2019WORLD
AIR QUALITYREPORT

Region & City PM2.5 Ranking

Contents
About this report ............................................................................................... 3
Executive summary ............................................................................................ 4
Where does the data come from? ......................................................................... 5
Why PM2.5?
Data presentation ............................................................................................. 6
WHO Air Quality Guidelines
US Air Quality Index (AQI)
Global overview ................................................................................................. 7
World country ranking
World capital city ranking
Overview of public monitoring status
Regional Summaries
East Asia .................................................................................................... 10
		China ....................................................................................... 12		South Korea .............................................................................. 13
Southeast Asia ........................................................................................... 14
		Indonesia ................................................................................. 15		Thailand ................................................................................... 16		Vietnam ................................................................................... 17
South Asia .................................................................................................. 18
		India ....................................................................................... 19
		Pakistan .................................................................................... 20
Middle East ................................................................................................ 21
Europe ....................................................................................................... 22
Northern America ....................................................................................... 23		
United States ............................................................................ 24
Latin America & Caribbean ............................................................................ 25
Africa .......................................................................................................... 26
		South Africa ............................................................................. 27
Oceania ....................................................................................................... 28
Next Steps ....................................................................................................... 29
What can I do?
Methodology ................................................................................................... 30
Data sources
Data calculation
Data availability
Disclaimer
FAQ ................................................................................................................. 32
References ...................................................................................................... 33

2 |About this report
The 2019 World Air Quality Report is based on data from the world’s largest centralized platform for real-time air
quality data, combining efforts from thousands of initiatives run by citizens, communities, companies, non-profit
organizations and governments.
Through aggregating, validating and visualizing real-time data from governments and sensors operated by individuals and organizations, IQAir strives to raise awareness of air quality levels, allowing people to take action to
improve air quality and protect their health.
The 2019 World Air Quality Report is based on a subset of the information provided through the platform. It includes only PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) data as acquired from ground-based air quality monitoring stations
with high data availability.
An extended presentation of the world’s most polluted cities during 2019 is available online, allowing further exploration of air quality across different regions and subregions in 2019 in an interactive format. Live and forecast
air quality information for all included locations can also be explored through the IQAir Air Quality Map, which
presents a real-time overview of the world’s air quality data in one place.

3 |Executive summary
Air pollution constitutes the most pressing environmental health risk facing our global population. It is estimated tocontribute toward 7 million premature deaths a year, while 92% of the world’s population are estimated to breathe
toxic air quality (WHO, 2016). In less developed countries, 98% of children under five breathe toxic air. As a result,air pollution is the main cause of death for children under the age of 15, killing 600,000 every year (WHO, 2018). In
financial terms, premature deaths due to air pollution cost about $5 trillion in welfare losses worldwide (The World
Bank, 2016).

Whilst 95% of the global
population breathes
air exceeding WHO
exposure targets, vast
populations around theworld lack access to air
quality information.

This report presents PM2.5 data made publically available during
2019, in order to highlight the state of particulate pollution around theworld and raise awareness about public access to air quality data. The
majority of this data has been published in real-time or near real-time,by governmental sources, as well as independently operated and validated non-governmental air quality monitors.
Regionally, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East carry thehighest burden of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution overall,with only 6 of 355 cities included meeting WHO annual targets in theseareas collectively. Cities within these regions also rank highly in the
top of the global city ranking. Of the world’s top 30 most polluted cities
during 2019, 21 are located in India, 27 in South Asia, and all the top 30
cities are within greater Asia.

Using a weighted population average, Bangladesh emerges as the most polluted country, based on available data.
Pakistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan and India follow behind respectively, deviating from one another by less than
10%. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the highest ranking country in Europe for PM2.5 pollution, featuring as the 14th
most polluted country globally, with only a 4μg/m3 deviation from China’s national PM2.5 weighted average.
A global network of real-time, public air quality monitoring data is essential to tackle the urgent issue of air pollution.
What is not measured cannot be managed, and publishing live data enables populations to respond quickly and safeguard their health.
2019 saw a significant increase in air quality monitoring coverage, with thenumber of monitoring stations increasing by more than 200% since the year
prior. These gains are due both to expanded or new governmental monitoring
networks, as well as sensor contributions from non-governmental organizations, private industry and individuals.
Still, vast populations around the world lack access to air quality information.
Often these areas have some of the world’s most severe air pollution, putting
the health of huge populations at risk. More monitoring data is needed tobridge the information gap, and better tackle air pollution globally.

4 |Awareness of air
pollution remains low
in areas wherereal-time monitoringis limited but
pollution levels may
be high.

Where does the data come from?
This report includes data aggregated from a range of ground-based PM2.5 monitoring stations. Data sources
include real-time, hourly data from governmental monitoring stations, as well as validated PM2.5 monitors
operated by private individuals and organizations. Some locations are additionally supplemented by governmental historical datasets of hourly PM2.5 measurements, where available.
All measurements have been collected at a monitoring station level, and were later grouped into settlements.
Whilst the sizes and densities of these settlements vary, the majority are urban, and so for the purpose of thisreport, all settlements are hereafter referred to as cities.

Why PM2.5?
This report focuses on PM2.5 concentrations, as this is the pollutant widely regarded as most harmful to humanhealth. PM2.5 is defined as ambient airborne particles which measure up to 2.5 microns in size. It’s microscopic
size allows the particles to enter the blood stream via the respiratory system and travel throughout the body,causing far-reaching health effects, including asthma, lung cancer and heart disease. Air pollution has also been
associated with low birth weight, increased acute respiratory infections and stroke.
Worldwide ambient air pollution accounts for1:- 29% of all deaths and disease from lung cancer- 17% of all deaths and disease from acute lower respiratory infection- 24% of all deaths from stroke- 25% of all deaths and disease from ischaemic heart disease- 43% of all deaths and disease from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Airborne particulate matter can originate from a range of sources. Combustion
from vehicle engines, industry, fires and coal burning represent the most common
man-made sources, whilst sandstorms, agriculture, and chemicals reacting in
the atmosphere represent the most common natural sources.

1

5 |https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/

Data presentation
In order to correlate concentration values to a more relatable reference for health risk, this report refers to two
guidelines for PM2.5 pollution: the World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guideline value for PM2.5 exposure and the United States Air Quality Index (US AQI). The color index uses the US EPA standard, supplemented
by the WHO guideline for values under 10µg/m³.

WHO Air Quality Guideline
Whilst the WHO cautions that no level of PM2.5 exposure has been proven to be free of health impacts, it hasoutlined an annual mean exposure threshold of 10µg/m³ to minimize the risk of health impacts from PM2.5.

WHO PM2.5 Target: 10 µg/m³

United States Air Quality Index (US AQI)
The US AQI is among the most widely recognized index for communicating air quality. The index converts pollutant
concentrations into a color-coded scale of 0-500, where higher values indicate increased health risk. The US AQI“Good” range (<12µg/m³) is marginally higher than the WHO Air Quality Guideline (<10µg/m³).

US AQI Level

6 |

PM2.5
(μg/m³)

Health Recommendation(for 24hr exposure)

Good

0-50

0-12.0

Air quality is satisfactory and poses little or no risk.

Moderate

51-10012.1-35.4

Sensitive individuals should avoid outdoor activity
as they may experience respiratory symptoms.

Unhealthy
for Sensitive
Groups101-150

35.5-55.4

General public and sensitive individuals in particular are
at risk to experience irritation and respiratory problems.

Unhealthy151-200 55.5-150.4

Increased likelihood of adverse effects and aggravation
to the heart and lungs among general public.

Very
Unhealthy201-300

150.5250.4

General public will be noticeably affected.
Sensitive groups should restrict outdoor activities.

Hazardous

301+

250.5+

General public is at high risk to experience strong
irritations and adverse health effects. Everyone
should avoid outdoor activities.

Global overview
Global Country/Region PM2.5 ExposureThis map presents average PM2.5 exposure by country, as calculated from available city data and weighted bypopulation. Grey countries and regions indicate that these locations had insufficient PM2.5 data available for 2019.

PM2.5(µg/m³)
250.4

150.4

55.0
45.0
35.4
20.0
12.0
10.0

WHO
guideline

Global map of estimated PM2.5 exposure by country/region in 2019

Countries and regions in East Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia suffer from the highest annual average PM2.5
concentration weighted by population.

7 |World country/region ranking
Arranged by average PM2.5 concentration (µg/m³), based on the available data
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

8 |

Bangladesh
Pakistan
Mongolia
Afghanistan
India
Indonesia
Bahrain
Nepal
Uzbekistan
Iraq
China Mainland
United Arab Emirates
KuwaitBosnia & Herzegovina
Vietnam
Kyrgyzstan
North Macedonia
Syria
DR Congo
MyanmarGhana
UgandaArmenia
Bulgaria
Sri Lanka
South Korea
Iran
ThailandKazakhstan
KosovoMacao SAR
Serbia
Peru

83.3
65.8
62.0
58.8
58.1
51.7
46.8
44.5
41.2
39.6
39.1
38.9
38.3
34.6
34.1
33.2
32.4
32.2
32.1
31.0
30.3
29.1
25.5
25.5
25.2
24.8
24.3
24.3
23.6
23.5
23.5
23.3
23.3

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

Laos
Chile
GreeceSaudi Arabia
South Africa
Nigeria
Algeria
Cambodia
IsraelTurkeyHong Kong SAR
GuatemalaEthiopia
Georgia
MexicoCyprusMalaysia
Croatia
Singapore
PolandRomania
JordanEgypt
Philippines
TaiwanItaly
UkraineSlovakia
AngolaBrazilColombia
Argentina
Hungary

23.1
22.6
22.5
22.1
21.6
21.4
21.2
21.1
20.8
20.6
20.3
20.2
20.1
20.1
20.0
19.7
19.4
19.1
19.0
18.7
18.3
18.3
18.0
17.6
17.2
17.1
16.6
16.1
15.9
15.8
14.6
14.6
14.6

67 Lithuania
68 Czech Republic
69 Latvia
70 Belgium
71 France
72 Austria
73 Japan
74 Germany
75 Netherlands
76 Switzerland
77 Ireland
78 United Kingdom
79 Costa Rica
80 Puerto Rico
81 Russia
82 Spain
83 Luxembourg
84 Denmark
85 Malta
86 Portugal
87 USA88 Ecuador
89 Australia
90 Canada
91 New Zealand
92 Norway
93 Sweden
94 Estonia
95 Finland
96 Iceland
97 U.S. Virgin Islands
98 Bahamas

14.5
14.5
13.3
12.5
12.3
12.2
11.4
11.0
10.9
10.9
10.6
10.5
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.6
9.6
9.4
9.3
9.0
8.6
8.0
7.7
7.5
6.9
6.6
6.2
5.6
5.6
3.5
3.3

World regional capital city ranking
Arranged by average annual PM2.5 concentration (µg/m³)[Continued]

1. Delhi, India (98.6)
2. Dhaka, Bangladesh (83.3)
3. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia (62.0)
4. Kabul, Afghanistan (58.8)
5. Jakarta, Indonesia (49.4)
6. Kathmandu, Nepal (48.0)
7. Hanoi, Vietnam (46.9)
8. Manama, Bahrain (46.8)
9. Beijing, China (42.1)
10. Tashkent, Uzbekistan (41.2)
11. Baghdad, Iraq (39.6)
12. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (38.4)
13. Kuwait City, Kuwait (38.3)
14. Islamabad, Pakistan (35.2)
15. Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina (34.1)
16. Bishkek, Kyrgzstan (33.2)
17. Skopje, North Macedonia (32.4)
18. Kinshasa, DR Congo (32.1)
19. Yangon, Myanmar (31.0)
20. Accra, Ghana (30.3)
21. Kampala, Uganda (29.1)
22. Santiago, Chile (27.7)
23. Sofia, Bulgaria (26.8)
24. Tehran, Iran (25.9)
25. Yerevan, Armenia (25.5)
26. Colombo, Sri Lanka (25.2)
27. Seoul, South Korea (24.8)
28. Lima, Peru (23.7)
29. Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan (23.6)
30. Pristina, Kosovo (23.5)
31. Belgrade, Serbia (23.3)
32. Vientiane, Laos (23.1)
33. Bangkok, Thailand (22.8)
34. Athens, Greece (22.3)
35. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (22.1)
36. Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel (21.8)
37. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (21.6)
38. Algiers, Algeria (21.2)
39. Phnom Penh, Cambodia (21.1)
40. Mexico City, Mexico (20.5)
41. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (20.1)
42. Tbilisi, Georgia (20.1)
43. Nicosia, Cyprus (19.2)
0

10

20

30

WHO PM2.5 Target

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110

44. Singapore, Singapore (19.0)
45. Bucharest, Romania (18.4)
46. Ankara, Turkey (18.4)
47. Manila, Philippines (18.2)
48. Warsaw, Poland (17.3)
49. Kyiv, Ukraine (16.6)
50. Luanda, Angola (15.9)
51. Vilnius, Lithuania (15.8)
52. Canberra, Australia (15.0)
53. Paris, France (14.7)
54. Brussels, Belgium (14.1)
55. Budapest, Hungary (14.0)
56. Taipei, Taiwan (13.9)
57. Bratislava, Slovakia (13.6)
58. Riga, Latvia (13.3)
59. Bogota, Colombia (13.1)
60. Rome, Italy (12.9)
61. Buenos Aires, Argentina (12.4)
62. Vienna, Austria (12.3)
63. Tokyo, Japan (11.7)
64. Prague, Czech Republic (11.5)
65. London, United Kingdom (11.4)
66. Cape Town, South Africa (11.2)
67. Bern, Switzerland (10.9)
68. Amsterdam, Netherlands (10.7)
69. Dublin, Ireland (10.6)
70. Moscow, Russia (10.0)
71. Luxembourg, Luxembourg (9.9)
72. Berlin, Germany (9.7)
73. Copenhagen, Denmark (9.6)
74. Lisbon, Portugal (9.4)
75. Madrid, Spain (9.2)
76. Quito, Ecuador (8.6)
77. Oslo, Norway (7.5)
78. Ottawa, Canada (7.3)
79. Wellington City, New Zealand (6.7)
80. Stockholm, Sweden (6.1)
81. Helsinki, Finland (6.0)
82. Tallinn, Estonia (5.5)
83. Reykjavik, Iceland (5.5)
84. Charlotte Amalie, U.S. Virgin Islands (3.6)

85. Nassau, Bahamas (3.3)
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

WHO PM2.5 Target

The capital city ranking compares annual PM2.5 averages in 2019 among capital cities available in the report’s
dataset. Countries within Asia and the Middle East populate the top of the regional capital city ranking. Delhi
tops this ranking for the second year, with annual PM2.5 levels nearly 10 times the WHO target.

9 |Overview of public monitoring status
Public air quality monitoring varies considerably between countries and regions. Mainland China, Japan and theUnited States have the world’s largest governmental monitoring networks that publish air quality data continuously in real-time. The below map illustrates the unequal global distribution of PM2.5 air quality monitors, which
met the availability criteria for the year 2019.

Global distribution of PM2.5 air quality monitoring stations included in this report.
Red dots indicate government stations. Blue dots indicate data from independently operated air monitors.

The map indicates a lack of monitoring data in numerous populated areas, particularly within the African andSouth American continents.
Developed countries tend to have more data availability and public access, than developing countries.
Locations which lack governmental, real-time monitoring networks can benefit from low-cost air quality sensors,which can be installed and managed with fewer resources, and provide an opportunity to accelerate access to
air quality information. Data collected from low-cost monitoring stations and validated by the AirVisual platform
AI, is also included in this report. These monitors provide the only real-time publicly available air quality data for
Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, the Bahamas, Cambodia, Costa Rica, DR Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Jordan,
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Serbia.

10 |EAST ASIA
China Mainland|

Hong Kong SAR

|

Japan

|

Macau SAR|

PM2.5(µg/m³)

Mongolia|

South Korea|

TaiwanCountry/Region Ranking
1. Mongolia (62.0)

250.4
2. China Mainland (39.1)

3. South Korea (24.8)
150.4
4. Macau SAR (23.5)
55.4
5. Hong Kong SAR (20.3)
35.4
6. Taiwan (17.2)
12.0
10.0
0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

WHO target

Good

110.1

Hotan, China Mainland
Moderate

Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

11 |

City

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Data collected in 2015 revealed that 35% of global premature
deaths from air pollution occurred in East Asia, followed closely
by South Asia (33%) (Clean Air Coalition, 2019). Overall the region has taken significant steps to mitigate the problem, fromestablishing national monitoring networks and regulating emission sources.

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

Obihiro, Japan

10

SUMMARY

16.9%

5.9

7. Japan (11.4)

Cleanest Regional Cities

2019 AVG
2018

Rank

City

2019 AVG
2018

1

Hotan, China Mainland

110.1

1

Obihiro, Japan

5.9

2

Kashgar, China Mainland

87.1

2

Okinawa, Japan

6.2

3

Shangqiu, China Mainland

72.6

3

Hakuba, Japan

6.3

4

Anyang, China Mainland

70.3

4

Linzhi, China Mainland

6.5

5

Handan, China Mainland

64.3

5

Kitami, Japan

6.5

6

Shijiazhuang, China
Mainland64.0

6

Ebina, Japan

6.7
6.9

7

Xianyang, China Mainland

63.7

7

Ngari, China Mainland

8

Xingtai, China Mainland

63.5

8

Minamiashigara, Japan

7.5

9

Puyang, China Mainland

63.4

9

Gero, Japan

7.5

10

Shihezi, China Mainland

63.3

10

Gojo, Japan

7.6

11

Laiwu, China Mainland

63.1

11

Suzu, Japan

7.7

12

Luoyang, China Mainland

62.4

12

Hadano, Japan

7.7

13

Hebi, China Mainland

62.1

13

Minami, Japan

7.8

14

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

62.0

14

Otofuke, Japan

7.9

15

Linfen, China Mainland

61.7

15

Naha, Japan

8.0

Whilst pollution sources vary across the region, common contributors of airborne particulates include a dependence on coalfor energy production, a lack of regulations and enforcementof industrial emissions, oil-based road transportations and domestic heating. Transboundary pollution is a concern for Hong
Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, as seasonal dust storms andindustry emissions can travel great distances, and affect muchof the region (TAQMN, 2019).

MONITORING STATUS
All the countries and regions within East Asia included in this report have public, real-time governmental monitoring networks.
Overall, the region has some of the best data availability andcoverage globally.
Among the countries included in this report, mainland China’s
national air monitoring network is the most numerous withnearly 2,200 stations, while Japan’s is the densest in terms ofmonitors per area, with a station for every 210 km2, roughly 400
stations shy of mainland China.
During 2019, Mongolia’s national monitoring coverage expanded beyond Ulaanbaatar for the first time, thanks to the additional deployment of sensors by a NGO. Still, while monitoring
stations grew from eight in 2018 to 37 in 2019, monitoring datais still sparse throughout the country.

CHINA MAINLAND
PM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

Beijing

Guangzhou

ChengduShanghai

ShenzhenChongqing

100
90
80
70

150.4

60
50

55.4

35.4

12.0
10.0

40
30
20
10
0
2015

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

PM2.5: µg/m³

2016

2017

2019

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Beijing

42.1

54.1

53.1

51.4

47.6

36.8

38.4

35.8

22.1

35.2

39.8

45.4

46.0

Shanghai

35.4

49.3

41.6

50.9

40.0

33.0

29.3

26.1

24.5

21.7

31.1

27.4

49.2

Guangzhou

28.9

45.5

24.8

27.9

23.2

20.3

15.6

18.0

22.4

28.4

37.6

41.5

41.2

Shenzhen

23.4

35.6

18.7

21.2

18.7

15.8

9.6

13.7

16.4

23.8

32.6

36.1

37.4

Chengdu

42.4

76.6

55.7

44.0

39.6

32.7

24.0

22.5

28.2

29.5

31.0

47.9

77.1

Chongqing

37.1

74.6

47.5

46.5

29.7

30.4

22.6

19.7

23.0

29.0

23.3

36.3

62.3

PROGRESS
Whilst 47 Chinese cities feature among the top 100 most polluted cities, the quantity of cities
covered also indicates the country’s strong commitment to air quality monitoring, with what now
constitutes one of the world’s leading national monitoring networks. Since implementing its Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan in 2013 (Huang, Pan, Guo, & Li, 2018), China has achieved
remarkable reductions in PM2.5 levels in numerous major cities, notably Beijing [see below].

CHALLENGES
Whilst air quality in many key Chinese cities is improving, significant challenges remain. These
include substantial reliance on coal as part of China’s energy mix1 (BP, 2019), which is a principal
contributor to ambient PM2.5 emissions, and pollutants that form PM2.5 in the atmosphere (SO2and NOx). Although China is achieving the largest growth of any country in renewable energies,
it still accounts for approximately half the world’s coal consumption, and plans to continue expansion of new coal power plants (Chung, 2019). Diesel emissions from transport also remain an
important contributor (International Council on Clean Transportation, 2019). In 2019, only 2% of
the 402 cities in this report achieved the WHO’s annual PM2.5 target of <10µg/m3, while 47% of
cities met China’s own less stringent annual target of <35µg/m3.
Additionally, areas of Northern China commonly exposed to dust storm pollution may experience
increasingly intense events in the future, in response to increased global temperatures, desertification, and intensifying wind patterns as part of climate change (UNESCAP, 2018).

HIGHLIGHT: BEIJING
For seven consecutive years PM2.5 levels in Beijing have gradually dropped, demonstrating
the success and evolution of Beijing’s air quality management programme. Compared to 2009,average annual PM2.5 concentrations are reduced by more than half, whilst hours spent in the“Good” US AQI air quality level are four times as frequent. During August 2019, Beijing experienced its cleanest month on record.
1
In 2018 coal accounted for 59% of China’s direct energy consumption. This also represented over halfof the world’s total coal use (50.5%). (BP, 2019)

12 |

2018

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 5 years*

BEIJING, CHINA

2009

17.8%

2010

20.3%

2011
2012

6.5
%

11.6%
12.3%

44.9%

15.7% 5.5
%

38.1%

17.3%

6.8
%

23.6%

11.5%

35.1%

13.9% 8.4%

22.1%

11.3%

37.3%

14.4% 5.1%

2013 5.2
%

19.6%

12.8%

37.9%

13.3% 8.5%

2014 7.0%

19.3%

12.0%

38.7%

12.3% 7.7%

2015

10.3%

23.7%

13.2%

33.7%

10.1% 5.6
%

2016

10.8%

23.3%

14.5%

34.5%

9.0% 3.4
%

2017

13.9%

2018

17.5%

2019

18.3%

0%

10%

28.4%
28.0%

16.9%

30.0%

17.4%

28.1%

33.2%
20% 30%40% 50%

18.3%
60%

70%

5.0
%

4.9
%

23.7%
80%

Annual PM2.5 average of hourly pollution

90% 100%SOUTH KOREA
PM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

Seoul

IncheonDaejeon

Busan

Daegu

Ulsan

26
25
24
23

150.4

22
21

55.4

35.4

20
19
18

12.0
10.0

17
16
2017

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

PM2.5: µg/m³

2018

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Seoul

24.8

37.6

35.5

45.5

20.3

28.8

19.4

18.8

16.2

11.9

15.4

20.3

28.9

Busan

21.0

28.0

27.8

29.6

19.3

24.8

21.0

18.1

19.0

13.0

12.6

16.4

22.5

Incheon

22.8

32.3

30.7

40.9

19.1

25.4

17.0

18.2

17.8

13.4

15.3

18.4

24.9

Daegu

22.1

33.3

31.9

32.2

17.8

22.8

19.7

16.1

15.9

12.0

13.8

21.8

29.0

Daejeon

21.8

33.7

34.4

38.4

16.3

21.9

18.4

13.7

15.0

11.4

14.3

20.5

24.5

Ulsan

20.1

25.7

26.2

28.8

18.1

25.4

21.8

18.0

17.9

12.3

10.4

15.4

21.0

PROGRESSSouth Korea has a dense air quality monitoring network, highlighting a strong commitment to tracking
and improving air quality. From 2018 to 2019, the national monitoring network grew its urban pollution
monitoring, including more PM2.5 monitoring. Much of Korea’s particulate pollution is seasonal, withmany cities experiencing nearly double the amount of PM2.5 during winter months than in summer
months, as indicated by 2019’s data.
Following a pollution peak in March 2019, the government legislated to categorise the nation’s air pollution a“social disaster”. This enabled access to emergency funds, and a range of measures to tackle seasonal emissions were introduced, effective from December to March (Chung, 2019). These include closing up to a quarter of its coal-fired power plants, capping operations at other coal-fired power plants at 80%, and restrictions
on emission grade 5 vehicles in metropolitan areas (Regan, 2019). Since these new rules were introduced
towards the end of the 2019 winter pollution peak, their impacts on pollution levels remain to be seen in 2020.

CHALLENGES
Not a single city in South Korea met the WHO’s annual PM2.5 guideline of 10μg/m3 in 2019. South Korea
had the highest average PM2.5 level during 2019 of any OECD country. Air pollution remains a problem
shared by both urban and rural areas, with South Korea’s most polluted and cleanest locations only varying
by 15 μg/m3 in annual PM2.5 concentration. While transboundary air pollution can contribute additional
PM2.5 from neighbouring countries, it is estimated that approximately half the country’s PM2.5 is generated domestically [1]. The South Korean government’s policies for air pollution are mostly focussed on temporary measures and emission reduction policies. This may be the reason that air quality improvements inSouth Korea have stagnated for the past several years.

HIGHLIGHT: 2019 LEGISLATURE
South Korea ranks highest among OECD countries for average annual PM2.5 exposure. On a city level, 61of the top 100 most polluted cities in OECD countries are located in South Korea. This is a considerable
increase from 44 ranked cities in 2018. Coal plants contribute to more than 40% of Korea’s energy mix(Regan, 2019), whilst these emissions are now being limited during the winter months of December toMarch under new governmental measures, a shift away from fossil fuel usage in industry, power generation and transportation is needed to more effectively tackle particulate pollution in the long-term.

13 |

2019

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 3 years*

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA

100%
90%

2016

2017

2018

2019

4.1%

5.2%

6.0%

6.5%

15.9%

15.8%

12.4%

11.4%

80%
70%
60%

50%

66.0%

58.3%

51.2%

58.4%

40%
30%

5.8%

20%

10%

6.7%
26.7%

6.2%
24.6%

4.8%
9.2%

14.5%

17.0%

0%

Annual PM2.5 average of hourly pollution

SOUTHEAST ASIA
Cambodia | Indonesia | Laos | Malaysia | Myanmar | Philippines | Singapore | Thailand | Vietnam
PM2.5(µg/m³)

Country/Region Ranking
1. Indonesia (51.7)

250.4

2. Vietnam (34.1)
3. Myanmar (31.0)
4. Thailand (24.3)

150.4
5. Laos (23.1)
55.4

6. Cambodia (21.1)

35.4

7. Malaysia (19.4)
8. Singapore (19.0)

12.0
10.0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

WHO target

Good

Moderate

81.3

South Tangerang, Indonesia
Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

14 |

City

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Southeast Asia’s emission sources include vehicle exhaust,
biomass burning, industry and coal-based energy production.
Rapid growth and development often exacerbates air quality
conditions in metropolitan areas, as construction and increased
energy consumption result in increased ambient PM2.5. Jakarta
is the most polluted capital city for PM2.5 pollution in this region, closely followed by Hanoi. These capital cities have annual
PM2.5 levels which are about 20% higher than those of Beijing.

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

4.0

10

SUMMARY

3.2%

Calamba, Philippines

9. Philippines (17.6)
0Cleanest Regional Cities

2019 AVG

Rank

1

South Tangerang, Indonesia 81.3

1

Calamba, Philippines

4.0

2

Bekasi, Indonesia

62.6

2

Tawau, Malaysia

8.6

3

Pekanbaru, Indonesia

52.8

3

Carmona, Philippines

9.1

4

Pontianak, Indonesia

49.7

4

Kapit, Malaysia

9.5

5

Jakarta, Indonesia

49.4

5

Limbang, Malaysia

9.7

6

Hanoi, Vietnam

46.9

6

Bongawan, Malaysia

10.1

7

Talawi, Indonesia

42.7

7

Sandakan, Malaysia

10.4

8

Nakhon Ratchasima,
Thailand

42.2

8

Tanjong Malim, Malaysia

11.3

City

2019 AVG

9

Saraphi, Thailand

41.3

9

Mukah, Malaysia

11.3

10

Surabaya, Indonesia

40.6

10

Legazpi, Philippines

11.3

11

Pai, Thailand

38.9

11

Balanga, Philippines

11.4

12

Hang Dong, Thailand

38.0

12

Phuket, Thailand

11.4

13

Chiang Rai, Thailand

37.0

13

Labuan, Malaysia

11.5

14

Mae Rim, Thailand

36.9

14

Keningau, Malaysia

11.5

15

Mueang Lamphun, Thailand 36.9

15

Putatan, Malaysia

11.6

The region is also susceptible to strong seasonal variations.
Open burning, the agricultural practice of quickly clearing landfor cultivation of future crops, commonly influences air quality
across borders from July to November, whilst the region’s wet
season brings lower PM2.5 levels as monsoon rains wash out
airborne particulates and contribute to cleaner skies (Walton,2019).

MONITORING STATUS
Apart from Thailand and Malaysia which have substantial
monitoring networks, public governmental PM2.5 monitoring inSoutheast Asia is relatively sparse, with stations primarily located in major cities. Within the region, 158 cities have PM2.5 data,
13 of which were added in 2019. Efforts from non-governmental
data contributors have provided about three quarters of the region’s data coverage. Non-governmental monitors provide theonly real-time data available in Cambodia and Laos.
Bangkok, Thailand has the highest density of PM2.5 stations outof any city included in this report, with 159 stations in the cityalone.

INDONESIA
PM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

JakartaPekanbaru

Ubud

SurabayaSouth TangerangBekasi

100
90
80
70

150.4

60
50

55.4

35.4

12.0
10.0

40
30
20
10
0
2016

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

PM2.5: µg/m³

2017

2019

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Jakarta

49.4

24.2

34.5

31.2

46.2

58.3

67.2

63.4

53.4

57.1

60.4

53.3

43.2

Surabaya

40.6

--

--

--

--

33.3

46.9

49.3

34.5

33.8

36.2

37.5

47.8

Pekanbaru

52.8

--

29.2

35.5

20.7

21.8

23.5

46.6

71.6

214.9

47.5

34.9

21.5

South Tangerang

81.3

44.1

61.4

48.9

60.9

87.2

107.6

102.9

90.5

100.7

104.4

88.6

76.1

Ubud

27.9

20.6

13.0

19.3

25.0

21.3

32.4

33.5

30.0

32.0

32.5

27.9

28.3

Bekasi

62.6

52.1

65.7

56.4

66.1

74.6

81.2

--

63.3

62.9

65.2

60.9

55.9

PROGRESS
During 2019, Indonesia experienced both a substantial increase in its live air monitoring coverage, as
well as numerous high-profile air pollution events. The government’s live PM2.5 monitoring network
grew from 6 to 42 stations, while individuals and non-governmental organizations also contributed
significantly, by more than doubling the number of low-cost community sensors deployed nationwide.

15 |

2018

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 4 years*

JAKARTA, INDONESIA
2016
100%

Grassroots efforts have further escalated the pollution conversation. In July 2019, residents united
under the Clean Air Coalition Initiative Movement sought legal action against the government forbreaching citizens’ rights to a clean and healthy environment (Smith, 2019). The final verdict of thelawsuit is still pending.

90%

CHALLENGES

70%

Seasonal agricultural burning practices, especially seasonal forest fires, rapid urban development, open
burning of household waste, and a reliance on coal-based energy present primary sources of particulate
pollution in Indonesia. Key cities such as Jakarta, Badung and Denpasar all experienced worse air quality in2019 than the year prior, largely as a result of escalated open burning in July through October (BBC, 2019).

60%

HIGHLIGHT: JAKARTA

40%

Jakarta ranks as the most polluted capital city in Southeast Asia in 2019, and the 5th most polluted
capital city in this global report (up from its 10th position in 2018).

30%

The Jakarta metropolitan area is home to more than 30 million residents and growing. In the next decade,
it is estimated that Jakarta will become the world’s biggest megacity (Kutty, 2018), with a population of
35.6 million. The city’s rapid growth has coincided with heightened PM2.5 levels, as the growing population adds to its notorious traffic congestion, and coal-based energy demand. Since 2017, PM2.5 levelsin the city have increased by 66%. In 2019, residents were exposed to more than 3 times the amount ofhours in the “Unhealthy” range (US AQI 150+) than two years prior. Currently plans are underway to build
4 more coal-fired power plants encircling the capital region, which may add significant extra exposure risk
for the capital’s residents (Coca, 2019).

20%

2017

2018

2019

8.6%
22.1%
32.2%
38.2%

22.9%

80%

32.4%
28.2%

50%

10%

29.8%
53.4%

29.3%

42.7%

26.7%
4.2%
10.9%

0%

7.9%

3.4%

Annual PM2.5 average of hourly pollution

THAILAND
PM2.5(µg/m³)

Bangkok

Nakhon Ratchasima

Mae Hong Son

Nonthaburi

Chiang Mai

Khon Kaen

250.4
40

150.4

55.4

35

30

35.4
25
12.0
10.0
2017

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

2018

2019

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 3 years*

PM2.5: µg/m³

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Bangkok

22.8

47.4

24.1

27.7

19.0

19.6

9.4

10.2

7.6

20.4

23.2

30.2

34.2

Nonthaburi

23.2

70.6

29.4

29.4

19.1

19.2

9.5

10.1

7.6

21.2

25.1

32.9

38.9

Nakhon Ratchasima

42.2

42.1

67.9

68.0

41.4

28.3

17.1

15.7

--

--

--

--

32.6

Chiang Mai

32.3

24.4

47.2

98.7

74.1

33.6

7.8

6.8

7.9

15.8

16.8

23.0

33.1

Mae Hong Son

35.3

29.4

46.8

116.1

99.7

21.3

11.5

5.9

4.7

10.1

9.5

13.1

24.6

Khon Kaen

36.4

51.6

67.2

68.6

41.5

29.2

17.4

16.9

15.8

29.6

26.3

31.4

42.6

PROGRESSThe Thai government has established a substantial network of air quality monitoring stations, adding 15
new stations in 2019. Non-governmental data contributors however, supply the majority (75.7%) of monitoring stations nationally. Outside of the US this is the largest network of community contributed, lower-costmonitors. The publication and engagement around this data has helped raise a national dialogue around air
quality and increase public awareness on the issue.
Bangkok is the city with the most public PM2.5 stations, globally. At the same time, the city’s annual PM2.5
average has gradually improved over the last 3 years. Despite improvements, Bangkok’s annual PM2.5 average remains more than four times the WHO target.

CHALLENGES
Much of Thailand’s air pollution is seasonal, with pollution peaking during the dry season from December to April. Major sources of emissions in metropolitan areas such as Bangkok include inefficient,diesel-fuelled transportation, factories and construction (UNEP, 2019) and seasonal transboundary
impacts from neighboring provinces and countries, while agricultural regions are more exposed topollution from open agricultural and waste burning. Thailand experienced several high-profile air pollution episodes during 2019. In January, hundreds of schools were closed in Bangkok to limit exposure
to polluted air. March and April saw intense air pollution across the northern region, including Chiang
Mai (Kuhakan, 2019).

HIGHLIGHT: OPEN BURNING PRACTICESThe annual practice of open burning is commonly used in agricultural areas to clear land for thefollowing season’s cultivation. Whilst the practice is beneficial to farmers as it requires few resourcesand quickly eliminates agricultural waste, open burning can cause far-reaching air pollution, sometimes lasting for weeks or months at a time. The top five most polluted cities here are all located in
Thailand’s Northern agricultural areas, commonly affected by open burning from February to April(Pasukphun, 2018).

16 |Map of acreage burned in 2019

VIETNAM
PM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

Hanoi

Ho Chi Minh City

Hue

Da Nang

60

50
150.4
40
55.4

35.4

30

12.0
10.0

20
2016

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

PM2.5: µg/m³

2017

2018

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Hanoi

46.9

59.3

36.0

50.2

40.3

45.8

36.5

30.4

33.1

48.3

43.2

66.3

72.7

Ho Chi Minh City

25.3

34.1

17.5

22.5

18.1

23.9

18.6

18.9

17.3

26.7

29.8

39.0

37.0

Hue

28.6

--

41.8

53.5

45.2

25.9

12.2

11.1

12.6

25.0

27.0

36.9

37.3

Da Nang

25.9

40.5

28.3

36.0

--

--

22.6

30.0

29.9

18.2

12.0

28.1

26.4

PROGRESS
Whilst Vietnam has a relatively small governmental air quality monitoring network, covering only Hanoi
and Ho Chi Minh City, numerous independently operated PM2.5 sensors have been brought online by individuals and local organizations in 2019. These contributions currently outnumber governmental monitoring stations, tripling the number of live PM2.5 monitoring stations within the country. With the publicationof real-time data, air quality has become a national talking point. The government has responded withpositive efforts, including the first Vietnamese public advisory on air pollution, which outlined a 14-stepguideline for reducing exposure (Anh, 2019), expanding their monitoring network (Truong, 2020) and an
update to the Vietnam Environment Administration Technical guidance on calculation and publication ofVietnam’s air quality index (Bai, 2019).

CHALLENGES
Vietnam’s rapid development and urbanisation poses severe challenges to managing its PM2.5 pollution.
In 2019, Hanoi overtook Beijing in the ranking of global capital cities. Hanoi was also 2019’s most polluted
city in Southeast Asia for PM2.5 pollution, outside of Indonesia. Research done by Vietnamese experts
showed that Vietnam suffers between 10.8 – 13.2 billion USD worth of economic losses associated with
ambient air pollution each year, equivalent to about 5% of the country’s GDP (VNA, 2020).
Rapid development coupled with weak emission standards for power plants, vehicles and industries and ahigh and rising share of coal in power generation contribute to high air pollution levels in bigger cities. Vietnam’s coal consumption doubled and oil consumption increased by 30% over the past five years (BP, 2019).

HANOI, VIETNAM
2016
100%

2017

HIGHLIGHT: HEAVY SMOG SPARKS ENVIRONMENAL LAW
Following several high-pollution episodes in Hanoi during 2019, during which the government issued
public advisories to stay indoors and limit outdoor exercise (Samuel, 2019), Vietnam’s Ministry of
Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE) have pledged to revise the country’s Environmental
Protection Law, established in 2014. The updated legislation is due for submission in 2020 (Ecologic
Institute, 2019), and should require stronger action on air quality management and more stringent
emission control from heavy industrial sources and energy production, such as coal-fired power
plants. Only 0.7% of hours in 2019 met the WHO target for annual average PM2.5 exposure.

2018

2019

2.6%

90%

31.4%

20.2%

20.3%

24.8%

80%

70%

17.4%

25.6%

60%

50%

33.0%
26.9%

40%

45.5%
30%

17 |

2019

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 4 years*

20%

45.9%
34.0%

4.7%

10%

0%

40.2%

4.1%

8.5%

2.8%
4.6%

Annual PM2.5 average of hourly pollutionCENTRAL & SOUTH ASIA
Afghanistan | Bangladesh | India | Iran | Kazakhstan | Kyrgyzstan | Nepal | Pakistan | Sri Lanka | Uzbekistan
PM2.5(µg/m³)

Country/Region Ranking
1. Bangladesh (83.3)

250.4
2. Pakistan (65.8)
3. Afghanistan (58.8)
4. India (58.1)
150.4

5. Nepal (44.5)
6. Uzbekistan (41.2)

55.4

7. Kyrgyzstan (33.2)
35.4

8. Sri Lanka (25.2)
9. Iran (24.3)

12.0
10.0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

WHO target

Good

Ghaziabad, India
Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

18 |

City

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Whilst pollution sources across the region vary, common contributors include transportation emissions, biomass burning forhousehold cooking, open agricultural burning, industry and coal
combustion.

110.2

Moderate

20

The majority of the most polluted cities and countries includedin this report are located in the South Asia region. The region includes 30 of the top 40 most polluted cities and four of the five
most polluted countries. Only one city in this region (Sanandaj,Iran), out of 147 cities with monitoring data in 2019, met WHO
targets for PM2.5 levels.

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

Sanandaj, Iran

10

SUMMARY

0.7%

6.5

10. Kazakhstan (23.6)
0Cleanest Regional Cities

2019 AVG

Rank

1

Ghaziabad, India

110.2

1

Sanandaj, Iran

6.5

2

Gujranwala, Pakistan

105.3

2

Borazjan, Iran

11.6

3

Faisalabad, Pakistan

104.6

3

Kabudrahang, Iran

12.7

4

Delhi, India

98.6

4

Tabriz, Iran

13.2

5

Noida, India

97.7

5

Qorveh, Iran

13.7

6

Gurugram, India

93.1

6

Yazd, Iran

13.7

7

Raiwind, Pakistan

92.2

7

Zanjan, Iran

15.1

8

Greater Noida, India

91.3

8

Nahavand, Iran

15.4

City

2019 AVG

9

Bandhwari, India

90.5

9

Satna, India

15.5

10

Lucknow, India

90.3

10

Saqqez, Iran

15.7

11

Lahore, Pakistan

89.5

11

Darreh Shahr, Iran

16.6

12

Bulandshahr, India

89.4

12

Pardis, Iran

16.9

13

Muzaffarnagar, India

89.1

13

Pokhara, Nepal

17.1

14

Bagpat, India

88.6

14

Eslamshahr, Iran

19.7

15

Jind, India

85.4

15

Saveh, Iran

19.8

Numerous cities within the region, particularly in Pakistan andIndia, saw improvements in PM2.5 levels from 2018 to 2019.
This resulted in an overall decrease in PM2.5 levels by 14.8%
across the region, among cities with comparable PM2.5 data
in 2018 and 2019. Much of this can be attributed to increased
monitoring data, economic slowdown, favorable meteorologicalconditions and government action. 2019 marked the start ofIndia’s National Clean Air Program, which set ambitious PM2.5
targets and outlined new strategies for meeting these goals.

MONITORING STATUS
India, Iran and Nepal are the only countries within the South
Asia region which have live public, national PM2.5 monitoring
networks. In 2019, India nearly doubled its governmental monitoring network, growing the number of stations to 283, whilst
individual contributors provided an additional 31 stations.
Pakistan also doubled its monitoring stations, with more than
90% owing to individual data contributors. While major cities
within the region tend to have several stations, much of theregion still lacks air quality data, leaving large populations
without information regarding the air they are breathing.

INDIAPM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

Delhi

Bengaluru

Chennai

MumbaiHyderabad

Kolkata

120
110
100
90

150.4

80
70

55.4

35.4

60
50
40

12.0
10.0

30
20
2015

2016

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

PM2.5: µg/m³

2017

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Delhi

98.6

191.7

84.8

75.3

71.4

76.6

56.7

43.2

31.9

37.2

116.7

200.7

194.8

Mumbai

45.3

104.5

71.0

59.0

41.0

31.8

25.3

18.1

15.8

12.6

31.5

57.7

81.1

Bengaluru

32.6

57.8

44.6

43.4

39.6

35.2

20.1

17.3

15.6

17.5

24.7

40.3

35.5

Chennai

34.6

74.9

35.8

30.4

23.0

39.1

34.0

28.5

21.1

22.3

20.5

48.0

40.2

Hyderabad

39.0

70.5

32.7

45.0

35.6

42.6

23.2

15.5

16.5

19.9

34.6

67.0

63.6

Kolkata

59.8

176.1

50.3

66.1

36.8

37.3

29.5

25.6

22.6

19.7

63.3

92.6

102.1

2019 marked the launch of India’s first National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), marking a shift inIndia’s commitment to tackling air pollution. The NCAP aims to reduce PM2.5 and PM10 air pollution in 102 cities by 20-30% by 2024 compared to 2017 levels, by working directly with local governments to create more customized regulations and targets (Government of India, 2019). In July
2019, India additionally joined the UN’s Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) as the 65th member
to collaborate with global leaders on air pollution solutions. While the long-term impacts of these
activities are yet to be seen, India saw widespread improvements in PM2.5 levels in 2019, comparedto the year prior as a result of economic slowdown, favorable meteorological conditions, as well as
more dedicated efforts towards cleaning the air.

CHALLENGES
Despite improvements, India still faces serious air pollution challenges. India again heads thisreport’s ranking of annual PM2.5 levels by city with half of the 50 most polluted cities being inIndia. No Indian cities included in this report met the WHO target for annual pollution exposure(10ug/m3) during 2019. Additionally, the country still has a relatively limited air quality monitoring network given its population size, with many communities and even highly populated cities
without access to real-time information.

HIGHLIGHT: NATIONAL AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
Every city in India with PM2.5 data in 2018 and 2019, except for Nagpur1, saw a decrease in PM2.5
levels in 2019. As a weighted average based on the available data, national air pollution decreased
by a remarkable 20% from 2018 to 2019. Unfortunately these improvements are not representative of the very recent but promising National Clean Air Programme and promising cleaner fuelBharat VI introduction, but are rather more indicative of a slowing of the marketplace.

19 |

2019

2019
AnnualAVG

PROGRESS

1

2018

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 5 years*

Nagpur saw a slight increase in average PM2.5 level, of +1.3%.

Key Cities in India
Delhi
100%
90%

Mumbai Bengaluru Chennai Hyderabad Kolkata

7.8%
10.3%

9.7%

4.8%

13.4%
23.1%

28.8%

80%

29.6%

30.5%

20.5%

70%
60%

42.4%

23.8%
19.1%
19.0%

50%

40%
30%

20.9%

51.8%

56.6%

42.9%

43.5%

37.2%

20%

10%
0%

17.5%
3.6%
3.4%

4.2%
4.7%

4.5%
4.4%

4.1%
6.0%

2.4%
4.4%

Annual PM2.5 average of hourly pollution in 2019

PAKISTAN
PM2.5(µg/m³)250.4

KarachiFaisalabad

Peshawar

LahoreGujranwala

Islamabad

130
120
110
100

150.4

90
80

55.4

35.4

70
60
50

12.0
10.0

40
30
2017

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

PM2.5: µg/m³

2018

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Karachi

40.2

86.7

42.1

32.4

18.2

16.1

18.1

23.3

22.2

28.5

44.9

67.1

75.9

Lahore

89.5

199.1

110.3

73.6

62.5

53.7

44.5

39.9

40.9

54.7

104.6

134.9

182.7

Faisalabad

104.6

223.0

128.3

82.0

59.1

56.5

46.3

54.2

58.4

66.5

92.0

148.5

226.2

Gujranwala

105.3

220.4

127.4

86.4

70.9

65.8

53.3

59.2

48.8

67.4

107.6

144.9

217.3

Peshawar

63.9

81.2

44.3

28.6

53.7

44.4

56.4

52.8

41.4

60.9

75.2

77.9

113.5

Islamabad

35.2

37.0

24.9

18.6

17.2

14.6

20.5

31.7

29.8

42.9

40.0

48.8

96.3

PROGRESS
Globally, Pakistan ranks second overall for highest annual PM2.5 exposure, weighted by city
population. Until recently, there was no government monitoring in Pakistan. The data provided
in this report comes from low-cost sensors operated by engaged individuals and non-governmental organizations. New Prime Minister Imran Khan has cited air pollution as a key priority for his administration, and recently reinstated the monitoring infrastructure in Lahore,
a program previously abandoned by the last government (Khan, 2019). Current anti-smog
measures include stricter emission standards on factories, as well as fining heavily polluting
vehicles and farmers burning crop stubble. Much more must be done however, to tackle emissions at the source, and shift to cleaner energy sources.

CHALLENGES

Key Cities in Pakistan
Karachi100%90%Lahore
4.5%

21.8%

13.0%

Faisalabad Gujranwala Peshawar Islamabad
8.2%

7.9%

12.5%

14.3%

70%
60%

HIGHLIGHT: COMMUNITIES TAKE URGENT ACTION

20%

4.5%

14.5%

4.2%

80%

Air pollution is responsible for nearly 22% of premature deaths in Pakistan (Shaikh, 2018).
Several cities in Pakistan rank prominently among the most polluted cities globally. Gujranwala and Faisalabad, which rank third and fourth respectively, both experience annual average PM2.5 levels that are more than 10 times the WHO target for annual PM2.5 exposure.
These cities observe ten times more yearly hours in the highest US AQI bracket (250.4μg/m3)
than in the US AQI bracket which meets the WHO annual target (<10μg/m3). Relative to theheavy pollution burden, Pakistan has very few public air quality monitors. A national monitoring network offering data granularity and coverage in more cities is critically important tobetter understand emission sources and drive action.

Young Pakistanis and engaged communities have taken a leadership role in raising social
awareness, growing available outdoor air quality data and demanding government action in
Pakistan. Since 2017, the air quality monitoring infrastructure has grown to 46 stations as aresult of contributions through the non-governmental organization Pakistan Air Quality Initiative (PAQI) and individual data contributors. In November, three teenage girls sought legal
action against the government of Punjab, claiming a “violation of their fundamental right toa clean and healthy environment,” demanding urgent action (Amnesty International, 2019).

20 |

2019

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 3 years*

40.9%

17.6%

25.2%

53.6%

13.2%
37.4%
41.3%

38.9%

50%

40%

55.1%

20.4%

30%

23.4%

10%
0%

18.3%

18.2%

19.3%

19.3%

24.8%

5.6%

Annual PM2.5 average of hourly pollution in 2019

4.8%
8.5%

WESTERN ASIA
Armenia | Bahrain | Georgia | Iraq | Israel | Jordan | Kuwait | Saudi Arabia | Syria | United Arab Emirates
PM2.5(µg/m³)

Country/Region Ranking *1. Bahrain (46.8)

250.4

2. Iraq (39.6)
3. United Arab Emirates (38.9)
4. Kuwait (38.3)

150.4

5. Syria (32.2)
6. Armenia (25.5)

55.4

7. Saudi Arabia (22.1)
35.4

8. Israel (20.8)
9. Georgia (20.1)

12.0
10.0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

WHO target

Good

Moderate

46.8

Manama, Bahrain
Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities *
Rank

City

21 |

Cleanest Regional Cities *2019 AVG

Rank

1

Manama, Bahrain

46.8

1

Ein Tamar, Israel

15.2

2

Dubai, UAE

40.9

2

Kutaisi, Georgia

16.3

3

Baghdad, Iraq

39.6

3

Nesher, Israel

16.8

4

Abu Dhabi, UAE

38.4

4

Haifa, Israel

18.0

5

Kuwait City, Kuwait

38.3

5

Kiryat Yam, Israel

18.1

6

Sharjah, UAE

34.6

6

Gvar’am, Israel

18.2

7

Salwa, Kuwait

32.2

7

Al Quwayrah, Jordan

18.3

8

Fiq, Syria

32.2

8

Kiryat Tiv’on, Israel

18.4

City

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Whilst sandstorms contribute to elevated PM2.5 levels yearround, their effect is noticeably seasonal, impacting air quality
more severely in May through August. During these months,
strong winds, thunderstorm activity and convective low-pressure systems, as a result of the intense heat, kick up significant amounts of dust. Dust particles have been found to becomprised of hydrocarbons, trace elements, heavy metals, sulphates and nitrates (UNEP, 2016).
The top five most polluted cities in this region, Manama, Dubai,
Baghdad, Abu Dhabi, and Kuwait City are all heavily affected bysandstorms in the summer months. These months can experience nearly twice the PM2.5 levels as winter months.

2019 AVG

9

Yeghegnavan, Armenia

31.8

9

Afula, Israel

18.5

10

Musalerr, Armenia

30.2

10

Gan Yavne, Israel

18.8

11

Prroshyan, Armenia

25.5

11

Ashkelon, Israel

18.8

12

Gan Raveh, Israel

24.5

12

Nir Yisrael, Israel

18.8

13

Rishon LeTsiyon, Israel

22.9

13

Arad, Israel

19.1

14

Bnei Brak, Israel

22.9

14

Kiryat Gat, Israel

19.1

15

Ramat Gan, Israel

22.6

15

Be’er Sheva, Israel

19.2* Based on available data.

20

Sources for PM2.5 air pollution in the Middle East include a mixof both natural sources, such as dust storms, and man-madesources, including energy production, transport exhaust andconstruction (UNEP, 2016).

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019 *

15.2

10

SUMMARY

0%

Ein Tamar, Israel

10. Jordan (18.3)
0

MONITORING STATUS
Among the countries in this region, only Israel and UAE havenational PM2.5 air quality monitoring networks. The US State
Department has established PM2.5 monitoring stations at
consulates and embassies in the capital cities of Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The US-owned stations in Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are
all new within 2019. Additional data has been provided by individual data contributors. These contributions have added 26
stations within the region, and are the first to cover the nationof Syria and Salwa, Kuwait.

EUROPE

Austria | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Cyprus | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany
Greece | Hungary | Iceland | Ireland | Italy | Kosovo | Latvia | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Macedonia | Malta | Netherlands | Norway
Poland | Portugal | Romania | Russia | Serbia | Slovakia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Turkey |Ukraine | United Kingdom
PM2.5

Country/Region Ranking(µg/m³)

250.4

150.4

55.4

35.4

12.0
10.0
0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

WHO target

Good

Moderate

53.8

Lalapaşa, Turkey
Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

2019 AVG

Rank

Lalapaşa, Turkey

53.8

1

Bodo, Norway

3.8

2

Düzce, Turkey

46.0

2

Salao, Portugal

3.8

3Sindirgi, Turkey

45.8

3

Villalba de Guardo, Spain

3.8

4

Lukavac,Bosnia & Herzegovina

39.9

4

Mosfellsbaer, Iceland

3.9

5

Valjevo, Serbia

37.9

5

Husavik, Iceland

4.0

6Horozluhan Osb,
Turkey37.2

6

Vaasa, Finland

4.1

7

Amasya, Turkey

35.9

7

Korsholm, Finland

4.1

Tuzla,
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Zenica,Bosnia & Herzegovina
Sarajevo,
Bosnia & Herzegovina

35.3

8

Bredkalen, Sweden

4.1

34.8

9

Santana, Portugal

4.2

34.1

10

Kuopio, Finland

4.3

11

Konya, Turkey

33.2

11

Hafnarfjoerdur, Iceland

4.3

12

Skopje, North Macedonia

32.4

12

Harmondsworth,
United Kingdom

4.3

13

Nis, Serbia

32.4

13

Fundao, Portugal

4.4

14

Ceglie Messapica, Italy

30.7

14

Melgaço, Portugal

4.5

15

Kastamonu, Turkey

30.5

15

Lahti, Finland

4.6

9
10

22 |

Cleanest Regional Cities

1

8

City

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Air pollution continues to present varied challenges acrossdifferent parts of Europe, as only 36% of European cities with
PM2.5 monitoring in place met the WHO’s annual target forPM2.5. Within Europe, 2019’s PM2.5 levels were generally foundto be highest in Eastern and Southern Europe, with the cleanest
cities and regions mostly found in Northern and Western Europe. While PM2.5 emission sources vary considerably acrossthe continent, common sources include energy production anduse, industry, agriculture and livestock, road transport, andhouseholds and commercial buildings (EEA, 2019).

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

3.8

10

SUMMARY

36.4%

Villalba de Guardo, Spain

1. Bosnia & Herzegovina (34.6)
2. North Macedonia (32.4)
3. Bulgaria (25.5)
4. Kosovo (23.5)
5. Serbia (23.3)
6. Greece (22.5)
7. Turkey (20.6)
8. Cyprus (19.7)
9. Croatia (19.1)
10. Poland (18.7)
11. Romania (18.3)
12. Italy (17.1)
13. Ukraine (16.6)
14. Slovakia (16.1)
15. Hungary (14.6)
16. Lithuania (14.5)
17. Czech Republic (14.5)
18. Latvia (13.3)
19. Belgium (12.5)
20. France (12.3)
21. Austria (12.2)
22. Germany (11.0)
23. Netherlands (10.9)
24. Switzerland (10.9)
25. Ireland (10.6)
26. United Kingdom (10.5)
27. Russia (9.9)
28. Spain (9.7)
29. Luxembourg (9.6)
30. Denmark (9.6)
31. Malta (9.4)
32. Portugal (9.3)
33. Norway (6.9)
34. Sweden (6.6)
35. Estonia (6.2)
36. Iceland (5.6)
37. Finland (5.6)

City

As countries across Europe continue to face challenges with unsafe levels of PM2.5, many European cities are also focused on
combating high levels of other pollutants, such as NOx, which isfrequently found to exceed EU limits and has led to numerous
legal actions in 2019, as well as NH3 (European Commission,2019). Since NO2 and NH3 can react as a precursor to form
PM2.5 in the atmosphere, efforts to manage these pollutants
should also help reduce PM2.5 levels.

2019 AVGMONITORING STATUS
North and Western European cities had more dense monitoring coverage than Eastern and Southern European cities.
Western Europe has the most cities with monitoring coverageduring 2019 (428), of which 61% of these cities failed to meet
the WHO annual PM2.5 targets (<10ug/m3). In contrast, Eastern Europe had the fewest cities with monitoring coverage(184), of which only 3% of cities met the WHO annual target.
Many countries within Europe have well-established air quality
monitoring and real-time reporting systems. However, somecountries such as Italy, still do not report PM2.5 information in
real-time to citizens, so this information cannot be acted upon
to protect health. To complement governmental monitoring
infrastructure, individuals and non-governmental organizations have contributed large numbers of sensors to report live
PM2.5 data within Europe during 2019. Notably within Italy,
Kosovo and Russia, where these now provide 100%, 97% and
51% of live data respectively.

NORTHERN AMERICA
United States|

CanadaPM2.5(µg/m³)

Country/Region Ranking

250.4

1. United States (9.0)
150.4

55.4

2. Canada (7.7)

35.4

12.0
10.0
0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

22.6

Kailua-Kona, Royal Palm Beach,
USA
USA
WHO target

Good

Moderate

Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Cleanest Regional Cities

2019 AVG

Rank

City

Over the past several decades, the United States and Canada
have managed to continue growing gross domestic product(GDP) while reducing emissions of all 6 criteria pollutants, including PM2.5. The success has been the result of pollution
emission controls across numerous industries and sectors.
Whilst the Trump administration has rolled back 16 air pollution
regulations, with another 9 in process (Popovich, Albeck-Ripka, &Pierre-Louis, 2019), Northern America remains one of the regionswith the lowest overall PM2.5 levels worldwide. Still, nearly 20%
of regional cities fail to meet WHO air quality guidelines for annual exposure, contributing to 30,000 premature deaths from air
pollution annually (Carnegie Mellon University, 2019), indicating
an ongoing severe national health risk.
Primary PM2.5 emission sources include transport, a continued
dependence on fossil fuel-driven energy production and wildfires as the dominant natural cause.

2019 AVG
1.9

Royal Palm Beach, USA

22.6

1

Kailua-Kona, USA

2

Kitwanga, Canada

19.4

2

Captin Cook, USA

1.9

3

Portola, USA

16.9

3

Waimea, USA

2.0

4

Maywood, USA

16.5

4

Oak Harbor, USA

2.6

5

Walnut Park, USA

16.3

5

Oro Valley, USA

2.8
2.8

1

23 |

City

20

SUMMARY

80.5%

1.9

10

6

Eastvale, USA

16.2

6

Yellowstone National
Park, USA

7

Colton, USA

16.1

7

Mesa County, USA

2.9

8

Florence-Graham, USA

16.1

8

Naalehu, USA

2.9

9Diamond Bar, USA

16.0

9

Cedaredge, USA

3.0

10

McCloud, USA

16.0

10

Ocean View, USA

3.0

11

Ontario, USA

16.0

11

Lander, USA

3.0

12

North Bend, USA

16.0

12

Labrador City, USA

3.1

13

Compton, USA

15.7

13

Kapolei, USA

3.2

14

Burbank, USA

15.5

14

Thompson, Canada

3.3

15

Huntington Park, USA

15.4

15

Palisade, USA

3.3

While 2019 saw fewer wildfires and acreages burned than in
the past 5 years (NOAA, 2020), these events still contributed toelevated PM2.5 levels in the regions most polluted cities, which
are dominantly located in California (9 out of the top 10, or 25
out of the top 30). As environments become warmer and drier
with climate change, the frequency and intensity of wildfires is
expected to grow.

MONITORING STATUS
The United States has one of the world’s most established
air monitoring networks with more than 1,000 governmental
PM2.5 stations and nearly 4,000 PM2.5 stations contributedby local organizations and individuals. Of the non-governmental monitoring stations, over 2,500 stations were added
in 2019. Whilst Canada’s air quality monitoring network is
considerably smaller than its US neighbor, its metropolitan
areas, which represent locations more affected by air pollution are also well represented, with 433 stations included inthis report.

UNITED STATES
PM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

New York

ChicagoIndianapolis

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Denver

16
15
14
13

150.4

12
11

55.4

35.4

10
9
8

12.0
10.0

7
6
2017

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

2018

2019

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 3 years*

PM2.5: µg/m³

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

New York

7.0

8.7

8.1

7.1

5.7

5.6

7.1

9.1

6.7

5.9

4.8

6.5

8.4

Los Angeles

12.7

11.7

7.8

7.7

10.5

10.1

18.1

18.0

15.0

10.3

12.2

18.3

12.1

Chicago

12.8

9.9

18.5

14.4

11.7

9.7

13.3

15.1

9.0

11.1

8.0

14.9

17.9

San Francisco

7.1

10.7

3.4

4.8

5.3

5.3

6.7

7.1

6.6

4.4

7.4

14.5

8.2

Indianapolis

13.4

10.3

15.3

13.9

10.2

12.9

14.1

17.1

11.7

13.6

9.7

15.4

17.0

Denver

8.2

8.3

14.7

11.8

5.9

5.9

5.0

7.1

7.1

6.3

6.1

11.2

9.8

PROGRESSThe United States has one of the world’s most established governmental air quality monitoring networks. Efforts put in place as a result of the Clean Air Act of 1970, in addition to the 1990 amendments, have created gradual improvements in national air quality across all 6 key criteria pollutants,
including PM2.5. These air quality improvements were led despite increases in GDP, population, energy consumption, and transport miles traveled (US EPA, 2019).

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Number of fires

Acres burned

Avg. acres/fire

6,027
5,339
9,945
3,400
2,569

312,668
163,153595,161
98,542
13,353

51.9
30.6
59.8
29.0
5.2

In addition to government monitoring, in 2019 more than 3,500 additional stations were added
nationwide, as a result of contributions from non-governmental organizations and individuals. This
represents the largest crowd-sourced monitoring network in this report, by a significant margin.

CHALLENGES
Despite improvements over time, 20.9% of US cities still exceeded the WHO annual PM2.5 exposure
target in 2019. It is estimated that air pollution contributes to 30,000 premature US deaths a year
(Carnegie Mellon University, 2019) with more than 40% of the US population at risk of disease andpremature death as a result of current air quality levels (American Lung Association, 2018).
The Trump administration has led 25 EPA regulatory rollbacks on air pollution and emissions, 16 ofwhich have been completed as of 2019 (Popovich, Albeck-Ripka, & Pierre-Louis, 2019). Rollbacks
include weakening of governmental standards, oversight, monitoring, and enforcement of polluting
industries, particularly within the oil and gas industry. It is expected these moves will have a negative
effect on air quality over time.

HIGHLIGHT: WILDFIRES
19 of the 20 most polluted cities for PM2.5 pollution in the United States were in California,
where wildfires contributed to heightened monthly averages. Whilst wildfires in 2019 wereless severe and fewer than in the previous 5 years (NOAA, 2020), they still constituted a major
source of national air pollution, particularly in the Pacific West. Human-driven climate change
is expected to further aggravate the intensity of wildfires in the future as warmer and drier
climates transform brush into fuel for wildfires.

24 |Map of acreage burned in the California in 2019

LATIN AMERICA & CARIBBEAN
Argentina | Bahamas | Brazil | Chile | Colombia
Mexico|Peru|
Puerto Rico
| US Virgin Islands

|

Costa

PM2.5
(µg/m³)

Rica|

Ecuador|Guatemala70

80

Country/Region Ranking
1. Peru (23.3)

250.4

2. Chile (22.6)
3. Guatemala (20.2)
4. Mexico (20.0)
5. Brazil (15.8)

150.4

6. Colombia (14.6)
7. Argentina (14.6)

55.4

8. Costa Rica (10.4)
9. Puerto Rico (10.2)

35.4

10. Ecuador (8.6)
11. U.S. Virigin Islands (3.5)

12.0
10.0

12. Bahamas (3.3)
0Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

10

20

30

40

50

60

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

14.5%

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

3.3

41.5

Nassau, Bahamas
WHO targetGood

Coyhaique, Chile
Moderate

Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Map of acreage burned in Latin America in 2019

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

2019 AVG

Rank

City

2019 AVG

1

Coyhaique, Chile

41.5

1

2

Osorno, Chile

32.8

2

3

Padre las Casas, Chile

32.5

3

4

Providencia, Chile

29.5

4

San German, Puerto Rico

3.7

5

Toluca, Mexico

29.4

5

Camuy, Puerto Rico

4.1

6

Santiago, Chile

27.7

6

Punta Arenas, Chile

4.7

7

Linares, Chile

27.6

7

Puerto Baquerizo Moreno,
Ecuador

5.8

8

Pudahuel, Chile

27.6

8

Calama, Chile

6.4

9

Nezahualcóyotl, Mexico

27.1

9

Iztacalco, Mexico

6.4

10

Rancagua, Chile

26.9

10

Tutamandahostel,
Ecuador

6.7

11

Puerto Montt, Chile

26.4

11

Sangolqui, Ecuador

7.4

12

Los Cerrillos, Chile

26.2

12

Ribeirao Preto, Brazil

8.2

13

Curico, Chile

25.8

13

Guarne, Colombia

8.5

14

Ecatepec de Morelos,
Mexico25.4

14

Quito, Ecuador

8.6

Quilicura, Chile

25.3

15

Santiago de Queretaro,
Mexico

9.2

15

25 |

City

SUMMARY

Cleanest Regional Cities
Nassau, Bahamas
Cruz Bay, U.S. Virgin
Islands
Charlotte Amalie,
U.S. Virgin Islands

3.3
3.3
3.6

Latin America and the Caribbean face air quality challenges as aconsequence of significant urban growth, resulting in heightenedenergy consumption and transport emissions in cities. These contributing factors, coupled with inefficient vehicles, weak fuel standards and biomass burning for household and commercial heating
and cooking further contribute to heightened PM2.5 levels.
Whilst Peru has the highest average annual pollution exposure in
the region, Chile follows closely behind, and is additionally home to
8 out of the 10 most polluted cities in the region.

MONITORING STATUS
Public real-time air quality monitoring remains relatively sparse in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Chile and Mexico’s governmental
monitoring networks supply the majority of the data points here,
representing 66% of the data coverage in the region. Brazil’s network of live, public governmental PM2.5 stations are limited to
the Sao Paulo state, whilst independently contributed lower costmonitors provide the only data to the state of Acre, within the Amazon rainforest. Independent contributions via lower cost air quality
monitors comprise 24% of the regional coverage, and provide theonly data for Ecuador, Guatemala, and the Bahamas.

AFRICA
Algeria|

Angola|DR Congo

|

Egypt

|

Ethiopia

|

Ghana
PM2.5
(µg/m³)|

Nigeria|South Africa|

UgandaCountry/Region Ranking *1. DR Congo (32.1)

250.4

2. Ghana (30.3)
3. Uganda (29.1)
4. South Africa (21.6)

150.4
5. Nigeria (21.4)
55.4

6. Algeria (21.2)
7. Ethiopia (20.1)

35.4

8. Egypt (18.0)
12.0
10.0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

WHO target

Good

Moderate

60.0

Hartbeespoort, South Africa
Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities *Rank2019 AVG

Rank

60.0

1

Karoo, South Africa

4.3

42.3

2

Mokgorwane, South Africa

5.4

3

Springs, South Africa

39.1

3

Richards Bay, South Africa 7.5

4

Vanderbijlpark,
South Africa

34.7

4

Komati, South Africa

8.0

5

Sebokeng, South Africa

32.7

5

Sunset Beach,
South Africa

8.1

6

Kinshasa, DR Congo

32.1

6

Worcester, South Africa

8.7

7

Sasolburg, South Africa

31.4

7

East London, South Africa

8.8

8Marikana, South Africa

30.9

8

Port Elizabeth,South Africa

10.6

2

26 |

City

Cleanest Regional Cities *Hartbeespoort,
South Africa
Bloemfontein,South Africa

1

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

Whilst only 15.4% of monitored cities in Africa met WHO guidelines
for annual PM2.5 exposure, the majority of the region’s population(60%) lives in rural areas, that tend to have cleaner ambient air, yetnotably lack air quality data (Schwela, 2012). These populations
are generally more affected by indoor air pollution from poorly
ventilated housing and a dependence on biomass or coal burningfor cooking.

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

4.3

10

SUMMARY

13.7%

Karoo, South Africa

9. Angola (15.9)
0City2019 AVG

9

Accra, Ghana

30.3

9

Cape Town, South Africa

11.2

10

Vereeniging, South Africa

30.0

10

Potchefstroom,
South Africa

11.9

11

Embalenhle, South Africa

30.0

11

George, South Africa

12.4

12

Kampala, Uganda

29.1

12

Bethlehem, South Africa

12.4

13

Ermelo, South Africa

28.4

13

Burgersfort, South Africa

12.8

14

Midstream, South Africa

27.5

14

Nkangala, South Africa

13.2

15

Kriel, South Africa

27.4

15

Lephalale, South Africa

14.1

In Africa’s high-density urban areas, ambient air pollution has
worsened with growing urbanization and industrialization andlimited regulation. With the region’s population expected to nearly double in the next 30 years, reaching an estimated 2.2 billion(AfDB, 2011), mitigating air pollution in metropolitan areas will
present an important opportunity to create clean air if abundant
renewable energy resources are fully utilized.
Environmental factors, including dust blown from the Sahara
Desert and wildfires, contribute significantly to regional airborne
particulates. The Sahara is the main source of global dust, yet 60%
flows southwards to the Gulf of Guinea, primarily afflicting the African region. Meanwhile, an estimated 70% of active fires burning
across the planet are in Africa (Meko, 2019).

MONITORING STATUS
Much of the African continent lacks sufficient measured air quality data, leaving nearly a billion people without information about
their pollution exposure. For perspective, there are more public
monitoring stations in greater London, UK than the entire African
continent. Available real-time data included in this report is supplied by US State department monitors, South African government
monitors, and lower cost air quality monitors.
Whilst low cost air quality monitors present an opportunity forgrowing measured data within the region, today Africa’s low internet penetration rate of roughly 40% remains a challenge in using
and applying new technologies for data and information sharing(Internet World Stats, 2019).

SOUTH AFRICA
PM2.5(µg/m³)

250.4

Johannesburg

Cape Town

eMbalenhle

Pretoria

Bloemfontein

Hartbeespoort

100
90
80
70

150.4

60
50

55.4

35.4

40
30
20

12.0
10.0

10
0
2017

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

2018

2019

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³) over 3 years*

PM2.5: µg/m³

2019
Annual
AVG

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Johannesburg

25.3

17.8

22.1

19.0

17.3

34.3

37.8

34.2

30.1

25.0

22.1

13.6

29.2

Pretoria

25.5

13.5

18.2

18.3

19.3

34.6

45.1

41.5

32.5

25.1

20.6

12.7

14.3

Cape Town

11.2

14.6

4.1

3.6

8.5

12.8

17.0

10.9

8.8

9.9

7.0

12.3

21.1

Bloemfontein

42.3

12.6

11.2

--

42.8

62.0

102.1

72.8

49.7

33.8

28.9

20.1

16.4

eMbalenhle

30.0

6.4

9.6

11.2

46.4

132.9

27.4

16.4

49.8

21.0

19.7

13.4

12.9

Hartbeespoort

60.0

42.0

65.6

68.5

57.5

112.1

41.1

31.4

59.9

61.0

76.3

21.4

--

PROGRESSSouth Africa still has a relatively weak air quality monitoring network, but the network is
rapidly expanding due in part to efforts from the government as well as independent contributors. Whilst monitoring is a critical first step in the direction of mitigating PM2.5 emissions,decisive action is necessary to improve the country’s relatively weak minimum emission
standards, and to start rapidly improving national air quality levels. In June 2019, environmental justice organisation groundWork and community organisation Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action brought a case against the South African government overa failure to address coal and industrial air pollution, on the grounds that it is violating residents’ right to a healthy environment (Heiberg & Mashishi, 2019). The result of the case ispending, but offers hope to South Africa’s most vulnerable Highveld Priority Area.

CHALLENGES
Only 20.9% of South African cities met WHO targets for annual PM2.5 exposure in 2019.
Much of the country’s air pollution comes from its heavy reliance on coal-based energy.
Nearly 90% of South Africa’s electricity demands are met by old and highly polluting
coal-fired power plants (Ratshomo & Nembahe, 2017). With so much of the country’s
energy mix coming from coal, South Africa still has weaker regulations and fewer emission policies than many other countries. Mpumalanga, a central region of South Africa,
is home to more than a dozen coal-based power plants that contribute to the worst nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide emissions in the country (Ratshomo & Nembahe, 2017)(Greenpeace, 2019), precursor pollutants to PM2.5, as well as PM2.5 directly.

HIGHLIGHT: COAL-BASED ENERGY RELIANCE
South Africa’s most polluted cities are primarily located in the areas near the country’s coal-fired
power plants. These plants often fail to meet even the weak emission standards set forth by thegovernment (Greenpeace, 2020). South Africa is the seventh largest coal producer, accounting forroughly 3% of the world’s coal production (Ambrose, 2019). Shifting away from coal-based energy
to cleaner alternatives presents an opportunity for the country to reach WHO annual PM2.5 targets.

27 |Map of acreage burned in 2019 (in red)
& Coal-fired power plans (in black)

OCEANIA
Australia|

New Zealand
PM2.5(µg/m³)

Country/Region Ranking

250.4

1. Australia (8.0)
150.4

55.4

2. New Zealand (7.5)

35.4

12.0
10.0
0

Available cities with real time monitoring in 2019

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PM2.5 annual mean (µg/m³)

90

100

79.1%

Regional cities which met the
WHO PM2.5 target in 2019

2.4

23.0

Armidale,Australia

St Helens,Australia
WHO target

Good

Moderate

Unhealthy

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups

Very Unhealthy

Hazardous

Map of acreage burned in Oceania in 2019

Range of annual mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) across regional cities

Most Polluted Regional Cities
Rank

2019 AVG

Rank

1

Armidale, Australia

23.0

1

St Helens, Australia

2.4

2

Tamworth, Australia

15.2

2

Emu River, Australia

2.5

3Canberra, Australia

15.0

3

Fingal, Australia

3.0

4

City

2019 AVG

Beresfield, Australia

13.6

4

Derby, Australia

3.4

5

Muswellbrook, Australia

13.5

5

Exeter, Australia

3.6

6

Bathurst, Australia

13.1

6

West Ulverstone, Australia

3.7

7

Newcastle, Australia

12.5

7

Mornington, Australia

3.8

8Singleton, Australia

12.5

8

Monranbah, Australia

4.1

9

4.1

Masterton, New Zealand

12.5

9

George Town, Australia

10

Wagga Wagga, Australia

12.4

10

Paraparaumu, New Zealand 4.1

11

Blenheim, New Zealand

12.2

11

Bream Creak, Australia

4.3

12

Wyong, Australia

12.1

12

Smithton, Australia

4.3

13

Kaiapoi, New Zealand

11.9

13

Hobart, Australia

4.4

14

Geeveston, Australia

11.8

14

Gretna, Australia

4.7

Wallsend, Australia

11.7

15

Glenorchy, Australia

4.8

15

28 |

City

SUMMARY

Cleanest Regional Cities

Despite representing two of the cleanest countries for PM2.5 pollution, ‘only’ 79% of cities here met WHO targets for annual air pollution. Were it not for the Australian bushfires in late November andDecember, and should past years trends have continued, Oceania
would have surpassed Northern America for the cleanest region
overall, with up to 88% of cities in the region meeting targets. The
most polluted cities in the region, including Armidale, Tamworth,
Canberra, were all severely affected by the fires (Popovich, Lu, &Migliozzi, 2020).
Wildfires in Australia present a threat to air quality in the region,
particularly as climate change is set to exacerbate the frequency
and intensity of these fires in the future, with rising temperaturesand drier weather.

MONITORING STATUS
With just 110 monitored cities in Oceania, coverage is relatively
sparse. Yet while huge portions of Australia lack PM2.5 data, population dense metropolitan areas are better served. In 2019, 73 additional stations in Australia, and 9 additional stations in New Zealand,
were installed by non-governmental contributors. Overall, these contributions in the last two years have more than doubled the coverage
established by the region’s governmental departments.

Next Steps
Growing accessible, public air quality data is one of the most effective means for tackling the air pollution problem,
as what is not be measured cannot be managed. Public air quality information drives public awareness, andcreates demand for action.

Making air quality
data accessible isone of the mosteffective ways toimprove air quality,
as what cannot bemeasured cannot
be effectively
managedWhilst some gains have been made in growing air quality monitoring infrastructure in 2019, a majority of cities around the world still remain unrepresented. Often locations bearing the highest particulate pollution levels
tend to notably have the least monitoring data, leaving the most vulnerable
communities without access to timely and relevant air quality data, necessary to guide actions to safeguard their health.
Growing air quality data by way of increased government reference monitors, as well as lower-cost, non-governmental sensors is urgently needed toaccelerate access to localized air quality information.
Accessibly priced non-governmental monitors provide a unique opportunity
for communities and individuals around the world to expose local air pollution. The participation of these groups via lower-cost monitors presents avaluable opportunity to amplify efforts to combat air pollution.

What can I do?
There are numerous simple and effective means for reducing personal pollution exposure. These include limiting outdoor activities and wearing a mask
during pollution episodes and safeguarding indoor spaces by sealing doors
and windows shut, and where possible, using indoor air purification systems.
Checking real-time and forecast air quality information from resources suchas IQAir AirVisual’s free Air Quality App allows communities and individuals
to take proper precautions to protect human health and reduce emissions.

Everyone has theability to contributeto lowered pollution
emissions

Everyone has the ability to contribute to lowering pollution emissions. Personal choices such as choosing cleaner modes of transport (cycling, walking, public transport where available), reducing personal energy usage andwaste, contributing to increased local awareness, and supporting local air quality initiatives can all contribute tohealthier air in our communities and on our planet.
Installing a low-cost air quality monitor to grow neighbourhood data granularity is another valuable step in
improving access to real-time information and raising air quality awareness.

29 |Methodology
Data sources
PM2.5 data included in this report has been aggregated from ground-based monitoring stations. The majorityof this data was collected in real-time (on an hourly basis) as it was made available by governmental agencies.
Additional PM2.5 data has been brought together from thousands of initiatives run by citizens, communities andcompanies, through validated low-cost sensors. Many of these stations represent the only available, real-time
air quality information for their area.
Where possible, supplemental historical datasets from various governments have been combined with the real-time aggregated data to increase data coverage and completeness. Historical datasets have contributed tothis report’s PM2.5 data in South Africa, Romania, Turkey and Canberra, Australia. Additionally, data aggregatedin real-time from government sources within Europe have been merged with historical data records made available by the European Environment Agency (EEA) for 2019, in order to provide a fuller dataset where possible.
PM2.5 data is also included from select validated non-governmental monitoring stations operated by private
individuals and organizations, many of which provide the only available, real-time air quality information for theirarea.

Data calculation
Data in this report is collected from individual monitoring stations and then organized into cities. City-level
data is determined by calculating the hourly median between stations in the same city. These hourly medianvalues for a city are then used to calculate both the city’s monthly and annual mean values, respectively.
Supplemental historical data records are combined between the available real-time data from various public
sources on a city-by-city basis. Cities which have data from both real-time aggregation and supplemental
historical records use whichever offers the highest level of data availability over the year, and secondarily thehighest number of stations providing measurements.
The country/region average pollution exposure values (p.7) are based on data sampling. These values arecalculated using the country or region’s available city data as a sample, weighted by population. As data granularity across country and region may vary, it must be noted that this method, while imperfect, is an attempt toprovide a broad global overview and context between countries and regions.
The following calculation is used to estimate a country/region’s average PM2.5 exposure based on the available data and weighted city-sample population:

Σ Regional city mean PM2.5 (µg/m³) x City population
Total regional population covered by available city data

30 |

Data availability
Data availability is a key determinant for cities that have been included in the data set.
Data availability for the report was measured in two ways:•“Calendar availability”: a percentage of days of the year (/365) when the city had at least one reading fromat least one station.

•“Daily average availability”: an average percentage of hours of the day (/24) which have measurements available, from those days which have at least one reading from at least one station.

For data to be included in this report, a data availability criteria of >50% calendar availability had to be met.
Additionally, cities with <41% daily average availability (equivalent to a mean availability of <10 hours readings
per day), were excluded from the dataset.

Calendar availability(day/365)

75 - 90%

5.9
%

10.6%

> 95%
90 - 95%

Daily avg. availability(hours/24)

52.4%

24.8%

28.2%

40.8%

12.2%

> 95%
90 - 95%
75 - 90%25.1%

50 - 75%

41 - 75%

Disclaimer
This report presents PM2.5 data collected from global monitoring stations in 2019. The data represented has
been primarily aggregated in real-time by the IQAir AirVisual information platform, with additional historical
datasets providing supplemental data from governmental sources, where available.
Data sources for real-time aggregated data are displayed on the IQAir AirVisual website.
As data is limited to locations with ground-based monitoring stations, this report lays no claim on completeness.
We invite feedback and active dialogue of the information provided.
IQAir is politically independent. Graphs, maps and content included in this report are intended to expand on thedataset, and do not indicate any political stance. Regional maps have been created using OpenStreetMap.

31 |

FAQ
Why are some locations (city / country / region) not included inthis ranking?
••

The area lacks public, ground-based PM2.5 monitoring stations. The report only includes stations or cities
where PM2.5 data is measured.
The area lacks adequate calendar or daily data availability in 2019 to be representative.

Why does the data provided within this report differ from thedata provided by my government?
•••

There are different ways to calculate city averages over an hour, day, month and year. This report uses
an hourly median value across all stations in a city. Outlier data can have an effect on averages calculated in different ways.
Data aggregated by the IQAir AirVisual platform may include more or less stations than provided by agovernment. For example, governments may have monitoring stations that are either not public or that
IQAir AirVisual did not collect. Alternatively, lower cost monitors provided by independent contributors,
may not be reflected by a governmental dataset.
There are numerous Air Quality Index systems. Often, countries all use their own. In order to makedirect data comparisons, PM2.5 concentrations in µg/m³ should be the basis.

Why is the report missing some locations that are available on
the IQAir website?
•••

Monitoring stations may have only recently been added to the IQAir AirVisual platform, and as aresult did not meet the data availability criteria for 2019.
Some locations on the IQAir website do not report PM2.5 data. Only locations with PM2.5 data havebeen included in this report.
For some global locations which lack measured PM2.5 data, the IQAir-AirVisual platform includes
estimated PM2.5 values (marked with an asterisk *). Estimated data is not included in this report.

Where can I find the complete city ranking of all locations
included in the report?
The full air quality data set of the world’s most polluted cities has been provided in an interactive format on the
IQAir website. This ranking also includes monthly mean values, and historical annual mean values.

How precise is the ranking?
The data included in the report is collected from a variety of monitors and data sources. All monitoring stations
and collection methods have a degree of error. Whilst the data is checked and validated, some uncertainty remains. For locations (city/country/region) that have similar PM2.5 concentrations, ranking position should beconsidered to be indicative rather than absolute.

32 |References
AfDB. (2011). Africa in 50 years’ time: The road towards inclusive
growth (Rep.). Retrieved http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/
Documents/Publications/Africa%20in%2050%20 Years%20Time.pdf
Ambrose, W. (2019, May 18). EMD Coal Committee Annual Report(Rep.). Retrieved from https://www.aapg.org/Portals/0/docs/emd/
reports/annual-meeting/2019-05-18/2019-05-18-EMD-AnnualMeetingCommitteeCoal.pdf?ver=2019-05-15-132215-517
American Lung Association. (2018, April 17). More than 4 in 10
Americans Live with Unhealthy Air According to 2018 'State of theAir' Report [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.lung.org/
about-us/media/press-releases/2018-state-of-the-air.html
Amnesty International. (2019, November 22). Pakistan: Amnesty
international issues "urgent ACTION" saying every person in Lahore
at risk. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.amnesty.org/
en/latest/news/2019/11/lahoris-at-risk/
Anh. (2019, December 16). Health ministry issues first public advisoryon air pollution. VN Express. Retrieved from https://e.vnexpress.net/
news/news/health-ministry-issues-first-public-advisory-on-air-pollution-4028017.html
Bai. (2019, November 22). Tổng cục Môi trường ban hành Hướng dẫnkỹ thuật tính toán và công bố chỉ số chất lượng không khí Việt Nam.
Vietnam Center for Environmental Information and Data. Retrieved
from http://ceid.gov.vn/tong-cuc-moi-truong-ban-hanh-huong-danky-thuat-tinh-toan-va-cong-bo-chi-so-chat-luong-khong-khi-vietnam/BBC. (2019, September 16). Indonesia haze: Why do forests keepburning? BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/worldasia-34265922
BP. (2019). BP Statistical Review of World Energy | 68th edition. Retrieved from https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/
global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-statsreview-2019-full-report.pdf
Carnegie Mellon University. (2019, July 24). 30,000-Plus U.S.
lives could be saved by reducing air pollution levels below current
standard. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190724104010.htm
Chung. (2019, March 13). South Korea steps up fight against pollution,says problem is 'social disaster'. Retrieved February 17, 2020, fromhttps://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-southkorea-pollution/south-koreasteps-up-fight-against-pollution-says-problem-is-social-disasteridUKKBN1QU07O
Clean Air Coalition. (2019, January). Air pollution measures for Asiaand the Pacific. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/content/air-pollution-measures-asia-and-pacificCoca, N. (2019, May 8). Jakarta citizens take legal action on air pollution. China Dialogue. Retrieved from https://www.chinadialogue.
net/article/show/single/en/11236-Jakarta-citizens-take-legal-action-on-air-pollution-guide-chinese-climate-policy
Ecologic Institute. (2019, April 01). Air quality management in
Vietnam. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.ecologic.
eu/16505
EEA. (2019, June 24). Air quality in Europe - 2019 Report (Rep.).
Retrieved https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2019

33 |European Commission. (2019, July 25). Air quality: Commission
refers Bulgaria and Spain to the Court for failing to protect citizens
from poor air quality [Press release]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.
eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_4256
Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change. (2019, January 10). Government launches National Clean Air
Programme (NCAP) [Press release]. Retrieved from https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=187400
Greenpeace. (2019, August 19). Mpumalanga SO2 pollution as bad
as NO2, new study finds [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.
greenpeace.org/africa/en/press/7678/mpumalanga-so2-pollution-asbad-as-no2-new-study-finds/
Heiberg, T., & Mashishi, N. (2019, June 10). South African government sued over coal and industrial air pollution. Retrieved
February 17, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-coal-idUSKCN1TB1Q7
Huang, J., Pan, X., Guo, X., & Li, G. (2018, July). Health impact ofChina's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan: An analysis
of national air quality monitoring and mortality data. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30141-4
International Council on Clean Transportation. (2019). China's Clean
Diesel Action Plan: 2018-2020 (Rep.). Retrieved February 16, 2020,
from https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_China_Clean_Clean_Diesel_2018_2020_20190529.pdf
Internet World Stats. (2019, June 30). Africa internet Users, 2019 population and FACEBOOK STATISTICS. Retrieved from https://www.
internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm
Khan. (2019, January 11). How Pakistan is tackling its air pollution.
Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/as-lahore-chokes-on-winter-smog-pakistan-moves-to-cutair-pollution
Kuhakan. (2019, December 19). Air pollution soars in Thai capital, authorities issue warning. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-thailand-pollution/air-pollution-soars-in-thai-capital-authorities-issue-warning-idUSKBN1YN1JW
Kutty. (2018, October 9). Jakarta to Topple Tokyo as World's Biggest
City by 2030. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2018-10-09/jakarta-to-topple-tokyo-as-world-smost-populous-city-by-2030
Meko, & K. (2019, August 30). We're at the peak of the global fireseason. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/08/30/were-peak-global-fire-season/?arc404=true
NOAA. (2020). U.S. wildfires. Retrieved February 17, 2020, fromhttps://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/societal-impacts/wildfires/
Pasukphun. (2018). Environmental Health Burden of Open Burning inNorthern Thailand: A Review (Rep.). Retrieved https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328007546_ENVIRONMENTAL_HEALTH_BURDEN_OF_OPEN_BURNING_IN_NORTHERN_THAILAND_A_REVIEWPopovich, Lu, D., & Migliozzi, B. (2020, January 03). Here's where
australia's destructive wildfires are burning. Retrieved February 17,
2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/02/climate/australia-fires-map.html

Popovich, N., Albeck-Ripka, L., & Pierre-Louis, K. (2019, December
21). 95 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump. NY
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?fbclid=IwAR1GccZp6N7Dd8Z-f8ROv_bNthb5-_SgFpIBnEYcSd40Ye1V8lEQsFQhnqk
Ratshomo, K., & Nembahe, R. (2017). South African COAL Sector
Report (Rep.). Retrieved http://www.energy.gov.za/files/media/explained/South-African-Coal-Sector-Report.pdf

WHO. (2016, September 27). Who releases country estimates on air
pollution exposure and health impact. Retrieved February 17, 2020,
from https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-09-2016-who-releases-country-estimates-on-air-pollution-exposure-and-health-impact

Regan, H. (2019, November 29). South Korea is shutting down aquarter of its coal generators this winter to tackle air pollution. CNN.
Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/29/asia/south-koreacoal-plants-pollution-intl-hnk/index.html

WHO. (2018, October 29). More than 90% of the world’s children
breathe toxic air every day. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-10-2018-more-than-90-of-theworld%E2%80%99s-children-breathe-toxic-air-every-day

Samuel. (2019, October 10). How Air Pollution in Vietnam Affects
the Business Environment. Vietnam Briefing. Retrieved from https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/air-pollution-vietnam-affects-business-environment.html
Sandalow, D. (2019, September 13). 2019 Guide to Chinese Climate
Policy. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/2019-guide-chinese-climate-policy
Schwela, D. (2012). Review of Urban Air Quality in Sub-SaharanAfrica Region - Air Quality profile of SSA countries (Rep.). Retrieved
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/936031468000276054/
pdf/677940WP0P07690020120Box367897B0ACS.pdf
Shaikh. (2018, April 30). Pakistan moves to curb urban air pollution
after high court ruling. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-pakistan-airpollution-court/pakistan-moves-to-curburban-air-pollution-after-high-court-ruling-idUSKBN1I11B5
Smith, N. (2019, October 7). Jakarta citizens sue government overair pollution. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.
co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/jakarta-citizens-sue-government-air-pollution/
TAQMN. (2019, November 27). The Occurrence and Effects of Dust
Storms. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from https://taqm.epa.gov.tw/
taqm/en/b0301.aspx
Truong. (2020, February 1). Hà Nội sẽ lắp đặt thêm 50 trạm quantrắc không khí. Vietnam Net. Retrieved from https://vietnamnet.vn/
vn/thoi-su/moi-truong/ha-noi-se-lap-dat-them-50-tram-quan-trackhong-khi-605663.html
UNEP. (2016). GEO-6 Regional Assessment for West Asia (Rep.). Retrieved http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7668/
GEO_West_Asia_201611.pdf
UNEP. (2019, February 1). Air pollution is choking Bangkok, but asolution is in reach. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.
unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/air-pollution-choking-bangkok-solution-reach
UNESCAP. (2018). Sand and Dust Storms in Asia and the Pacific:
Opportunities for Regional Cooperation and Action (Rep.). Retrieved
https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/UNESCAP%20SDS%20
Report_1.pdf
US EPA. (2019). Air quality - national summary. Retrieved February
17, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary
VNA. (2020, January 15). Air pollution costs Vietnam at least 10.8
billion
USD each year. Vietnam Plus. Retrieved from https://en.vietnamplus.vn/air-pollution-costs-vietnam-at-least-108-billion-usd-eachyear/167359.vnp

34 |Walton. (2019, July 05). Commentary: Jakarta’s air Quality kills
its residents – and it’s getting worse. Retrieved February 17, 2020,
from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/jakarta-air-quality-pollution-kills-residents-government-sue-11683160

The World Bank. (2016, September 8). Air pollution deaths cost global
economy us$225 billion. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/09/08/air-pollutiondeaths-cost-global-economy-225-billion

Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without the efforts of numerous governmental agencies whose work in publishing live air quality information is vital in empowering people to take proactive steps to breathe cleaner air. These
contributions have also contributed critical data to global efforts in air pollution research and analysis.
Furthermore, the participation of many groups and citizens who operate their own air quality monitors and havemade this data publicly available, has increased data coverage significantly. If it were not for these valuable contributions, there would be no publically available data in Angola, the Bahamas, Cambodia, DR Congo, Egypt, Ghana,
Latvia, Nigeria, Syria, and Ukraine.
Maps illustrating burned acreage in 2019 are made possible in part by NASA’s Fire Information and Resource
Management and their archives of fire data.
A special thanks to Greenpeace Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, US, and Vietnam for their valuable
insights and support in promoting access to public air quality data.

About IQAir AirVisual
IQAir AirVisual is a global air quality information platform operated by the IQAir Group. By aggregating andvalidating air quality data from governments, private individuals and non-governmental organizations, IQAir AirVisual aims to provide global and hyper-local air quality information that allows individuals, organizations andgovernments to take steps that improve air quality in communities, cities and countries all over the world.

2020 Report V3