This study reports on the economic cost of the health impacts of air pollution from road transport – on a global scale but with special reference to China, India and the OECD countries
Abstract: Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Mission: to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report? The main argument presented is that there is an economic cost of the health impacts of air pollution from transportation. There are also complex correlations between pollution and health that can be defined with a dollar value.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported. Methods for defining economic cost of health impacts: (1) Mortality VSL study (2) Lack of standard methods for estimating the cost of morbidity (3) Mortality vs Morbidity. Evidence behind air pollution and health: (1) New forms of monitoring (2) The cost are greater than previously expected. Correlations between the data, going from transportation air pollution to health impacts to dollar values and how one effects the other in a real world scenario.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report? 1)“A defensible calculation of the economic cost of health impacts must be based on economic first principles. This means continuing the use of standard method for calculating the cost of mortality – the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) as derived from individuals’ valuation of the willingness to pay to reduce the risk of dying.” 2)“On a global scale as well as in the case of each major country or group of countries, the best available evidence today suggests that the health impacts of outdoor air pollution, including from road transport, are considerably greater than previously reported” 3)“There is, therefore, a job of work to be done in persuading decision makers to read and act on the signals that society has been attempting to valiantly communicate.”
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report? They used a Value of Statistical Life approach to quantifying the cost of mortality. This approach defined the cost of one life by taking a risk survey and identifying the willingness to pay for a lower risk towards air pollution. Morbidity methods are unclear and need further investigation. (1) Identify pollution (2) Identify health risk/ evidence (3) Calculate total expenditure as a final economic cost.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? This article does a good job at tying pollution to health and further to economic values in the form of 2005 US dollars. While this study is not focused on the details of poor health due to air pollution, the methods suggest a foundation rooted in health data collection.
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced? The article was produced with the help of studies from the World Health Organization and previous studies by the OECD itself. Because OECD is a seemingly large research group, their stake in this text was clearly majority.
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings? I followed up on the morbidity studies for calculating total costs that can be added to the conclusions drawn from the standard method for calculating mortality. The 2012 OECD study on the mortality standard method and how that came to find the health and transport pollution data. Lastly, I looked into the WHO reports on the impacts of air pollution.
Full citation and abstract?
The Cost of Air Pollution. OECD Publishing, 2014. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/the-cost-of-air-pollution_9789264210448-en.
This study reports on the economic cost of the health impacts of air pollution from road transport – on a global scale but with special reference to China, India and the OECD countries
Abstract: Where do the authors work, and what are their areas of expertise? Note any other publications by the authors with relevance to the 6Cities project.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Mission: to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.
What are the main findings or arguments presented in the article or report?
The main argument presented is that there is an economic cost of the health impacts of air pollution from transportation. There are also complex correlations between pollution and health that can be defined with a dollar value.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
Methods for defining economic cost of health impacts: (1) Mortality VSL study (2) Lack of standard methods for estimating the cost of morbidity (3) Mortality vs Morbidity. Evidence behind air pollution and health: (1) New forms of monitoring (2) The cost are greater than previously expected. Correlations between the data, going from transportation air pollution to health impacts to dollar values and how one effects the other in a real world scenario.
What three (or more) quotes capture the message of the article or report?
1)“A defensible calculation of the economic cost of health impacts must be based on economic first principles. This means continuing the use of standard method for calculating the cost of mortality – the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) as derived from individuals’ valuation of the willingness to pay to reduce the risk of dying.”
2)“On a global scale as well as in the case of each major country or group of countries, the best available evidence today suggests that the health impacts of outdoor air pollution, including from road transport, are considerably greater than previously reported”
3)“There is, therefore, a job of work to be done in persuading decision makers to read and act on the signals that society has been attempting to valiantly communicate.”
What were the methods, tools and/or data used to produce the claims or arguments made in the article or report?
They used a Value of Statistical Life approach to quantifying the cost of mortality. This approach defined the cost of one life by taking a risk survey and identifying the willingness to pay for a lower risk towards air pollution. Morbidity methods are unclear and need further investigation. (1) Identify pollution (2) Identify health risk/ evidence (3) Calculate total expenditure as a final economic cost.
How (if at all) are health disparities or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
This article does a good job at tying pollution to health and further to economic values in the form of 2005 US dollars. While this study is not focused on the details of poor health due to air pollution, the methods suggest a foundation rooted in health data collection.
Can you learn anything from the article or report’s bibliography that tells us something about how the article or report was produced?
The article was produced with the help of studies from the World Health Organization and previous studies by the OECD itself. Because OECD is a seemingly large research group, their stake in this text was clearly majority.
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your understanding of how air pollution science has been produced and used in governance and education in different settings?
I followed up on the morbidity studies for calculating total costs that can be added to the conclusions drawn from the standard method for calculating mortality. The 2012 OECD study on the mortality standard method and how that came to find the health and transport pollution data. Lastly, I looked into the WHO reports on the impacts of air pollution.