Health Benefits and Costs of Clean Heating Renovation: An Integrated Assessment in a Major Chinese City
Bin Zhao,Jing Zhao,Hao Zha,Ruolan Hu,Yalu Liu,Chengrui Liang,Hongrong Shi,Simiao Chen,Yue Guo,Da Zhang,Kristin Aunan,Shaojun Zhang,Xiliang Zhang,Lan Xue,Shuxiao Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00930
2021-07-01
Abstract:China has been promoting one of the world's largest campaigns for clean heating renovation since 2017. Here, we present an integrated cost–benefit analysis in a major prefecture-level city by combining a large-scale household energy survey and PM<sub>2.5</sub> exposure measurement, high-resolution chemical transport simulation, and health impact assessment. We find that the completed renovation decreases the share of solid fuels in the heating energy mix from 96 to 6% and achieves a concomitant reduction of cooking solid-fuel use by 70%. The completed renovation decreases the ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentration in Linfen by 0.5–5 μg m<sup>–3</sup> (2.4 μg m<sup>–3</sup> on average) and decreases the integrated PM<sub>2.5</sub> exposure by 4.2 (3.5–5.0) μg m<sup>–3</sup>. The renovation is estimated to avoid 162 (125–225) and 328 (254–457) premature deaths annually based on two health impact assessment methods. The ratios of monetized health benefits to cost are 1.51 (0.73–2.59) and 3.06 (1.49–5.23) based on the above two methods. The benefit-to-cost ratio is projected to remain high if the renovation is further expanded. More polluted and less wealthy households enjoy larger health benefits but also experience a higher expense increase, suggesting that a more carefully designed subsidy policy is needed to protect low-income households.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c00930?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c00930</a>.Additional details of the methods and data; household fuel consumption, relative time usage of heating/cooking energy, air pollutant emissions, triple-nested modeling domains used in this study, comparison of PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations, kernel density of the propensity score, and chemical compositions of ambient PM<sub>2.5</sub> (Figures S1–S7); difference of the covariates, annualized costs and willingness to pay per household, and performance statistics (Table S1–S4) (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.1c00930/suppl_file/es1c00930_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.
environmental sciences,engineering, environmental