Wildfire Smoke and Public Health in BC
Spatial Analysis in Exposure Assessment and Health Implications
Results I
Exposure AssessmentExposure assessment results from Method 1 and Method 2 are very similar (see here for the difference). The main differences occur in area where:
- the LHA has relatively large area; or
- population residing within LHA is dispersed; or
- the area has relatively more monitors within the region.
Exposure assessment results from Method 2 and Method 3 have more disagreement (see here for the difference). Potential reasons for this discrepancy include:
- the monitors are sparsely distributed and the distances from the nearest monitor to certain population clusters are large and thus the values assigned from that monitor is not representative;
- the performance of the BlueSky prediction model vary from time to time and its accuracy is largely dependent on the accuracy of the meteorological model and the fire information.
Health Responses
The average daily counts of prescriptions normalized by population (see Map of Mean) do not vary much among different LHAs. On the other hand, having a larger base, the variance in cumulated total counts of prescriptions, also normalized by population (see Map of Sum) is much larger. Large numbers in Sum occurred mostly in central BC where the fire originated and influenced.
Exposure Assessment
Method 1: Nearest monitors (Click here for higher resolution map)
Method 2: Population-weighted values from nearest monitors
(Click here for higher resolution map)
Method 3: Population-weighted values from BlueSky predictions
(Click here for higher resolution map)
Exposure Assessment Comparison
Differece between Method 1 and Method 2.
(Click here for higher resolution map)
Differece between Method 2 and Method 3.
(Click here for higher resolution map)
Health Responses
Map of Mean (average daily counts of prescriptions)
(Click here for higher resolution map)
Map of Sum (cumulated total counts of prescriptions)
(Click here for higher resolution map)
