空气污染物暴露相关出行行为调查方法一致性研究  

Assessing the consistency of methods to measure travel behavior related to exposure to air pollution

作　　者：李娜[1] 刘喆[1] 李韵谱[1] 李宁 王秦[1] 吴亚西[1] 杨一兵[1] 徐春雨[1] 徐东群[1] Li Na;Liu Zhe;Li Yunpu;Li Ning;Wang Qin;Wu Yaxi;Yang Yibing;Xu Chunyu;Xu Dongqun(National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China)

机构地区：[1]中国疾病预防控制中心环境与健康相关产品安全所,北京100021 [2]南京市江宁区疾病预防控制中心

出　　处：《中华预防医学杂志》2018年第6期608-614,共7页Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine

基　　金：国家自然科学基金（21677136）;卫生行业专项（201502003）;北京市自然科学基金（L150011）

摘　　要：目的 为提高空气污染暴露评估的准确性,开展出行信息调查,比较日志记录与全球定位系统（GPS）法调查人群出行信息的一致性,探讨造成两种方法 调查结果 不一致的原因.方法于2015年7—9月及11—12月,以南京市江宁区33名退休人群作为研究对象,同时采用日志法及GPS法进行为期5 d的出行行为调查.使用Google Earth进行GPS数据的提取和展示,计算数据的完整性,并依据时间和位置与日志记录进行匹配分析,计算两种方法一致率;采用χ^2检验分析不同行程特征对方法漏报、误报率的影响.结果两种方法共监测到1087条出行记录（GPS法912条,日志法909条）,其中7.3％（79/1087）的行程仅被GPS记录,11.8％（128/1087）的行程仅被日志法记录.而在两种方法同时监测到的行程记录（880/1087）中,86.7％（763/880）匹配,13.3％（117/880）不匹配;对匹配的行程单独分析发现,日志法记录的行程持续时间大于GPS法（P〈0.001）,差值中位数（四分位数间距）为2.0（6.0）min,与GPS法相比,日志法高估了25.0％的行程持续时间;日志法和GPS法的行程准确率分别为84.8％（903/1065）和86.9％（925/1065）,两种方法均倾向于漏报误报持续时间≤5 min的行程,其中日志法对≤5 min的行程漏报误报率（21.7％）远高于〉30 min行程（3.2％）的漏报误报率.不同交通方式的出行监测准确率差异存在统计学意义（P〈0.05）,日志法对机动车出行监测准确率最低（69.3％,133/192）,而GPS法对骑车（91.9％,136/148）和机动车（89.6％,172/192）出行监测的准确性均较高.造成日志法漏报、误报的主要原因为忘记记录、主观上不愿意报告和没有将采用不同交通方式的行程分别记录;而造成GPS法漏报、误报的主要原因为未携带GPS设备、GPS信号质量不良和因搜索信号造成的时间延迟.结论 日志法及GPS法总体上具有较好的一致性,但均存在一定的�Objective To compare diary-reported trips and Global Positioning System （GPS） recording trips and identify the reasons for the discrepancies between two methods. Methods The survey was conducted in Jiangning district in Nanjing city during July to September and November to December, 2015. Both the diary records and GPS method were used to investigate the travel behavior of 33 retired adults for 5 consecutive days. The GPS traces were display in Google Earth and then split into trips to compare with the diary records according to time and location. χ^2 test was used to analyze the influence of trip characteristics on misreporting rates of each method. Results A total of 1087 trips in the survey can be compared between the diary （n=909） and the GPS method （n=912）. 7.3%（79/1087） of the trips were only recorded by GPS method, and 11.8%（128/1087）were only reported in the diary. Of the remaining 880 trips recorded by the both methods, 86.7%（763/880）matched each other, while 13.3%（117/880） did not. For the matched trips, the difference between the trip durations recorded by diary and GPS method was 2.0 （quartile was 6.0） minutes and the diary method overestimated about 25.0% trip durations when compared with the GPS method. The accuracy rates were 84.8%（903/1065） and 86.9%（925/1065） for diary and GPS method, respectively. Both methods were more likely to misreport the trip under 5 minutes. The misreporting rates of diary method for trips under 5 minutes were 6.8 times higher than trips over 30 minutes （21.7%vs 3.2%）. The reporting accuracy was also significantly different among trips by different travel mode （P〈0.05） for both methods, diary method had the lowest accuracy in reporting vehicles recorders （69.3%, 133/192）, while GPS method was more accuracy in both biking （91.9%, 136/148） and vehicles recorders（89.6%, 172/192）. The main reasons for misreporting by diary method were forgetting or unwilling to record and failing to record trips according to trave

关 键 词：环境暴露 空气污染 时间-活动模式 GPS 

分 类 号：X51[环境科学与工程—环境工程]