Skip to main content
PMC home page
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine logoLink to Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine
. 2001 Jul;6(2):63–73. doi: 10.1007/BF02897948

Cost-benefit analysis methods for assessing air pollution control programs in urban environments—A review

S Scott Voorhees 1,✉, Ryoji Sakai 1, Shunichi Araki 1, Hajime Sato 1, Akiko Otsu 1
PMCID: PMC2723238  PMID: 21432239

Abstract

The most common method of evaluating beneficial impacts of environmental policies is cost-benefit analysis (CBA). In the present review, CBA methods for air pollution impacts are reviewed. Three types of air pollution effects are identified, including health, productivity, and amenity. Market valuation, stated preference methods, and revealed preference methods are identified for valuing benefits. Three types of costs are deseribed, including private sector costs, societal costs, and governmental regulatory costs. A benefits valuation approach based on Freeman's principals is described. A costs valuation approach based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Dixon et al. principals is deseribed. Limitations associated with estimates of benefits and costs are summarized. Input assumptions and results are compared for several existing air pollution control analyses. The importance of CBA in environmental policy studies is discussed. Our conceptual approaches should be useful in analyses of urban air pollution impacts and air pollution prevention policies.

Key words: cost-benefit analysis, urban air pollution, environmental policy, benefit valuation, cost estimation

References

  • 1).Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Economic Appraisal of Environmental Projects and Policies: A Practical Guide. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1995.
  • 2).Winpenny JT, Values For the Environmental: A Guide to Economic Appraisal. London: Overseas Development Institute, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1991.
  • 3).Dixon JA, Fallon Scura L, Carpenter RA, Sherman PB. Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. London: Earthscan, in association with the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, 1994.
  • 4).Freeman III AM. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1993.
  • 5).World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  • 6).U.S. Government. 42 U.S. Code 7401-7626et seq. Clean Air Act, as Amended. Washington, D.C., 1990.
  • 7).Hazilla M, Kopp R. Social cost of environmental quality regulations: A general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Political Economy 1990; 98:853–873. [DOI]
  • 8).Freeman III AM. Air and Water Pollution Control: A Benefit-Cost Assessment. New York: Wiley, 1982.
  • 9).Portney P. Air pollution policy. In: Portney P. editor. Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1990: 27–96.
  • 10).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990. Document Number EPA 450-R-97-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
  • 11).Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Project and Policy Appraisal: Integrating Economics and Environment. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1994.
  • 12).Loehman ET, Berg SV, Arroyo AA, Hedinger RA, Schwartz JM, Shaw ME, Fahien RW, De VH, Fishe RP, Rio DE, Rossley WF, Green AES. Distributional analysis of regional benefits and cost of air quality control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1979;6: 222–243. [DOI]
  • 13).Chestnut LG, Ostro BD, Rowe RD. Santa Clara Criteria Air Pollutant Benefit Analysis. San Francisco: Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 1987.
  • 14).Chestnut LG, Rowe RD. Ambient Particulate Matter and Ozone Benefit Analysis for Denver. Denver: Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1987.
  • 15).Krupnick AJ, Portney PR. Controlling urban air pollution: A benefit-cost assessment. Science 1991; 252: 522–528. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 16).Ostro B. Estimating the health effects of air pollutants: A Methodology With an Application to Jakarta. Policy Research Working Paper 1301. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1994.
  • 17).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sample City Cost Analyses of Alternative Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Philadelphia: Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.: EPA Contract No.68-D3-0035, Work Assignment No.1-61. Research Triangle Park: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.
  • 18).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sample City Cost Analyses of Alternative Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. El Pase, TX; Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.: EPA Contract No.68-D3-0035. Work Assignment No.I-61. Research Triangle Park: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.
  • 19).Shin E, Hufschmidt M, Lee Y, Nickum J, Umetsu C, Gregory R. Valuating the Economic Impacts of Urban Environmental Problems: Asian Cities. Working Paper No. 13. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, Urban Management Programme, 1997.
  • 20).Austin DH, Krupnick AJ, McConnell VD. Efficiency and Political Economy of Pollution Control with Ancillary Benefits: An Application to NOX Control in the Chesapeake Bay Airshed, Discussion Paper 97-34. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1997.
  • 21).Krupnick A, McConnell V, Austin D, Cannon M, Stoessell T, Morton B. The Chesapeake Bay and the Control of NOX Emissions: Policy Analysis, Discussion Paper 98-46. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Furture, 1998.
  • 22).Voorhees AS, Araki S, Sakai R, Sato H. An ex post cost-benefit analysis of the nitrogen dioxide air pollution control program in Tokyo. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2000; 50: 391–410. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 23).European Commission. ExternE—Externalities of Energy. A Research Project of the European Commission, Volume 1: Summary Report EUR 16520 EN (<http://ExternE.jrc.es/infos/All-EU+ Summary.htm>). Brussels: European Commission, 1996.
  • 24).Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Mansur E, Austin D, Farrell D. The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Acid Rain, Discussion Paper 97-31-REV. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1997.
  • 25).The Committee on Japan's Experience in the Battle against Air Pollution. Japan's Experience in the Battle Against Air Pollution: Working towards Sustainable Development. Tokyo: The Pollution-Related Health Damage Compensation and Prevention Association, 1997.
  • 26).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Investments: The Cost of A Clean Environment. Document Number EPA-230-12-90-084. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
  • 27).Kenkel D. Cost of illness approach. In: Tolley G., Kenkel D, Fabian R, editors. Valuing Health for Policy: An Economic Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994: 42–71.
  • 28).Environment Agency Government of Japan. Kyu shitei Chiiki Betsu-Ikken Atari Kingaku-Ichinichi Atari Kingaku-Ikken Atari Hisu (1995. 10 Shinryo) (Old Designated District Specific-Expense Per Incident-Expense Per Day-Number of Days Per Incident-October, 1995 Medical Examinations). Tokyo: Kankyo Cho (in Japanese) 1997.
  • 29).Schwartz J, Zeger S. Passive smoking, air pollution and acute respiratory symptoms in a diary study of student nurses. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1990; 141: 62–67. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 30).Neuffer W. Minerals & Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Research Triangle Park: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Private communication, January 1999.

Articles from Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine are provided here courtesy of The Japanese Society for Hygiene

RESOURCES