ecological economics in global environmental change · debata o przyszlosci energetyki wysowa,...

Debata o Przyszlosci EnergetykiWysowa, Poland, 4 – 7 May, 2010

Ecological Economics Ecological Economics in Global Environmental Changein Global Environmental Change

Jozef M. PacynaCenter for Ecological Economics

Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway

NILU’s task is to establish quantitative relationships between:

Emissions • Dispersion • Deposition •Air Quality • Exposure • Effects

NILU’s mission statement

Human Capital EconomicProductionProcess

GoodsandServices

EvolvingCulturalNorms andPolicy

Well Being(Individual andCommunity)

Consumption

Education, training,research.

Building

Investment

GNP

Wastes

Ecologicalservices/amenities

negative impacts on all forms of capital

Restoration,

ConservationNatural Capital

ManufacturedCapital

positive impacts on human capital capacity

SolarEnergy

SocialCapital

p g y

Waste heat

Institutional

rules, norms, etc.

Expanded Model of the Ecological Economic System

Materially closed earth system

Atmosphere

Hydrosphere

Lithosphere

Biosphere Anthropo-sphere

EcosystemServices

HumanImpacts

Natural Capital Human-made Capital(includes ManufacturedCapital, Human Capital,and Social Capital

Basic structure of the General Unified Metamodel of the BiOsphere (GUMBO)

SolarEnergy

Summary of global values of annual ecosystem services (From: Costanza et al. 1997

Value per ha

($/ha/yr)

577 252

4052 22832 19004 6075 1610

804 969

2007 302 232

14785 9990

19580 8498

92

Global Flow Value

(e12 $/yr)

20.9 8.4

12.6 4.1 3.8 0.3 4.3

12.3 4.7 3.8 0.9 0.9 4.9 1.6 3.2 1.7

0.1

33.3

Biome

MarineOpen OceanCoastal

Estuaries Seagrass/Algae Beds Coral Reefs Shelf

TerrestrialForest

Tropical Temperate/Boreal

Grass/RangelandsWetlands

Tidal Marsh/Mangroves Swamps/Floodplains

Lakes/RiversDesertTundraIce/RockCroplandUrban

Total

Area (e6 ha)

36,302 33,200 3,102

180 200 62

2,660

15,323 4,855 1,900 2,955 3,898

330 165 165 200

1,925 743

1,640 1,400

332

51,625

Summary of economic capitalism system

Economic progress can best occur in free market systems of production and distribution where reinvested profits make labor and capital increasingly productive

Competitive advantage is gained when bigger, more efficient plants manufacture more products for sale to expanding market

Growth in total output (GDP) at least maximizes human well-being

N:\adm\arkiv\overhead\2006\CEE\Yale-2.ppt 7

Summary of economic capitalism system

Any resource shortages that do occur may elicit the development of substitutes

Concerns for a healthy environment are important but must be balanced against requirements of economic growth, if high standard of well-being is to be maintained

Free enterprise and market forces will allocate people and resources to their highest and best uses


Summary of natural capitalism system

The environment is not a minor factor of production but a vehicle for the entire economy

The limiting factor to future economic development is the availability and functionality of natural capital, e.g. life supporting services with no market value

Misconceived or badly designed business systems, population growth, and consumption patterns are the primary causes of the loss of natural capital


Summary of natural capitalism system

Future economic progress can best take place in democratic market based on systems of production and distribution in which all forms of capital are fully valued

Radical increases in resource productivity are the key to the most beneficial employment of people, money, and environment

Human welfare is best served by improving the quality and flow of desired services delivered rather than merely increasing in the total dollar flow


Extraction

Processing

Distribution

Storage

MediaAir

Soil

Water

Food

Gases

Solids

Chemicals/ solutes

Energy

Indoor

Ambient

Occupational

Agents

Emission

Corrosion/ corasion

Discharge

Leakage

Dumping

Inhalation

Dermal contact

Ingestion

Settings

Exposures

Transport

Diffusion

Mass transfer

Health outcomes

Sub-clinical

Morbidity

Mortality

Vulnerability

Age

Gender

Pre-existing health

Lifestyle

Healthcare

POLICY

DALYs/ QALYs

Costs/ Benefits

Perception

Impacts

Equity

Goals

Aversions

Entitlements

Values

Europe:The Full Chain Approach to IA

From: INTARESE, www.intarese.org

IMPORT/EXPORT

ORE ENVIRONMENT

PROCESS-ING

FABRICA-TION

USE WASTEMGT.

IMPORT/EXPORT

ORE ENVIRONMENT

PROCESS-ING

FABRICA-TION

USE DISCARDMGT.

STAF Project© Yale University 2004

>100 200

330 1101500

1340

120 40

1300

1000

AF

AF

Ores and Other Nonfuel Mineral Resources

(Mercury, Gold, Zinc, Nickel, Tin, Copper, Silver, Lead, Iron,

Limestone, etc.)

VL

RetiremenTby Humans

(Warehouse, Landfill, or Deep Bedrock

Repository)

Product Use (Homes,

Businesses, Agriculture,

Medical, Dental)

Disposal ofProducts, Wastes

MV*

DA*

SV*

RS*

RXT*

OM*

DXT*

MP*

MD*

PD*

DR*

RM

SedimentBurial

(Oceans, Lakes,

River Deltas)

AXB

Geological Mercury Naturally

Available to Volatilize

XGV

Land storage 1000000

Increases 0.2% per year

LA

PV

XOO

Small-scale Gold

Mining

XCC*

PH

SH*

MH*

CV*

XO XTXG XB

OV*

OS*

SA*

DV*

OA*Recycling of MercuryXCXT*

CXT*

FH*FW

FH*FW

FH*FW

Coal + Other Fossil

Fuel Deposits

(Oil and Gas)

XC

Coal+Other Fossil Fuel Combustion

300

830

LV3500 1600

1700

Aquatic Systems

680

Ocean Storage288000

increases 0.2%per year

Land

Mercury Vapor in the

Atmosphere

Atmosphere Storage5000

Increases less than 2% per year

200

Fish

3100 2600VA AV

FH*FW

Humans Wildlife

~2200

2400 = total anthropogenic emissions

700

500

500

500

>2500

1600

1200

AF

OreRefining Manufacturing

Important Global Pathways of Mercuryin Commerce and the Environment

For each source category and compound of interest:

E.g national statisticsNational reported

or estimatedHandbooks,Publications,

Other inventories

Lack of historic dataAvailability

Unknown sources

Abatement technologies,

spatial and temporal considerations

Uncertainty assessment

Fit?

Activity * Emission Factor = Emissions

Basic emission inventory methodology

WP 03 - database on emission reduction measures, potential and costs (2)

WP 03 - database on emission reduction measures, potential and costs (2)

Monthly average elemental mercury surface concentrations (ng/m3)

GRAHM (Global/Regional Atmospheric Heavy Metals Model) simulation – Ashu Dastoor, Meteorological Service of Canada,

Environment Canada

Global transport modelling

Mercury deposition in the NH

МСЦ-В

MSC-E

Total annual mercury deposition densityTotal annual mercury deposition density

AER/EPRI Modeling System for Atmospheric MercuryChristian Seigneur

Contribution of sources other than U.S.anthropogenic sources to Hg deposition

Resulting concentrations for PCDD/Fs

Air Deposition Top soil concentration Ocean concentrationColor scale:0-22000 fg TEQ/m3

Color scale:0-22000 mg TEQ/km3/a

Color scale:0-1400 fg TEQ/g

Color scale:0-10 fg TEQ/l

Concentrations for the base year 2000

Top soil:Upper 5 cm.

Base year 2000

1510.34 fg TEQ/m3

BAU 2010

1035.29 fg TEQ/m3

MFTR 2010

812.78 fg TEQ/m3

Color scale always covering 0 – 10000 fg TEQ/m3

Air concentration for all DROPS scenarios (1)

Base year 2000

1510.34 fg TEQ/m3

BAU 2020

826.98 fg TEQ/m3

MFTR 2010

582.77 fg TEQ/m3

Color scale always covering 0 – 10000 fg TEQ/m3

Air concentration for all DROPS scenarios (2)

Extraction

Processing

Distribution

Storage

MediaAir

Soil

Water

Food

Gases

Solids

Chemicals/ solutes

Energy

Indoor

Ambient

Occupational

Agents

Emission

Corrosion/ corasion

Discharge

Leakage

Dumping

Inhalation

Dermal contact

Ingestion

Settings

Exposures

Transport

Diffusion

Mass transfer

Health outcomes

Sub-clinical

Morbidity

Mortality

Vulnerability

Age

Gender

Pre-existing health

Lifestyle

Healthcare

POLICY

DALYs/ QALYs

Costs/ Benefits

Perception

Impacts

Equity

Goals

Aversions

Entitlements

Values



agriculturalagriculturalsoilsoil

forestforestsoilsoil

forestforestcanopycanopy

fresh waterfresh water

coastalcoastalsedimentsediment

coastalcoastalwaterwater

open open waterwater

bottombottomwaterwater

bottombottomsedimentsediment

atmosphere

interphase transferdirect emissiondegradation lossadvection with air and water

Terrestrial Environment Marine Environment

fresh water sedimentfresh water sediment

Contaminant Mas Balance

Technology drivers for emission changesdue to changes in EFs

Base year 2000

BAU+Climate 2010

BAU-Climate 2010

MTFR 2010

Control MeasuresDatabase

Base year 2000Implementation

Future MeasureImplementation

harmoniseactivities and EFs

expert judgement

regulations for sourcesand/or technologies

all available relevantmeasures (ΔEF, Costs, etc.)

OMEGA-HMOptimisation Model

emissions

activities

BAU measure

implementation

• additional emission reduction (between BAU+Climate and MTFR)

• additional costs of abatement• lists of measures implemented (i.e. increased

impl. degree or added measure in uncontrolledsources)

• resulting changes in concentrations/deposition• ...

MSC-E HM Model WATSON

SR-Matrices

depositionTrend Projection (PRIMES, etc.)Drivers for changes in emissions

due to activity changesTemp/SpatialResolution

Directives, Treatiesetc. Meta-data

(AND, XOR, ...)

ESPREMEIllustrated Model-Data-Flows

Sources Emissions into Air Emissions into Soil / Water

Fate

Mod

ellin

g

Boundary LayerAir Model

ExposureModel

Humans

Trade

FishFarm animalsCrops

WATSON: Approach

Impacts +Valuation

Soil / WaterModel

Soilsof different use

Freshwaters

Sediment

Accumulated exposure of selected HMs and POPs due to inhalation for all considered DROPS scenarios

Comparison of European emissions and accumulated exposures via the inhalation pathway

Emissions for different scenarios

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

As Cd Hg Ni Pb PCBs PCDDFs

2000

BAU_2010

BAU_2020

MFTR_2010

MFTR_2020

Accumulated exposure for different scenarios

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

As Cd Hg Ni Pb PCBs PCDDFs

2000

BAU 2010

BAU 2020

MFTR 2010

MFTR 2020

Sum of anthropogenic and natural direct and indirect releases into the media air, water and soil [t/year] as considered for the ingestion pathway

Pollutant 2000 BAU 2010 BAU 2020 MFTR 2010 MFTR 2020

As 108,736 108,574 108,427 108,415 108,270

Cd 1,396 1,261 1,145 1,116 1,005

Cr 18,636 18,257 17,742 15,925 15,925

Ni 11,309 10,266 9,284 8,660 7,987

Pb 24,530 20,030 18,280 18,527 16,917

PCBs 41.07 20.54 12.24 12.71 2.24

PCDDs 0.0049 0.0036 0.0030 0.0025 0.0017

Accumulated exposure of selected HMs and POPs due to ingestion of different food items for all considered DROPS scenarios

Accumulated exposure of selected HMs and POPs due to ingestion of drinking water for all considered DROPS scenarios

Comparison of the accumulated exposure via the ingestion of different food items and the ingestion of drinking water

Accumulated exposure via food ingestion for different scenarios

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

As Cd Cr Ni Pb PCBs PCDDFs

2000

BAU 2010

BAU 2020

MFTR 2010

MFTR 2020

Accumulated exposure via water ingestion for different scenarios

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

As Cd Cr Ni Pb PCBs PCDDFs

2000

BAU 2010

BAU 2020

MFTR 2010

MFTR 2020

Fraction of different food items and drinking water to the overall accumulated exposure due to the ingestion pathway (BAU 2010 scenario)

Fraction of food and water to the overall acccumulated exposure for BAU 2010

>99%>99%98.2%98.6%53.8%98.7%75.6%

<1%<1%1.8%1.4%46.2%1.3%24.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

As Cd Cr Ni Pb PCBs PCDDs

food w ater

Extraction

Processing

Distribution

Storage

MediaAir

Soil

Water

Food

Gases

Solids

Chemicals/ solutes

Energy

Indoor

Ambient

Occupational

Agents

Emission

Corrosion/ corasion

Discharge

Leakage

Dumping

Inhalation

Dermal contact

Ingestion

Settings

Exposures

Transport

Diffusion

Mass transfer

Health outcomes

Sub-clinical

Morbidity

Mortality

Vulnerability

Age

Gender

Pre-existing health

Lifestyle

Healthcare

POLICY

DALYs/ QALYs

Costs/ Benefits

Perception

Impacts

Equity

Goals

Aversions

Entitlements

Values



Exposure-response functions for heavy metals

Exposure time is the number of years of exposure that are needed, to cause the increase of risk for some health endpoint.

Population group denotes the part of the population, the absolute risk factor refers to.

Ozone, PM10 (increase in concentration)MortalityRespiratory hospital admissionsConsultations for allergic rhinitisMinor RAD (reduced activity days) Bronchodilator useCoughLower respiratory symptoms

Carcinogens: unit risk factor, percent fatalinhalation (Benzene, Formaldehyde, Inorganic As, Cd, CrVI, Ni, PCB)water (Inorganic As, PCB)food (Inorganic As, PCB, dioxins)

Neurotoxicants, ingestion including water – IQ points lost due to avg. ingestion 1 microg/day (Pb, methyl-Hg)

Health end-points

Damage/benefit-based methodswelfare measurementneoclassical economics welfare economics

CostCost--based methodsbased methodsAvoidance costs or Restoration costsAvoidance costs or Restoration costs

Valuation of Health Benefitsmortality (acute or chronic)morbidity (acute or chronic)dis-welfare associated with a quality of life (IQ decrement, learning behaviour and mental dvlp., nervous system…)

Putting monetary values onnon-market goods

CBA: cost-benefit analysis: based on monetary valuation

MCA: multicriteria analysis: based on non-monetary valuation to provide information for CEA (cost efficiency of a given policy)

What is the Life worth of?Approaches for estimation of

benefits of policy interventions

Revealed-preferences techniques: e.g. Hedonic method (goods are characterized by a set of attributes and utility comes from the value of each attribute)

Cost of Illness (COI)

Stated-preferences techniques: e.g. Contingent valuation method (CVM) based on information on max WPT to compensate for variation of well-being

What is the Life worth of?Monetary valuation

QALY: Quality-Adjusted Life Years; death is scored as 0 while good health as 1; presented often in Euro/QALY

DALY: Disability-Adjusted Life Years: time spent at different ages and with different level of disability; presented in Euro/DALY

What is the Life worth of?Non-economic valuation

estimate a welfare change due to a decrease or avoided mortality risks by deriving willingness-to-pay(compensating or equivalent surplus)

supported by the economic theory

Value of a Statistical Life (VSL)

Value of Life Year (VOLY)

Years of Life Lost (YOLL)

What is the Life worth?

VSL, in mil.€Type of risk being valued

Unitmean median

CZECH REPUBLIC- by exchange rate- (1:1000 / 5:1000)

EURO (2004)

1.27(3.06 / 0.78)

0.58(1.92 / 0.49)

- by PPP (purchasing power parity)

Cardiovascular and respiratory causes of death EURO

(2004) 2.86 1.32

ITALY

Cardiovascular and respiratory causes of death

EURO (2004) 3.77 0.89

USA - (1:1000)- (5:1000)

All causes of death

USD (2000)

4.831.54

1.110.70

CANADA- (1:1000)- (5:1000)

All causes of death

USD (1999)

2.520.63

0.890.34

UK-FRANCE-ITALY(NewExt Project)

All causes of death

EURO (2002)

1.05 - 2.26

Recommended VSL value

- by EC- by EPA

1.0 mil. euro6.5 mil. USD

VSL results

Identification of health end-points and review of concentration-response functions

Review of benefit valuation

Cost-of-illness: treatment costs and loss of productivity

Benefit transfer and uncertainties related to monetary valuation

Uncertainties in epidemiological data and provide guidance

Assessment of health benefits

Impairment development: IQ decrement (loss in productivity, remedial education)

Mortality: Value of life year loss (VOLY), Costs-of-illness (before death)

Morbidity valuation: Dis-comfort, Loss in productivity, Costs-of-illness

Monetary valuation review

cost-of-illnessDirect (resource) costs i.e. medical costs paid by the health service (or covered by insurance), and any other personal out-of-pocket expensesIndirect (opportunity) costs i.e. the cost in terms of lost productivity (work time loss, performing at less than full capacity) and the opportunity cost of leisure

diswelfareDis-utility is not captured in COI (except for costs of pain-killers etc.) – a WTP value is needed

Methodology

endpoint population at riskChronic bronchitis 27+Respiratory hospital admission allCardiac hospital admission allConsultation with primary care physician

- asthma 0-14; 15-64; 65+- upper respiratory diseases 0-14; 15-64; 65+Restricted activity day 15-64Work loss day 15-64Medication use /bronchodilator use

5-14 (PEACE); 20+ (asthmatics)

Lower respiratory symptoms symptomatic adults; 5-14Acute respiratory symptoms all

Health effects related to PM exposure

Health effects related to ozone exposure

endpoint population at risk

Respiratory hospital admission 65+

Consultation with primary care physician

0-14; 15-64

Minor restricted activity day 18-64

Medication use / bronchodilator use

5-14 asthma

Lower respiratory symptoms excluding cough

5-14

Cough days 5-14

Costs of general practitioner consultation

Country Cost of GP consultation (children, in EUR) Cost of GP consultation (adults, in EUR)

Poland 8.7 8.7

Czech Republic 4.2 3.5

Western Europe 44 44

Labour productivity per effective working day (in EUR2005)Country

Labour productivityCountry

Labour productivity

Belgium € 332 Malta € 149

Bulgaria € 34 Netherlands € 292

Czech Republic € 98 Austria € 298

Denmark € 351 Poland € 81

Germany € 285 Portugal € 135

Estonia € 86 Romania € 41

Ireland € 385 Slovenia € 138

Greece € 211 Slovakia € 81

Spain € 223 Finland € 305

France € 319 Sweden € 315

Italy € 294 United Kingdom € 298

Cyprus € 183 Norway € 495

Latvia € 59 EU 27 € 243

Lithuania € 65 EU 25 € 256

Luxembourg € 722 EU 15 € 285

Hungary € 106 NMS 10 € 89

Source: EUROSTAT, own calculations

Medical treatment costs for selected health endpoints (in EUR2005)

Country CzechRepublic Norway Poland Germany EU15

(ExternE)

Respiratory hospital admission 320 2 535 320 – 640 5 378 1 009

Average length of stay (days) 6.5 4.2 12 9.7 3 (assumed)

Cardiac hospital admission 670 3 575 565 5 031 1 009

Average length of stay (days) 7.2 . 13 7 3 (assumed)

GP consultation (children) 4.2 8.7 44

GP consultation (adults) 3.5 8.7 44

Bronchodilator use (per daily dose, children) 0.4 0.3 1

Bronchodilator dose (per daily dose, adults) 0.4 0.4 1

Acute respiratory symptoms in children 10.5

Loss in earnings and education costs

$1990

partic-weighted average (2.39%)

males (1.93%)

females (3.22%)

Salkever(assumption)

i) Loss in earnings $4 067 $3 284 $5 479 $3 352

ii) Costs of education $285 $285 $285 $219

iii) Opport costs while in school $566 $566 $566 $435

Total (i-ii-iii) $3 216 $2 433 $4 628 $2 698

€2005

partic-weighted average (2.39%)

males (1.93%)

females (3.22%)

Salkever(assumption)

i) Loss in earnings 4 962 € 4 007 € 6 685 € 4 090 €

ii) Costs of education 348 € 348 € 348 € 267 €

iii) Opport costs while in school 691 € 691 € 691 € 531 €

Total (i-ii-iii) 3 924 € 2 969 € 5 647 € 3 292 €

Casual model of lead exposure, cognitive ability and economic productivity

Source: taken from Grosse (2007)

Table: Total economic costs per 1IQ point Assuming the 0.107 years of additional education by Salkever (1995)

PRTR=0% PRTR=1% PRTR=3% PRTR=5%

EU27 21 171 € 13 986 € 6 313 € 2 939 €EU25 22 355 € 14 773 € 6 676 € 3 113 €EU15 25 189 € 16 637 € 7 512 € 3 503 €NMS10 7 967 € 5 249 € 2 354 € 1 087 €

Austria 26 361 € 17 418 € 7 867 € 3 667 €Belgium 29 794 € 19 696 € 8 907 € 4 159 €Germany 24 138 € 15 957 € 7 218 € 3 372 €Denmark 31 399 € 20 757 € 9 389 € 4 386 €Spain 19 614 € 12 955 € 5 846 € 2 722 €Finland 27 401 € 18 135 € 8 226 € 3 857 €France 28 628 € 18 942 € 8 586 € 4 022 €UK 26 125 € 17 266 € 7 804 € 3 642 €Greece 20 589 € 13 626 € 6 180 € 2 897 €Ireland 34 713 € 23 002 € 10 469 € 4 934 €Italy 24 363 € 16 095 € 7 267 € 3 386 €Luxembourg 40 478 € 26 714 € 12 029 € 5 581 €Netherlands 25 850 € 17 092 € 7 736 € 3 617 €Norway 46 011 € 30 481 € 13 862 € 6 526 €Portugal 11 988 € 7 904 € 3 548 € 1 639 €Sweden 28 357 € 18 744 € 8 476 € 3 958 €Switzerland 42 782 € 28 463 € 13 092 € 6 264 €Latvia 5 033 € 3 304 € 1 464 € 662 €Estonia 7 547 € 4 978 € 2 235 € 1 031 €Lithuania 5 649 € 3 715 € 1 654 € 753 €Poland 7 105 € 4 686 € 2 106 € 974 €Hungary 9 396 € 6 196 € 2 782 € 1 285 €Czech Rep. 8 250 € 5 431 € 2 428 € 1 115 €Slovenia 12 759 € 8 442 € 3 826 € 1 792 €Slovakia 7 622 € 5 035 € 2 272 € 1 057 €Romania 3 369 € 2 192 € 950 € 415 €Bulgaria 2 334 € 1 503 € 631 € 262 €Cyprus 15 743 € 10 424 € 4 736 € 2 227 €Malta 13 084 € 8 653 € 3 919 € 1 835 €

Exposure- and dose-response relationships used in the impact assessment of DROPS

Pollutant Exposureroute

Exposure time

[years]

Population group Effect Absolute

riskExposure unit,intake rate

Slope factor,

[risk/(kg/y)]

As Inhalation 70 all Skin cancer 4,00E-04 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]As Inhalation 70 all Lung cancer 1,50E-03 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]

As ingestion (food) 70 all fatal cancer 1,50E+00 [risk/( ET*mg/kg(BW)/day] 8,39E-01

As ingestion (water) 70 all fatal cancer 5,00E-05 [risk/( ET*µg/liter)] 9,78E-01Cd Inhalation 70 all Lung cancer 1,80E-03 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]

CrVI Inhalation 70 all Lung cancer 4,00E-03 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]Ni Inhalation 70 all Lung cancer 3,80E-04 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]

Pb Inhalation 5 minors Children's IQ 1,00E-01 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]

Pb ingestion (food) 1 age (0,1) IQ points loss in children 4,20E-02 [risk/( ET*µg/day)] 1,17E+03Pb ingestion (water) 1 age (0,1) IQ points loss in children 4,20E-02 [risk/( ET*µg/day)] 1,17E+03

MeHg ingestion (food) 1 minor IQ points loss in children 1,45E-01 [risk/(µg/day)] 2,90E-10

PCB inhalation 70 all cancer 1,00E-04 [risk/( ET*ug/m3]

PCBs ingestion (food) 70 all fatal cancer 8,00E-03 [risk/( ET*mg/kg(BW)/day] 4,47E-03

PCBs ingestion (water) 70 all fatal cancer 1,00E-05 [risk/( ET*µg/liter)] 1,96E-01

PCDDs ingestion (food) 70 all fatal cancer 2,00E+05 [risk/( ET*mg/kg(BW)/day] 1,12E+05

Note: ET – exposure time, BW – body weight, SF – slope factor, i.e. a number of risks/cases per 1kg of intake per capita and year.

Review of cost-of-illness studies in lung cancer

Valuation of cancersCOI for non-fatal cancer

Author country approach per capita costs (in EUR2005)

direct costs

indirect costs

Koopmanschap (1994) Netherlands incidence and prevalence 4,597 yes no

Evans et al. (1995) Canada incidence 14,135 yes no

Berthelot et al. (2000) Canada incidence 16,709 – 27,713 yes no

Wolstenholme and Whynes (1999) UK incidence 9,280 / 8,553 yes no

Weissflog et al. (2001) Germany incidence 150,582 yes (16,564)

yes (134,018)

Serup-Hansen et al. (2003) Denmark incidence 55,770 yes (20,169)

yes (35,601)

Braud et al. (2003) France incidence 12,518 yes no

Chouaid et al. (2004) France incidence 17,153 – 23,041 yes no

Vergnenegre et al. (2004) France incidence 25,643 yes no

Abal Arca et al. (2006) Spain incidence 3,692 / 5,070 yes no

Our study (2008) Czech Republic incidence 44,700 yes (6,186)

yes (38,500€)

20,000 €2005 WE

6,000 €2005 CEE

Industrial Activity

Heavy Metal Pollution

Loss of Productivity Years of Life Lost (reduced population)

Cost of Illness (health costs)

Macroeconomic Effects

Model Flow

Productivity effects

CAFE scenarios for ozone dose to 2020 (Baseline, MFTR),dose-response functions,production of 5 main crops sensitive to ozone in year 2000 in whole Europe,market prices of these crops.

Calculation of non-health benefits

for base year and scenarios (in million tonnes) in Europe

wheat potatoes grapes tomatoes apples

Theoretical production 2000 207.4 159.4 42.7 35.8 20.4

Base year 2000 24.0 15.7 8.0 6.2 3.0

Baseline 2020(BAU+Climate) 12.6 8.6 4.2 3.6 1.5

MFTR 2020 8.7 6.3 2.9 2.8 1.0

Reduction of crops yield due to ozone exposure

Annual reduction of yieldfor 50x50 km cell

in thousand tonnes

Reduction of wheat yield – base year 2000


in thousand tonnes

Reduction of wheat yield – BAU+Climate 2020


in thousand tonnes

Reduction of wheat yield – MFTR 2020

The change in annual damages for 5 crops (in billion euro)

based on Eurostat (2002) selling prices of cropsValues are 4 times bigger than AEAT (2005) results

ScenarioDamagesin 2000

Damagesin 2020

BENEFITS

BAU+Climate 6.2 5.1

MFTR11.3

4.5 6.7

Monetary benefits

ecological economics in global environmental change · debata o przyszlosci energetyki wysowa,...

Documents