Residential air pollution.
A method to put to the test.

The question

Can a feasible local intervention reduce residents’ exposure to particulate pollution associated with wood burning, and can the size and persistence of that change be evaluated credibly?

What exists today

The founding brief describes a dossier of residential wood-smoke concerns, local measurements and municipal correspondence. Those materials have not yet been independently assessed as a research dataset. They establish a reason to investigate, not a finding of source attribution, legal liability or health damage.

RIVM explains that wood combustion releases pollutants that affect air quality and health. Actual exposure depends on the emissions, surroundings and individual circumstances.

RIVM: wood smoke and health ↗

What a pilot would need

1. Data audit. Inspect sensor type, calibration, siting, timestamps, missingness and quality assurance. Treat complaint logs and sensor readings as different evidence streams.
2. A baseline and comparison. Cover the relevant heating season and meteorological conditions. Establish a comparison design before intervention.
3. Source assessment. PM₂.₅ sensors alone do not identify wood smoke. Assess whether additional tracers, reference monitoring or source-apportionment expertise are needed.
4. A willing delivery partner. Confirm authority, operational capacity and community engagement. No municipality is committed at this stage.
5. An intervention choice. Compare feasible source-reduction measures, implementation support and exposure protections. No ban or other policy is predetermined.
6. A proportionate evaluation. Estimate adjusted concentration change and its persistence; validate any link to personal exposure.

What would count as success?

A pre-specified, meaningful exposure reduction supported by a credible comparison, acceptable delivery costs and no disproportionate burden shifted to vulnerable households. The threshold must be set through the protocol and feasibility work, not chosen after seeing results.

What we will not infer

Regional disease-burden estimates are not a count of illnesses caused by local wood burning. Short evening peaks do not on their own establish an annual-limit breach. An 18-month pilot is unlikely to directly observe disease prevention reliably.

When we would stop or change course

If data quality is inadequate, the source cannot be assessed, no partner can implement a measure, or the intervention cannot be meaningfully evaluated, we will redesign or stop. A well-designed null result will be reported. Other pollution sources may offer greater health benefit.