• AIREditerSupprimer

    A cooperative reduction model for regional air pollution control in China that considers adverse health effects and pollutant reduction costs2016

    HU Q., WANG H., XIE Y., XU X., XUE J., ZHAO L.Journaux et Revues (scientifiques)

    analyse coût-bénéfice / coût-efficacité, coûts / mesures de réduction, mortalité, pollution, santé, SOx

    Science of The Total Environment
    Volume 573, 15 December 2016, Pages 458–469

    • CRM considering AHEs and reduction cost was proposed for regional air pollution control.
    • CRM is applied to a case study of SO2 reduction in the Yangtze River Delta in China.
    • We compared the difference of lives saving from MRD and MCD under CRM and NCRM.
    • CRM performed better in AHE reduction and cost saving than NCRM in the case study.

    How to effectively control severe regional air pollution has become a focus of global concern recently. The non-cooperative reduction model (NCRM) is still the main air pollution control pattern in China, but it is both ineffective and costly, because each province must independently fight air pollution. Thus, we proposed a cooperative reduction model (CRM), with the goal of maximizing the reduction in adverse health effects (AHEs) at the lowest cost by encouraging neighboring areas to jointly control air pollution. CRM has two parts: a model of optimal pollutant removal rates using two optimization objectives (maximizing the reduction in AHEs and minimizing pollutant reduction cost) while meeting the regional pollution control targets set by the central government, and a model that allocates the cooperation benefits (i.e., health improvement and cost reduction) among the participants according to their contributions using the Shapley value method. We applied CRM to the case of sulfur dioxide (SO2) reduction in Yangtze River Delta region. Based on data from 2003 to 2013, and using mortality due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as the health endpoints, CRM saves 437 more lives than NCRM, amounting to 12.1% of the reduction under NCRM. CRM also reduced costs by US $65.8 × 106 compared with NCRM, which is 5.2% of the total cost of NCRM. Thus, CRM performs significantly better than NCRM. Each province obtains significant benefits from cooperation, which can motivate them to actively cooperate in the long term. A sensitivity analysis was performed to quantify the effects of parameter values on the cooperation benefits. Results shown that the CRM is not sensitive to the changes in each province's pollutant carrying capacity and the minimum pollutant removal capacity, but sensitive to the maximum pollutant reduction capacity. Moreover, higher cooperation benefits will be generated when a province's maximum pollutant reduction capacity increases.

  • Retour