IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05097551.html

Perceived Economic Benefits of Reducing the Risk of Mortality from Air Pollution in France
[Perception des avantages économiques de la réduction du risque de mortalité lié à la pollution atmosphérique en France]

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline Orset

    (UMR PSAE - Paris-Saclay Applied Economics - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, ULaval - Université Laval [Québec])

  • Marco Monnier

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

France must meet the daily and annual air quality thresholds established by the World Health Organization. Consequently, there is an urgent need to reinforce public policies to mitigate the risk of mortality associated with air pollution. The concept of the value of a statistical life (VSL) serves as a decision-support tool in the formulation of such policies. The VSL is derived from a contingent valuation survey, which assesses individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce the risk of death linked to air pollution, using a representative sample of the French population. This study's findings indicate that various factors shape the WTP for risk reduction. These include perceived characteristics, such as the temporality and magnitude of pollution-related damages, the level of awareness regarding these harms, and the degree of individual exposure. Personal and behavioural factors, including age, income, place of residence, and the adoption of preventive measures, also play a significant role. The estimated average VSL ranges from €0.085 million to €0.158 million. These results highlight, first and foremost, a widespread public acceptance of measures to mitigate this risk as citizens demonstrate a readiness to contribute financially. Secondly, they emphasise the extent to which the French population recognises the economic and societal benefits of public health investments to reduce mortality caused by air pollution. The study suggests stricter air quality standards and economic incentives, such as pollution taxes and subsidies for clean technologies, to reduce mortality risks from air pollution and align government expenditures with societal priorities for health and environmental conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline Orset & Marco Monnier, 2025. "Perceived Economic Benefits of Reducing the Risk of Mortality from Air Pollution in France [Perception des avantages économiques de la réduction du risque de mortalité lié à la pollution atmosphérique en France]," Post-Print hal-05097551, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05097551
    DOI: 10.1142/S1464333225500024
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05097551v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05097551v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1464333225500024?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Alberini & Alistair Hunt & Anil Markandya, 2006. "Willingness to Pay to Reduce Mortality Risks: Evidence from a Three-Country Contingent Valuation Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(2), pages 251-264, February.
    2. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-184, September.
    3. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2014. "Monetary values for risk of death from air pollution exposure: a context-dependent scenario with a control for intra-familial altruism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 67-91, March.
    5. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    6. Chilton, Susan & Covey, Judith & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Spencer, Anne, 2002. "Public Perceptions of Risk and Preference-Based Values of Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 211-232, November.
    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. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel, 2018. "Peeling back the onion: Using latent class analysis to uncover heterogeneous responses to stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 165-189.
    2. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Rex Labao & Herminia Francisco & Dieldre Harder & Florence Santos, 2008. "Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 251-264, June.
    4. Álvarez Díaz, Marcos & González Gómez, Manuel & Saavedra González, Ángeles & De Uña Álvarez, Jacobo, 2010. "On dichotomous choice contingent valuation data analysis: Semiparametric methods and Genetic Programming," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 145-156, April.
    5. Alberini, Anna & Chiabai, Aline, 2007. "Urban environmental health and sensitive populations: How much are the Italians willing to pay to reduce their risks?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 239-258, March.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    7. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka, 2005. "Risk Perceptions and Value of a Statistical Life for Air Pollution and Traffic Accidents: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 261-287, May.
    8. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    9. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    10. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    11. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    12. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    14. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    15. Libby, Lawrence W., 1985. "Who Should Pay for Nonpoint Pollution Abatement?," Staff Paper Series 200892, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Abay Asfaw & Joachim Braun, 2005. "Innovations in Health Care Financing: New Evidence on the Prospect of Community Health Insurance Schemes in the Rural Areas of Ethiopia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-253, September.
    17. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    18. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    19. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-05097551. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.