Controlling urban air pollution: a benefit-cost assessment

Health Outcomes

• Mortality/morbidity
• respiratory outcomes (asthma, coughing, shortness of breath)

Environmental Agents

List of Environmental Agents:

• Air pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs))

Source of Environmental Agents:

• VOC emissions in nonattainment areas

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Type:

• Cost-benefit analysis (CBA)

Cost Measured:

• Costs for VOC and ozone control/reduction (cost for reducing the volatility of gasoline)
• cost for use of alternative fuels (e.g., methanol) to power fleet vehicles
• costs for the South Coast plan in Los Angeles (costs for application of pollution control technologies
• cost for substitution of less polluting solvents in facilities
• costs for implementation of new controls in electric power plants
• costs for control/reduction of fuel consumption, vehicle usage, and dust blown from roads/parking lots
• costs for programs that aim to eliminate hydrocarbons from solvents, coatings, and motor vehicles

Potential Cost Measures:

• Costs of the South Coast plan to residents (e.g., time losses and inconvenience)
• nonpecuniary costs (e.g., maintenance program costs)

Benefits Measures:

• Acute health benefits associated with reductions in ground level ozone (as a result of controlling VOC emissions), such as — reduced incidence of asthma attacks, coughing, chest discomfort, pain on deep inspiration
• reduced number of days of restricted activity
• reduced acute morbidity
• health benefits associated with the South coast plan, such as — reduced risk of premature mortality, reduced risk of acute morbidity, reduced illness, frequency of respiratory symptoms

Potential Benefits:

• Reduced damage to exposed crops and other vegetation
• reductions in prevalence of chronic illness
• improvements in forests or agricultural output in rural regions that might result from VOC control in urban areas
• reductions in damage to rubber and other products exposed to ozone

Location:

• Urban/metropolitan nonattainment areas in the United States
• Los Angeles, California

Models Used:

• EPA trajectory models (used for predictions of peak ambient concentrations of ozone)
• county-level model (used to determine the acute health benefits associated with estimated reductions in VOC emissions in nonattainment areas)

Methods Used:

• The authors presented point estimates of costs and benefits for proposed efforts of improving air quality (reducing ambient ozone concentrations) at the national level. The authors — 1) used VOC emissions data from the Office of Technology Assessment about predicted air quality changes, EPA trajectory models to predict peak ambient concentrations of ozone, and a county level model to determine the acute health benefits associated with the estimated VOC emission reductions in nonattainment areas; 2) combined area-specific data on air quality improvements and population with dose-response functions based on epidemiologic and clinical studies relating ambient ozone concentrations to various human health effects and estimated the reduced incidence of these health effects accompanying a 35% reduction in VOC, and aggregated these estimates to obtain national estimates; 3) used willingness to pay estimates to convert predicted changes in physical health into economic benefits; and 4) presented point estimates of costs and benefits for proposed efforts of the South Coast air quality plan for Los Angeles.

Sources Used:

• Catching our breath — next steps for reducing urban ozone (Office of Technology Assessment, 1989); Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone — assessment of scientific and technical information (EPA OAQPS, 1987); Economic impacts of the draft air quality management plan proposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (1988); The benefits of air pollution control in California (1986); additional sources cited in publication

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Citation:

• Krupnick AJ and Portney PR. 1991. Controlling urban air pollution: a benefit-cost assessment. Science.
• Pubmed
• DOI: (Not available)

NIEHS Funding: (Not available)

Other Funding: (Not available)