research paper about air pollution in the philippines

Estimating the Health & Economic Cost of Air Pollution in the Philippines

In the Philippines, air pollution is the third highest risk factor driving death and disability due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and is also the leading environmental risk to health (IHME 2020). Its costs are not limited to the individual or community level, but also nationally, as air pollution-related health impacts yield corresponding financial and economic costs, which are often unaccounted for in policymaking. 

To add urgency to the issue, a growing body of scientific studies and literature are finding that air pollution is more dangerous to human health than previously thought. The World Health Organization updated its National Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (AQG) in September 2021, tightening the guidelines of annual average air pollution exposure to 5µg/m 3 from 10µg/m 3 for PM 2.5 and to 10µg/m 3 from 40µg/m 3 for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ).

Quantifying the impacts of air pollution on human health and the economy is important, especially in countries like the Philippines, where air pollution levels are increasing due to a growing number of fossil fuel pollution sources across various sectors. 

Our research found that air pollution was responsible for 66,230 deaths in the Philippines in 2019, of which 64,920 deaths were estimated to be adults and 1,310 children. This is significantly higher than previous estimates made for the country, aligning the impact with the most recent literature. The corresponding economic cost of exposure to air pollution is estimated at PHP 2.32 trillion (US$ 44.8 billion) in 2019 , or a GDP equivalent of 11.9% of the country’s GDP in 2019. Premature deaths account for most of the estimated economic cost at PHP 2.2 trillion (US$ 42.8 billion). 

This report covers the methodology and results of estimating the health and economic cost of air pollution in the Philippines under three scenarios: a baseline scenario, a WHO 2005 AQG-compliant scenario, and a WHO 2021 AQG-compliant scenario.

6 February 2023

Lauri Myllyvirta, Hubert Thieriot, Isabella Suarez

Philippines

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Journal of Public Health
• About the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom
• Editorial Board
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Acknowledgments, authors’ contribution, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Air quality and Philippine lockdown amid pandemic: a temporary environmental experience

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Niñoval F Pacaol, Abegail Marie A Endiape, Jane Mae Perez, Air quality and Philippine lockdown amid pandemic: a temporary environmental experience, Journal of Public Health , Volume 43, Issue 2, June 2021, Pages e323–e324, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

In its recent and last 2020 issue, the co-editor of the journal highlighted the improvement of air quality as a result of work from home. 1 This change in social activities of people is a direct implication of health protocols and measures like the intensive lockdown in the first months of the pandemic by all the countries. On the one hand, some researchers found out that these control actions ‘improved air quality locally and around the world in the short-term by limiting human activity’ due to lower emissions from industrial activities and a decrease in transportation. 2

In the Philippines, the country had also shown this (positive) effect. 3 Under the March 2020 ‘Enhanced Community Quarantine’, private and public transportation has been canceled, which gave some glimpse of what would be country’s cities look like with widely improved air quality without sacrificing Filipino’s access to mobility. Unfortunately, based on a special report, as the government eased the quarantine regulations (from strict to modified policies) in May, and with the return of motor vehicles, air pollution rebounds that directly hit the most vulnerable—the urban poor. 4

With this (ephemeral) environmental and national experience of the country, it presents some important insights mostly likely to be interconnected that is occasionally overlooked. First, no Filipinos should perceive the country’s social control via quarantine categories as a standalone solution since this government strategy is only for the time being amid the crisis. It is pointless to rejoice in the temporary reduction of (air) pollution in the Philippines and of the world at large, even without essentially giving mitigating efforts to combat pollution and climate change in general. People must not fail to see that it was just an unintended consequence of a different problem [COVID-19]. 5

Second, considering that this is only a short-term effect on the natural environment, the national government needs to reformulate its plans while considering the current situation and establishing a sustainable action for its mass transportation and industrial sectors. Balancing socio-economic activities and environmental concerns would establish a holistic framework that could save lives.

Lastly, citizens must unlearn becoming used to air pollution around them. The sluggishness of the environmental reforms in the country relies on the mindset of its people. Unfortunately, this ‘habituated into’ perception of the citizens toward their environment made the circumstance as normal and acceptable, thus, they have become confident that the pollution clothing the country does not have much detrimental impact on their health as shown in the behavior of the people. Nonetheless, it should be noted that citizens must fully recognize the collective consequences of individual actions and, therefore, internalize responsibility, shared destiny and environmental awareness. Hence, people should not be exclusively dependent on some circumstantial rules that address an external threat (pandemic) and echo that health-related, environmental, and political issues and actions are evidently connected, which require an interactive approach from the government and constituents toward a healthy life and society.

No funding was received from this paper.

All authors contributed to all aspects of the manuscript.

The authors declare no conflict of interest in this paper.

Neal K . The collateral damage of COVID-19 . J Public Health 2020 ; 42 ( 4 ): 659 .

Google Scholar

Seo JH , Kim JS , Yang J et al.  Changes in air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated health benefits in Korea . Appl Sci 2020 ; 10 ( 23 ): 1 – 15 .

Melendres , W . No, Nature is Not Yet Healing: What COVID-19 Tells us About Our Environment . https://philippines.makesense.org/2020/09/17/no-nature-is-not-yet-healing-what-covid-19-tells-us-about-our-environment/ (24 January 2021, date last accessed).

Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air & Greenpeace . Special Report: Managing Air Quality Beyond COVID-19 . https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-philippines-stateless/2020/06/6fe4edb7-managing-air-quality-beyond-covid-19-060301c.pdf (24 January 2021, date last accessed).

Sabillo , K . Beyond Lockdown: Can the Philippines Sustain Low Air-Pollution Levels? https://earthjournalism.net/stories/beyond-lockdown-can-the-philippines-sustain-low-air-pollutionlevels#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20a%20study%20by,48.8%20deaths%20per%20100%2C000%20people (24 January 2021, date last accessed).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1741-3850
• Print ISSN 1741-3842
• Copyright © 2024 Faculty of Public Health
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Open access
• Published: 21 August 2024

The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review

• Siyuan Wang 1 ,
• Rong Song 2 ,
• Zhiwei Xu 3 ,
• Mingsheng Chen 4 , 5 ,
• Gian Luca Di Tanna 6 ,
• Laura Downey 1 ,
• Stephen Jan 1 &
• Lei Si 7 , 8  

Global Health Research and Policy volume  9 , Article number:  30 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

196 Accesses

Metrics details

Air pollution poses a significant threat to global public health. While broad mitigation policies exist, an understanding of the economic consequences, both in terms of health benefits and mitigation costs, remains lacking. This study systematically reviewed the existing economic implications of air pollution control strategies worldwide.

A predefined search strategy, without limitations on region or study design, was employed to search the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and CEA registry databases for studies from their inception to November 2023 using keywords such as “cost–benefit analyses”, “air pollution”, and “particulate matter”. Focus was placed on studies that specifically considered the health benefits of air pollution control strategies. The evidence was summarized by pollution control strategy and reported using principle economic evaluation measurements such as net benefits and benefit–cost ratios.

The search yielded 104 studies that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 75, 21, and 8 studies assessed the costs and benefits of outdoor, indoor, and mixed control strategies, respectively, of which 54, 15, and 3 reported that the benefits of the control strategy exceeded the mitigation costs. Source reduction (n = 42) and end-of-pipe treatments (n = 15) were the most commonly employed pollution control methodologies. The association between particulate matter (PM) and mortality was the most widely assessed exposure-effect relationship and had the largest health gains (n = 42). A total of 32 studies employed a broader benefits framework, examining the impacts of air pollution control strategies on the environment, ecology, and society. Of these, 31 studies reported partially or entirely positive economic evidence. However, despite overwhelming evidence in support of these strategies, the studies also highlighted some policy flaws concerning equity, optimization, and uncertainty characterization.

Conclusions

Nearly 70% of the reviewed studies reported that the economic benefits of implementing air pollution control strategies outweighed the relative costs. This was primarily due to the improved mortality and morbidity rates associated with lowering PM levels. In addition to health benefits, air pollution control strategies were also associated with other environmental and social benefits, strengthening the economic case for implementation. However, future air pollution control strategy designs will need to address some of the existing policy limitations.

Air pollution is a major environmental and public health problem affecting millions of people worldwide [ 1 ]. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), it is among the leading causes of mortality, with exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution associated with approximately 6.7 million premature deaths in 2019 [ 2 ]. In addition to its health impacts, air pollution has environmental, ecological, and economic consequences [ 3 ]. For example, one economic impact relates to the substantial costs associated with treating and managing air pollution-induced illnesses [ 4 , 5 ], as well as indirect societal expenditures resulting from the loss of productivity due to reduced working days [ 6 ]. The World Bank estimated that the overall cost of air pollution on health and well-being was approximately $8.1 trillion U.S. dollars, or 6.1% of GDP, in 2019 [ 7 ].

The need to reduce the environmental and health impacts of air pollution has been recognized for several decades. Many developed countries have implemented comprehensive multi-pollutant control strategies aimed at mitigating the health effects of key pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide [ 8 , 9 ]. In recent years, developing countries with large populations have also begun tightening air quality standards. For example, China implemented the National Clean Air Action Plan (2013–2017) and followed it with the Three-Year Action Plan for Clean Air starting in 2018 to jointly lower emissions from various pollution sources [ 10 , 11 ]. Health assessment studies have consistently highlighted the substantial health and economic benefits associated with reducing air pollution through these measures [ 12 , 13 , 14 ].

Despite the substantial health benefits of air quality control strategies, their implementation comes at a cost. The magnitude of benefits and costs is primarily dependent on the relative nature of the control strategy, the size and setting of the intervention, the specific exposure and health endpoints considered, and the assumptions of the underlying economic evaluation [ 15 ]. Some high-income countries require a regular assessment of the relative costs and benefits of proposed environmental regulations, including air pollution regulations. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been required by law to conduct several comprehensive cost–benefit analyses of the Clean Air Act [ 16 ].

On a global scale, there is a gap in the systematic analysis of the costs and health benefits of air pollution control strategies. While the evidence base strongly supports that lowering exposure to air pollution is beneficial to health and reduces the burden on health systems, air pollution control strategies often come at significant costs. Thus, there is an imperative need to understand the relative costs and benefits of such interventions to ensure evidence-based air policies, particularly in resource limited settings. This study sought to fill this gap by systematically reviewing the economic impact of air pollution control strategies. The objective was to identify successful pollution control strategies, summarize economic evaluation methodologies, and highlight existing policy limitations. The findings are intended to inform the design of more optimal and targeted air policies, particularly in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where there is a critical need to deliver cost-effective interventions to control pollution.

Search strategy

Six databases, including PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and the CEA registry, were searched using a predefined strategy developed by combining keywords such as “air pollution”, “particle matter”, and “cost–benefit analyses”. The searches included the period from each database's inception to November 2023, without limitations on study design or region. Detailed summaries of the strategy search strategies are shown in Online Appendix 1.

Study selection, eligibility, and exclusion criteria

The database searches identified studies that explored the public health impact of air pollution control strategies, focusing on those that specifically assessed health benefits as part of the cost–benefit evaluation. Studies were included in the analysis if they: 1) were economic evaluation studies (cost–benefit analysis) of air pollution control strategies; 2) reported health and economic benefits of air pollution control strategies; and 3) were published in English. Studies that were not peer-reviewed articles, such as government reports or conference abstracts, were excluded.

Data extraction

Two reviewers (SW and RS) independently screened the title, abstract, and full text of each study. Conflicts were resolved through consultations with a third reviewer (LS). Information from the final included studies was gathered using a data extraction sheet developed following the initial phase of the literature review. The following data elements were extracted: study identification information (authors, year of publication, and country of conduct), study design (perspective, scope, and settings), type of intervention (outdoor intervention, indoor intervention, or mixed intervention), pollution control method (source reduction methods or end-of-pipe treatments), pollution control strategy category, pollutant type targeted, study methodologies (methodologies that modeled emissions, estimated costs, and estimated benefits), cost estimates, benefit estimates, cost–benefit estimates and sensitivity analysis estimates. A full list of the extracted elements is provided in Online Appendix 2.

A narrative synthesis was used to summarize the findings. Economic evidence were summarized using standard cost–benefit measurements that define an intervention as effective if the net benefit (total benefit minus total cost) is positive or the benefit–cost ratio (total benefit divided by total cost) is > 1 [ 17 ]. We followed the general principles for evidence synthesis reviews and reported the findings using PRISMA reporting guidelines (Online Appendix 3) [ 18 ].

Quality appraisal and risk of bias assessment

The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) reporting guidance for economic evaluations was used to conduct a risk of bias assessment [ 19 ]. CHEERS 2022 includes 28 items, all of which were used to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed the quality of evidence following the reporting guidance from the CHEERS 2022 Explanation and Elaboration report [ 20 ]. In the absence of a validated scoring system for the checklist, a qualitative assessment of the completeness of reporting for each item was conducted [ 19 ].

Characteristics of the included studies

The search strategy yielded 4966 records across the six databases, from which 4,402 unique records were identified for title, abstract, and full-text screening. A total of 104 studies were ultimately found to meet the inclusion criteria. The selection process, developed using the PRISMA flowchart, is shown in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

Economic evaluation studies were identified that examined the cost–benefit ratio of several air pollution control strategies across various countries, with some dating back over 50 years. Overall, there was a relatively balanced distribution of studies conducted in low- and middle-income settings as well as high-income settings (n = 48 and 47, respectively), and most studies were published within the last decade (n = 74). Outdoor interventions, which sought to reduce local or ambient air pollution, were the most common type of pollution control strategy (n = 75; 72%). Meanwhile, 21 studies assessed the cost–benefit ratio of indoor interventions that aimed to lower exposure at the individual or household level. A total of eight studies evaluated control strategies that incorporated both indoor and outdoor interventions. Most pollution control strategies sought to mitigate emissions or pollutants directly from their origin (n = 42), while others employed end-of-pipe treatments to reduce pollution after its release, often through the use of filtration systems, scrubbers, or other pollution control devices (n = 15). A table of the included studies is shown in Online Appendix 4 and the study characteristics are summarized in Table  1 .

Pollution control strategies by category

Pollution control strategies involving a variety of control methods aimed at reducing both outdoor and indoor pollution were identified. Specific examples of outdoor interventions included transitions to cleaner energy and fuel sources [ 21 , 22 ], tighter vehicle emission regulations [ 23 ], and improved agriculture practices and technologies such as intercropping and low-emissions animal housing systems [ 24 , 25 ]. Another type of outdoor pollution control method was the use of end-of-pipe treatments for high-emission sources, such as retrofitting coal-fired power plants with scrubbers [ 26 ] or using particle filters and oxidation catalysts for diesel vehicles [ 27 ]. Common indoor pollution control strategies included interventions that encourage the use of cleaner and improved stoves [ 28 , 29 ], and promoting clean air ventilators in workplaces and households [ 30 ]. Air pollution control strategies grouped by intervention type and pollution control methodology are summarized in Table  2 .

Economic evaluation modeling of air pollution control strategies

The Impact Pathway Approach (IPA) [ 114 ], which connects interrelated modules for different aspects of the evaluation process, was commonly used to evaluate the effects of ambient air pollution on human health. This is a multistep approach that establishes links between emissions, exposure, and effects by estimating pollutant emissions and dispersion, then modeling exposure of the target population to assess health impacts, quantify the costs, and compare the benefits and mitigation costs. While methodologies for estimating costs and benefits varied by intervention and study context, most studies employed dose–response parameters to assess health gains from reduced pollution exposure. Subsequently, economic evaluation modeling techniques, such as the Value of Statistical Life (VSL) or Cost of Illness (COI), were employed to quantify the economic health benefits. A summary of the evaluation process, including the emissions, chemical transport, and health assessment models, as well as the cost–benefit assessment, are shown in Fig.  2 .

Analytical sequence for the economic evaluation of air pollution control strategies

The IPA also uses Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) to assess the health impacts of a broad range of policy scenarios or technological interventions. IAMs incorporate geographical, populational, and industry-specific data to estimate the emission and dispersion of primary and secondary pollutants and model populational exposure to assess health and economic impacts. The choice of modules was largely dependent on the specific setting of the study, as well as the control policy being considered. For example, the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) and the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model were two commonly used IAMs for estimating the impact of both air pollution and climate change-related policies on emissions. In addition, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension (CAMx) and the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model were often used to model pollutant atmospheric concentrations, while the Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BENMAP) was used to assess health impacts.

Costs associated with air pollution interventions encompass several elements. These include initial investment costs, such as research and development of cleaner technologies [ 84 ], as well as operating and maintenance expenses, such as heavy vehicle inspection and maintenance programs [ 43 ]. Finally, mitigation costs are compared against intervention benefits using standard economic evaluation metrics such as computing net benefits or benefit–cost ratios.

Health benefit assessment

Most studies used dose–response parameters to predict health outcomes from changes in exposure and then compared the money saved by health gains to the costs of mitigation. However, the choice of parameters varied depending on the nature of the exposure, the setting of the study, and the selected health endpoints. Most of the studies focused on evaluating the economic benefit of lowering particulate matter (n = 84), which is considered the most important factor affecting human health. Other hazardous gases, including NO X , SO X , and O 3 (n = 34, 32, 19, respectively), were also considered. Premature deaths, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and ischaemic heart disease) were the most widely assessed health endpoints (n = 53, 43, and 44, respectively). Some studies also considered the benefit of increased productivity from a drop in the number of restricted working days (n = 18). In studies evaluating the economic health benefit of reducing premature deaths, the VSL approach was the most common methodology used. The Willingness to Pay (WTP) and COI methods were also used to quantify disease burden, and the Human Capital (HC) approach was used to evaluate losses in productivity.

Economic impact of air pollution control strategies

There was widespread economic evidence in support of implementing air pollution controls. Table 3 summarizes the cost-benefit results by pollution control category. Of the 104 studies analyzed, 72 (69%) reported that the benefits of the control strategy outweighed the costs. Most studies evaluated outdoor interventions, with 54 of 75 finding positive evidence in favor of these interventions. Of the 21 studies assessing indoor interventions, 15 showed positive results. Eight studies examined the cost–benefit ratio of both outdoor and indoor interventions, of which three reported net positive results. The number of studies that reported benefits exceeding costs, benefits exceeding costs for parts of the intervention, and costs exceeding benefits are presented in Table  1 . Except for transport regulations, the pollution control categories showed consistently positive economic results. Of the 13 studies assessing transport regulations, only three reported positive outcomes, while six indicated mixed results and four reported negative cost–benefit outcomes. In 41 studies investigating the impact of uncertainties on cost–benefit outcomes, several key variables were consistently analyzed, including discount rates, VSL figures, cost parameters, and dose–response models. In some instances, adopting lower VSL figures and projecting higher mitigation costs helped to shift the economic assessment of the intervention from cost-beneficial to non-cost-beneficial [ 22 , 48 , 58 , 115 , 116 ].

Social, environmental, and ecological benefits

A total of 32 studies [ 14 , 25 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 42 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 60 , 61 , 73 , 84 , 87 , 92 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 ] considered the broader social, environmental, or ecological benefits of pollution control strategies. Of these, 16 studies [ 25 , 29 , 33 , 42 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 84 , 100 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 120 ] estimated the environmental benefits of reducing CO 2 emissions by employing a carbon market price or CO 2 abatement cost. Other studies (n = 18) valued the additional morbidity improvements and productivity gains from reducing the number of restricted days and increasing the number of working days. Krewitt et al. [ 117 ] used exposure–response functions from open-top chamber experiments to quantify the economic benefit of increased crop yield from reduced SO 2 emission. Partially positive or positive cost–benefit results were demonstrated in 31 of the 32 studies. In addition, nine out of 10 studies showed that environmental policies, particularly long-term policies aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, may also have short-term secondary air pollution benefits, contributing to positive economic evidence in support of the policy.

Risk of bias assessment and quality appraisal of evidence

The results of the quality assessment under the CHEERS 2022 framework are shown in Online Appendix 5. All studies reported on items 6 and 7, providing relevant contextual information regarding the setting, location, and intervention or scenario of consideration. Most studies (n = 60, 74, 85, 72, respectively) adhered to the reporting criteria for items 1, 2, 3, and 9 (title, abstract, background, and time horizon). Additionally, a total of 85, 100, 99 and 88 studies reported on the selection, measurement and valuation of outcomes and costs (items 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively). Few studies (n = 6, 2) considered the heterogeneity and distributional effects of the outcomes (items 18 and 19). No studies reported on items 8, 21, and 25 (perspective, engagement with patient, and effects of engagement with patients). Meanwhile, a total of 44 and 41 studies characterized and reported on uncertainty (items 20 and 24), and a total of 59 and 42 studies disclosed the funding source and competing interests, respectively (items 27 and 28).

Our review of the economic evidence suggests that economic assessments of air pollution control strategies face several key uncertainties at each stage of the evaluation process, including emissions projection, exposure modeling, and quantification of the benefits and costs. Cost uncertainties primarily stemmed from the cost data, the cost model, and the choice of discounting factors for operating and maintenance costs. The uncertainties relating to benefit estimation were considerably larger. Two commonly acknowledged factors across all studies were the choice of an appropriate Concentration Response Function (CRF) to estimate the health effects of exposure and the selection of a VSL figure to monetize health gains. Differences in air pollutant composition, population age structure, and the quality of public health systems contributed to varying exposure-effect relationships across different populations and regions. Thus, it is critical to select concentration–response functions that are tailored to the specific context of each study. The choice of appropriate VSL and CRF proved particularly challenging for many studies conducted in low- and middle-income settings that lack supporting epidemiologic and economic evidence. Many of these studies used the benefits transfer method to estimate an approximate figure by adjusting VSL estimates from developed countries, despite existing literature showing the limitations of this approach [ 109 ]. Other studies used concentration–response functions established from epidemiologic studies in developed countries that may not reflect the appropriate populational or environmental context. The choice of valuation methods also greatly influences the benefits estimation. For example, studies employing contingent valuation estimates may inadvertently overstate the economic benefits, while those utilizing the COI approach may not fully encompass all economic benefits [ 122 ].

We find that studies measuring both economic and health benefits were more likely to report positive economic results from the control strategies. However, the methods varied in the types and sizes of social and environmental benefits considered. For example, the environmental benefits from reduced carbon dioxide emissions and time savings associated with indoor cooking interventions generally outweighed the corresponding health benefits. This was not typically the case for outdoor interventions. In some studies [ 101 ], the standalone health benefits were insufficient to cover mitigation costs, while the addition of social benefits resulted in net positive results. These findings highlight the importance of an integrated or holistic approach in the evaluation framework.

While this study highlighted overwhelming economic evidence in support of various air pollution control strategies, it also revealed a need to address policy limitations and barriers. This includes ensuring equality among different socioeconomic and geographical populations. Air pollution is a major cause of health inequalities worldwide, particularly for women, elders, and people of low socioeconomic status [ 123 , 124 , 125 ]. Thus, future control policies and policy evaluations will need to target these priority groups. Despite the epidemiologic evidence demonstrating the disproportionate health impacts of air pollution on elders and infants, only six of the 104 studies included in this review considered the distributional effects and heterogeneity of outcomes on different subpopulations [ 124 , 126 ]. While air pollution has a similar impact on the health of men and women, particular occupational or social norms can lead to disproportionately high levels of exposure among some groups of women, such as housewives who are using inefficient stoves in low- and middle-income settings. This suggests a need for targeted interventions and evaluations in this population [ 28 ]. Despite overall net positive outcomes for society, specific cohorts, particularly rural populations, or people living in regions of low socioeconomic status, may experience net economic losses due to disproportionately high mitigation costs [ 93 ]. Clean air has substantial positive health and social benefits that spill over to society. However, without government subsidies, costs are disproportionately borne by individuals or private sectors, posing challenges to implementation [ 105 ]. Thus, economic evaluations should consider assessing the private and social cost-benefits separately.

This study had a few limitations. First, the review was limited to peer-reviewed articles, potentially omitting relevant grey literature. The lack of all available information, including government documents that evaluate environmental air interventions, may contribute to a biased or incomplete interpretation of the full economic evidence. Second, this study has potential publication bias, including funding biases from governments or organizations with vested interests and the selective reporting of studies with positive health and economic outcomes. These biases may skew the overall economic results in favor of certain policies and underrepresent alternative approaches or outcomes. Third, due to variability in outcome measurements and analytical methodologies used by the included studies, it was not feasible to conduct a meta-analysis or otherwise quantitatively synthesize the overall economic evidence.

This study systematically reviewed economic evidence on the costs and benefits of air pollution control strategies across different countries and timeframes. Nearly 70% of the studies reported data in support of the control policies, with particularly strong economic evidence identified by those using a broader benefits framework. While there was broad economic support for air pollution control in general, the findings also underscore the scarcity of economic and epidemiological evidence needed to substantiate such economic evaluations, particularly within LMICs. In addition, there is a pressing need to prioritize environmental and economic equity in the development of targeted interventions, especially among vulnerable populations in LMICs who are at higher risk for air pollution-related illness due to existing geographical, health, or socioeconomic disparities. The insights gained from this review will help to inform the design of future air pollution control policies and the economic evaluations of related interventions.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and/or analyzed during the current study are extracted from included studies and are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Environmental Protection Agency

Impact Pathway Approach

Integrated Assessment models

Global Change Assessment Model

Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension

Community Multiscale Air Quality model

Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program

Local Air Pollution

Global Climate Change

Value of Statistical Life

Concentration Response Function

Willingness to pay

Cost of Illness

Human Capital

Low- and middle-income countries

High income countries

Particle matter

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Burnett R, Chen H, Szyszkowicz M, Fann N, Hubbell B, Pope CA 3rd, et al. Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(38):9592–7.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fuller R, Landrigan PJ, Balakrishnan K, Bathan G, Bose-O’Reilly S, Brauer M, et al. Pollution and health: a progress update. Lancet Planet Health. 2022;6(6):e535–47.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Manisalidis I, Stavropoulou E, Stavropoulos A, Bezirtzoglou E. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review. Front Public Health. 2020;8:14.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cohen AJ, Ross Anderson H, Ostro B, Pandey KD, Krzyzanowski M, Künzli N, et al. The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2005;68(13–14):1301–7.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jaafar H, Razi NA, Azzeri A, Isahak M, Dahlui M. A systematic review of financial implications of air pollution on health in Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018;25(30):30009–20.

Pervin T, Gerdtham UG, Lyttkens CH. Societal costs of air pollution-related health hazards: a review of methods and results. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008;6:19.

Awe YA, Larsen BK, Sanchez-Triana E. The Global Health Cost of PM 2.5 Air Pollution: A Case for Action Beyond 2021. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2021. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/455211643691938459/The-Global-Health-Cost-of-PM-2-5-Air-Pollution-A-Case-for-Action-Beyond-2021

Ross K, Chmiel JF, Ferkol T. The impact of the clean air act. J Pediatr. 2012;161(5):781–6.

Chen Y, Craig L, Krewski D. Air quality risk assessment and management. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(1):24–39.

Chen C, Fang JL, Shi WY, Li TT, Shi XM. Clean air actions and health plans in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2020;133(13):1609–11.

The State Council PRC. Three-year action plan for cleaner air released 2018. Available from: https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2018/07/03/content_281476207708632.htm .

Huang J, Pan X, Guo X, Li G. Health impact of China’s air pollution prevention and control action plan: an analysis of national air quality monitoring and mortality data. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(7):e313–23.

Chen Z, Wang F, Liu B, Zhang B. Short-term and long-term impacts of air pollution control on china’s economy. Environ Manage. 2022;70(3):536–47.

Zhang JJH, Zhang W, Ma G, Wang Y, Lu Y, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of China’s action plan for air pollution prevention and control. Front Eng Manage. 2019;6(4):524–37.

Article   Google Scholar  

Liu X, Guo C, Wu Y, Huang C, Lu K, Zhang Y, et al. Evaluating cost and benefit of air pollution control policies in China: A systematic review. J Environ Sci (China). 2022.

US Environmental Protection Agency. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 (Final Report). Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/summaryreport.pdf .

Mishan EJ, Quah E. Cost-benefit analysis. Abingdon: Routledge; 2020.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):23.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II good practices task force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10–31.

Buonocore JJ, Lambert KF, Burtraw D, Sekar S, Driscoll CT. An analysis of costs and health co-benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0156308.

Mao X, Guo X, Chang Y, Peng Y. Improving air quality in large cities by substituting natural gas for coal in China: Changing idea and incentive policy implications. Energy Policy. 2005;33(3):307–18.

Borjesson M, Bastian A, Eliasson J. The economics of low emission zones. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2021;153:99–114.

Giannakis E, Kushta J, Bruggeman A, Lelieveld J. Costs and benefits of agricultural ammonia emission abatement options for compliance with European air quality regulations. Environ Sci Eur. 2019;31(1):1–13.

Wagner S, Angenendt E, Beletskaya O, Zeddies J. Costs and benefits of ammonia and particulate matter abatement in German agriculture including interactions with greenhouse gas emissions. Agric Syst. 2015;141:58–68.

Voorhees AS, Uchiyama I. Particulate matter air pollution control programs in Japan—an analysis of health risks in the absence of future remediation. J Risk Res. 2008;11(3):409–21.

Evans JS, Rojas-Bracho L, Hammitt JK, Dockery DW. Mortality benefits and control costs of improving air quality in Mexico city: the case of heavy duty diesel vehicles. Risk Anal. 2021;41(4):661–77.

Aunan K, Alnes LWH, Berger J, Dong Z, Ma L, Mestl HES, et al. Upgrading to cleaner household stoves and reducing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among women in rural china - a cost-benefit analysis. Energy Sustain Dev. 2013;17(5):489–96.

Hutton G, Rehfuess E, Tediosi F. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution. Energy Sustain Dev. 2007;11(4):34–43.

Chau CK, Hui WK, Tse MS. Valuing the health benefits of improving indoor air quality in residences. Sci Total Environ. 2008;394(1):25–38.

Wagner S, Angenendt E, Beletskaya O, Zeddies J. Assessing ammonia emission abatement measures in agriculture: Farmers’ costs and society’s benefits—a case study for Lower Saxony, Germany. Agric Syst. 2017;157:70–80.

Fung KM, Tai APK, Yong T, Liu X, Lam HM. Co-benefits of intercropping as a sustainable farming method for safeguarding both food security and air quality. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14(4):044011.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kiely L, Spracklen DV, Arnold SR, Papargyropoulou E, Conibear L, Wiedinmyer C, et al. Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):7044.

Iwata K. Cost-benefit analysis of enforcing installation of particulate matter elimination devices on diesel trucks in Japan. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 2011;13(1):1–19.

Stevens G, Wilson A, Hammitt JK. A benefit-cost analysis of retrofitting diesel vehicles with particulate filters in the Mexico City metropolitan area. Risk Anal. 2005;25(4):883–99.

Hutchinson EJ, Pearson PJ. An evaluation of the environmental and health effects of vehicle exhaust catalysts in the UK. Environ Health Perspect. 2004;112(2):132–41.

Beatty TK, Shimshack JP. School buses, diesel emissions, and respiratory health. J Health Econ. 2011;30(5):987–99.

Cropper ML, Guttikunda S, Jawahar P, Lazri Z, Malik K, Song X-P. Applying benefit-cost analysis to air pollution control in the indian power sector. J Benefit Cost Anal. 2019;10:185–205.

Levy JI, Biton L, Hopke PK, Zhang KM, Rector L. A cost-benefit analysis of a pellet boiler with electrostatic precipitator versus conventional biomass technology: a case study of an institutional boiler in Syracuse, New York. Environ Res. 2017;156:312–9.

Thanh BD, Lefevre T. Assessing health benefits of controlling air pollution from power generation: the case of a lignite-fired power plant in Thailand. Environ Manage. 2001;27(2):303–17.

Zhang H, Zhang B, Bi J. More efforts, more benefits: air pollutant control of coal-fired power plants in China. Energy. 2015;80:1–9.

Ballini F, Bozzo R. Air pollution from ships in ports: the socio-economic benefit of cold-ironing technology. Res Transp Bus Manag. 2015;17:92–8.

Google Scholar  

Li Y, Crawford-Brown DJ. Assessing the co-benefits of greenhouse gas reduction: Health benefits of particulate matter related inspection and maintenance programs in Bangkok, Thailand. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(10):1774–85.

Okada A. Benefit, cost, and size of an emission control area: a simulation approach for spatial relationships. Marit Policy Manage. 2019;46(5):565–84.

Lopez NS, Soliman J, Biona JBM, Fulton L. Cost-benefit analysis of alternative vehicles in the Philippines using immediate and distant future scenarios. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2020;82:102308.

Zhou J, Wang J, Jiang H, Cheng X, Lu Y, Zhang W, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of yellow-label vehicles scrappage subsidy policy: a case study of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China. J Clean Prod. 2019;232:94–103.

Åström S, Yaramenka K, Winnes H, Fridell E, Holland M. The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2018;59:223–36.

Lopez-Aparicio S, Grythe H, Thorne RJ, Vogt M. Costs and benefits of implementing an environmental speed limit in a Nordic city. Sci Total Environ. 2020;720:137577.

Antturi J, Hänninen O, Jalkanen JP, Johansson L, Prank M, Sofiev M, et al. Costs and benefits of low-sulphur fuel standard for Baltic Sea shipping. J Environ Manage. 2016;184:431–40.

Hsieh IL, Chossière GP, Gençer E, Chen H, Barrett S, Green WH. An Integrated assessment of emissions, air quality, and public health impacts of China’s transition to electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(11):6836–46.

Zhou J, Jiang H, Cheng X, Lu Y, Zhang W, Dong Z. Are the benefits of a high-emission vehicle driving area restriction policy greater than the costs? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):15789.

Kiziltan A, Kiziltan M, Ara Aksoy S, Aydınalp Köksal M, Tekeli ŞE, Duran N, et al. Cost–benefit analysis of road-transport policy options to combat air pollution in Turkey. Environ Dev Sustain. 2022;25(10):10765–98.

Lomas J, Schmitt L, Jones S, McGeorge M, Bates E, Holland M, et al. A pharmacoeconomic approach to assessing the costs and benefits of air quality interventions that improve health: a case study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e010686.

Tang R, Zhao J, Liu Y, Huang X, Zhang Y, Zhou D, et al. Air quality and health co-benefits of China’s carbon dioxide emissions peaking before 2030. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1008.

Kim SE, Xie Y, Dai H, Fujimori S, Hijioka Y, Honda Y, et al. Air quality co-benefits from climate mitigation for human health in South Korea. Environ Int. 2020;136:105507.

Luo Q, Copeland B, Garcia-Menendez F, Johnson JX. Diverse pathways for power sector decarbonization in texas yield health cobenefits but fail to alleviate air pollution exposure inequities. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56(18):13274–83.

Sampedro J, Smith SJ, Arto I, González-Eguino M, Markandya A, Mulvaney KM, et al. Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply. Environ Int. 2020;136:105513.

Markandya A, Sampedro J, Smith SJ, Van Dingenen R, Pizarro-Irizar C, Arto I, et al. Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(3):e126–33.

Schucht S, Colette A, Rao S, Holland M, Schöpp W, Kolp P, et al. Moving towards ambitious climate policies: monetised health benefits from improved air quality could offset mitigation costs in Europe. Environ Sci Policy. 2015;50:252–69.

Shindell D, Ru M, Zhang Y, Seltzer K, Faluvegi G, Nazarenko L, et al. Temporal and spatial distribution of health, labor, and crop benefits of climate change mitigation in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118(46):e2104061118.

Vandyck T, Keramidas K, Kitous A, Spadaro JV, Van Dingenen R, Holland M, et al. Air quality co-benefits for human health and agriculture counterbalance costs to meet Paris Agreement pledges. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4939.

Bollen J, van der Zwaan B, Brink C, Eerens H. Local air pollution and global climate change: a combined cost-benefit analysis. Resour Energy Econ. 2009;31(3):161–81.

Wu R, Dai H, Geng Y, Xie Y, Masui T, Liu Z, et al. Economic impacts from PM2.5 pollution-related health effects: a case study in Shanghai. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(9):5035–42.

Guo X, Zhao L, Chen D, Jia Y, Zhao N, Liu W, et al. Air quality improvement and health benefit of PM2.5 reduction from the coal cap policy in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei (BTH) region, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25(32):32709–20.

Howard DB, The J, Soria R, Fann N, Schaeffer R, Saphores JDM. Health benefits and control costs of tightening particulate matter emissions standards for coal power plants—the case of Northeast Brazil. Environ Int. 2019;124:420–30.

Krewitt W, Holland M, Trukenmüller A, Heck T, Friedrich R. Comparing costs and environmental benefits of strategies to combat acidification and ozone in Europe. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 1999;2(4):249–66.

Lange SS, Mulholland SE, Honeycutt ME. What are the net benefits of reducing the ozone standard to 65 ppb? An alternative analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8):1586.

Larson BA. The economics of air pollution health risks in Russia: a case study of Volgograd. World Dev. 1999;27(10):1803–19.

Lavee D. Cost-benefit analysis of implementing policy measures for reducing PM and O3 concentrations: the case of Israel. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2018;25(8):682–94.

Mesbah SM, Hakami A, Schott S. Optimal ozone reduction policy design using adjoint-based NOx marginal damage information. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(23):13528–35.

Moon H, Yoo SH, Huh SY. Monetary valuation of air quality improvement with the stated preference technique: a multi-pollutant perspective. Sci Total Environ. 2021;793:148604.

Netalieva I, Wesseler J, Heijman W. Health costs caused by oil extraction air emissions and the benefits from abatement: the case of Kazakhstan. Energy Policy. 2005;33(9):1169–77.

Olsthoorn X, Amann M, Bartonova A, Clench-Aas J, Cofala J, Dorland K, et al. Cost benefit analysis of European air quality targets for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and fine and suspended particulate matter in cities. Environ Resour Econ. 1999;14(3):333–51.

Ou Y, West JJ, Smith SJ, Nolte CG, Loughlin DH. Air pollution control strategies directly limiting national health damages in the US. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):957.

Palmer K, Burtraw D, Shih JS. The benefits and costs of reducing emissions from the electricity sector. J Environ Manage. 2007;83(1):115–30.

Pandey MD, Nathwani JS. Canada Wide Standard for particulate matter and ozone: cost-benefit analysis using a life quality index. Risk Anal. 2003;23(1):55–67.

Perl LJ, Dunbar FC. Cost effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of air quality regulations. Am Econ Rev. 1982;72(2):208–13.

Raff Z, Walter JM. Evaluating the efficacy of ambient air quality standards at coal-fired power plants. J Agric Resour Econ. 2020;45(3):428–44.

Suhyoung K, Chng LK. Cost–benefit analysis of pm2.5 policy in Korea. Environ Asia. 2021;14(3):62–70.

West JJ, Fiore AM, Horowitz LW, Mauzerall DL. Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(11):3988–93.

Xie Y, Zhao L, Xue J, Hu Q, Xu X, Wang H. A cooperative reduction model for regional air pollution control in China that considers adverse health effects and pollutant reduction costs. Sci Total Environ. 2016;573:458–69.

Burtraw D, Palmer K, Bharvirkar R, Paul A. Cost-effective reduction of NOx emissions from electricity generation. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2001;51(10):1476–89.

Cai W, Hui J, Wang C, Zheng Y, Zhang X, Zhang Q, et al. The Lancet Countdown on PM(2·5) pollution-related health impacts of China’s projected carbon dioxide mitigation in the electric power generation sector under the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(4):e151–61.

Chen M. Whether it is economical to use combined heat and power (CHP) system for the efficient utilization of associated petroleum gas in oil extraction sites in China: a cost-benefit analysis considering environmental benefits. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10:984872.

Li J, Guttikunda SK, Carmichael GR, Streets DG, Chang YS, Fung V. Quantifying the human health benefits of curbing air pollution in Shanghai. J Environ Manage. 2004;70(1):49–62.

Miraglia SG. Health, environmental, and economic costs from the use of a stabilized diesel/ethanol mixture in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2007;23:S559–69.

Wiser R, Millstein D. Evaluating the economic return to public wind energy research and development in the United States. Appl Energy. 2020;261:114449.

Zhang S, An K, Li J, Weng Y, Zhang S, Wang S, et al. Incorporating health co-benefits into technology pathways to achieve China’s 2060 carbon neutrality goal: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(11):E808–17.

Feng T, Du H, Coffman DM, Qu A, Dong Z. Clean heating and heating poverty: a perspective based on cost-benefit analysis. Energy Policy. 2021;152:112205.

Mardones C. Ex-post evaluation and cost-benefit analysis of a heater replacement program implemented in southern Chile. Energy. 2021;227:120484.

Zhao B, Zhao J, Zha H, Hu R, Liu Y, Liang C, et al. Health benefits and costs of clean heating renovation: an integrated assessment in a major Chinese City. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55(14):10046–55.

Nishioka Y, Levy JI, Norris GA, Bennett DH, Spengler JD. A risk-based approach to health impact assessment for input-output analysis. Part 2: Case study of insulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2005;10(4):255–62.

Guo X, Jia C, Xiao B. Spatial variations of PM2.5 emissions and social welfare induced by clean heating transition: a gridded cost-benefit analysis. Sci Total Environ. 2022;826:154065.

Tse MS, Chau CK, Lee WL. Assessing the benefit and cost for a voluntary indoor air quality certification scheme in Hong Kong. Sci Total Environ. 2004;320(2–3):89–107.

Fisk WJ, Chan WR. Health benefits and costs of filtration interventions that reduce indoor exposure to PM2.5 during wildfires. Indoor Air. 2017;27(1):191–204.

Liu Y, Zhou B, Wang J, Zhao B. Health benefits and cost of using air purifiers to reduce exposure to ambient fine particulate pollution in China. J Hazard Mater. 2021;414:125540.

Fisk WJ, Chan WR. Effectiveness and cost of reducing particle-related mortality with particle filtration. Indoor Air. 2017;27(5):909–20.

Aldred JR, Darling E, Morrison G, Siegel J, Corsi RL. Benefit-cost analysis of commercially available activated carbon filters for indoor ozone removal in single-family homes. Indoor Air. 2016;26(3):501–12.

Malla MB, Bruce N, Bates E, Rehfuess E. Applying global cost-benefit analysis methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: insights and challenges. Energy Policy. 2011;39(12):7518–29.

Barstow C, Bluffstone R, Silon K, Linden K, Thomas E. A cost-benefit analysis of livelihood, environmental and health benefits of a large scale water filter and cookstove distribution in Rwanda. Dev Eng. 2019;4:100043.

Nuhu P, Bukari D, Banye EZ. Driving improved cooking technology uptake in Ghana: an analysis of costs and benefits. Energy Sustain Dev. 2022;66:26–43.

Gupta A, Naved MM, Kumbhare H, Bherwani H, Das D, Labhsetwar N. Impact assessment of clean cookstove intervention in Gujarat, India: a potential case for corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28(10):12740–52.

Isihak S, Akpan U, Adeleye M. Interventions for mitigating indoor-air pollution in Nigeria: a cost-benefit analysis. Int J Energy Sect Manage. 2012;6(3):417–29.

Irfan M, Cameron MP, Hassan G. Interventions to mitigate indoor air pollution: a cost-benefit analysis. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9):e0257543.

Jeuland M, Tan Soo J-S, Shindell D. The need for policies to reduce the costs of cleaner cooking in low income settings: implications from systematic analysis of costs and benefits. Energy Policy. 2018;121:275–85.

Mazorra J, Sanchez-Jacob E, de la Sota C, Fernandez L, Lumbreras J. A comprehensive analysis of cooking solutions co-benefits at household level: Healthy lives and well-being, gender and climate change. Sci Total Environ. 2020;707:135968.

Carnevale C, Ferrari F, Guariso G, Maffeis G, Turrini E, Volta M. Assessing the economic and environmental sustainability of a regional air quality plan. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2018;10(10):3568.

Bouscasse H, Gabet S, Kerneis G, Provent A, Rieux C, Ben Salem N, et al. Designing local air pollution policies focusing on mobility and heating to avoid a targeted number of pollution-related deaths: forward and backward approaches combining air pollution modeling, health impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis. Environ Int. 2022;159:107030.

Ćetković J, Lakić S, Žarković M, Đurović G, Vujadinović R. Application of economic analysis of air pollution reduction measures. Pol J Environ Stud. 2020;30(1):585–99.

Jin Y, Andersson H, Zhang S. China’s cap on coal and the efficiency of local interventions: a benefit-cost analysis of phasing out coal in power plants and in households in Beijing. J Benefit Cost Anal. 2017;8(2):147–86.

Miranda AI, Relvas H, Viaene P, Janssen S, Brasseur O, Carnevale C, et al. Applying integrated assessment methodologies to air quality plans: two European cases. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;65:29–38.

Rezazadeh AA, Alizadeh S, Avami A, Kianbakhsh A. Integrated analysis of energy-pollution-health nexus for sustainable energy planning. J Clean Prod. 2022;356:131824.

Zhao N, Elshareef H, Li B, Wang B, Jia Z, Zhou L, et al. The efforts of China to combat air pollution during the period of 2015–2018: a case study assessing the environmental, health and economic benefits in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and surrounding “2 + 26” regions. Sci Total Environ. 2022;853:158437.

Pizzol M, Thomsen M, Frohn L, Andersen M. External costs of atmospheric Pb emissions: valuation of neurotoxic impacts due to inhalation. Environ Health. 2010;9:9.

Astrom S, Yaramenka K, Winnes H, Fridell E, Holland M. The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2018;59:223–36.

Babcock LR Jr, Nagda NL. Cost effectiveness of emission control. J Air Pollut Control Assoc. 1973;23(3):173–9.

Krewitt W. Comparing costs and environmental benefits of strategies to combat acidification and Ozone in Europe. Environ Econ Policy Stud. 1999;2(4):249–66.

Voorhees AS, Araki S, Sakai R, Sato H. An ex post cost-benefit analysis of the nitrogen dioxide air pollution control program in tokyo. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2000;50(3):391–410.

Aunan K, Pátzay G, Asbjørn Aaheim H, Martin SH. Health and environmental benefits from air pollution reductions in Hungary. Sci Total Environ. 1998;212(2–3):245–68.

Miraglia SGEK. Health, environmental, and economic costs from the use of a stabilized diesel/ethanol mixture in the city of São Paulo. Brazil Cadernos de Saude Publica. 2007;23(SUPPL. 4):S559–69.

Bonilla JA, Aravena C, Morales-Betancourt R. Assessing multiple inequalities and air pollution abatement policies. Environ Resource Econ. 2023;84(3):695–727.

Jo C. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20(4):327–37.

Hashim D, Boffetta P. Occupational and environmental exposures and cancers in developing countries. Ann Glob Health. 2014;80(5):393–411.

Simoni M, Baldacci S, Maio S, Cerrai S, Sarno G, Viegi G. Adverse effects of outdoor pollution in the elderly. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7(1):34–45.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hajat A, Hsia C, O’Neill MS. Socioeconomic disparities and air pollution exposure: a global review. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2015;2(4):440–50.

Nazarpour S, Poursani AS, Simbar M, Yarandi RB. The relationship between air pollution and infant mortality rate. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(6):1278–88.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 71874086, 72174093). SW receives the University of New South Wales University Postgraduate Award (UPA Award).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Siyuan Wang, Laura Downey & Stephen Jan

Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China

School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

Mingsheng Chen

Jiangsu Health Vocational College, Nanjing, China

Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland

Gian Luca Di Tanna

School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia

Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation: MC, LS, SW, methodology: GLDT, LS, SJ, ZX, SW, formal analysis: SW, RS, original writing: SW, study supervision: LS, review, editing and validation: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingsheng Chen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., additional file 4., additional file 5., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wang, S., Song, R., Xu, Z. et al. The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review. glob health res policy 9 , 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y

Download citation

Received : 09 December 2023

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 21 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Air pollution control
• Cost–benefit analyses
• Health co-benefits
• Economic evaluation

Global Health Research and Policy

ISSN: 2397-0642

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.318(7185); 1999 Mar 13

Philippines tackles air pollution

After six years of governmental wrangling and a massive nationwide campaign to gather signatures, the Philippines—home to one of the world’s most polluted cities—is on the verge of passing clean air legislation.

The population of Manila has grown faster than that in any other city since 1970 and now stands at at least 12 million, with 12600 people to each square kilometre. Thousands live in the shadow of power stations or industrial plants. Smog constantly blankets the city, 2.2 million motor vehicles form traffic jams, and pedestrians keep handkerchiefs clamped over their mouths and noses.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), levels of lead in the air in Manila are more than three times the established safety limit, and concentrations of suspended particulate matter are also dangerously high. Other pollutants have not been measured.

The priority legislation could be passed within as little as two months and would phase out the use of leaded fuel within 18 months, reduce industrial emissions, promote recycling, phase out vehicles over 15 years old, ban incineration, and drastically increase fines for the owners of polluting vehicles.

Dr Steve Tamplin, WHO regional adviser on environmental health, said: “The crucial question is whether this legislation will be effectively enforced.” At an average speed of just 7 km/hour, rush hour traffic in Manila moves more slowly than anywhere else in Asia. Dr Tamplin said that investing more in overhead light rail systems, which currently cover a single 30 km stretch, would be the best way of reducing traffic congestion, the biggest source of pollution.

Dr Miguel Celdran, a paediatrician at Makati Medical Center, said: “About 90%of my patients have respiratory illness, and we’re seeing babies as young as two months suffering from asthma. Twenty years ago, this was unheard of.”

A recent survey by the Philippine Paediatric Society, which asked doctors to describe the most common illnesses that they treat, received the same response in every case: diseases of the upper respiratory tract.

Urine samples from taken from children living and begging on the polluted streets showed that at least 7%had high lead concentrations.

Dr Celdran said that his mainly middle class clients kept their children indoors, using air ionisers and filtered air conditioners to improve air quality, but that this resulted in other problems due to a lack of exercise.

The United Nations estimates that by the year 2000 around half of the world’s population will be living in urban areas, and the global fleet of motor vehicles is already thought to be more than 800 million.

A WHO report, Urban Air Pollution in Megacities of the World, warns that: “Megacities could well see increases in their air pollution concentrations of levels as high as 75-100%over the next decade.”

Manila's smog may soon be a thing of the past

Air Pollution Studies in Metromanila and Catalysis Technology Towards Clean Air Philippines

• Published: January 2003
• Volume 160 , pages 325–339, ( 2003 )

Cite this article

• S.M. Gallardo 1  

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

— Considerable air quality and emission data gathered in Metropolitan Manila (MM) led to the development of automobile exhaust treatment catalysts as well as their continued improvement. Findings of a 5-year (1993–1998) collaborative work on the development of base metal oxide catalysts for automobile exhaust are summarized here. One study in 1991 reveals an average 16% increase in the number of motor vehicles in MM where 16% are new and the rest are old ones. Another study in 1992 shows the CO and hydrocarbon emission levels from different types of motor vehicles in MM as a function of the age of the vehicle, type of fuel, and the operating condition. Reports of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and other related studies also provided data showing the quality of air in MM. Currently, there are several requirements to further improve the catalyst performance towards the reduction of NO X and to develop catalyst-sorbent for simultaneous NO X -SO X removal. This is so because of the present condition of rain acidification that is found in certain places in MM. These air quality and emission data are needed not only to establish practical emission standards for motor vehicles and the stationary industries and power plants but also in the development of technologies for air pollution control and other clean technologies for cleaner air in the country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Estimating the Key Factors Contributing to Vehicular Exhaust Emission in Ghana

The pollution intensity of australian power stations: a case study of the value of the national pollutant inventory (npi).

PM reduction over vanadium SCR

Author information, authors and affiliations.

Chemical Engineering Department, De la Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila, Philippines. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], , , , , , PH

S.M. Gallardo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

(Received March 1, 2000, accepted January 21, 2001)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gallardo, S. Air Pollution Studies in Metromanila and Catalysis Technology Towards Clean Air Philippines. Pure appl. geophys. 160 , 325–339 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-003-8781-8

Download citation

Issue Date : January 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-003-8781-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Key words: Air quality, catalysis, emission data, acid rain, oxidation catalysts, air pollution.
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Air Pollution and Mortality in India: Investigating the Nexus of Ambient and Household Pollution Across Life Stages

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Public Health and Mortality Studies International Institute for Population Sciences Mumbai Maharashtra India.
• 2 Pollution Management Research Group Energy, Climate and Environment (ECE) Program International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg Austria.
• 3 School of Demography ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences Australian National University Canberra ACT Australia.
• PMID: 39165477
• PMCID: PMC11333718
• DOI: 10.1029/2023GH000968

Air pollution in India is a foremost environmental risk factor that affects human health. This study first investigates the geographical distribution of ambient and household air pollution (HAP) and then examines the associated mortality risk. Data on fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) concentration has been extracted from the Greenhouse Gas Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) model. HAP, mortality and socio-demographic data were extracted from the National Family and Health Survey-5, India, 2019-2021. Regression models were applied to see the difference in age-group mortality by different pollution parameters. The districts with PM 2.5 concentration above the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) level of 40 μg/m 3 show a higher risk of neonatal (OR-1.86, CI 1.418-2.433), postneonatal (OR-2.04, CI 1.399-2.971), child (OR-2.19, CI 0.999-4.803) and adult death (OR-1.13, CI 1.060-1.208). The absence of a separate kitchen shows a higher probability of neonatal (OR: 1.18, CI 1.074-1.306) and adult death (OR-1.06, CI 1.027-1.088). The interaction between PM 2.5 levels above NAAQS and HAP leads to a substantial rise in mortality observed for neonatal (OR 1.19 CI 1.051-1.337), child (OR 1.17 CI 1.054-1.289), and adult (OR 1.13 CI 1.096-1.168) age groups. This study advocates that there is a strong positive association between ambient and HAP and mortality risk. PM 2.5 pollution significantly contributes to the mortality risk in all age groups. Children are more vulnerable to HAP than adults. In India, policymakers should focus on reducing the anthropogenic PM 2.5 emission at least to reach the NAAQS, which can substantially reduce disease burden and, more precisely, mortality.

Keywords: air pollution; air pollution and mortality; environmental health; fine particulate matter pollution; health; household air pollution (HAP); mortality.

© 2024 The Author(s). GeoHealth published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Geophysical Union.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Correlation matrix of PM 2.5…

Correlation matrix of PM 2.5 concentration across different years (2000–2020) among clusters across…

Distribution of pollution parameters (Subfigures:…

Distribution of pollution parameters (Subfigures: (a) Concentration of ambient PM 2.5 across districts…

Percentage of deaths for each…

Percentage of deaths for each age group based on different pollution parameters independently,…

• Adhikary, M. (2024). R code for replicating Bar graph in the article Air pollution and mortality in India: Investigating the nexus of ambient and household pollution across life stages (1.0) [Software]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.11036903 - DOI
• Adhikary, M. , Mal, P. , & Saikia, N. (2024). Exploring the link between particulate matter pollution and acute respiratory infection risk in children using generalized estimating equations analysis: A robust statistical approach. Environmental Health, 23(1), 12. 10.1186/s12940-024-01049-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Ailshire, J. A. , & Crimmins, E. M. (2014). Fine particulate matter air pollution and cognitive function among older US adults. American Journal of Epidemiology, 180(4), 359–366. 10.1093/aje/kwu155 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Amann, M. , Bertok, I. , Borken‐Kleefeld, J. , Cofala, J. , Heyes, C. , Höglund‐Isaksson, L. , et al. (2011). Cost‐effective control of air quality and greenhouse gases in Europe: Modeling and policy applications [Software]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(12), 1489–1501. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.012 - DOI
• Amann, M. , Kiesewetter, G. , Schöpp, W. , Klimont, Z. , Winiwarter, W. , Cofala, J. , et al. (2020). Reducing global air pollution: The scope for further policy interventions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 378(2183), 20190331. 10.1098/rsta.2019.0331 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References From the Supporting Information

• Chaturvedi, V. , Koti, N. , Anjali, A. , & Chordia, R. (2018). Sustainable development, uncertainties, and India's climate policy pathways towards nationally determined contribution and mid‐century strategy. Council on Energy Environment and Water (CEEW).
• Kiesewetter, G. , Borken‐Kleefeld, J. , Schöpp, W. , Heyes, C. , Thunis, P. , Bessagnet, B. , et al. (2015). Modelling street level PM10 concentrations across Europe: Source apportionment and possible futures. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 15(3), 1539–1553. 10.5194/acp-15-1539-2015 - DOI
• Purohit, P. , Amann, M. , Kiesewetter, G. , Rafaj, P. , Chaturvedi, V. , Dholakia, H. H. , et al. (2019). Mitigation pathways towards national ambient air quality standards in India. Environment International, 133, 105147. - PubMed
• Rafaj, P. , Schöpp, W. , Russ, P. , Heyes, C. , & Amann, M. (2013). Co‐benefits of post‐2012 global climate mitigation policies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(6), 801–824. 10.1007/s11027-012-9390-6 - DOI
• Simpson, D. , Benedictow, A. , Berge, H. , Bergström, R. , Emberson, L. D. , Fagerli, H. , et al. (2012). The EMEP MSC‐W chemical transport model – Technical description. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12(16), 7825–7865. 10.5194/acp-12-7825-2012 - DOI

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION ON CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES IN THE PHILIPPINES: RESULTS OF A SURVEY ASSESSING CARDIOLOGISTS' …

2011, Proc. Int. Conf. on …

Related Papers

Mohyi Shaker , Michail Papathomas

The poor air quality situation as well as the predominant mortality and morbidity rates of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have been problematic to citizens in the Philippines in the last few decades. The aim of this paper is to understand the awareness of Filipino cardiologists with regard to the potential impacts of air pollution on CVDs. A survey has been conducted on a sample of 142 Filipino cardiologists who are members of the Philippines Heart Association (PHA) as well as a number of cardiologists from Davao province in the south of the Philippines, and the paper reports on some of the salient results obtained.

International Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology

Adam Baharum

Science of The Total Environment

Phan Bich Hanh

Wayne Cascio

Air pollution is a heterogeneous, complex mixture of gases, liquids, and particulate matter. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent increased risk for cardiovascular events in relation to both shortand long-term exposure to present-day concentrations of ambient particulate matter. Several plausible mechanistic pathways have been described, including enhanced coagulation/thrombosis, a propensity for arrhythmias, acute arterial vasoconstriction, systemic inflammatory responses, and the chronic promotion of atherosclerosis. The purpose of this statement is to provide healthcare professionals and regulatory agencies with a comprehensive review of the literature on air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In addition, the implications of these findings in relation to public health and regulatory policies are addressed. Practical recommendations for healthcare providers and their patients are outlined. In the final section, suggestions for future research are made to addr...

European heart journal

Grethe Tell

Journal of the American Heart Association

Kyuseok Kim

Studies have shown that long-term exposure to air pollution such as fine particulate matter (≤2.5 μm in aerodynamic diameter [PM]) increases the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. To date, however, there are limited data on the impact of air pollution on specific cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed to evaluate cardiovascular effects of long-term exposure to air pollution among residents of Seoul, Korea. Healthy participants with no previous history of cardiovascular disease were evaluated between 2007 and 2013. Exposure to air pollutants was estimated by linking the location of outdoor monitors to the ZIP code of each participant&#39;s residence. Crude and adjusted analyses were performed using Cox regression models to evaluate the risk for composite cardiovascular events including cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and stroke. A total of 136 094 participants were followed for a median of 7.0 years (900 845 person-year...

Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases

International Journal of Preventive Medicine

Amir Anushiravani

Mohammed Mirza

Environmental Research

Luiz Pereira

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Chronic Diseases and Translational Medicine

Audrey Arcilla

Hala Zaiton

Atmospheric Environment

Marie Noelle Duquenne

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

CommonHealth

Lindsay Kraus

Medical Archives

Selvete Krasniqi , Tahire Gjergji

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Akorede Adekoya

Journal of Internal Medicine

Michael Henein

Epidemiology

Joel Schwartz

Josefa B Tabua

Ciência e Saúde Coletiva

Katia Mantovani , Demerval Moreira

Frederick Lurmann

Journal of environmental and public health

Alain Levêque , Pascale Salameh , Zeina Nasser

Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal

Masud Yunesian

Federico Arribas

Steven Sadhra , Jon Ayres

To Thi Hien

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024