Cited by 56Energy and Environment ImpactsUrban and Rural Development ChallengesIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure

Household air pollution in Nairobi's slums: A long-term policy evaluation using participatory system dynamics

Open access
Dianati, K., Zimmermann, N., Milner, J., Muindi, K., Ezeh, A., Chege, M., Mberu, B., Kyobutungi, C. +3 more·2019·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

58% of Nairobi's population live in informal settlements in extremely poor conditions. Household air pollution is one of the leading causes of premature death and disease in these settlements. Regulatory frameworks and government budgets for household air pollution do not exist and humanitarian organisations remain largely inattentive and inactive on this issue. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of potential indoor-air related policies, as identified together with various stakeholders, in lowering household air pollution in Nairobi's slums. Applying a novel approach in this context, we used participatory system dynamics within a series of stakeholder workshops in Nairobi, to map and model the complex dynamics surrounding household air pollution and draw up possible policy options. Workshop participants included community members, local and national policy-makers, representatives from parastatals, NGOs and academics. Simulation modelling demonstrates that under business-as-usual, the current trend of slowly improving indoor air quality will soon come to a halt. If we aim to continue to substantially reduce household PM2.5 levels, a drastic acceleration in the uptake of clean stoves is needed. We identified the potentially high impact of redirecting investment towards household air quality monitoring and health impact assessment studies, therefore raising the public's and the government's awareness and concern about this issue and its health consequences. Such investments, due to their self-reinforcing nature, can entail high returns on investment, but are likely to give ‘worse-before-better’ results due to the time lags involved. We also discuss the usefulness of the participatory process within similar multi-stakeholder contexts. With important implications for such settings this work advances our understanding of the efficacy of high-level policy options for reducing household air pollution. It makes a case for the usefulness of participatory system dynamics for such complex, multi-stakeholder, environmental issues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.430

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. World Health Organization WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide 2006 (Geneva) 34662007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dianati, K., Zimmermann, N., Milner, J., Muindi, K., Ezeh, A., Chege, M., Mberu, B., Kyobutungi, C., Fletcher, H., Wilkinson, P., & Davies, M.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • African Population and Health Research Center (KE)
  • BuroHappold (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Dianati, K.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
660
Pages
1108-1134
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2908000662
Cited by
56
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • EPSRC (535444, 172313)
  • Wellcome Trust (205207/Z/16/Z, 209387/Z/17/Z)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban and Rural Development Challenges
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Keywords
household air pollution, Nairobi slums, informal settlements, clean cookstoves, PM2.5, indoor air quality, air quality policy, stakeholder engagement, health impact assessment, air quality monitoring, return on investment, self-reinforcing dynamics, time delay

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review