190 likes | 341 Views
Economic analysis of air pollution impacts from on-road mobile sources on health risks in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area. A research proposal Mia Amalia 23 July 2007. Soedomo et al., 1991. www.as.wn.com. www.time.com. www.eia.doe.gov. www.usc.edu. www.nature.com. www.usc.edu.
E N D
Economic analysis of air pollution impacts from on-road mobile sources on health risks in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area A research proposal Mia Amalia 23 July 2007
Soedomo et al., 1991 www.as.wn.com www.time.com www.eia.doe.gov www.usc.edu www.nature.com www.usc.edu Municipal waste www.usc.edu www.civeng.unsw.edu.au www.usc.edu
Urban air pollution dispersion model- definition • Meteorological model: • predict atmosphere’s ability to disperse, dilute and transfer pollutants • input: wind, temperature, topography • output: transfer coefficient • Dispersion model: • the simplest model is a Box Model • output: concentration of pollutants in sub areas Available models to be modified: SIM-AIR CAMx Q, air pollution creation rate • Emission model: • energy use from every sector • output: emissions from every sector H z x y u, wind velocity L W Source: de Nevers, 2000 b, pollutant concentration from another box
Urban air pollution dispersion model- strengths and weaknesses • SIM AIR: • Simple Interactive Model for • Better Air Quality • Flexible and non-location specific. • Can model both primary and secondary PM10 • Needs less data than other available urban air pollution models. • Needs some additional algorithm to be able to model O3 formation. • CAMx: • Comprehensive Air Quality Model • with Extension • Can model both O3 using many types of precursor substances (NOx limited or VOC limited) and both primary and secondary PM10. • Can simulate the emission, dispersion, chemical reaction and removal of pollutants from the troposphere. • Can interpolate emissions, land use and meteorological conditions • Needs a large amount of data for inputs Source: Environ International Corporation, 2006 Source: Environmental Management Centre, 2006
Urban air pollution dispersion model- application • Divide areas: • into grids or • subdistricts Input: amount of energy-used by four major sectors: industry, household, power-plant, transportation • Estimate: • industrial areas • settlement areas • transportation load Digital map Sectoral data Digital map Sectoral energy consumption data • Estimate: • emission distribution in every sub area • emission contribution from every sector including transportation sector • Emissions from every sector in each sub-area • Transfer coefficient. • Estimation of NOx proportion for O3 and PM10. • Estimation of secondary PM10 from NOx and SO2. • Estimation of O3 concentration from NOx and VOC. • Ambient concentration for PM10 and O3 in sub areas. • Sector contribution for each sub area. Meteorological data to estimate transfer coefficient Verify Ambient air monitoring data from 23 monitoring stations Source: Adopted from Environmental Management Centre, 2006
Urban air pollution dispersion model - summary of data needed
Dose-response model- properties Definition: Dose-response model is a mathematical model to estimate the amount of pollutant dose and number of sicknesses or deaths related to a particular pollutant. Source:Kunzli et al., 2000; McCubbin and Delucci, 1996; Hall et al., 1992 • Functional forms: • log linear • linear linear • logistic • Poisson regression • Examples: • minor restricted activity days caused by O3 • restricted activity day caused by PM10 Source: Kunzli et al., 2000 Source: Hall et al., 1992 • Strengths and weaknesses: • Can estimate number of health incidences related to a pollutant with respect to the study site’s specific condition. • More reliable than using available dose-response function adopted from other research conducted in other sites. • The process treated all information as uniform, cannot differentiate data based on the cause of health incidence.
Dose-response model- application • Identification of: • Health problems associated with PM10 and O3 • Socioeconomic groups • Age groups • Regression analysis: • Possible functions: asthma=f([O3],sosioeconomic group, age group) asthma=f([PM10], socioeconomic group, age group) premature death=f([PM10], socioeconomic group, age group) • Regression of pollutant with health impacts to certain group of population to develop dose response models • Apply all possible functions: linear-linear, log-linear, logistic or Poisson regression. • Select the most suitable function based on statistical evidence. • Annual incidence of respiratory related diseases • Annual incidence of premature deaths Dose-response models: for asthma and premature death caused by O3 and PM10 in the JMA Annual PM10 and O3 concentration from all sub areas – results from the first research question Source: Adopted from Kessel, 2006
Choice modelling- properties • Definition: • a technique where the good in question is described in terms of its attributes and levels of the attributes. • ‘Provide a wealth of information on the willingness of respondents to make trade offs between the individual attributes’ • Strengths and weaknesses: • Can measure use, passive and non use values • Can evaluate several changes and focus on trade offs between attributes. • Reliable to estimate marginal value of each attribute • Has the ability to control unobservable consumer utility and lead to a better understanding of respondent choices • WTP is indirectly estimated from the questionnaire not by directly asking the respondents • Can reduce framing problems • Still suffers from scoping problems and hypothetical bias • Complex and multiple choices can lead to respondents’ fatigue leading to irrational choices, • Discrepancies between the ‘whole’ value of good with the sum of the ‘part’ values • CM estimations are usually higher than CV estimations Source: Boxall et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2006; Hanley et al., 2001; Blamey et al., 1999; Riera, 2001; Bennett et al., 2004; Rolfe and Bennett, 2000; Rolfe et al., 2000; Mogas et al., 2006; Bennet and Blamey, 2001
Choice modelling- application Questionnaire development Survey • Data analysis • using possible models: • Multinomial logit model • Multinomial probit model • Nested logit model • Random parameter logit Output: The JMA citizens’ WTP for lower health risks Source: Adopted from Blamey et al., 1999; Hanley et al., 2001
Choice modelling- questionnaire development • Background for focus group discussion: • Link possible policy scenario for the transportation sector to reduce health risks • The status quo alternative is current condition without new policy for the transportation sector. • Focus group discussions: • Elaborate background information. • Develop possible scenarios. • Choose possible attributes. • Expose possible attributes’ levels. Using results from 1st and 2nd questions • Possible attributes and attributes’ levels: • citizens’ health conditions – results from 2nd question • possible amount of payment • Questionnaire test: • Focus group • In research site by the enumerators • Questionnaire: • Introduction • Framing • Statement of the issue • Choice sets • Socioeconomic questions Source: Adopted from Morrison and Bennett, 2004; Blamey et al., 1999; Bennett and Blamey, 2001; Hanley et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2006; Morrison et al., 2002; Bennett et al., 2004; Boxall et al. 1996
Choice modelling- survey • Sampling design: • Classification: • based on districts/municipalities: 23-97/subareas • based on socioeconomics groups: 200/groups • Households are identified based on the • National Socio-Economic Household Survey 2005 • (Susenas 2005) Population for 12 municipalities and districts 23,603,977 Source: Supas 2005 Susenas 2005 No. of blocks surveyed: 624 CM Survey 600 Survey technique: Face-to-face interviews Possible number of enumerators: 10 Number of days needed: 15 working days (can include the weekend) Source: Adopted from Robson, 2004; Tacconi, 2006; Bennett and Adamowics, 2001; Gordon et al., 2001; Keller, 2005; Wang et al., 2006; Mitchel and Carson, 1989
Contingent valuation- properties • Definition: • a technique of obtaining values by using a survey method. • directly ask people’s WTP of a good in question. • Strengths and weaknesses: • can estimate all types of environmental values, including non-use values • reliable for collecting information on the individual WTP for public infrastructure projects and public services in developing countries • can be used among a poor and illiterate population and can obtain a consistent answer • the application is limited to up to two policy alternatives • suffers from biases such as strategic, starting point, hypothetical and interviewer bias leading to WTP estimate bias. Source: Tietenberg, 2006; Mogas et al., 2006; Hanley et al., 2001; Rolfe et al., 2000; Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Blamey et al., 1999; Whittington et al., 1990; Riera, 2001; Garrod and Willis, 1999; Boardman et al., 2006; Lechner et al., 2003; Cameron and Quiggin, 1994; Poe, 2006; Hanley and Spash, 1993.
Contingent valuation- application • Questionnaire design • background information, • hypothetical market, • payment vehicle, • WTP questions, • protest identification and • socio economics questions Possible background information: description of new government program to improve JMA’s air quality The good in question: Health condition – answer to 2nd question Possible payment vehicle: property or income tax or other form of payment suggested by focus group discussion Output: The JMA citizens’ WTP for lower health risks Questionnaire is designed through a focus group discussion. Results from 1st and 2nd research questions are used for focus group discussion and background information • Data analysis • using possible models • Logit • Probit Survey procedure Same with CM • Questionnaire pre test • In the 2nd focus group • In the field by the interviewer Source: Tietenberg, 2006; Mogas et al., 2006; Hanley et al., 2001; Rolfe et al., 2000; Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Blamey et al., 1999; Whittington et al., 1990; Riera, 2001; Garrod and Willis, 1999; Boardman et al., 2006; Lechner et al., 2003; Cameron and Quiggin, 1994; Poe, 2006; Hanley and Spash, 1993; Satterfield and Kalof, 2005; Whittington, 1996; Whittington, 2002