deliverable c2.1: questionnaires for the general public

FINAL REPORT

Coordinated by:

12/2016

DELIVERABLE C2.1:

Questionnaires for the general public and

stakeholders (updated)

Deliverable C2.1: Questionnaires for the general public and stakeholders

AIRUSE LIFE 11 ENV/ES/584 1 / 26

Questionnaire for the public

1 Summary of questionnaire for the public .................................................................. 3

2 Information on survey respondents ........................................................................... 4

3 Commuting mode ...................................................................................................... 5

4 Information on air quality data .................................................................................. 6

5 Air quality perception................................................................................................ 7

6 Statements on air quality .................................................................... 10

7 Awareness of measures ........................................................................................... 12

8 Active involvement ................................................................................................. 13

Questionnaire for stakeholders

1 Information on stakeholders .................................................................................... 14

2 Air quality in South European countries ................................................................. 14

3 Compliance with the European legislation.............................................................. 15

4 Results achieved from air quality plans .................................................................. 15

5 Air quality concerns in South Europe ..................................................................... 16

6 Emission sources that need new or stringent standards .......................................... 16

7 Reasons why air quality problems persist ............................................................... 17

8 Priorities to be set by the European Commission ................................................... 17

ANNEX I: Air quality questionnaire for the general public .......................................... 18

ANNEX II: Questionnaire for stakeholders ................................................................... 24



Questionnaire for the public

1 Summary of questionnaire for the public

In the framework of the AIRSUE LIFE+ project “Testing and Development of Air

quality mitigation measures for Southern Europe” a public questionnaire was issued in

order to evaluate public perception on the Air Quality issue in Southern European cities,

causes and measures for improvement. The questionnaire was publicized through the

webpage www.airuse.eu and from the project participants to their social networks.

Therefore the participation to the survey was voluntary and results cannot be

extrapolated to the whole community. Totally 280 responses were collected: 73 in

SPAIN, 154 in GREECE, 13 in PORTUGAL and 40 in ITALY. Therefore results only

refer to this sample, and must not be intended as representative of the general

population.

Concerning commuting mode, walking is more frequently used in Barcelona when

compared to other cities, while private car is often used in Porto and Florence. There is

a lack of awareness among survey participants about information of air quality available

on the media. Most of survey responders do not know whether air quality information is

available in media other than internet. Participants characterize air quality in the

AIRUSE cities as Moderate (38-77%) or Bad (8-40%). In Barcelona, Athens, Porto and

Florence road traffic is perceived by participants clearly as the most important pollution

source followed by industry and waste incineration. In Milan the most important source

according to survey participants is residential heating, followed by road traffic and

industry. Agriculture is considered by participants to be a negligible emission source in

all AIRUSE cities. General agreement was found among survey responders on the

importance of improving public transport, move towards clean transportation, use

cycling and increase pedestrian zones for the improvement of air quality in cities. Wood

stoves are recognized by survey responders as a bad practice for domestic heating at all

cities. It should be also welcome the consensus among survey participants on the need

of prohibiting high polluting vehicles from circulating in the city centres, as Low

Emission Zones establish. Survey responders agree on the need of more pressure on

industrial emissions. Surprisingly 56 % of survey responders are not aware if the EURO

regulation on vehicles is applied in their city and 34% do not even the existence of such

regulation. Eleven % of survey responders still do not know that the electric/hybrid

vehicles can improve air quality. Most of survey responders (63%) do not know what

“Low Emission Zones” are. Street cleaning is known by participants as a measure to

reduce resuspension although not always seen as an effective one. European regulation

on power plants and industries are much less known by survey participants, and 70% of

them do not know whether these are applied in their city. At all cities, survey responders

declared their will to improve air quality in their city.



2 Information on survey respondents

The age of survey responders was mostly within 19 and 65, being 53% of them between

26 and 40 year old. 58% of total responders were female. Level of education was high,

being 66% at least a university degree. Concerning profession, the most common ones

were education (14%), student (14%), Research & Development (11%), engineering

(11%) and administrative (10%). 74% of survey respondents were urban residents,

while 26% were living in suburban areas.

Table 1. Age of survey respondents

AGE %

< 18 3.6

19<25 13.2

26<40 53.2

41<65 28.9

65< 1.1

Total 100.0

Figure 1. Education and Profession of survey participants.

05

10152025303540

Pri

mar

y sc

ho

ol

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Tech

nic

al s

cho

ol

Bac

he

lor'

s d

egr

ee

Mas

ter'

s d

egre

e

Do

cto

ral d

egr

ee

Oth

er

%

Education

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Ad

min

istr

ativ

eEd

uca

tio

nEn

gin

eeri

ng

Fin

ance

Lega

lLo

gist

ics

Man

age

me

nt

Mar

keti

ng

R&

DSa

les

Stu

den

tTe

chn

ical

Un

em

plo

yed

Oth

erM

issi

ng

%

Profession



3 Commuting mode

Survey participants were asked about their frequency of use of several commuting

modes. The most common single commuting modes among all survey respondents were

private car, walking and subway, although public transport was the most frequent

answer as sum of tram, bus, train and subway.

Nevertheless results are quite different among AIRUSE cities. In Barcelona walking is

more frequently used instead of private cars, when compared to other cities, while

private car is more used than the whole public transport modes in Porto and Florence.

All cities Always Frequently Random Never Florence Always Frequently Random Never

Bus 9 27 43 21 Bus 6 19 56 19

Train 6 19 48 26 Train 6 28 41 25

Subway 18 34 33 15 Subway 0 3 0 97

Tram 1 6 36 57 Tram 0 6 38 56

Motorcycle 7 9 16 69 Motorcycle 16 19 31 34

Car 26 36 28 10 Car 28 47 22 3

Bicycle 3 14 28 55 Bicycle 3 19 50 28

Walking 23 54 21 2 Walking 13 47 38 3

Ferry 0 6 41 53 Ferry 0 0 6 94

Athens Always Frequently Random Never Milan Always Frequently Random Never

Bus 10 27 36 27 Bus 0 38 25 38

Train 7 16 47 30 Train 0 13 88 0

Subway 20 37 39 4 Subway 25 25 38 13

Tram 0 5 29 67 Tram 13 38 38 13


Car 31 39 23 7 Car 38 38 13 13

Bicycle 2 8 24 66 Bicycle 0 38 38 25

Walking 22 52 25 1 Walking 13 75 13 0

Ferry 0 11 68 21 Ferry 0 0 0 100

Barcelona Always Frequently Random Never Porto Always Frequently Random Never

Bus 8 29 53 10 Bus 8 31 46 15

Train 5 19 51 25 Train 8 38 38 15

Subway 23 42 30 4 Subway 8 38 46 8

Tram 1 3 56 40 Tram 0 15 15 69


Car 7 27 44 22 Car 54 31 15 0

Bicycle 4 23 27 45 Bicycle 0 15 23 62

Walking 33 56 8 3 Walking 15 77 8 0

Ferry 0 0 11 89 Ferry 0 8 0 92

Figure 2. Commuting modes of survey participants. Rows sum 100% of answers.

Numbers are rounded to integers.



4 Information on air quality data

The survey participants were asked: Is information on air quality, specifically the

concentration of atmospheric particles, in your city routinely made available to the

public? How?

Considering all responses, there is a lack of awareness among survey responders about

information media used for air quality monitoring. Most of survey responders do not

know whether air quality information is available in media other than internet. This

result suggests the need for social awareness rising campaigns.

Table 2. Awareness of survey responders on routine air quality information. Numbers

are rounded to integers.

Yes No I am not aware

Broadcast media (i.e. TV) 38 25 38

Press (i.e. newspapers) 75 0 25

Information screens 25 0 75

Internet pages 88 0 13

APPs 0 13 88

Teletext 13 13 75

Telephone SMS free 0 25 75

Telephone SMS paying 0 25 75

Separating the responses by city, the following conclusions can be drawn:

- In Barcelona and Milan, the same general picture is true, but there is information

conflict on TV, newspapers and information screens. Most of survey

respondents (47-49%) in Barcelona state that in these 3 media, air quality

information does not exist (which is true) but others (less) survey respondents

believe the opposite. In Milan only 75% of survey responders know about

newspapers bulletin. Interestingly only 15% of participants in Barcelona know

about the Mobile APP on air quality, indicating again lack of knowledge on this

matter.

- In Porto, 46% of survey responders think that newspapers routinely do offer air

quality data, which is not the case.

- In Florence, there is conflict about information screens, since 37% of survey

responders think they do not exist while 28% think they do exist.



5 Air quality perception

In general survey responders perceive air quality status in AIRUSE cities as Moderate

(38-77%) or Bad (8-40%). The “cleanest” perception is among survey respondents in

Porto, while the worst among survey respondents in Barcelona and Milan, the latter one

actually the most polluted city within AIRUSE. Very few among survey responders (0-

3%) declared not to be aware of the air quality status of their own city as a whole,

however many participants (13-25%, except Porto) did not declare aware about their

personal exposure to air pollutants. The rest of responders feel mostly very affected (8-

49%) by air pollution, except in Porto (62% feels affected a little).

Table 3. Percentage (rounded to integer) of survey responders on air quality status

perception.

% All cities Athens Barcelona Florence Milan Porto

Very bad 15 15 22 0 25 8

Bad 37 39 40 31 38 8

Moderate 42 41 34 53 38 77

Good 4 3 3 13 0 8

Very good 1 1 0 0 0 0

I am not aware 1 1 1 3 0 0

Table 4. Percentage (rounded to integer) of survey respondents on the way air pollution

affect their personal exposure. Columns sum 100% of answers.

% All cities Athens Barcelona Florence Milan Porto

Very affected 44 49 38 44 38 8

Affected a little 37 37 34 38 25 62

Not affected 4 1 6 0 13 31

I am not aware 16 13 22 19 25 0

When asked about the causes of bad air quality, assembling all cities, a real consensus

among survey responders was found only for road traffic, industry and waste

incineration as main source and agriculture as a negligible source. For other sources,

survey responses are spread over too different degrees of responsibility.

Analysing the city-specific results we can observe that:

In Athens the same pattern is observed for road traffic, industry and waste

incineration, although another higher concern is found for stubble burning.

Survey responders seem aware of the relative importance of natural sources such



as African dust, sea salt or volcanoes and dust from construction. They agree on

considering less important airport and cooking emissions. Other sources such as

heating, harbour and power plants do not find consensus.

In Barcelona, road traffic is clearly the most important source according to

perception of survey responders, followed by industry and harbour. Heating and

Industry are considered by survey respondents as of secondary importance,

while negligible responsibility is attributed to agriculture, transboundary

pollution and stubble burning.

In Porto, similarly to Barcelona, road traffic and industry are the main concern

of the survey respondents, followed by heating and stubble burning. No concern

is placed on agriculture, cooking, transboundary pollution and power plants by

survey respondents.

In Florence road traffic is again the source of most concern among survey

respondents and with higher consensus. Heating, industry and airport are the

second most important sources according to survey responders, in spite of the

absence of Industrial and airport emissions in the AIRUSE source apportionment

study. No importance is attributed by survey respondents to agriculture, and

natural sources. No consensus among survey respondents is reached on waste

incineration.

In Milan the most important source for survey respondents is domestic and

residential heating, followed by road traffic and industry. Interestingly

agriculture is not considered of concern being probably the survey respondents

not aware of the actual high NH3 emissions from Po Valley, originating from

agriculture. Some higher importance is given by survey respondents to airport

emissions, with respect to other cities.

Table 5. Percentage (rounded to integer) of survey responses on causes of air pollution.

-

Responsibility according to survey

respondents +

Agriculture 54 26 13 5 2 0

Airport 11 23 25 15 15 10

Construction works 5 21 29 23 12 10

Cooking 18 33 24 18 6 2

Domestic heating 2 11 20 25 22 20

Harbour 17 17 14 19 20 14

Industry 8 11 12 20 19 29

Natural sources 13 21 27 17 13 8

Pollution from other countries 18 29 24 13 12 4

Power plants 7 19 18 18 19 19

Road traffic 0 1 3 8 14 74

Stubble burning 11 23 15 18 15 17

Waste incineration 5 14 20 17 17 26

AL

L C

ITIE

S



-


responders

+


Airport 16 30 25 12 9 8


Cooking 23 35 19 16 7 1

Heating 1 9 19 22 25 24

Harbour 12 18 16 21 21 12

Industry 14 16 12 17 12 29



Power plants 6 18 13 18 21 24




- Responsibility according to survey

responders +


Airport 7 14 25 18 22 15


Cooking 12 29 33 21 1 4

Heating 5 19 26 33 12 4

Harbour 3 14 12 21 27 23

Industry 0 5 10 27 25 33



Power plants 1 15 26 21 19 18




-

Responsibility according to survey respondents +


Airport 0 16 28 19 28 9


Cooking 6 38 31 22 3 0

Domestic Heating 0 3 22 19 34 22

Harbour 59 13 6 16 3 3

Industry 3 6 16 22 31 22



Power plants 19 28 16 22 9 6




AT

HE

NS

B

AR

CE

LO

NA

F

LO

RE

NC

E



-


responders

+


Airport 0 13 25 38 13 13


Cooking 0 25 50 0 13 13

Heating 0 0 0 13 25 63

Harbour 100 0 0 0 0 0

Industry 0 0 13 25 50 13



Power plants 0 25 50 13 13 0




-

Responsibility according to survey responders

+


Airport 0 23 23 23 23 8


Cooking 31 23 8 23 15 0

Heating 0 15 8 46 8 23

Harbour 0 38 23 8 23 8

Industry 0 8 23 15 23 31



Power plants 15 38 23 8 15 0




6 Statements on air quality

Survey participants were asked to agree/disagree on several clear statements on air

quality, causes and measures. Air pollution is clearly an issue for most of survey

responders and responsibility belongs to every single citizen. General agreement was

found among survey responders on the importance of improving public transport, force

clean transportation, increase cycling users and pedestrian zones for the improvement of

air quality in cities. Wood stove are recognized by most of survey respondents as a bad

practice for domestic heating at all cities, indicating that the public recognizes biomass

burning emissions as challenging in urban areas. It should be also welcome the

consensus among survey responders on the need of prohibiting high polluting vehicles

from circulating in the city centers, as Low Emission Zones establish. Survey

participants agree on the need of more pressure on industrial emissions, even if prices

MIL

AN

P

OR

TO



may increase, and in controlling agricultural practices such as the open air burning of

stubble, which should be banned. Less agreement is observed among survey responders

on the effectiveness of some existing measures such as road cleaning activities, or

measures in harbors which seem not to satisfy the participants’ opinion. Waste

incineration seems accepted by survey responders in Athens and Florence, while most

of survey respondents is undecided in Milan, Barcelona and Porto.

“The increase of the use of public transport vs the private one should be the main tool to

improve urban air quality”

“Clean transportation should be promoted” “Bicycles and pedestrian transport should be used as a tool to improve air quality” “Polluting vehicles should be banned from the city centers” “Road cleaning may help to improve air quality”

“Clean fuels for domestic heating should be used” “Factories should switch to cleaner processes even if prices have to go up”

“Waste incinerators should be banned”

“Agricultural practices are natural and therefore do not have negative impact on air quality”

“Wood stoves do not have a negative impact on air quality since wood is a natural fuel”

“Open air burning is the best option to eliminate stubble generated”

“Industries are aware of their emissions and make efforts to reduce them”

“Ports and airports have applied corrective measures to improve air quality in nearby areas”

“Improving the environment is the responsibility of every citizen”

“I am actively involved in cleaning up the environment”

“The pollution is out of my control and I cannot do anything to change it”

“I am not interested in air pollution issues”

Athens Barcelona Florence Milan Porto



















7 Awareness of measures

Survey participants’ awareness of existing measures at EU, national and local level has

been checked. Fifty-six % of survey respondents are not aware if the EURO regulation

on vehicles is applied in their city and 34% do not even the existence of such regulation.

Five % of survey responders even believe that the EURO regulation does not apply.

Eleven % of survey responders still do not know that the electric/hybrid vehicles can

improve air quality. Most of survey responders (63%) do not know what Low Emission

Zones are. Street cleaning is known as measure, although as, already shown, not in all

cities survey responders believe it is efficient. European regulation on power plants and

industries are much less known by survey participants, and 70% of them do not know

whether these are applied in their city.

Table 6. Percentage of survey responders on awareness of measures to improve air

quality. Numbers are rounded to integers.

% Yes No I am not

aware

European regulation for vehicles

emissions 39 5 56

Electric, hybrid cars 54 12 34

Low emission zones 22 16 63

Street cleaning/washing 56 10 34

European regulation of emissions

from electricity production 19 8 74

European regulation of industrial

emissions 24 6 71

Separating survey responses by city, we can observe interesting results such as:

In Barcelona:

o 74% of survey responders do not know the EURO regulation on vehicles

o 70% of survey responders do not know what LEZs are, and 14% think

LEZ is applied in Barcelona (while is not)

In Athens:

o 80% of survey responders declare to know EURO regulation on vehicles,

but 49% does not know whether it applies to the city of Athens.

o 60% of survey responders do not know what LEZs are, and 26% think

LEZ is applied in Athens (while is not)

o 8-14% of survey responders believe that the European regulations

(power plants, industry and vehicles) do not apply to Athens



In Porto:


but 77% does not know whether it applies to the city of Porto.

o 46% of survey responders do know what LEZs are, but only 8% know

that it is not applied in Porto

In Florence:


but 50% does not know whether it applies to the city of Florence.

o 28% of survey responders do know what LEZs are, but only 22% know

that it is applied in Florence

In Milan:

o 37% of survey responders do not know EURO regulation on vehicles

o 50% of survey responders know what LEZs are, but only 37% know that

it is applied in Milan

8 Active involvement

At all cities, survey responders declared to be available to take action in order to

improve air quality in their city. The use of bicycle is the less marked option probably

due to the long distance for commuting of survey responders. Results are very similar at

all AIRUSE cities.

Table 7. Percentage of survey responders on possible actions to take individually.

Numbers are rounded to integers.

% Yes No I am not aware

Use of public transport 87 9 4

Reduce the use of private car 89 8 3

Using walking as the primary mode of transportation 79 18 4

Using bicycle 67 26 7

Switch to cleaner heating system 86 10 4

Improving the thermal efficiency of my house/flat 89 8 4

Use of low consumption light bulbs 94 4 3

Avoiding open air burning of stubble 70 8 21

Informing the public authorities when bad practices (environmental point of view) have been carried out 74 14 12



Questionnaire for stakeholders

1 Information on stakeholders

AIRUSE coordinator prepared a questionnaire destined to stakeholders directly

involved in air quality policy implementation. The objective was to survey the views of

stakeholders in South Europe on the successes and failures of the present European air

quality measures. The questionnaire consists of two major questions. The first question

refers to the air quality situation in the perspective area. The second question is

designed to learn about stakeholder opinions on the adequacy of EC measures with

respect to air quality protection. The stakeholders are asked to report on the causes of

EU limit values exceedances, improvements already achieved by air quality plans,

relevant air quality issues, emission sources that probably are not regulated, and

priorities to be set by EU and local authorities in the near future.

Selected stakeholders from Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece were invited to participate

in the survey by e-mail. The team received 25 responses in total: 13 in SPAIN, 7 in

GREECE, 1 in PORTUGAL and 4 in ITALY.

2 Air quality in South European countries

The majority of the stakeholders consider air quality in rural and semi-urban areas

rather good or moderate. However, they state that the situation is different in urban

areas. All stakeholders agree that deterioration of air quality in urban areas is due to

road traffic followed by heavy oil combustion and biomass burning.

Another reason for the high concentrations episodes of PM in Southern Europe can be

found in the occurrence of African dust intrusions. These episodes can be very intense

in the Canary Islands, Spain and in South Greece as the corresponding stakeholders

mention.

Furthermore, in recent years, wood burning in small stoves for home heating has

constituted a major source of PM pollution in urban areas, in particular in Greece and

Italy (Po Valley). This is partly caused by high-energy prices, which induced low-

income households in particular to opt for cheaper alternatives.



3 Compliance with the European legislation

All stakeholders stated that exceedances of the PM and NO2 limit values established by

the EC do occur while when taking into account the World Health Organization’s

(WHO) stricter guidelines, a high percentage of the urban population in Southern

Europe is exposed to excessive PM10 concentrations.

The stakeholders recognize that pollutant emissions were actually reduced in the last

decade, however this reduction have not always resulted in lower exposure to PM. The

share of the European urban population exposed to concentration levels of PM10 above

the values set by EU legislation remains high and showed only a minor decline in the

last decade.

4 Results achieved from air quality plans

Most of the stakeholders state that European measures and previous air quality plans

have provided positive results. All stakeholders clearly identify the positive effect of the

Large Combustion Plants and the IPPC & IED Directives, and sulphur content in fuels

(whether used on ships and road traffic), producing a significant reduction of SO2

emissions. These reductions were noticeable both in urban and industrial areas. Also the

effect of the EURO 4 and 5 standards on decreasing emissions of PM and CO from

vehicles is noticeable.

In cities where regional and local action plans were implemented to improve air quality,

beneficial effects were evidenced not only for gaseous pollutants but also for PM. An

example is the Barcelona’s municipal and metropolitan authorities that have set up a

body—the Committee for the Reduction of Air Pollution—tasked with drawing up and

implementing measures to reduce air pollution within the area. The Committee

constitutes a diverse and cross-cutting working group representing all the stakeholders,

including municipal authorities, business and financial interests, social actors, ecologists

and scientists as well as the transport and health sectors. An essential component of the

strategy aimed at improving air quality in Barcelona is to reduce traffic density. Key

measures that the Committee has undertaken include: the reduction of the public

transportation emissions, promotion of bicycle use, the promotion of electric vehicles,

regulation of private vehicle use (parking zones), use of porous pavement, street

washing to reduce resuspension.

Similarly stakeholders from Italy state that in Florence after the implementation of the

local air quality plan slight reductions on PM10 concentrations and NO2 emissions

were reported. The air quality plan of Florence is focused on the improvement of the

public transportation and the optimzation of the city´s traffic lines.

On the other hand, stakeholders in Greece report poor results of the local air quality

plans in the greek cities and especially in Athens. The improvement of air quality in the



last decade is mostly attributed to the improvement of the car technology having as

consequence the reduction of vehicle emissions. Stakeholders also mention that the

EURO standards were more efficient than the local measures.

It is important to highlight that many stakeholders state that the economic crisis in

South European countries played a crucial role in the reduction of car emissions, and

subsequently to the improvement of air quality.

5 Air quality concerns in South Europe

All stakeholders believe that more can be done in a European level to tackle all air

quality problems. First of all, they believe that green and sustainable transport (use of

bike) should be promoted in all cities given the health effects caused from the vehicle

emissions. Many stakeholders stated that new pollutants like black carbon, BC should

be regulated due to its association with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Black

carbon is a good indicator/tracer of direct diesel emissions. Other pollutants like

volatile organic compounds VOCs, and particle number concentration also linked to

adverse health effects should be regulated.

Stakeholders are also concerned for the natural contributions to PM concentrations from

the frequent African dust intrusions in South Europe that cannot be controlled and

regulated.

Most of the stakeholders mention the increased risks from the use of residential biomass

burning in urban areas. They believe that these emissions should be regulated either by

controlling the market of biomass fuels and/or the stoves used.

In Italy there is also a concern on the boundary layer dynamics that can significantly

deteriorate air quality.

Stakeholders in Spain highlight the problem arising from resuspended particles that for

the moment are not studied separately but only as a whole.

6 Emission sources that need new or stringent standards

Concerning emission sources stakeholder´s opinion is that an in-depth study should be

undertaken to characterize emissions sources. In general, stakeholders highlight the

problems arising from the use of biomass burning for domestic heating. Aspects like the

economic crisis that caused changes in residential heating and the extensive use of

fireplaces and stoves, or the inefficient control (unregulated combustion processes)

should be carefully studied.

Stakeholders from Barcelona believe that shipping emissions should be regulated taking

into account the increase of tourism and cruisers.



Some stakeholders suggest to give emphasis to the implementation of the current air

quality standards before establishing and regulating new emission sources.

Representatives from public platforms stated that diesel emissions should be better

regulated and EURO 6 standard should be revised

7 Reasons why air quality problems persist

The majority of stakeholders believe that air pollution problems mostly result from road

traffic and they could be solved if the transportation system becomes cleaner and more

energy efficient. They also consider wood burning as an emission source that

deteriorates air quality specifically in urban areas. Natural contributions from Africa are

also reported as one of the reason that air quality problems persist in areas affected

frequently by desert dust intrusions.

8 Priorities to be set by the European Commission

Regarding the priorities that the European Commission should set in the near future

there is a consensus between stakeholders. All stakeholders mention the necessity to

improve public transport by making it greener and more efficient. Biking is considered

as a measure to reduce air pollution in urban areas.

Other emission sources that need to be regulated include residential biomass burning

and shipping emissions are seen as of great relevance in areas close to ports.

Raising public awareness on air quality issues is crucial for most of the participated

stakeholders.



ANNEX I: Air quality questionnaire for the general public



ANNEX II: Questionnaire for stakeholders

Final Report coordination team:

Project Manager: Xavier Querol

[email protected]

Scientific Manager: Angeliki Karanasiou

[email protected]

Administrative and Financial Management: Cristina de Vasconcelos

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



deliverable c2.1: questionnaires for the general public

Documents