Metropolitan cities' scorecard for ozone (four-hour) NEPM standard, based on analysis of air quality index values 1999-2014

This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.

  • This assessment summary was previously assessed for the years 1999-2008 

The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
 

    Component
    Summary
    Grade
    Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good
    Confidence
    In Grade In Trend
    Comparability
    To previous years

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 49; good 50; fair 1; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2016
    4
    Improving
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Comparable

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 46; good 53; fair 1; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2011
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Not assessed

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 31; good 65; fair 4; poor <1; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2016
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Comparable

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 31; good 64; fair 55; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2011
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Not assessed

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: Very good 38; good 61; fair 1; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2016
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Comparable

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 43; good 55; fair 2; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2011
    4
    Deteriorating
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Not assessed

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 94; good 6; fair 0; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2016
    5
    Improving
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Comparable

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 34; good 63; fair 3; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2011
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Not assessed

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 67; good 32; fair <1; poor <1; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2016
    5
    Improving
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Comparable

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 16; good 79; fair 4; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2011
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Not assessed

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 63; good 37; fair 0; poor 0; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2016
    5
    Improving
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Comparable

    Topics

    Average percentage frequency distribution: very good 17; good 72; fair 9; poor 2; very poor 0

    Year(s): 
    2011
    4
    Stable
    Confidence (in grade): 
    Adequate
    Confidence (in trend): 
    Adequate
    Comparability (to previous reports): 
    Not assessed

    Topics

    Keywood MD, Emmerson KM, Hibberd MF (2016). Ambient air quality: Metropolitan cities' scorecard for ozone (four-hour) NEPM standard, based on analysis of air quality index values 1999-2014 . In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, https://soe.environment.gov.au/assessment-summary/ambient-air-quality/metropolitan-cities-scorecard-ozone-four-hour-nepm-standard, DOI 10.4226/94/58b65c70bc372