| Literature DB >> 35564929 |
Qianqian Liu1,2, Guanpeng Dong3,4, Wenzhong Zhang5, Jiaming Li5.
Abstract
Air pollution imposes detrimental impacts on residents' health and the general quality of life. Quantifying the influential mechanism of air pollution on residents' happiness and the economic value brought by environmental quality improvement could provide a scientific basis for the construction of livable cities. This study estimated urban residents' willingness to pay for air pollution abatement by modeling the spatial relationship between air quality and self-rated happiness with a Bayesian multi-level ordinal categorical response model. Using large-scale geo-referenced survey data, collected in the Bohai Rim area of China (including 43 cities), we found that a standard deviation decrease in the number of polluted days over a year was associated with about a 15 percent increase in the odds of reporting a higher degree of happiness, after controlling for a wide range of individual- and city-scale covariate effects. On average, urban residents in the Bohai Rim region were willing to pay roughly 1.42 percent of their average monthly household income for mitigating marginal reductions in air pollution, although great spatial variability was also presented. Together, we hoped that these results could provide solid empirical evidence for China's regional environmental policies aiming to promote individuals' well-being.Entities:
Keywords: Bohai Rim area; China; air pollution; multi-level modeling; well-being; willingness to pay
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564929 PMCID: PMC9102462 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095534
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Summary of existing empirical studies on the marginal willingness to pay.
| Authors | Region | Sample | Objects | WTP | Income | Share of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang and Mullahy [ | Chongqing | 500 | air pollution | 14.3 yuan | 3575 | 0.4 |
| Wang and Zhang [ | Jinan | 1500 | air pollution | 100 yuan | 14,286 | 0.7 |
| Cai and Zheng [ | Beijing | 880 | air pollution | 652.3 yuan | 56,646 | 1.1 |
| Yang and Xu [ | Tianjin | 678 | (TSP) and (SO2) | 147.3 yuan | 7014 | 2.1 |
| Hammitt and Zhou [ | Beijing | >1200 | air quality | 149–422 yuan | 10,654 | 1.4–4.0 |
| Hammitt and Zhou [ | Anqing | >1200 | air quality | 25–50 yuan | 5319 | 0.5–0.9 |
| Sun et al. [ | China | 1051 | smog mitigation | 1590.36 yuan | 15,612 | 1 |
| Wang et al. [ | Shanghai | 975 | air pollution | 504 yuan for medical workers and 428 yuan for community residents | - | - |
| Zhang et al. [ | China | - | PM2.5 | 258 yuan | 14,313.9 | 1 |
| Dong et al. [ | Beijing | 5700 | PM2.5 | 1926 yuan | 74,096 | 2.6 |
| Lee et al. [ | Seoul | 5,401,369 | PM2.5 inhalation | $20.20 | - | - |
| Ndambiri et al. [ | Nairobi | 488 | air quality | $4.67 | - | - |
| Luechinger [ | 137 countries | 223,982 | SO2 pollution | $154 and $344 | 0.6 and 1.3 | |
| Levinson [ | US | 6035 | PM10 | $41 and $17 | - | - |
| Bayer et al. [ | US | 10,000 households | particulate matter | $149-$185 | - | - |
Notes: a denotes the contingent valuation method (CVM); b presents the happiness approach; c refers to the hedonic approach.
Figure 1The conceptual framework of this study.
Descriptive summary of variables in the analysis.
| Variables | Description | Means (Standard Deviation) |
|---|---|---|
| Happiness | 1 = very unhappy | 1.11% |
| 2 = unhappy | 3.24% | |
| 3 = fair | 26.76% | |
| 4 = happy | 51.18% | |
| 5 = very happy | 17.72% | |
| Income | Monthly income (RMB) | 6868 (5311) |
| Education | Junior college degree or above | 62.04% |
| Housing type | Commodity housing | 43.04% |
| Housing tenure | Owners | 63.71% |
| Male | Female as base category | 53.43% |
| Age | <20 | 3.68% |
| 20~30 | 39.74% | |
| 30~40 | 29.53% | |
| 40~50 | 25.21% | |
| >50 | 1.83% | |
| Self-rated health | 1 = very unsatisfied | 0.49% |
| 2 = unsatisfied | 4.17% | |
| 3 = fair | 27.47% | |
| 4 = satisfied | 48.43% | |
| 5 = very satisfied | 19.44% | |
| Air pollution | Days with 24-h average The number of days with PM2.5 concentration exceeding 75 μg/m3 | 153 (69) |
| Wind speed | Average annual wind speed (m/s) | 2.40 (0.27) |
| Temperature | Average annual temperature | 12 (2.28) |
| Precipitation | Average annual precipitation (m3/h) | 594 (115.13) |
| Per capita GDP | GPD/total population | 60,217 (29,809) |
| Industry structure | Shares of secondary industry as % of GDP | 46.69% |
Figure 2Spatial distribution of happiness in the Bohai Rim area.
Model estimation results from multi-level ordinal response models.
| Response | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | CI (2.5%) | CI (97.5%) | Median | CI (2.5%) | CI (97.5%) | Median | CI (2.5%) | CI (97.5%) | |
| Income | 0.504 *** | 0.401 | 0.573 | 0.283 *** | 0.198 | 0.357 | 0.284 *** | 0.193 | 0.373 |
| Air pollution | −0.002 ** | −0.005 | 0.000 | −0.004 ** | −0.008 | 0.000 | −0.003 *** | −0.006 | −0.001 |
| Commodity Housing | −0.06 | −0.175 | 0.052 | −0.067 | −0.179 | 0.047 | |||
| Owners | 0.737 | 0.607 | 0.87 | 0.751 *** | 0.623 | 0.881 | |||
| Male | −0.159 *** | −0.256 | −0.06 | −0.179 *** | −0.277 | −0.08 | |||
| Age | −0.011 | −0.082 | 0.057 | 0.001 | −0.073 | 0.07 | |||
| College degree | 0.121 ** | 0.011 | 0.231 | 0.139 *** | 0.031 | 0.247 | |||
| Married | 0.347 *** | 0.208 | 0.487 | 0.310 *** | 0.169 | 0.455 | |||
| Wind speed | 0.370 * | −0.216 | 1.108 | 0.564 *** | 0.187 | 0.965 | |||
| Temperature | 0.057 | −0.072 | 0.157 | 0.048 *** | −0.007 | 0.103 | |||
| Industry structure | 0.034 *** | 0.005 | 0.079 | 0.024 *** | 0.007 | 0.046 | |||
| Per capita GDP | 0.214 | −0.51 | 1.000 | −0.000 *** | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||
| Precipitation | −0.476 | −2.141 | 0.905 | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.001 | |||
| Self-rated health (reference: very bad) | |||||||||
| Bad | 4.918 *** | 5.76 | 4.102 | ||||||
| Fair | 3.122 *** | 3.402 | 2.845 | ||||||
| Good | 2.243 *** | 2.404 | 2.083 | ||||||
| Very good | 1.355 *** | 1.496 | 1.214 | ||||||
| City-level variance | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.008 | 0.113 | 0.056 | 0.21 |
| DIC | 14,558 | - | - | 13,354 | - | - | 13,280 | - | - |
Note: *, ** and *** represents a statistical significance level of 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Robust check results with different model specifications.
| Response | Robust I | Robust II | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | CI (2.5%) | CI (97.5%) | Median | CI (2.5%) | CI (97.5%) | |
| Income | 0.285 *** | 0.146 | 0.39 | 0.352 *** | 0.284 | 0.456 |
| Air pollution | −0.005 *** | −0.007 | −0.001 | −0.004 *** | −0.011 | −0.001 |
| Commodity housing | −0.044 | −0.165 | 0.079 | −0.031 | −0.161 | 0.111 |
| Owner | 0.714 *** | 0.572 | 0.86 | 0.790 *** | 0.645 | 0.936 |
| Male | −0.137 *** | −0.246 | −0.03 | −0.221 *** | −0.329 | −0.11 |
| Age | −0.052 * | −0.131 | 0.026 | −0.034 | −0.115 | 0.048 |
| College degree | 0.157 *** | 0.038 | 0.28 | 0.251 *** | 0.126 | 0.379 |
| Married | 0.353 *** | 0.19 | 0.519 | 0.400 *** | 0.247 | 0.554 |
| Wind speed | 0.378 | −0.408 | 1.101 | 0.525 *** | 0.24 | 0.974 |
| Temperature | 0.062 * | −0.03 | 0.149 | 0.005 | −0.085 | 0.182 |
| Industry structure | 0.026 ** | −0.002 | 0.059 | 0.050 *** | 0.028 | 0.073 |
| Per capita GDP | −0.000 ** | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.000 * | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Percipitation | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.002 | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.001 |
| Self-rated health (reference: very bad) | ||||||
| Bad | 5.409 *** | −6.394 | −4.453 | 3.773 *** | −4.534 | −3.009 |
| Fair | 3.253 *** | −3.563 | −2.943 | 2.77 *** | −3.066 | −2.464 |
| Good | 2.331 *** | −2.509 | −2.15 | 1.815 *** | −2.012 | −1.628 |
| Very good | 1.435 *** | −1.592 | −1.277 | 0.87 *** | −1.057 | −0.684 |
| City level variance | 0.148 | −0.275 | −0.078 | 0.004 | −0.007 | −0.002 |
| DIC | 11,012 | - | 8474 | - | ||
Note: *, **, and *** represent statistical significance levels of 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively.
Figure 3Willingness to pay and its proportion of monthly income from Bohai Rim Area urban residents. Those regions are coded by abbreviation as follows: JNa—Jinan, TJ—Tianjin, DL—Dalian, ZB—Zibo, QD—Qingdao, DD—Dandong, ZJK—Zhangjiakou, HLD—Huludao, JNb—Jining, LW—Laiwu, TS—Tangshan, CD—Chengde, TL—Tieling, WF—Weifang, DZ—Dezhou, LY—Linyi, SY—Shenyang, YT—Yantai, LF—Langfang, HS—Hengshui, LY—Liaoyang, ZZ—Zaozhuang, WH—Weihai, BX—Benxi, LC—Liaocheng, BZ—Binzhou, PJ—Panjin, CZ—Cangzhou, JZ—Jinzhou, FX—Fuxin, TA—Tai’an, XT—Xingtai, HD—Handan, SJZ—Shijiazhuang, AS—Anshan, QHD—Qinhuangdao, HZ—Heze, YK—Yingkou, BD—Baoding, RZ—Rizhao, FS—Fushun, CY—Chaoyang, and DY—Dongying.