
0.62  0.01; Group D: 0.50  0.01) (Table S10).
3.2. Grouping countries
4. Discussion
The association equation between CO2 emission per capita and HDI
was calculated in the form of ln(y) ¼ 8.74x - 0.01 (R2 ¼ 0.77, p < 0.01), 4.1. Reductions of air pollution for countries in groups B and D
where x is the HDI value and y is the standardized value of CO2 emissions
per capita (Table S8). According to the UNDP recommendations, the The countries in Group B and D were characterized by high PM2.5
cutoff HDI value for differentiating high human development countries emissions, where the annual mean PM2.5 concentration was higher than
from very high human development is 0.80 and medium human devel- global average (20 μg/m3). Results from the spatiotemporal evolution of
opment countries from high human development is 0.70 [29]. When global PM2.5 concentrations based on Bayesian statistics indicated that
these two values of HDI (i.e., 0.70 and 0.80) were inputted into the areas with the annual PM2.5 concentrations greater than 25 μg/m3 (i.e.,
modeled equations in the form of lny ¼ 8.74x-0.01 (Table S9), the output hot spots) expanded year by year [45]. The most heavily PM2.5 polluted
values were 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 0.60) and 1.00 areas were northwestern Africa, followed by eastern China, and northern
(95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70, 1.30), which can be regarded as the India, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iraq in Middle East. In contrast, regions
cutoff points of the standardized value of CO2 emission per capita for with annual PM2.5 concentrations less than 10 μg/m3 (i.e., cold spots)
differentiating countries with levels of human development. exhibited a decreasing local trend from 2000 to 2014 [45].
We found that an interval of 0.40–0.90 could differentiate groups of In rural areas of Africa and India, high exposures of household air
LMICs from upper-middle and high-income countries. We reviewed some pollution were contributed from solid biomass emissions in old stoves.
selected human development indicators (e.g., access to non-solid fuel, The replacement of old stoves with efficient pellet stoves and banning
child morality, GDP per capita) of countries with CO2 emissions per open-field burning of agriculture residues are proven to be effective for
capita in this interval (0.40–0.90). Some countries had CO2 emission per PM reduction [3,46,47]. Zhu et al. [48] reviewed 239 source appor-
capita in the range of 0.40–0.60 but with mortality rates (30–170 per tionment of ambient particle studies conducted from 1987 to 2017 in

5
Q. Liu et al. City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003

Fig. 1. Per capita CO2 emissions and PM2.5 concentrations for 184 countries. The lists of countries in each group are provided in the Supporting Information (Table S1-
S4). (a) Right: The low to high values are associated with an increased trend of access to non-solid fuel (%, 2012 data). (b) Right: The low to high values are associated
with a decreased trend in the under 5 mortality rate (per 1000 live births, 2012 data).

China. The largest sources contributing to PM mass concentrations are
secondary inorganic aerosol (~30–60% of total PM mass) and industrial
emissions (~20–30% of total PM mass). Furthermore, fossil fuel com-
bustion and industrial emissions were major source of secondary inor-
ganic aerosol, contributing about ~40–90% to mass concentrations [48].
In India, 13 cities are listed in the world's 20 cities with the highest
annual levels of PM2.5 [49]. According to source apportionment reviews
from Singh et al. [50], vehicular emissions (~40% of mass) and industrial
emissions (~30% of mass) were dominate PM2.5 sources in cities
including Delhi, Dhaka, Mumbai, Agra and Lahore over South Asia from
2007-2016. Secondary sulfur emissions from fossil combustion (~35% of
mass) and vehicular emission (~15% of mass) were found to be the
largest contribution source of PM2.5 mass in eleven urban areas of Middle
East (i.e., West Jerusalem, Eilat, Tel Aviv, and Haifa, Amman, Aqaba,
Rahma, Zarka, Nablus, East Jerusalem, and Hebron) [51].
Advanced after-treatment technologies for vehicle and industrial
emissions have the potential to lower the ambient PM concentration in
Asian countries of Groups B and D [52] (Table 4). Conventional diesels
engines typically use only 70% of the amount of fuel required by a gas-
oline engine, emitting similar amounts of per-mile CO2 emissions as

6
Q. Liu et al. City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003

Fig. 2. Comparison of the infrastructure, human development, and economic indicators (mean  SE) among the four groups.

gasoline engines [53], but increasing per-mile PM emission by up to
~50% [54,55]. Diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC) and diesel particulate
filters (DPF) could reduce the most concerning air pollutants (e.g., PM,
NOx and soot particle) from diesel engines by 50–80% [56,57]. A
three-way catalyst (TWC) equipped with new gasoline vehicles could
reduce the emissions of CO and NOx by 4–20% [58]. Because the sulfur
in liquid fuel is harmful for these after-treatment technologies [59],
desulfurization technology is necessary in Group B and D countries.
Additionally, fleet electrification is another strategy for reducing the air
pollutant emissions from roadways with the co-benefits of GHG re-
ductions [17]. Several after-treatment units including flue gas desulfur-
ization (FGD), baghouse, and electrostatic precipitator (ESP) allow
effective reductions of air pollutant emissions in the range of 5–30% for
industrial power plants [60]. A selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit is
proven to reduce NOx emission by 20–50% in coal-fired power plants
[60]. Though natural dust emissions influenced local air quality in
Middle East largely (~10–50% of PM mass) [61], the use of advanced
after-treatment technology could also reduce the air pollutants from
anthropogenic emissions by ~20–40% in order to protect public health
[52].
4.2. Climate change mitigation at national and global scales
As shown in Fig. 1, some countries such as Trinidad and Tobago,
Brunei Darussalam, Luxembourg, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain have relative
low levels of total CO2 emission, contributing about 1–2% of global CO2
Table 4
Specific short-term policies in response to climate change and air pollution for
countries with different levels of human development.
Group Mitigation focus Short-term strategies
emission on average, and high levels of CO2 emission on a per capita due
to their small population size and/or low carbon efficiency [62].
Yet, some countries of Group A and B having high levels of CO2
emission and CO2 emission per capita require integrated long-term pol-
icies to implement the move to low carbon fuel sources in order to reduce
national CO2 emissions. The most effective types of low carbon energy
can be utilized through the use of renewable technology (e.g., wind and
solar power, Table 4) [63]. It is estimated that wind technology emits
only 0.01–0.02 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt-hour
(CO2E/kWh) and solar 0.03–0.1 kg of CO2E/kWh, which are much
lower than that of natural gas (between 0.3 to 1 kg of CO2E/kWh) and
coal (between 0.7 to 1.8 kg of CO2E/kWh) [64]. Renewable technology
can also have a wide range of criteria for air pollutant reductions (e.g.,
SO2, NOx, PM2.5) in the range of 20–80% compared with those of
different conventional technologies [64]. Furthermore, CCS technology
could provide an mitigation option for reducing CO2 emission associated
with the use of fossil fuel [52].
Unlike CO2 emissions, there were not large differences in non-CO2
emissions (e.g., CH4, N2O, BC and Other GHG emissions) by socioeco-
nomic status (Tables S9 and S10). Thus, mitigation policies of reducing
non-CO2 emission are compatible with sustainable development globally.
A set of fourteen measures that were identified to target methane and BC
emissions (e.g., ban of open fire burning, DPF for diesel vehicles, clean-
burning stoves) could reduce air pollution and mitigate near-term
global warming globally [25]. Considering the diverse needs for miti-
gation technologies for reducing non-GHG emissions and air pollution
across countries, the Climate & Clean Air Coalition under the UN
framework could help to implement the green mitigation pathways for
reducing short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) and air pollution.
4.3. Socioeconomic development for low-income countries

A Reductions of GHG emissions Access to renewable energy

B Reductions of GHG emissions and air
pollutions
C –
D Reductions of air pollutions
Access to renewable energy
Advanced after-treatment
technology
Human development
Advanced after-treatment
technology
A monotonic relationship between cross-country CO2 emission and
GDP per capita was observed (Figure S5a), which were comparable to
former studies [26,65]. Stern et al. [65] found that a monotonic rela-
tionship (i.e., cross-country environmental Kuznets curve) between CO2
emissions per capita and income per capita existed in a globally repre-
sentative sample of countries, even when time effects were included in

7
Q. Liu et al.
the regression model. Ru et al. [66] found the long-term relationship
(environmental Kuznets curve) between income and emissions of
ambient species (i.e., SO2, BC and CO2) could be dependable on energy
sectors. CO2 emissions contributed by industrial and the residential
sectors, as well as SO2 emissions contributed by power and industrial
sectors followed an environmental Kuznets curve, while other air pol-
lutants did not. We do not observe the significant associations between
cross-country PM2.5 concentration and GDP per capita (Figure S5b),
which are consistent with prior result on the relationships between in-
come and PM2.5 in 250 urban areas globally [26]. Our results support the
hypothesis that improvements in industrial technology could improve
socioeconomic developments without necessarily increasing PM2.5 than
CO2 emission.
Low-income countries in Groups C and D are the most vulnerable to
climate change because they have fewer resources to adapt, and are thus
anticipated to experience the largest environmental and health risks,
particularly those in dry and tropical regions [67]. In some African
countries from Group C and D, for example, wheat crop yields are esti-
mated to decrease by as much as 35% by 2050 [68–70]. Urban pop-
ulations in this region are likely to top ~700 million by 2030 and around
half will live in coastal cities, areas vulnerable to flooding erosion due to
the weak infrastructure [11]. Recent studies indicated that global climate
change mitigation was clearly linked to economic and scientific devel-
opment. Consequently, for low-income nations (e.g., countries in Groups
C and D), the scientific and infrastructure advancement will expand their
industrial productivity and promote economic development so that local
citizens can address their own challenges from climate change and
adaption [71]. Furthermore, the National Adaptation Programme of
Action with support from the United Nations Development Programme
identified over 50 low-income countries, including many in Groups C and
D, in which local citizens would benefit from assistance in understanding
and assessing the multi-level vulnerability for adapting climates [72].
4.4. Co-benefits for global climate change mitigation
Driscoll et al. [73] investigated the health and climate benefits of
implementing conventional energy with after-treatment technology (e.g.,
FGD, ESP) and renewable energy in 2417 power plants in the USA. The
results suggested that annual estimated CO2 and PM2.5 can be reduced by
10–40%, eliminating 21–33% of premature deaths associated with air
pollution. He et al. [74] estimated a 12–32% decline in air pollutants
(e.g., SO2, NOx, BC, and OC), and estimated reductions of 1469 million
tonnes of CO2 and a 15–22% decrease in all-cause mortality resulting
from air pollution could be achieved in China around 2030 if policies on
conventional energy with advanced after-treatment technology (e.g.,
FGD, baghouse, ESP, DOC, SCR) and strict emission controls are imple-
mented. Anenberg et al. [75] found that implementation of emission
control measures targeting BC and methane (e.g., ban of open fire
burning, DPF for diesel vehicles, clean-burning stoves) could reduce
global population-weighted PM2.5 and ozone concentrations by 23–34%
and 7–17% and could potentially reverse trends of increasing air pollu-
tion concentrations in Africa and South, West, and Central Asia. These
findings indicate that pathways of low-income countries for moving to
after-treatment technologies, strict emission controls, and renewable
energy are expected to prioritize PM and GHG reductions, as well as
share greater co-benefit in protecting public health.
Our study has several limitations including the fact the most current
emission data is already a few years old. The 184 countries are not
grouped based on the most current emission data (e.g., 2018, 2019) due
to the inaccessibility of emission data. Future emission projections
retrieved from three integrated assessment models including reference,
minimal and no climate policy simulations indicated that emissions of air
pollutants (i.e., BC, SO2, CO2) from all sectors decrease over time from
2010 to 2100 globally [66]. Since the developments in economic growth
and mitigation technology could influence the country-level emissions of
GHG and air pollutants [66], it is speculated that the lists of countries in
8
City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003
each group may vary from our current results. Future studies could
improve upon our current results by conducting the long-term relation-
ships between emissions of air pollution and a set of socioeconomic in-
dicators across countries globally in order to identify specific mitigation
policy responses to climate change and air pollution for countries with
different levels of human development. The main findings of our study
provide a practical approach to prioritizing strategies for addressing is-
sues of air pollution and climate mitigation that can be used by policy-
makers faced with the countries that have different levels of
socioeconomic developments.
5. Conclusions
Our study is to present the priority strategies to address issues of air
pollution and climate mitigation for countries with different levels of
socioeconomic developments. We found country-level socioeconomic
development correlate with CO2 emission per capita but not necessarily
with PM2.5 pollution levels and non-CO2 emission per capita. Hence, it is
supposed that all (i.e., socioeconomic development, PM2.5 pollution
levels, non-CO2 emission per capita) can be improved at the same time;
the former (i.e., socioeconomic development) can be increased even as
the latter (i.e., PM2.5 pollution levels, non-CO2 emission per capita) is
decreased. Countries with high CO2 emission per capita require inte-
grated long-term policies to implement the move to renewable energy
and increases carbon use efficiency, as well as in the medium term
mitigating strategies such as the use of carbon capture and storage
technology in industrial facilities. Countries with high PM2.5 emission
and non-CO2 emissions should reduce emissions of PM2.5 concentrations
and non-CO2 emission in the short term. These goals can be achieved
through the use of conventional energy with proper advanced after-
treatment units and renewable energy, which would share the co-
benefits of protecting global public health. For countries with low CO2
emission and low PM2.5 concentrations, they should deploy advanced
technologies that are consistent with long-term development pathways.
The incentives for technological development are ideal to combat air
pollution globally and promote development in low-income countries
that will build resilience to climate change in local, regional and national
infrastructure.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement
We thank Evan Cory from University of Wisconsin-Madison for his
assistance in editing this article. Dr. Qingyang Liu is grateful to the
supports from China Scholarship Council (201608320139), the Scientific
Research Foundation for High-Level Talents of Nanjing Forestry Uni-
versity (GXL2019034) and the Priority Academic Program Development
of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.cacint.2019.100003.
References
[1] Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock J, Byass P, Cai W, et al. Health and
climate change: policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet 2015;386:
1861–914.
[2] Schmale J, Shindell D, von Schneidemesser E, Chabay I, Lawrence M. Air pollution:
clean up our skies. Nature 2014;515:335–7.
[3] Shindell D, Borgford-Parnell N, Brauer M, Haines A, Kuylenstierna JCI, Leonard SA,
et al. A climate policy pathway for near- and long-term benefits. Science 2017;356:
493–4.
Q. Liu et al.
[4] HEI. Health Effects Institute, 2018. State of global air 2018 special report. Boston
MA. 2018.
[5] Stanaway JD, Afshin A, Gakidou E, Lim SS, Abate D, Abate KH, et al. Global,
regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural,
environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195
countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2017. The Lancet 2018;392:1923–94.
[6] Stott PA, Stone DA, Allen MR. Human contribution to the European heatwave of
2003. Nature 2004;432:610–4.
[7] Rahmstorf S, Coumou D. Increase of extreme events in a warming world. P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2011;108:17905.
[8] Xu Y, Lamarque JF. Isolating the meteorological impact of 21st century GHG
warming on the removal and atmospheric loading of anthropogenic fine particulate
matter pollution at global scale. Earths Future 2018;6:428–40.
[9] Bell ML, Goldberg R, Hogrefe C, Kinney PL, Knowlton K, Lynn B, et al. Climate
change, ambient ozone, and health in 50 US cities. Clim Change 2007;82:61–76.
[10] Adger WN. Vulnerability. Global Environ. Chang 2006;16:268–81.
[11] WHO, 2014. World Health Organization. Quantitative risk assessment of the effects
of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s. 2014.
[12] IPCC. Intergovernmental panel on climate change climate change 2014. Human
health-impacts adaption and co-benefits cimate change:impacts, adaption, and
vulnerability working group II contribution to the IPCC 5th assesssment report.
Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[13] WHO. World Health Organization, 2018. Global ambient quality database (update
2018). 2018. http://www.who.int/airpollution/data/cities/en/.
[14] Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Hohne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, et al. Paris
Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 degrees C.
Nature 2016;534:631–9.
[15] IEA. International energy agency, 2015. World energy outlook 2015. 2015.
[16] IEA. International Energy Agency, 2016. Energy and air pollution: world energy
outlook special report 2016. 2016.
[17] IEA. International energy agency, 2017. World energy outlook. International energy
agency 2017. 2017.
[18] Bell ML, Davis DL, Cifuentes LA, Krupnick AJ, Morgenstern RD, Thurston GD, et al.
Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate
change mitigation. Environmen Health - Global 2008;7:41.
[19] Patz JA, Frumkin H, Holloway T, Vimont DJ, Haines A. Climate change: challenges
and opportunities for global health. J Am Med Assoc 2014;312:1565–80.
[20] Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Meinshausen M, Shindell DT, Hare W, Klimont Z, et al.
Disentangling the effects of CO2 and short-lived climate forcer mitigation. P. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2014;111:16325–30.
[21] von Schneidemesser E, Monks PS, Allan JD, Bruhwiler L, Forster P, Fowler D, et al.
Chemistry and the linkages between air quality and climate change. Chem Rev
2015;115:3856–97.
[22] Williams M. Tackling climate change: what is the impact on air pollution? Carbon
Manag 2012;3:511–9.
[23] Kennedy C, Steinberger J, Gasson B, Hansen Y, Hillman T, Havr
anek M, et al.
Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:
7297–302.
[24] Kennedy C, Steinberger J, Gasson B, Hansen Y, Hillman T, Havr
anek M, et al.
Methodology for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Energy
Policy 2010;38:4828–37.
[25] Shindell D, Kuylenstierna JC, Vignati E, van Dingenen R, Amann M, Klimont Z, et al.
Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health
and food security. Science 2012;335:183–9.
[26] Anenberg SC, Achakulwisut P, Brauer M, Moran D, Apte JS, Henze DK. Particulate
matter-attributable mortality and relationships with carbon dioxide in 250 urban
areas worldwide. Sci Rep 2019;9:11552.
[27] UNEP. Climate commitments of subnational actors and business: a quantitative
assessment of their emission reduction impact. Report. No. DEW/1917/NA. 2015.
http://apps.unep.org/redirect.php?file=/publications/pmtdocuments/-Climate_
Commitments_of_Subnational_Actors_and_Business-2015CCSA_2015.pdf%202015.
[28] UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris agreement. Report 2015. No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/
Rev.1. 2015. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf%
202015. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf.
[29] UNDP. Human development report 2016. Oxford University Press; 2016. http://hdr
.undp.org/en/data.
[30] USGC. https://www.usgs.gov/; 2011.
[31] IEA. International Energy Agency, 2015. Energy and climate change: world energy
outlook special report 2015. 2015.
[32] UNFAO. http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/*/EFAO;
2014.
[33] Brauer M, Freedman G, Frostad J, van Donkelaar A, Martin RV, Dentener F, et al.
Ambient air pollution exposure estimation for the global burden of disease 2013.
Environ Sci Technol 2016;50:79–88.
[34] Keeling CD, Whorf TP. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling
network trends a compendium of data on global change. Carbon dioxide
information analysis center. Oak Ridge, Tenn, USA: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U. S. Department of Energy; 2002.
[35] Janssens-Maenhout G, Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Muntean M, Schaaf E, et al. EDGAR
v4.3.2 global atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970-
2012. Earth Syst Sci Data Discuss 2017:1–55.
[36] Janssens-Maenhout G, Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Dentener F, Muntean M, Pouliot G,
et al. HTAP_v2.2: a mosaic of regional and global emission grid maps for 2008 and
2010 to study hemispheric transport of air pollution. Atmos Chem Phys 2015;15:
11411–32.
9
City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003
[37] WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and The World Bank. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to
2010: WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank estimates. 2015.
[38] UNESCO, Institute for Statistics. Adult and youth literacy: national, regional and
global trends. 2016. p. 1985–2015.
[39] UNSD. National accounts main aggregate database. 2016. https://data.worldban
k.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.
[40] Larsen RK, Baker JE. Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
the urban atmosphere: a comparison of three methods. Environ Sci Technol 2003;
37:1873–81.
[41] Wegener DT, Fabrigar LR. Analysis and design for nonexperimental data: addressing
causal and noncausal hypotheses. In: Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology; 2000.
[42] Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common
statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 2010;1:3–14.
[43] Riley EA, Banks L, Fintzi J, Gould TR, Hartin K, Schaal L, et al. Multi-pollutant
mobile platform measurements of air pollutants adjacent to a major roadway.
Atmos Environ 2014;98:492–9.
[44] Vrieze SI. Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences
between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information
criterion (BIC). Psychol Methods 2012;17:228–43.
[45] Li J, Wang N, Wang J, Li H. Spatiotemporal evolution of the remotely sensed global
continental PM2.5 concentration from 2000-2014 based on Bayesian statistics.
Environ Pollut 2018;238:471–81.
[46] Carter EM, Shan M, Yang X, Li J, Baumgartner J. Pollutant emissions and energy
efficiency of Chinese gasifier cooking stoves and implications for future
intervention studies. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48:6461–7.
[47] Carter E, Archer-Nicholls S, Ni K, Lai AM, Niu H, Secrest MH, et al. Seasonal and
diurnal air pollution from residential cooking and space heating in the eastern
Tibetan plateau. Environ Sci Technol 2016;50:8353–61.
[48] Zhu Y, Huang L, Li J, Ying Q, Zhang H, Liu X, et al. Sources of particulate matter in
China: insights from source apportionment studies published in 1987-2017.
Environ Int 2018;115:343–57.
[49] Gordon T, Balakrishnan K, Dey S, Rajagopalan S, Thornburg J, Thurston G, et al. Air
pollution health research priorities for India: perspectives of the Indo-U.S.
Communities of Researchers. Environ Int 2018;119:100–8.
[50] Singh N, Murari V, Kumar M, Barman SC, Banerjee T. Fine particulates over South
Asia: review and meta-analysis of PM2.5 source apportionment through receptor
model. Environ Pollut 2017;223:121–36.
[51] Heo J, Wu B, Abdeen Z, Qasrawi R, Sarnat JA, Sharf G, et al. Source apportionments
of ambient fine particulate matter in Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian cities.
Environ Pollut 2017;225:1–11.
[52] IPCC. Intergovernmental panel on climate change, 2014 mitigation of climate
change working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[53] Helmers E, Leit~ao J, Tietge U, Butler T. CO2-equivalent emissions from European
passenger vehicles in the years 1995–2015 based on real-world use: assessing
the climate benefit of the European “diesel boom”. Atmos Environ 2019;198:
122–32.
[54] Gentner DR, Isaacman G, Worton DR, Chan AWH, Dallmann TR, Davis L, et al.
Elucidating secondary organic aerosol from diesel and gasoline vehicles through
detailed characterization of organic carbon emissions. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012;
109:18318.
[55] Gentner DR, Worton DR, Isaacman G, Davis LC, Dallmann TR, Wood EC, et al.
Chemical composition of gas-phase organic carbon emissions from motor vehicles
and implications for ozone production. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:11837–48.
[56] Graver BM, Frey HC, Choi HW. In-Use Measurement of activity, energy use, and
emissions of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:
9044–51.
[57] Graver BM, Frey HC. Comparison of over-the-rail and rail yard measurements of
diesel locomotives. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:13031–9.
[58] Hesterberg TW, Lapin CA, Bunn WB. A comparison of emissions from vehicles
fueled with diesel or compressed natural gas. Environ Sci Technol 2008;42:
6437–45.
[59] Zhai H, Frey HC, Rouphail NM, Gonçalves GA, Farias TL. Comparison of flexible
fuel vehicle and life-cycle fuel consumption and emissions of selected pollutants
and greenhouse gases for ethanol 85 versus gasoline. J. Air Waste Manage. 2009;59:
912–24.
[60] Ma Z, Deng J, Li Z, Li Q, Zhao P, Wang L, et al. Characteristics of NOx emission from
Chinese coal-fired power plants equipped with new technologies. Atmos Environ
2016;131:164–70.
[61] Kontos S, Liora N, Giannaros C, Kakosimos K, Poupko A, Melas D. Modeling natural
dust emissions in the central Middle East: parameterizations and sensitivity. Atmos
Environ 2018;190:294–307.
[62] Boodlal D, Alexander D. The impact of the clean development mechanism and
enhanced oil recovery on the economics of carbon capture and geological storage
for Trinidad and Tobago. Energy Procedia 2014;63:6420–7.
[63] Siler-Evans K, Azevedo IL, Morgan MG. Apt J. Regional variations in the health,
environmental, and climate benefits of wind and solar generation. P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 2013;110:11768.
[64] Millstein D, Wiser R, Bolinger M, Barbose G. The climate and air-quality benefits of
wind and solar power in the United States. Nat. Energy 2017;2:17134.
[65] Stern D, Gerlagh R, Burke P. Modeling the emissions–income relationship using
long-run growth rates. Environ Dev Econ 2017;22:699–724.
[66] Ru M, Shindell DT, Seltzer KM, Tao S, Zhong Q. The long-term relationship between
emissions and economic growth for SO2, CO2, and BC. Environ Res Lett 2018;13:
124021.
Q. Liu et al.
[67] Rehfuess EA, Puzzolo E, Stanistreet D, Pope D, Bruce NG. Enablers and barriers to
large-scale uptake of improved solid fuel stoves: a systematic review. Environ
Health Perspect 2014;122:120–30.
[68] Cooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao KPC, Shapiro B, Shiferaw B, Twomlow S. Coping better
with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan
Africa: an essential first step in adapting to future climate change? Agric Ecosyst
Environ 2008;126:24–35.
[69] IPCC. Intergovernmental panel on climate change climate change 2014. In: Climate
change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Exit part B: regional aspects,
chapter 22 (Africa). Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report
of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Intergovernmental panel on
climate change climate change 2014. Cambridge University Press; 2014.
p. 1199–265.
[70] IPCC. Intergovernmental panel on climate change climate change 2014. In: Climate
change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Exit Part A: global and sectoral
aspects, chapter 7 (food security and food production systems). Contribution of
working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
10
City and Environment Interactions 1 (2019) 100003
climate change. Intergovernmental panel on climate change climate change 2014.
Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 485–533.
[71] Bain PG, Milfont TL, Kashima Y, Bilewicz M, Doron G, Ragna B, et al. Co-benefits of
addressing climate change can motivate action around the world. Nat Clim Chang
2015;6:154–7.
[72] UNFCCC. National adaptation programmes of action. 2017.
https://unfccc.int/topics/resilience/workstreams/
national-adaptation-programmes-of-action/napas-received%202017.
[73] Driscoll CT, Buonocore JJ, Levy JI, Lambert KF, Burtraw D, Reid SB, et al. US power
plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nat Clim Chang 2015;
5:535–40.
[74] He K, Lei Y, Pan X, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Chen D. Co-benefits from energy policies in
China. Energy 2010;35:4265–72.
[75] Anenberg SC, Schwartz J, Shindell D, Amann M, Faluvegi G, Klimont Z, et al. Global
air quality and health co-benefits of mitigating near-term climate change through
methane and black carbon emission controls. Environ Health Perspect 2012;120:
831–9.