Abstract
Air pollution has become a major global problem. Thus, the goal of this study was to find out the economic impacts (treatment cost) of air pollution on households as well as the principal factors inducing an individual’s willingness to pay for better air quality. District Faisalabad was purposively selected for sampling, as it is a major industrial hub in Pakistan. The required information was collected from 120 sampled respondents through a structured questionnaire. The ordinary least squares method was used for assessing the impact of various factors on the treatment cost of the most recent episode of ailment related to air pollution. The ordered logit model was used to assess the impacts of factors affecting the willingness to pay for programs aimed at the provision of better environmental services. The results revealed that high air pollution in the urban area resulted in more lost workdays and higher health costs. The findings also showed that people were willing to pay for better air quality in urban areas than in rural areas. Based on the findings, it is suggested that the incentive schemes may be designed for the promotion of cleaner services in rural and urban areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All the data analysis results and tools/models used for this work are included in this article.
References
Afroz R, Rahman A, Masud MM, Akhtar R (2017) The knowledge, awareness, attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste and household perspective in Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:2304–2315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7942-0
Ahmed S (2015) Air pollution and its impact on agricultural crops in developing countries – a review. J Anim Plant Sci 25:297–302
Akhtar S, Saleem W, Nadeem VM et al (2017) Assessment of willingness to pay for improved air quality using contingent valuation method. Glob J Environ Sci Manag 3:279–286. https://doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2017.03.03.005
Almetwally AA, Bin-Jumah M, Allam AA (2020) Ambient air pollution and its influence on human health and welfare: an overview. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:24815–24830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09042-2
Brown ZS, Johnstone N (2014) Better the devil you throw: experience and support for pay-as-you-throw waste charges. Environ Sci Pol 38:132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.11.007
Bueno EA, Ancog R, Obalan E, Cero AD, Simon AN, Malvecino-Macalintal MR, Bactong M Jr, Lunar J, Buena GR, Sugui L (2016) Measuring households’ willingness to pay for water quality restoration of a natural urban lake in the Philippines. Environ Process 3:875–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-016-0169-8
Chow GC (1960) Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 28:591. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910133
Friedrich R, Rabl A, Hirschberg S et al (2004) New elements for the assessment of external costs from energy technologies. EU 5th Framework Programme. Project NewExt, European Commission DG Research Contract No. ENG1-CT2000–00129
Ghosh A, Mukherji A (2014) Air pollution and respiratory ailments among children in urban India: exploring causality. Econ Dev Cult Chang 63:191–222. https://doi.org/10.1086/677754
Hansen AC, Selte HK (2000) Air pollution and sick-leaves. Environ Resour Econ 16:31–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008318004154
Hassan R (2007) Pakistan’s air pollution levels on the rise. Available online at http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-71432.html. Accessed on April 04, 2017
Hussain A, Thapa GB (2012) Smallholders’ access to agricultural credit in Pakistan. Food Secur 4:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0167-2
International Trade Administration (2019) Pakistan - waste management. https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product/pakistan-waste-management. Accessed 20 Aug 2020
Israel-Akinbo SO (2012) The economic impact of air pollution in the townships of Mangaung Metro Municipality: a case study of Phahameng and rocklands. University of the Free State, Bloemfontein. Accessed on April 26, 2017
Jamali T, Fatmi Z, Shahid A, Khoso A, Kadir MM, Sathiakumar N (2017) Evaluation of short-term health effects among rural women and reduction in household air pollution due to improved cooking stoves: quasi experimental study. Air Qual Atmos Health 10:809–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-017-0481-0
Khan MSB, Lohano HD (2018) Household air pollution from cooking fuel and respiratory health risks for children in Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:24778–24786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2513-1
Khan SU, Liu G, Zhao M, Chien H, Lu Q, Khan AA, Ali MAS, Misbahullah (2020) Spatial prioritization of willingness to pay for ecosystem services. A novel notion of distance from origin’s impression. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:3100–3112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06538-4
Konishi Y, Adachi K (2011) A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks. Resour Energy Econ 33:130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.03.001
Kumar S, Rao DN (2001) Valuing the benefits of air pollution abatement using a health production function a case study of Panipat Thermal Power Station, India. Environ Resour Econ 20:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012635627808
Lan G, Yuan Z, Maddock JE, Cook A, Chu YY, Pan BB, Tu H, Fan S, Liao X, Lu Y (2016) Public perception of air pollution and health effects in Nanchang, China. Air Qual Atmos Health 9:951–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-016-0397-0
Lera-López F, Sánchez M, Faulin J, Cacciolatti L (2014) Rural environment stakeholders and policy making: willingness to pay to reduce road transportation pollution impact in the Western Pyrenees. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 32:129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.07.003
Mayeres I, Van Regemorter D (2008) Modelling the health related benefits of environmental policies and their feedback effects: a CGE analysis for the EU countries with GEM-E3. Energy J 29:135–150
Milojevic A, Niedzwiedz CL, Pearce J, Milner J, MacKenzie IA, Doherty RM, Wilkinson P (2017) Socioeconomic and urban-rural differentials in exposure to air pollution and mortality burden in England. Environ Health 16:104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0314-5
Ostro BD (1983) The effects of air pollution on work loss and morbidity. J Environ Econ Manag 10:371–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(83)90006-2
Rasool F, Ogunbode CA (2015) Socio-demographic differences in environmental concern and willingness to pay for addressing global climate change in Pakistan. Asian J Soc Sci 43:273–298. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685314-04303004
Schwela D, Haq G, Uddin MA (2014) A strategic approach for air pollution reduction in Karachi. Stockholm
Siddiqui AR, Lee K, Gold EB, Bhutta ZA (2005) Eye and respiratory symptoms among women exposed to wood smoke emitted from indoor cooking: a study from southern Pakistan. Energy Sustain Dev 9:58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60524-4
Strosnider H, Kennedy C, Monti M, Yip F (2017) Rural and urban differences in air quality, 2008–2012, and community drinking water quality, 2010–2015 — United States. MMWR Surveill Summ 66:1–10. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6613a1
Sun C, Yuan X, Yao X (2016) Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: evidence from public’s willingness to pay for smog mitigation. Energy Policy 92:313–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.025
Ullah R, Jourdain D, Shivakoti GP, Dhakal S (2015) Managing catastrophic risks in agriculture: simultaneous adoption of diversification and precautionary savings. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 12:268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.02.001
Wahid A (2006) Influence of atmospheric pollutants on agriculture in developing countries: a case study with three new wheat varieties in Pakistan. Sci Total Environ 371:304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.06.017
WHO (2018) Ambient (outdoor) air pollution. In: Fact Sheets Ambient air Pollut. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health. Accessed 26 Jul 2020
Yamane T (1967) Statistics an introductory analysis, 2nd edn. Harper and Row, New York
Zaheer K, Colom A (2013) Pakistan: how the people of Pakistan live with climate change and what communication can do. In: Whitehead S, Wilson D (eds) Climate Asia. BBC Media Action, London, pp 1–87
Zhang L, Yuan Z, Maddock JE, Zhang P, Jiang Z, Lee T, Zou J, Lu Y (2014) Air quality and environmental protection concerns among residents in Nanchang, China. Air Qual Atmos Health 7:441–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-014-0255-x
Zhou N, Cui Z, Yang S, Han X, Chen G, Zhou Z, Zhai C, Ma M, Li L, Cai M, Li Y, Ao L, Shu W, Liu J, Cao J (2014) Air pollution and decreased semen quality: a comparative study of Chongqing urban and rural areas. Environ Pollut 187:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.030
Zou X, Azam M, Islam T, Zaman K (2016) Environment and air pollution like gun and bullet for low-income countries: war for better health and wealth. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:3641–3657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5591-3
Zulfiqar F, Ullah R, Abid M, Hussain A (2016) Cotton production under risk: a simultaneous adoption of risk coping tools. Nat Hazards 84:959–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2468-9
Funding
Not applicable. There is no funding information to be declared as this study was not funded by any organization.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
QA conceptualized this research. QA and RU participated in study design. QA, RU, and MAK prepared materials and conducted data collection. FZ along with the other three authors did data analysis and manuscript writing. FZ wrote the “Results and discussion” section. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Official permission was taken from each respondent for this study and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Consent to publish
No respondent was individually identified in this study. Therefore, this is not applicable.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Article highlights
• The economic costs of air pollution include lost workdays and extra health expenditures
• Higher exposure to air pollution resulted in a higher willingness to pay for environmental services
• Urban households’ willingness to pay was greater than rural households
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ain, Q., Ullah, R., Kamran, M.A. et al. Air pollution and its economic impacts at household level: willingness to pay for environmental services in Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 6611–6618 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11023-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11023-4