Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 305–329 | Cite as

Valuing Health Impacts from Air Pollution in Europe

  • Ståle Navrud


Health impacts make up asignificant portion of the damage costs fromair pollution. In lack of European valuationstudies on morbidity impacts, cost-benefitanalyses, transport and energy externalitystudies, and green accounting exercises inEurope have all used values from more than tenyear old US valuation studies. Results from anew Contingent Valuation study, using animproved version of the survey design of themost transferred US morbidity study, show thatrespiratory symptom days and asthma attacks arevalued lower in Norway than in the US.Correction were made for differences inpurchase power between the two countries, butthe US values are still expressed in 1986dollar values; indicating that the differencebetween the two estimates could be even higher.Thus, the practise of transferring US estimatesand only adjusting the values with the consumerprice index could lead to highly biased valuesin the Norwegian case. The difference betweenthe US and Norwegian values can be explained byimproved CV survey and sample design, differentpreferences in Norway compared to the US, anddifferent public health care systems. We do notknow if we can generalise the results from thisNorwegian study to the rest of Europe, but thestudy clearly illustrates the uncertainty intransferring results from one country toanother.

air pollution damage benefit transfer contingent valuation health valuation morbidity 


  1. Bergland, O., K. Magnussen and S. Navrud (1995), ‘Benefit Transfer: Testing forAccuracy and Reliability. Discussion Paper D-03/95, Department of Economics, Agricultural University of Norway’, Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of The European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE),Umea, Sweden, June 17–20. Shorter, revised version forthcoming in Florax, R. J. G. M., P. Nijkamp and K. Willis, eds. (2001), Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment: Meta Analysis and Benefit Transfer. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Cropper, M. L. and A.M. Freeman III (1991), ‘Environmental Health Effects’, Chapter VI in J.B. Braden and C.D. Kolstad, eds., Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Amsterdam/New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Downing, M. and T. Ozuno (1996), ‘Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach’,Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics and Management 30(3), 316–322.Google Scholar
  4. EuropeanCommission DG XII (1995), ExternE Externalities of Energy. Vol. 1: Summary. European Commission, Directorate General (DG) XII — Science Research and Development, Report EUR 16520 EN. Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission DG XII (1997), P. Bickl, S. Schmid, W. Krewit and R. Friedrich, eds., ExternalCosts of Transport in ExternE. IER, University of Stuttgart. Final Report, August. Report to the European Commission, Directorate-General XII.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission DG XII (1999), ExternE Externalities of Energy.Vol. 10: National Implementation, EUR 18528. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  7. Gynther, L., T. Otterström, P. Vesaand M. Kosonen (1996), Cost-Efficiency Analysis of Reducing Emissions from the Energy Sector (in Finnish, Abstract in English). Report to the Technology Development Center's SIHTI 2 Programme (Project 126 Y); Ekono Energy Ltd, Espoo, August, 86 pp + appendicesGoogle Scholar
  8. Halvorsen, B. (1996), ‘Ordering Effects inContingent Valuation Surveys. Willingness to Pay for Reduced Health Damage from Air Pollution’, Environmental and Resource Economics 8(4), 485–499.Google Scholar
  9. Markandya, A. and M. Pavan, eds. (1999), GreenAccounting in Europe: Four Case Studies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Mitchell, R. C. and R. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent ValuationMethod. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. NOAA (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA Panel onContingent Valuation’, Federal Register 58, 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  12. Navrud, S. (1994), ‘Economic Valuationof External Costs of Fuel Cycles. Testing the Benefit Transfer Approach’, in A. T. Almeida et al., eds., Integrated Electricity Resource Planning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 49–66.Google Scholar
  13. Ready, R. C., S. Navrud, B. Day, R. Dubourg, F. Machado, S. Mourato, F. Spanninks and M.X. V. Rodriquez (1999), Benefit Transfer in Europe. Are Values Consistent Across Countries? Paper Presented at the EVE Workshop on Benefit Transfer (EU Concerted Action: Environmental Valuation in Europe (EVE), Lillehammer, October. Draft Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, As, Norway.Google Scholar
  14. Rosendahl, K. E. (1998), ‘Health Effects and Social Costs of Particulate Pollution — aCase Study for Oslo’, Environmental Modelling and Assessment 3(1–2), 47–61.Google Scholar
  15. Rozan, A. (1999),Évaluation Contingente des Bénéfices de Santé d'une Amelioration de la Qualité de l'air. L'exemple de la Région Strasbourgeoise (Contingent Valuation of Health Benefits from an Improvement in Air Quality. Case: The Strassbourg Region). Ph.D. Thesis, Louis Pasteur University, Strasbourg, France, 249 pp + appendices (in French).Google Scholar
  16. Tolley, G., L. Babcock et al. (1986), Valuation of Reductions in Human Health SymptomsandRisks, Report for US EPAgrant no. CR-811053-01-0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  17. Tolley, G., D. Kenkel and R. Fabian, eds. (1994), Valuing Health for Policy. An EconomicApproach. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ståle Navrud
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Social SciencesAgricultural University of NorwayNorway

Personalised recommendations