Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The abatement of particulate matter 2.5 in Los Angeles County: a counterfactual evaluation

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ambient PM2.5 concentration in Los Angeles (LA) County has been on a decreasing trend since LA County was designated as a nonattainment area in 2005. However, whether the nonattainment assignment is the underlying cause of the county’s reductions in PM2.5 requires further empirical investigation. Traditional statistical approaches used to study the impact of nonattainment designation on air quality present problems involving indeterministic covariates, confoundedness, model misspecification, and undetected effects at the aggregate level. Our study successfully uses the Panel Data Approach for Program Evaluation (PAMPE) to compare the differences between the actual outcomes and counterfactual outcomes to reveal the treatment effects associated with nonattainment assignment without the burden associated with previous studies. Our results show that, at the monitor level, the air quality improvements obtained by the more-polluted areas were greater after LA County was designated as a nonattainment area. On average, the counterfactual reduction rates derived in our study range from − 0.01 to − 0.15%. Cases in which PM2.5 levels increased occurred at two monitors that were fully or partially compliant during the study period, suggesting the regulatory oversight is indeed spatially heterogeneous.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: California Air Resources Board (http://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2019/state_pm25.pdf?_ga=2.186930792.1136834779.1594054504-737406109.1591634030 accessed on July 5, 2020.)

Fig. 2

Source: US EPA Air Quality System

Fig. 3

Source: California Air Resources Board

Fig. 4

Data source: USEPA

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Availability of data

Raw data were generated at US Environmental Protection Agency website (www.epa.gov). Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Notes

  1. https://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd04/pmreport03/pmlooktrends_2405.pdf accessed on 6/24/2016.

  2. http://www.cehtp.org/page/air/query accessed on 6/24/2016.

  3. https://www3.epa.gov/airdata accessed on 8/20/2016.

  4. NEI consisted of four major categories of inventoried anthropogenic sources: (1) fuel combustion: emissions from coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power plants and industrial, commercial, and institutional sources and residential heaters and boilers; (2) other industrial processes that primarily include chemical production, petroleum refining, metal production, and processes other than fuel combustion; (3) on-road vehicles including cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles; and (4) nonroad vehicles and engines including farm and construction equipment, lawnmowers, chainsaws, boats, ships, snowmobiles, and aircraft.

  5. SCAQMD submitted SIPs in 2007, 2012, and 2015. The South Coast Air Basin regulatory policy information comes from the state of California’s Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (http://www.arb.ca.gov/pm/pm.htm).

  6. LA County’s PM2.5 source information was obtained from the California Air Resources Board website http://www.arb.ca.gov/pm/pmmeasures/pmch05/southcoast05.pdf (accessed on 6/29/16). The percentage is the average of the 2-year period.

  7. EPA requires that acceptable monitors must operate at least 75% of the time in a year.

  8. The twelve 2005 nonattainment counties are: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. The twenty-nine 2009 nonattainment countries are: Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Merced, Napa, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba.

  9. The attainment counties in 2005 designation are as follows: Alameda*, Alpine, Amador, Butt*, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa*, Del Norte, El Dorado*, Glen, Humboldt, Imperial*, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Marin*, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa*,Nevada, Placer*,Plumas, Sacramento*, San Benito, San Diego, San Francisco*,San Mateo*, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara*,Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano*, Sonoma*,Sutter*,Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo*, Yuba*. Counties marked with an asterisk enters nonattainment group in 2009. Therefore, the 2009 attainment counties are: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, Glen, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Nevada, Plumas, San Diego, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Ventura, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne.

  10. Based on 2006 standards, the second nonattainment designation was announced in December 2009.

  11. Because monitor 4004 does not have enough pre-treatment period, we exclude it from our analysis.

  12. The post-treatment counterfactual reduction ratio is calculated by subtracting the average actual value from the average predicted value and dividing by the predicted value.

References

  • Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Auffhammer, M., Bento, A. M., & Lowe, S. E. (2009). Measuring the effects of the clean air act Amendments on ambient PM10 concentrations: The critical importance of a spatially disaggregated analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auffhammer, M., Bento, A. M., & Lowe, S. E. (2011). The city-level effects of the 1990 clean air act amendments. Land Economics, 87(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2002). Determining number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica, 70(1), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bi, X. (2017). “Cleansing the air at the expense of waterways?” Empirical evidence from the toxic releases of coal-fired power plants in the United States. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 51(1), 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., III, Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., Diez-Roux, A. V., et al. (2010). Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 121(21), 2331–2378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chay, K. Y., & Greenstone, M. (2003). The impact of air pollution on infant mortality: Evidence from geographic variation in pollution shocks induced by a recession. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1121–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chay, K. Y., & Greenstone, M. (2005). Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market. Journal of Political Economy, 113(2), 376–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-J. (2017). Job versus environment: An examination on the union members toward environmental spending. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 19(4), 776–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2014). A tale of trade-offs: The impact of macroeconomic factors on environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Management, 145, 88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, E. M. (2020). Reevaluating the ozone nonattainment standards: Evidence from the 2004 expansion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 99, 102261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockery, D. W., Speizer, F. E., Stram, D. O., Ware, J. H., Spengler, J. D., & Ferris, B. G. (1989). Effects of inhalable particles on respiratory health of children. American Review of Respiratory Disease, 139(3), 587–594.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Bell, M. L., Pham, L., McDermott, A., Zeger, S. L., et al. (2006). Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. JAMA-Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(10), 1127–1134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, E., Seldon, B. J., & Regens, J. L. (1997). Political and economic determinants of individuals’ support for environmental spending. Journal of Environmental Management, 51(1), 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fann, N., Lamson, A. D., Anenberg, S. C., Wesson, K., Risley, D., & Hubbell, B. J. (2012). Estimating the national public health burden associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 and Ozone. Risk Analysis, 32(1), 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstone, M. (2004). Did the Clean Air Act cause the remarkable decline in sulfur dioxide concentrations? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(3), 585–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, S., Hu, M., Zamora, M. L., Peng, J. F., Shang, D. J., Zheng, J., et al. (2014). Elucidating severe urban haze formation in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(49), 17373–17378.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Han, I., Guo, Y. C., Afshar, M., Stock, T. H., & Symanski, E. (2017). Comparison of trace elements in size-fractionated particles in two communities with contrasting socioeconomic status in Houston, TX. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(2), 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R., Shih, J.-S., & Bell, M. L. (2012). Did the clean air Act Amendments of 1990 really improve air quality? Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, 5(4), 353–367.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R. M., & Yin, J. X. (2000). Particulate matter in the atmosphere: Which particle properties are important for its effects on health? Science of the Total Environment, 249(1–3), 85–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hasheminassab, S., Daher, N., Saffari, A., Wang, D., Ostro, B. D., & Sioutas, C. (2014a). Spatial and temporal variability of sources of ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in California. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(22), 12085–12097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasheminassab, S., Pakbin, P., Delfino, R. J., Schauer, J. J., & Sioutas, C. (2014b). Diurnal and seasonal trends in the apparent density of ambient fine and coarse particles in Los Angeles. Environmental Pollution, 187, 1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. V. (1996). Effects of air quality regulation. American Economic Review, 86(4), 789–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C., Ching, H. S., & Wan, S. K. (2012). A panel data approach for program evaluation: measuring the benefits of political and economic integration of Hong Kong with Mainland China. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 27(5), 705–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerrett, M., Burnett, R. T., Ma, R. J., Pope, C. A., Krewski, D., Newbold, K. B., et al. (2005). Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles. Epidemiology, 16(6), 727–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental Pollution, 151(2), 362–367.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B. M., Teffera, S., & Zeldin, M. D. (2000). Characterization of PM2.5 and PM10 in the South Coast Air Basin of southern California: Part 1—Spatial variations. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 50(12), 2034–2044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laden, F., Neas, L. M., Dockery, D. W., & Schwartz, J. (2000). Association of fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in six US cities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(10), 941–947.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lipfert, F. W., & Wyzga, R. E. (2019). Longitudinal relationships between lung cancer mortality rates, smoking, and ambient air quality: A comprehensive review and analysis. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 49(9), 790–818.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lurmann, F., Avol, E., & Gilliland, F. (2015). Emissions reduction policies and recent trends in Southern California’s ambient air quality. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 65(3), 324–335.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. K., Jerrett, M., Mack, W. J., & Kunzli, N. (2007). A land use regression model for predicting ambient fine particulate matter across Los Angeles, CA. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 9(3), 246–252.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson and Laura (2016) Downtown L.A. traffic is getting worse- and to some, that’s good news. Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downtown-traffic-20160702-snap-story.html. Los Angeles Times.

  • Nolen, J. E. (2015). State of the air 2015 (p. 14). Washington DC: American Lung Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pegues, A. H., Cohan, D. S., Digar, A., Douglass, C., & Wilson, R. S. (2012). Efficacy of recent state implementation plans for 8-hour ozone. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 62(2), 252–261.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J., Coull, B., Laden, F., & Ryan, L. (2008). The effect of dose and timing of dose on the association between airborne particles and survival. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(1), 64–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheriff, G., Ferris, A. E., & Shadbegian, R. J. (2019). How did air quality standards affect employment at US power plants? The importance of timing, geography, and stringency. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 6(1), 111–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. C. (2018). Labor market impacts from ozone nonattainment status: A regression discontinuity analysis. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 20(3), 527–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, L. H., Peterson, G. C. L., Wade, T. J., Neas, L. M., & Rappold, A. G. (2020). Check Annual PM2.5 and cardiovascular mortality rate data: Trends modified by county socioeconomic status in 2,132 US counties. Data in Brief, 30.

  • Zhang, L., He, X., Lu, Y., Krause, C., & Ferrari, N. (2014). Are we successful in reducing vehicle miles traveled in air quality nonattainment areas? Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 66, 280–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, R., Jing, J., Tao, J., Hsu, S. C., Wang, G., Cao, J., et al. (2013). Chemical characterization and source apportionment of PM2.5 in Beijing: Seasonal perspective. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(14), 7053–7074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, J. T., Zhang, X. Y., Dong, Y. S., Wang, Y. Q., Liu, C., Wang, J. Z., et al. (2018). Feedback effects of boundary-layer meteorological factors on cumulative explosive growth of PM2.5 during winter heavy pollution episodes in Beijing from 2013 to 2016. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18(1), 247–258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of International Aspects of Competition, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881, USA

    Meng-jieu Chen

Authors
  1. Meng-jieu Chen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng-jieu Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Code availability

The statistical analysis for this study is conducted with R. The R codes that are produced from this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Mj. The abatement of particulate matter 2.5 in Los Angeles County: a counterfactual evaluation. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 7063–7088 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00904-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00904-w

Keywords