Skip to main content
Download PDF

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

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

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Synthesis

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].

Results

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.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

Full size image

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.

Table 1 Summary characteristics of included studies
Full size table

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.

Table 2 Summary of air pollution control strategies by intervention type and pollution control methodology
Full size table

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.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Analytical sequence for the economic evaluation of air pollution control strategies

Full size image

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 NOX, SOX, and O3 (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].

Table 3 Summary of cost–benefit results by pollution control category
Full size table

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 CO2 emissions by employing a carbon market price or CO2 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 SO2 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).

Discussion

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.

Conclusions

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

EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency

IPA:

Impact Pathway Approach

IAMs:

Integrated Assessment models

GCAM:

Global Change Assessment Model

GAINS:

Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies

CAMX:

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension

CMAQ:

Community Multiscale Air Quality model

BENMAP:

Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program

LAP:

Local Air Pollution

GCC:

Global Climate Change

VSL:

Value of Statistical Life

CRF:

Concentration Response Function

WTP:

Willingness to pay

COI:

Cost of Illness

HC:

Human Capital

LMICs:

Low- and middle-income countries

HIC:

High income countries

PM:

Particle matter

COPD:

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

References

  1. 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 

  2. 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 

  3. 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 

  4. 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 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  78. 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 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 

  125. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

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

  1. 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

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

    Rong Song

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

    Zhiwei Xu

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

    Mingsheng Chen

  5. Jiangsu Health Vocational College, Nanjing, China

    Mingsheng Chen

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

    Gian Luca Di Tanna

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

    Lei Si

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

    Lei Si

Authors
  1. Siyuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhiwei Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mingsheng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gian Luca Di Tanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Downey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stephen Jan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lei Si
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed 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

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s41256-024-00373-y

Keywords

Global Health Research and Policy

ISSN: 2397-0642

Contact us