Assessing the public health benefits of reduced ozone concentrations.
Assessing the public health benefits of reduced ozone concentrations.
复制标题
评估臭氧浓度降低的公共卫生益处。
DOI：
10.1289/ehp.011091215
复制
发表时间：
2001-12
影响因子：
10.4
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
在本文中，我们在臭氧减少效益成本分析的两个步骤中检查了科学证据和相关的不确定性：估计臭氧减少带来的健康改善并确定这些改善的适当货币价值。尽管存在关于分子和生理影响的大量证据，但建立浓度-反应函数所需的证据有些有限。此外，由于臭氧暴露取决于空调使用等因素，过去的流行病学研究可能无法直接适用于未经研究的环境。为了评估可能对益处产生重大贡献的证据，我们重点关注四种健康结果：过早死亡、慢性哮喘、呼吸系统住院和轻微限制活动天数。我们在德克萨斯州休斯顿的一个假设案例研究中确定了这些健康结果的浓度反应函数，使用概率加权反映了我们对证据强度和混杂可能性的判断。我们对估值做了类似的介绍，其中不确定性主要是由于缺乏受臭氧影响的人口的支付意愿数据。我们估计，休斯敦减少臭氧浓度每年带来的健康效益货币价值约为每人每微克每立方米（24 小时平均值）减少 10 美元（95% 置信区间，0.70 美元至 40 美元）。由于纳入了死亡率，中央估计值比过去的估计值高出约五倍。我们讨论我们的研究结果对未来分析的影响，并确定可能有助于减少效益估计不确定性的研究领域。
In this paper we examine scientific evidence and related uncertainties in two steps of benefit-cost analyses of ozone reduction: estimating the health improvements attributable to reductions in ozone and determining the appropriate monetary values of these improvements. Although substantial evidence exists on molecular and physiologic impacts, the evidence needed to establish concentration-response functions is somewhat limited. Furthermore, because exposure to ozone depends on factors such as air conditioning use, past epidemiologic studies may not be directly applicable in unstudied settings. To evaluate the evidence likely to contribute significantly to benefits, we focus on four health outcomes: premature mortality, chronic asthma, respiratory hospital admissions, and minor restricted activity days. We determine concentration-response functions for these health outcomes for a hypothetical case study in Houston, Texas, using probabilistic weighting reflecting our judgment of the strength of the evidence and the possibility of confounding. We make a similar presentation for valuation, where uncertainty is due primarily to the lack of willingness-to-pay data for the population affected by ozone. We estimate that the annual monetary value of health benefits from reducing ozone concentrations in Houston is approximately $10 per person per microgram per cubic meter (24-hr average) reduced (95% confidence interval, $0.70-$40). The central estimate exceeds past estimates by approximately a factor of five, driven by the inclusion of mortality. We discuss the implications of our findings for future analyses and determine areas of research that might help reduce the uncertainties in benefit estimation.