IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v37y2022i4p2376-2394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating PM2.5‐Related health costs in China—Evidence from 140 Chinese cities

Author

Listed:
  • Zhi‐Nan Lu
  • Mingyuan Zhao
  • Yunxia Guo
  • Yu Hao

Abstract

Introduction In recent years, China's economy has grown rapidly, and the health condition of Chinese residents has significantly improved. However, this rapid economic and social development has also brought a series of environmental problems, such as serious haze pollution, of which the main contents are PM2.5 particles. The objective of this study is to quantitatively estimate the PM2.5‐related health costs in China. Methods Based on city‐level data from 140 major Chinese cities as well as the Beijing‐Tianjin‐Hebei, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta city clusters in 2010, the value of a statistical life method based on willingness to pay was employed. Moreover, global and local Moran's I values were calculated to examine the spatial distribution of the health cost of haze pollution in China. Results In areas with heavy haze pollution or a high level of economic development, residents' health costs will also be higher. In addition, there is a spatial aggregation phenomenon in the spatial distribution of health costs in China, which is mainly in the form of “high‐high” aggregation, with high‐value cities converging with other high‐value cities. Conclusions The health cost of haze pollution in China is very considerable, and there are regional differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhi‐Nan Lu & Mingyuan Zhao & Yunxia Guo & Yu Hao, 2022. "Evaluating PM2.5‐Related health costs in China—Evidence from 140 Chinese cities," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 2376-2394, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:37:y:2022:i:4:p:2376-2394
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3478
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.3478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), 2006. "Handbook on Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1893.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    3. Holub, Hans Werner & Tappeiner, Gottfried & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 1999. "Some remarks on the 'System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting' of the United Nations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 329-336, June.
    4. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    5. Alistair Hunt & Julia Ferguson & Fintan Hurley & Alison Searl, 2016. "Social Costs of Morbidity Impacts of Air Pollution," OECD Environment Working Papers 99, OECD Publishing.
    6. Lelia Croitoru & Jiyoun Christina Chang & Andrew Kelly, 2020. "The Cost of Air Pollution in Lagos," World Bank Publications - Reports 33038, The World Bank Group.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    3. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    4. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    7. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.
    8. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    9. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    10. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    11. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    12. Whynes, David K. & Sach, Tracey H., 2007. "WTP and WTA: Do people think differently?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 946-957, September.
    13. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The relationship between reliability and size of willingness‐to‐pay values: a qualitative insight," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 211-216, February.
    14. Wei Hsu & Chih-Hao Yang & Wen-Ping Fan, 2021. "A Study of Patients’ Willingness to Pay for a Basic Outpatient Copayment and Medical Service Quality in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-12, June.
    15. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332, December.
    16. Callan, Aoife & O'Shea, Eamon, 2015. "Willingness to pay for telecare programmes to support independent living: Results from a contingent valuation study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 94-102.
    17. Zoë Philips & David K. Whynes & Mark Avis, 2006. "Testing the construct validity of willingness to pay valuations using objective information about risk and health benefit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 195-204, February.
    18. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Faiza Siddiqui & Louise Bennet, 2018. "Valuing a Lifestyle Intervention for Middle Eastern Immigrants at Risk of Diabetes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, February.
    19. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    20. Krauth, Christian & Liersch, Sebastian & Jensen, Sören & Amelung, Volker Eric, 2016. "Would German physicians opt for pay-for-performance programs? A willingness-to-accept experiment in a large general practitioners’ sample," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 148-158.
    21. Raymond Y. T. Yeung & Richard D. Smith & Lai‐Ming Ho & Janice M. Johnston & Gabriel M. Leung, 2006. "Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete‐choice contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1077-1089, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:37:y:2022:i:4:p:2376-2394. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.