Skip Navigation
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Internet Explorer is no longer a supported browser.

This website may not display properly with Internet Explorer. For the best experience, please use a more recent browser such as the latest versions of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and/or Mozilla Firefox. Thank you.

Your Environment. Your Health.

Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture

Environmental Health Economic Analysis Annotated Bibliography

Details

Research article Cost utility analysis (CUA), Cost benefit analysis (CBA)
Authors
Giannadaki D, Giannakis E, Pozzer A, Lelieveld J
Journal
Science of the Total Environment
Summary
This cost-benefit analysis examined the health and economic benefits accrued by reducing agricultural ammonia (NH3) emissions in 59 countries across Europe, America, and Asia. The authors found that a 50% reduction in agricultural emissions could prevent >200,000 deaths per year in the 59 countries included in their study, notably in Europe, Russia, Turkey, the United States, Canada and China, accompanied with economic benefits of many billions of U.S. dollars. Using a theoretical assessment, they determined that a complete phase-out of agricultural emissions could lead to a reduction in PM2.5-related mortality of >50% plus associated economic costs in 42 out of the 59 countries studied. Furthermore, an analysis of five different agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for the European Union showed that a reduction in these emissions could generate net financial and social benefits. The authors suggest that these results provide strong support for initiatives to strictly control ammonia emissions from agricultural activities.
Population
Not available

Health Outcomes

  • Mortality

Environmental Agents

List of Environmental Agents:

  • Air pollutants (ammonia, particulate matter (PM2.5/fine))

Source of Environmental Agents:

  • Agriculture (livestock and fertilizer emissions)

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Type:

  • Cost utility analysis (CUA)
  • Cost benefit analysis (CBA)

Cost Measured:

  • Value of Statistical Life as economic valuation of PM2.5-related mortality, cost of NH3 emission abatement options (e.g., low nitrogen feed, low emiission animal housing, manure storage capacity (low efficiency), manure storage capacity (high efficiency), and techniques to reduce NH3 emission from fertilizers)

Potential Cost Measures:

  • Willingness to pay data from more countries, especially low- and middle-income countries

Benefits Measures:

  • Value of deaths avoided
  • Economic benefits of NH3 emission abatement options (e.g., low nitrogen feed, low emiission animal housing, manure storage capacity (low efficiency), manure storage capacity (high efficiency), and techniques to reduce NH3 emission from fertilizers)
  • Net financial and social benefits for the European Union

Potential Benefits: (Not available)

Location:

  • 59 countries across Europe, America, and Asia

Models Used:

  • EMAC global atmospheric chemistry-climate model
  • Exposure response models for five disease categories
  • Model simulations for assessing economic cost of PM2.5-related mortality

Methods Used:

  • The authors used model-calculated PM2.5 emission scenarios to examine the health and economic benefits accrued by reducing agricultural emissions. The authors also performed a cost-benefit analysis of five selected NH3 emission abatement options that the European Union had been considering. More specifically, the authors — 1) used modeled annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for the year 2010 that were performed for a previous study; 2) used Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) to monetize mortality risks, using the VSL base value of $3 million (in 2005 US$) derived by the OECD; 3) calculated the VSLs for individual countries using a formula derived by OECD to capture differences in income; 4) calculated economic benefits of reduced NH3 emissions by multiplying the number of deaths avoided that are attributable to air pollution times the VSL.

Sources Used:

  • Model-simulated PM2.5 pollution data (Pozzer et al., 2017); methodology to obtain mortality estimates (Lelieveld et al., 2015); VSL metric to monetize mortality risks associated to air pollution (OECD, 2012; WHO ROE and OECD, 2015); additional sources cited in publication

Economic Evaluation / Methods and Source

Citation:

  • Giannadaki D, Giannakis E, Pozzer A, Lelieveld J. 2018. Estimating health and economic benefits of reductions in air pollution from agriculture. Science of the Total Environment.
  • Pubmed
  • DOI

NIEHS Funding: (Not available)

Other Funding: (Not available)

Back
to Top