Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-w4vgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T11:32:40.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Monetary valuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Ari Rabl ,
Joseph V. Spadaro  and
Mike Holland
Ari Rabl
Affiliation:
Ecole des Mines, Paris
Joseph V. Spadaro
Affiliation:
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
Mike Holland
Affiliation:
Ecometrics Research and Consulting (EMRC)
Get access

Summary

Summary

The chapter on monetary valuation begins with a discussion of discounting, a tool that is necessary for the correct accounting of costs that occur at different times. A particularly important and controversial issue is the intergenerational discount rate, in Section 9.1.3. This is followed, in Section 9.2, by an overview of valuation methods, especially for non-market goods. Section 9.3 addresses the important case of the valuation of mortality, especially the loss of life expectancy due to air pollution. Morbidity valuation follows in Section 9.4, including a discussion of DALY and QALY scores. Section 9.5 addresses the valuation of neurotoxic impacts (value of an IQ point). Section 9.6 discusses the transfer of values to situations that are different from the original valuation studies.

Note that the valuation of some impact categories has been discussed in other chapters: Chapter 4 for buildings, Chapter 5 for agricultural losses and ecosystems, Chapter 6 for noise and traffic congestion (plus brief comments on visibility, non-renewable resources, accidents, employment, and security of energy supply), and Chapter 10 for global warming. A summary of the monetary values for health impacts will be provided in Table 12.3 of Chapter 12.

Comparing present and future costs

The effect of time on the value of money

It may be appropriate to begin this chapter with a tool that is needed whenever there are costs that occur at different times. Such a cost must be adjusted to a common time basis because a dollar (or any other currency) unit to be paid in the future does not have the same value as a dollar available today. This time dependence of money is due to two, totally different, causes. The first is inflation, the well-known and ever present erosion of the value of our currency. The second reflects the fact that a dollar today can buy goods to be enjoyed immediately or it can be invested to increase its value by profit or interest. Thus a dollar that becomes available in the future is less desirable than a dollar today; its value must be discounted. This is true even if there is no inflation. Both inflation and discounting are usually characterized in terms of annual rates.

Type
Chapter
Information
How Much Is Clean Air Worth?
Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control
 , pp. 356 - 406
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbey, D. E., Lebowitz, M. D., Mills, P. K. et al. (1995) Long-term ambient concentrations of particulates and oxidants and development of chronic disease in a cohort of non-smoking Californian residents. Inhalation Toxicology 7: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abt 2000. The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions. October 2000. Prepared for EPA by Abt Associates Inc., 4800 Montgomery Lane, Bethesda, MD20814–5341.Google Scholar
Abt 2004. Power Plant Emissions: Particulate Matter-Related Health Damages and the Benefits of Alternative Emission Reduction Scenarios. Prepared for EPA by Abt Associates Inc. 4800 Montgomery Lane. Bethesda, MD20814–5341.Google Scholar
Alberini, A. and Krupnick, A. 2003. Valuing the health effects of pollution. In, Tietenberg, T. and Folmer, H., The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2003/2004. A Survey of Current Issues. Cheltenham, UK. Edward Edgar, 233–277.Google Scholar
Arnesen, T. and Trommald, M. 2004. Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. Journal of Health Services Research & Polic, 9(1): 43–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Leamer, E. et al. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Federal Register, 58, nº10.
Ashenfelter, O. and Greenstone, M. 2004. Using mandated speed limits to measure the value of a statistical life, Journal of Political Economy 112 (S1): S226–S267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, T. M. 2006. Hazardous substances and human health: exposure, impact and external cost assessment at the European scale. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boiteux, M. 2001. Transports: choix des investissements et coût des nuisances. Commissariat General du Plan, Paris.Google Scholar
Borella, L., Finkel, S., Crapeau, N. et al. 2002. Volume et coût de la prise en charge hospitalière du cancer en France en 1999. Bull. Cancer 89 (9): 809–821.Google Scholar
CBI 1998. Missing Out: 1998 Absence and Labour Turnover Survey, London: Confederation of British Industry (CBI)Google Scholar
CEA 2006. Catalog of Preference Scores. Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry of Tufts-New England Medical Center. Downloaded 2 July 2006 from
Cline, W. (5 January 2008). Comments on the Stern Review. Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. Retrieved 20 May 2009.
DEFRA 2004. Chilton, S., Covey, J., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G. and Metcalf, H.Valuation of health benefits associated with reductions in air pollution. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London.Google Scholar
Desaigues, B, Ami, D., Bartczak, A. et al. 2011. Economic Valuation of Air Pollution Mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecological Indicators 11 (3): 902–910. For more detail see also, by the same authors, Final report on the monetary valuation of mortality and morbidity risks from air pollution, Framework VI Research Programme (Project no: 502687 ‘New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability’ [NEEDS]).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desaigues, B. and Rabl, A. 1995. Reference values for human life: an econometric analysis of a contingent valuation in France. In Schwab, Nathalie & Soguel, Nils, editors (1995) Contingent Valuation, Transport Safety and Value of Life, Kluwer, Boston. This paper can also be downloaded from Google Scholar
EC 2000. Recommended Interim Values for the Value of Preventing a Fatality in DG Environment Cost Benefit Analysis. Recommendations by DG Environment, based on a workshop for experts held in Brussels on November 13th 2000.
EPA 2003. Children’s Health Valuation Handbook. United States Office of Children’s Health Protection EPA 100-R-03-003 Environmental Protection Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation Agency National Center for Environmental Economics Health Valuation. October 2003.
ExternE 1998. ExternE: Externalities of Energy. Vol.7: Methodology 1998 Update (EUR 19083); Vol.8: Global Warming (EUR 18836); Vol.9: Fuel Cycles for Emerging and End-Use Technologies, Transport and Waste (EUR 18887); Vol.10: National Implementation (EUR 18528). Published by European Commission, Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, L-2920 Luxembourg.
ExternE 2000. External Costs of Energy Conversion - Improvement of the ExternE Methodology and Assessment of Energy-Related Transport Externalities. Final Report for Contract JOS3-CT97-0015, published as Environmental External Costs of Transport. Friedrich, R. & Bickel, P., editors. Springer VerlagHeidelberg 2001.Google Scholar
ExternE 2004. Final report for Project NewExt New Elements for the Assessment of External Costs from Energy Technologies, European Commission DG Research, Contract No. ENG1-CT2000-00129, coordinated by Friedrich, R., IER, University of Stuttgart; and final report for project ExternE-Pol Externalities of Energy: Extension of accounting framework and Policy Applications, European Commission DG Research, Contract No. N° ENG1-CT2002-00609. EC DG Research, coordinated by A. Rabl. Available at and at Google Scholar
ExternE 2005. ExternE: Externalities of Energy, Methodology 2005 Update. Edited by Bickel, P. and Friedrich, R.. Published by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Sustainable Energy Systems. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. .Google Scholar
ExternE 2008. With this reference we cite the methodology and results of the NEEDS (2004–2008) and CASES (2006–2008) phases of ExternE. For the damage costs per kg of pollutant and per kWh of electricity, we cite the numbers in the data CD that is included in the book edited by Markandya, A., Bigano, A. and Porchia, R. in 2010: The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. They can also be downloaded from (although in the latter, some numbers have changed since the data CD in the book).Google Scholar
Gollier, C. and Weitzman, M. L. 2010. How should the distant future be discounted when discount rates are uncertain?, Economics Letters, Elsevier, 107(3): 350–353, June.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, P. 2013. Environmental Economics: An Integrated Approach. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL33487.Google Scholar
Griffiths, C., McGartland, A. and Miller, M. 2007. A comparison of the monetized impact of IQ decrements from mercury emissions. Environ Health Perspect. 115(6): 841–847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grosse, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J. and Jackson, R. 2002. Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(6): 563–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, M. 2010. Valuing the Future: the social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Visiting Researcher Paper, Productivity Commission, Canberra. Media and Publications, Productivity Commission, Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East, Melbourne VIC 8003. Email: .
Ives, D. P., Kemp, R. V. and Thieme, M. 1993. The Statistical Value of Life and Safety Investment Research. Environmental Risk Assessment Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Report n°13 February 1993.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A. and Cropper, M. 1992. The effect of information on health risk valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., Cropper, M. et al. 2002. Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: A contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. J Risk and Uncertainty 24(2): 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnick, A., Harrison, K., Nickell, E. and Toman, M. 1996. Value of health benefits from ambient air quality improvements in Central and Eastern Europe, an exercise in benefits transfer, Environmental and Resource Economics 7: 307–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindjhen, H., Navrud, S., Braathen, N. A. et al. 2011. Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental, transport and health policies: A global meta-analysis of stated preference studies. Risk Analysis, 31(9): 1381–1407.Google Scholar
Mason, H., Jones-Lee, M. and Donaldson, C. 2008. Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: A New Approach Based on UK Data. Health Econ 18 (8): 933–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, C. D., Bernard, C., Iburg, K. et al. 2003. The Global Burden of Disease in 2002: data sources, methods and results. Geneva, World Health Organization (GPE Discussion Paper No. 54). Downloaded 16 July 2006 from .
Miller, W., Robinson, L. A., Lawrence, R. S., 2006. Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. Institute of Medicine’s Committee to Evaluate Measures of Health Benefits for Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation. p. 382. Online publication at: .
Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R. T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington, DC.
Mrozek, J. R., and Taylor, L. O. 2002. What determines the value of life? A meta-analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(2): 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, T. and Zegarac, M. 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: economic and health costs of four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Environmental Health Perspectives 109, Supplement 6 (December): 885–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, C. J. L., and Acharya, A. K. 1997. Understanding DALYs. Journal of Health Economics 16(6): 703–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navrud, S. 2004. Value Transfer and Environmental Policy. I: , T. and Folmer, H. (red.) The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2004/2005. A Survey of Current Issues. New Horizons in Environmental Economics Series. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, US, 189–217.Google Scholar
Netten, A. and Curtis, L. 2000. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2000. Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU). .
OECD 2012. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies, OECD Publishing. Google Scholar
Otterstrom, T., Gynther, L. and Vesa, P. 1998. The willingness to pay for better air quality, Ekono Energy Ltd.Google Scholar
Pennington, D., Crettaz, P., Tauxe, A. et al. 2002. Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs: part 2 – noncancer effects. Risk Analysis 22 (5): 947–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priez, F. and Jeanrenaud, C. 1999. Human costs of chronic bronchitis in Switzerland. Swiss J. Economics and Statistics 135(3): 287–301.Google Scholar
Rabl, A. 1996. Discounting of long term costs: what would future generations prefer us to do?Ecological Economics 17: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ready, R., Navrud, S., Day, B. et al. 2004. Benefit transfer in Europe: How reliable are transfers across countries?, Environmental & Resource Economics 29: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, G. and Hammitt, J. K. 2005. Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from US Coal-Fired Power Plants. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Boston, MA. February 2005.Google Scholar
Salkever, D. S. 1995. Updated estimates of earnings benefits from reduced exposure of children to environmental lead. Environmental Research 70: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salomon, J. A., Vos, T., Hogan, D. R., Gagnon, M. et al. 2012. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380: 2129–2143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, J. 1994. Societal benefits of reducing lead exposure. Environmental Research 66: 105–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2004. Cost Benefit Analysis. Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 8, Pretoria, Google Scholar
Spackman, M. 2006. Social Discount Rates for the European Union: An Overview. Università degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Aziendali e Statistiche, Working Paper no. 2006–33, October.Google Scholar
Spadaro, J. V. and Rabl, A. 2008b. Global health impacts and costs due to mercury emissions. Risk Analysis 28 (3): 603–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stern, N. et al. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Available at Google Scholar
Tol, R. S. J. 2005. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 33: 2064–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trasande, L., Landrigan, P. J. and Schechter, C. 2005. Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(5): 590–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treasury Board of Canada 2007. Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide Regulatory Proposals, .
UK 2008. Intergenerational wealth transfers and social discounting: Supplementary Green Book guidance. HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. Available at Google Scholar
Van Ewijk, C. and Tang, P. 2003. How to price the risk of public investment?, De Economist 151, no. 3: 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W. K., Magat, W. A. and Huber, J. 1991. Pricing environmental health risks: Survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar tradeoffs for chronic bronchitis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21(1): 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. 2004. The value of life: Estimates with risks by occupation and industry. Economic Inquiry 42.1: 29–48. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, H., Boyd, R., Taylor, T. and Markandya, A. 2006. Explaining Variation in Amenity Costs of Landfill: Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer. Presented at the Third World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Kyoto, July 3rd-7th 2006.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. 1998. Why the far distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. 2001. Gamma Discounting, American Economic Review 91, no. 1, March: 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhuang, J., Liang, Z., Lin, T. and De Guzman, F. 2007. Theory and Practice in the Choice of Social Discount Rate for Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Survey, ERD Working Paper No. 94, Asia Development Bank, May.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×