Meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies on air pollution-related morbidity risks

  • Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee
  • Shunji Matsuoka
  • Hiroaki Shirakawa


Benefits of reduced morbidity are important information for cost-benefit analyses of air pollution control policies. With an increasing number of morbidity valuation studies, policymakers are facing some difficulty handling the accumulated information. This article uses a meta-analysis to attain insights from the literature on economic valuation of short-term health effects due to air pollution. Sixteen available contingent valuation studies on morbidity risk valuation were pooled to identify the relations between willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates and possible influential factors. The results indicate that health risk characteristics expressed in terms of severity and duration of illness, population characteristics (e.g., income and education), and study features affect individuals’ WTP to reduce or avoid a given morbidity. By controlling for these factors, a meta-regression-based function can be used to predict WTP values for use in benefit analyses of policy evaluation.

Key words

Air pollution Contingent valuation Meta-analysis Short-term morbidity valuation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Learner EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation: report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Federal Register 58:4601–4614Google Scholar
  2. Bateman IJ, Brainard JS, Lovett AA (1995a) Modeling woodland recreation demand using Geographical Information Systems: a benefit transfer study (Global Environmental Change working paper GEC 95–96). Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia and University College LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Rasbash J (1999) Willingness-to-pay question format effects in contingent valuation studies. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University, New York, pp 511–539Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995b) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics 12:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergner M (1993) Development, testing, and use of the sickness impact profile. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Kluwer, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaeij A, Florax R, Rietveld P, Verhoef E (2000) The value of statistical life in road safety: a metaanalysis. Tinbergen Institute discussion paper 89, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowland BJ, Beghin JC (1999) Robust estimates of value of a statistical life for developing economies: an application to pollution and mortality in Santiago (CARD working paper 99-WP 214). Iowa State University,
  8. Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Crowards TC, Turner RK (1997) A meta-Analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies (CSERGE Working Paper GEC 97-20). University of East Anglia and University College LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72:80–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cropper ML (1981) Measuring the benefits from reduced morbidity. American Economic Review 71:235–240Google Scholar
  11. Cropper ML (2000) Has economic research answered the needs of environmental policy? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:328–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cropper ML, Oates WE (1992) Environmental economics: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 30:675–740Google Scholar
  13. Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Banzhaf HS (1998) Environmental policy analysis with limited information: principles and applications of the transfer method. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickie M, Gerking S (1991) Willingness to pay for ozone control: inferences from the demand for medical care. Journal of Environmental Economic and Management 21:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerking S, Stanley LR (1986) An economic analysis of air pollution and health: the case of St. Louis. Review of Economics and Statistics 68:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green WH (2000) Econometric analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall BH, Cummins C (1999) Time Series Processor 4.5: reference manual. TSP International, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall J, Winer AM, Kleinman MT, Lurmann FW, Brajer V, Colome SD (1992) Valuing the health benefits of clean air. Science 255:812–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. International Monetary Fund (2001) International financial statistics yearbook. IMF Statistics Department, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson FR, Fries EE, Banzhaf HS (1997) Valuing morbidity: an integration of the willingness-to-pay and health-status index literatures. Journal of Health Economics 16:641–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Ganiates TG (1993) The quality of well-being scale: rationales for a single quality of life index. In: Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Kluwer Academic, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  22. Krupnick A, Portney PR (1991) Controlling urban air pollution: a benefit cost assessment. Science 252:522–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, Itaoka K, Akai M (1999) Mortality risk valuation for environmental policy. Discussion paper 99-47. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O’Brien B, Goeree R, Heintzelman M (2000) Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Discussion paper 00-37. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Leggett CG, Kleckner NS, Boyle KJ, Duffield J, Mitchell RC (2002) Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Research prepared for Bruce Peacock of the National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economics, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. McCubbin DR, Delucchi MA (1999) The health costs of motor-vehicle-related air pollution. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 33:253–286Google Scholar
  27. Miller TR (2000) Variations between countries in values of statistical life. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 34:169–188Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell R, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Mrozek JR, Taylor LO (2002) What determines the value of life? A meta-Analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21:253–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murray CJL, Lopez AD (1996) Global and regional descriptive epidemiology of disability: incidence, prevalence, health expectancies and years lived with disability. In: Murray CJK, Lopez AD (eds) The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Harvard School of Public Health, World Health Organization, World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearce D (2000) Valuing risks to life and health: towards consistent transfer estimates in the European Union and association states. Paper for the European Commission (DGXI) workshop on valuing mortality and valuing morbidity, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearce D, Crowards T (1996) Particulate matter and human health in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 24:609–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pettiti DB (1994) Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowe RD, Lang CM, Chestnut LG, Rae DA, Bernow SM, White DE (1995) The New York electricity externality study, vol I: introduction and methods. Hagler Bailly Consulting, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  35. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M (1993) A fifteen-dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its applications. In: Walker SR and Rosser RM (eds) Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990s. Kluwer Academic, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  36. Small KA, Kazimi C (1995) On the costs of air pollution from motor vehicles. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 29:7–32Google Scholar
  37. Smith VK (1984) Environmental policy under Reagan’s executive order: the role of benefit-cost analysis. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith VK, Huang JC (1995) Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property values models. Journal of Political Economy 103:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith VK, Kaoru Y (1990) Signals or noise: explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith VK, Osborne L (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31:287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanley TD, Jarrell SB (1989) Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys 3:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000a) Guidelines for preparing economic analysis. EPA 240-r-00-003. Office of Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000b) Handbook for non-cancer health effects valuation. Non-Cancer Health Effects Valuation Subcommittee, EPA Social Science Discussion Group, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Van dan Bergh JCJM, Button KJ, Nijkamp P, Pepping GC (1997) Meta-analysis in environmental economics. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Viscusi KW, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27:5–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolf F (1986) Meta-analysis: quantitative methods for research synthesis. Sage, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee
    • 1
  • Shunji Matsuoka
    • 1
  • Hiroaki Shirakawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School for International Development and CooperationHiroshima UniversityHigashi HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations