Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands
H I G H L I G H T S
WTP to avoid air pollution and noise effects substantially varied by country.
Risk perceptions and environmental concerns affected WTP estimates.
Perception and concern differences affected between-country differences in WTP.
Air pollution WTP is higher than for noise if only qualitative information is given.
WTP to avoid severe annoyance was higher than for 1/2 year change in life expectancy.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 April 2014
Received in revised form 18 July 2014
Accepted 29 July 2014
Available online 19 August 2014
Editor: P. Kassomenos
Keywords:
Air pollution
Noise
Willingness-to-pay
Health risks
Trafc
Contingent valuation
a b s t r a c t
We conducted a multi-country study to estimate the perceived economic values of trafc-related air pollution
and noise health risks within the framework of a large European project. We used contingent valuation as a
method to assess the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for both types of pollutants simultaneously. We asked respondents how much they would be willing to pay annually to avoid certain health risks from specic pollutants.
Three sets of vignettes with different levels of information were provided prior to the WTP questions. These vignettes described qualitative general health risks, a quantitative single health risk related to a pollutant, and a
quantitative scenario of combined health risks related to a pollutant. The mean WTP estimates to avoid roadtrafc air pollution effects for the three vignettes were: 130 per person per year (pp/y) for general health
risks, 80 pp/y for a half year shorter in life expectancy, and 330 pp/y to a 50% decrease in road-trafc air pollution. Their medians were 40 pp/y, 10 pp/y and 50 pp/y, respectively. The mean WTP estimates to avoid
road-trafc noise effects for the three vignettes were: 90 pp/y for general health risks, 100 pp/y for a 13% increase in severe annoyance, and 320 pp/y for a combined-risk scenario related to an increase of a noise level
from 50 dB to 65 dB. Their medians were 20 pp/y, 20 pp/y and 50 pp/y, respectively. Risk perceptions and
attitudes as well as environmental and pollutant concerns signicantly affected WTP estimates. The observed differences in crude WTP estimates between countries changed considerably when perception-related variables
were included in the WTP regression models. For this reason, great care should be taken when performing benet
transfer from studies in one country to another.
2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
1. Introduction
The health risks of trafc-related air pollution (e.g., increased risks of
heart attacks, the exacerbation of asthma among children, and reductions in life expectancy/LE) and noise (e.g., noise annoyance, sleep disturbance, hypertension, cardiovascular risks, and poorer school
Corresponding author at: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
(RIVM), A. van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, Netherlands. Tel.: +31 30 27
44 728; fax: +31 30 27 44 451.
E-mail addresses: tifanny.istamto@rivm.nl, t.istamto@uu.nl (T. Istamto).
performance) have been extensively documented by a numerous epidemiological studies (Brunekreef and Holgate, 2002; Hoek et al., 2002;
World Health Organization, 2012, 2013; Basner et al., 2014). These
health and wellbeing risks generate substantial costs for society
(El-Fadel and Massoud, 2000; Kan and Chen, 2004; Zhang et al., 2007;
Pascal et al., 2013) that are external to a large extent because they are
not reected in the market price of transportation or accounted for in
the allocation of economic resources (Levy et al., 2010). It is increasingly
recognised by the European Ministerial Conferences on Environment
and Health and WHO that in order to effectively and efciently manage
environmental quality, it is necessary to take into account all costs and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.110
0048-9697/ 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
421
422
risk scenarios. The basic model consisted of variables that have been frequently identied as signicant in the literature (i.e., age, gender, years
of education, country, income and health score). To the basic model, we
added perception-related variables to construct the extended model.
This extended model consisted of awareness of the increased health
risks associated with road-trafc-related air pollution/noise, their environmental concern, severe concern regarding the health risks of air pollution/noise, annoyance due to air pollutants/noise, constant freight
trafc, sensitivity to road-trafc air pollution/noise, difculty relaxing
in a location with air pollution/noise, condence in the government to
reduce road-trafc air pollution/noise, and opinions concerning policy
attempts to reduce road-trafc air pollution/noise and improve the
wellbeing of residents. The extended models were used to test our hypotheses presented in the Introduction, about the role of risk perception
aspects.
The 11-point scale for the level of annoyance was dichotomised into
very annoyed or not annoyed; scores of 810 were categorised as
very annoyed, following on the ISO convention (ISO/TS 15666:2003).
This was also the case for annoyance by air pollution, and the level of
concern by noise and air pollution. The 5-point scale for the
perception-related variables was converted into smaller agree, neutral,
or disagree or yes or no scales. The 3-point awareness scale was converted into a yes or no scale in which those who selected very much
aware were categorised as yes. Since the percentages were rounded
in this study, summing percentages (%) may not add up to 100%. All of
our analyses were performed with IBM Statistics SPSS Version 19.
3. Results
There were 10,464 responders participating in the web-survey. Respondents in the air pollution module (N = 5243) and those in the
noise module (N = 5251) came from similar socio-demographic backgrounds in terms of age, sex, net household income, nancial position,
and years of education. According to the follow-up questions to 0 responses, approximately 10% of the participants were unwilling to provide monetary values (i.e., a protest response). The primary reasons
provided for registering a protest response to the WTP question regarding reduced air pollution were (i) these costs should be included in
transportation prices (30%); (ii) the government should pay all costs
to reduce air pollution (30%); and (iii) principally opposition to
assigning a monetary value to health (20%). With regard to noise,
these gures were (i) 26%, (ii) 33%, and (iii) 20%, respectively. Approximately 50% answered, I don't know; these don't know responses are
described in greater detail elsewhere. After excluding respondents who
provided Protest votes and Don't know responses and applying the
1.5% cut-off point for WTP values, 2458 respondents in the air pollution
module and 2426 respondents in the noise module remained. Table 1
describes the prevalence of the health-, environmental-, attitude-, and
perception-related factors per country.
Several noteworthy differences between countries were observed
regarding the perception and attitude indices. For example, compared
with respondents from other countries, the Dutch were the least concerned with the environment in general as well as air pollution and
noise specically and the least annoyed at home by road-trafc air pollution and noise. Moreover, they had the lowest perceived sensitivity to
pollutants, the least difculty relaxing in polluted location, and agreed
signicantly more often with the statement that the government had
done its best to reduce air and noise pollutants. The citizens of other
countries exhibited specic differences relative to the Dutch. Finnish respondents stated that they had the busiest freight trafc near dwellings
(between two and four times greater than the Dutch). Spaniards had
the greatest environmental concern (nearly three times higher) and
were more concerned about road-trafc-related air pollution and
noise (nearly ve to seven times greater). Moreover, they perceived
themselves as more sensitive to air pollution and noise risks (nearly
three times higher), felt the most annoyed by road-trafc-related air
423
Table 1
Health-, environment-, attitude-, and perception-related factors regarding road-trafc-related air pollution and noise by country. The numbers indicate the percentage of people who
responded positivelya, except perceived general health scores (ranging from 0 to 100).
NL
DE
ES
FI
Air
pollution
Noise Air
pollution
UK
Noise Air
pollution
Noise Air
pollution
Noise Air
pollution
Noise Air
pollution
Pooled data
Noise
69
24
67
28
58
46
68
33
77
42
68
35
38
38
24
8
3
43
34
24
6
3
32
34
34
21
15
32
32
36
17
13
28
34
38
27
12
29
33
38
24
13
11
23
66
50
32
9
25
66
48
29
19
44
37
6
5
21
36
42
8
6
25
34
40
23
14
27
32
41
20
13
6
19
41
4
27
55
6
31
58
6
40
71
8
31
68
7
46
74
5
69
70
5
70
78
15
22
58
16
33
70
8
35
59
8
43
70
38
33
29
42
32
25
23
30
47
22
30
48
18
25
57
17
28
55
34
22
45
22
26
52
26
30
44
26
32
43
28
28
45
26
29
45
39
39
22
63
32
45
23
62
57
31
12
61
45
40
14
65
58
28
14
59
56
31
13
58
51
32
18
67
49
31
21
61
36
34
30
62
30
39
31
63
49
32
19
63
43
37
20
62
The numbers consist of all respondents minus the number of protest votes and I don't know responses, and after applying a cut-off point of 1.5% for WTP values.
for each vignettes. For noise, Finland had the highest WTP estimates
for all three vignettes, while the Netherlands provided the lowest
(except for the specic effect).
3.2. Air pollution: determinants of general, LE, and combined scenario WTP
estimates
The results of the WTP regression analysis for road-trafc-related air
pollution risks are presented in Table 3. This table shows the regression
coefcients that are expressed as percentage in change in WTP value.
We estimated WTP changes using the basic and extended models for
general risks, a specic effect (6 month reduction in LE), and a scenario
of combined risks. For example, 25- to 34-year-old respondents had 47%
lower WTP estimates in the general basic model and in the general extended model, whereas the WTP estimates for the same age group were
Fig. 1. WTP estimates for the three risk vignettes related to air pollution by country.
424
Fig. 2. WTP estimates for the three risk vignettes related to noise by country.
29% lower for the LE basic model and 31% lower for the LE extended
model as well as 58% lower for the scenario basic model and 63%
lower for the scenario extended model.
As shown in Table 3, most of the signicant variables in the basic
model remained associated with WTP estimates in the extended
model. The additional variables included in the extended models (that
signicantly affected all three WTP estimates levels) were environmental concerns, annoyance at home by road-trafc air pollution (except for
the general extended model), respondent sensitivity to air pollutants
(except for the LE extended model), respondent ability to relax in polluted locations, and the government's attempts to reduce pollutants
(except for the LE extended model with a neutral answer). Factors
that did not signicantly inuence the WTP estimates were respondent
awareness of health risks, air pollution concern and respondent belief
that policies to reduce pollutants were intended to improve wellbeing.
Overall, we observed that most perception-related variables signicantly affected WTP estimates. The effect of country was substantial, as
shown in Fig. 1 and the basic model. After adjusting the effect of
perception-related variables, the effect estimates for country in the extended model changed considerably. This change was most pronounced
in ES. The difference from ES to NL (baseline) was 115% higher WTP in
the baseline model compared with the WTP decrease of 35% in the extended model, relative to baseline.
Table 2
Mean and median WTP estimates for the three risk vignettes regarding road-trafcrelated air pollution and noise by country.
Country WTP in
Air pollution
NL
UK
DE
ES
FI
Pooled
data
Noise
General Specic
risks
effect:
LE
Scenario or
combined
risks
Mean;
median
Mean;
median
Mean;
median
Mean;
median
107; 15
104; 20
145; 50
121; 50
155; 50
127; 40
46; 1
87; 10
89; 10
100; 25
83; 10
82; 10
340; 25
343; 43
356; 50
261; 50
359; 75
332; 50
58; 10
76; 10
105; 40
75; 20
116; 50
87; 20
77; 10
70; 10
83; 20
102; 30
144; 50
95; 20
207; 10
344; 30
315; 50
289; 50
456; 60
323; 35
Based on the extended models, perception- and attitude-related variables signicantly affected the WTP values for air pollution and noise.
Environmental concerns, respondent sensitivity to pollutants, difculty
relaxing in polluted locations, and disagreement with the notion that
pollution-reduction policies seek to improve wellbeing were the four
variables that affected the WTP estimates for general risks, LE, and the
combined-risk scenario. However, awareness of health risks did
not signicantly affect the estimate of either pollutant. Overall, we observed that country often signicantly predicted pollution and noise estimates (as shown in the basic models), but this effect changed when
425
Table 3
Results of basic and extended regression analysis: effect of factors that inuenced the WTP estimates of air-pollution-related health risks expressed in WTP percentage change [95% condence interval].
Air pollution
Age group
1824 years
2534 years
3544 years
4554 years
5564 years
Gender female
Education expressed per 10 years
NL
UK
DE
ES
FI
Financial position (FP): not a problem at all
FP: not a problem but should be careful
FP: slight difculty
FP: large difculty
Net household income per month (Hh): 1000
or less
Hh: 1001 to 1500
Hh: 1501 to 2000
Hh: 2001 to 3000
Hh N 3000
Perceived general health score in 25-point
intervals
Awareness of health risksa
Environmental concern (EC): low
EC: medium
EC: high
Air pollution concerna
Annoyance at home by road-trafc air
pollutiona
Constant freight trafc near dwellinga
Respondent sensitivity to air pollutiona
Difculty relaxing in polluted locationsa
Government attempts to reduce pollutants:
agree
Neutral
Disagree
Policy to reduce pollutants intended to
improve wellbeing: agree
Neutral
Disagree
a
General basic
General extended
Single effect
extended
Scenario basic
Scenario extended
47 [64 23]
62 [74 44]
80 [86 70]
80 [87 69]
15 [338]
37 [972]
47 [63 26]
63 [74 48]
80 [86 71]
83 [89 74]
23 [39 4]
19 [447]
29 [6130]
54 [76 14]
58 [78 20]
66 [83 33]
1 [3149]
1 [3046]
31 [6122]
58 [77 23]
52 [74 12]
70 [85 42]
15 [4124]
2 [3138]
58 [73 37]
68 [79 51]
82 [89 73]
84 [90 74]
6 [1939]
3 [2132]
63 [75 45]
71 [80 56]
83 [89 74]
86 [91 79]
9 [3018]
4 [2522]
37 [7100]
162 [82278]
115 [47214]
272 [153448]
3 [2849]
69 [18141]
34 [56 3]
162 [81280]
109 [12292]
166 [46385]
335 [128730]
103 [8282]
3 [2932]
9 [3221]
5 [3672]
26 [475]
34 [53 9]
13 [3496]
53 [70 27] 60 [74 40] 27 [6347]
22 [1779]
51 [3123]
80 [23161]
177 [86312]
27 [42 8]
30 [986]
61 [12132]
81 [27158]
166 [83287]
25 [40 6]
18 [5753]
23 [35133]
15 [37111]
113 [13301]
31 [520]
57 [15188]
76 [3217]
8 [46115]
50 [19178]
77 [14176]
159 [71292]
183 [83338]
253 [129442]
32 [14103]
68 [11152]
8 [4245]
171 [78312]
0 [3860]
3 [3974]
39 [6917]
12 [3724]
17 [4015]
21 [4616]
32 [53 3]
46 [68 12] 54 [72 26]
20 [5645]
32 [28142]
19 [33112]
93 [5255]
30 [510]
29 [17101]
45 [7126]
79 [17175]
171 [73323]
26 [43 5]
24 [1889]
41 [8114]
71 [14158]
154 [66290]
22 [400]
11 [3113]
2 [3547]
10 [3219]
203 [126305]
652 [450929]
30 [681]
31 [1092]
106 [28233]
308 [144581]
73 [2205]
98 [3282]
245 [146382]
427 [268655]
38 [5101]
87 [22187]
16 [4428]
42 [888]
82 [41134]
28 [6443]
58 [2153]
108 [38213]
33 [587]
53 [11109]
68 [26125]
47 [61 28]
37 [52 17]
50 [70 17]
17 [4731]
50 [65 29]
39 [56 16]
9 [3020]
10 [2049]
34 [15110]
34 [21126]
23 [436]
7 [2551]
A yes-answer by respondents.
perception-related variables were taken into account (as seen in the extended models).
The general health score signicantly predicted air pollution and
noise WTP (except for the noise annoyance model). Other variables in
the basic model and perception-related variables signicantly inuenced WTP scores to varying degrees. Country, environmental concern,
and respondent ability to relax in polluted locations were the strongest
predictors of the WTP estimates. However, household income had a
more signicant role concerning WTP for noise than WTP for air
pollution.
4. Discussion
Our study investigated in ve European countries the willingnessto-pay (WTP) to avoid the health effects associated with trafc-related
air pollution and noise. This was done simultaneously for both
pollutants using a single instrument: an open-ended web-based questionnaire. The general objectives were to assess and compare the monetary values of air pollution and noise health risks based on stated WTP
426
Table 4
Results of basic and extended regression analysis: effect of factors that inuenced the WTP estimates of noise related health risks expressed in WTP percentage change [95% condence
interval].
Noise
Age group
1824 years
2534 years
3544 years
4554 years
5564 years
Gender
Female
Education expressed per 10 years
NL
UK
DE
ES
FI
FP: no problems
FP: no problems but should be careful
FP: slight difculty
FP: large difculty
Hh: 1000 or less
Hh: 1001 to 1500
Hh: 1501 to 2000
Hh: 2001 to 3000
Hh N 3000
Perceived general health score in 25-point
intervals
Awareness of health risksa
EC: low
EC: medium
EC: high
Noise concerna
Annoyance at home by road-trafc noisea
Constant freight trafc near dwellinga
Respondent sensitivity to noisea
Difculty relaxing in noisy locationsa
Government attempts to reduce pollutants:
agree
Neutral
Disagree
Policies to reduce pollutants intended to
improve wellbeing: agree
Neutral
Disagree
a
General basic
General extended
Single effect
extended
Scenario basic
Scenario extended
43 [61 16]
51 [66 27]
64 [76 46]
64 [76 46]
47 [63 24]
54 [68 34]
69 [79 55]
71 [80 57]
21 [5640]
58 [76 24]
57 [77 21]
59 [78 23]
28 [5925]
62 [78 34]
64 [80 36]
66 [82 37]
16 [4530]
47 [66 17]
67 [79 48]
70 [81 51]
20 [4821]
50 [67 24]
73 [82 58]
75 [84 61]
20 [372]
47 [1587]
24 [40 4]
30 [363]
109 [43206]
317 [188503]
137 [61249]
374 [226590]
57 [8126]
172 [88292]
21 [4719]
246 [139402]
5 [2342]
7 [2042]
14 [1959]
12 [3622]
51 [69 22] 56 [72 33]
46 [0113]
158 [75279]
73 [19153]
181 [90316]
26 [41 7]
59 [11127]
149 [73258]
79 [25156]
179 [93304]
24 [39 5]
12 [1242]
11 [2359]
13 [2364]
8 [3531]
7 [2654]
7 [1942]
39 [682]
8 [3020]
27 [265]
47 [16157]
117 [24282]
164 [48370]
450 [210877]
22 [30111]
48 [16160]
7 [4298]
347 [151695]
170 [75318]
209 [102373]
170 [73321]
381 [209648]
105 [33215]
104 [32215]
2 [3664]
240 [119430]
15 [2780]
15 [3091]
6 [5389]
14 [2676]
10 [4547]
12 [5572]
23 [1375]
17 [2073]
19 [5237]
28 [980]
3 [3441]
24 [5425]
56 [12175]
212 [72466]
87 [6232]
139 [32333]
15 [4021]
47 [16154]
186 [61407]
77 [2209]
130 [29309]
17 [4117]
7 [3166]
119 [40243]
49 [4132]
205 [94378]
26 [43 4]
7 [3065]
105 [33216]
48 [3126]
208 [99375]
24 [42 2]
6 [2652]
5 [2826]
132 [73212]
366 [244532]
58 [12123]
56 [5130]
32 [564]
50 [1499]
66 [26120]
78 [12183]
132 [43274]
138 [42299]
24 [32125]
41 [6913]
48 [3127]
105 [34215]
136 [66238]
329 [199516]
48 [0119]
23 [2293]
8 [4449]
40 [193]
127 [64214]
49 [63 30]
36 [53 15]
10 [4547]
23 [5122]
37 [57 9]
34 [53 7]
6 [3842]
9 [4345]
3 [2934]
3 [3239]
23 [412]
0 [2736]
A yes-answer by respondents.
substantial changes in the WTP estimates with differences of approximately 15% between un-weighted, weighted and imputed estimates (Istamto et al., 2014). Weighted and imputed data did not
affect the results of the regression analyses either (results not
shown).
In the regression analysis we used a basic model that consists of
demographical, socialeconomic and health variables (age group,
gender, education, country, nancial position, household income,
perceived general health score and awareness of health effects).
We also developed an extended model that included variables
known to affect risk perception and acceptability: sensitivity to pollutants, environmental concerns, and condence in governmental
actions to control pollution. We found that sensitivity to pollutants
and environmental concern signicantly inuenced WTP estimates
for all three vignettes: general risks, LE, and the combined scenario.
Condence in governmental efforts to control pollution signicantly predicted WTP for air-pollution- and noise-related general risks
and for the combined scenario. Sensitivity analyses on the use of aggregated versus and non-aggregated variables in the extended
models showed that the outcomes of the regression analysis were
427
times higher. These higher estimates are in line with the literature indicating that an open-ended CV method generally yields lower WTP
values. Differences in payment vehicle may also contribute to differences. The NEEDS study provided information about an average gain
in LE, while our study provided information on several other health effects which also included an average gain in LE. Similar to the NEEDS
study, we found that higher WTP estimates were signicantly associated with higher levels of income and education. The NEEDS study did not
assess effects of several factors that were signicant for the LE WTP in
our study, such as environmental concerns, annoyance at home by
road-trafc air pollution, respondent sensitivity to air pollutants, respondent ability to relax in polluted locations, and the government's attempts to reduce pollutants.
To compare the road-trafc-related noise WTP estimates, we examined the results of the HEATCO study that investigated WTP estimates to
avoid noise annoyance across six countries among 5500 respondents
using the payment card method (Navrud et al., 2006). Respondents
were selected based on ambient noise levels at home and were asked
to state their personal WTP estimates over the next 5 years to eliminate
this annoyance at home. Their study reported an overall mean WTP of
50 pp/y with a median of 0 pp/year, which was low compared to
our mean WTP of 100 pp/year with a median of 20 pp/year. In addition, many respondents providing a zero WTP answer (66%), and those
who were opposed to the valuation method (76%) were not accounted
for when weighting the WTP estimates. A direct comparison between
the HEATCO study and ours is also difcult due to the payment versus
OE method differences and the non-stratied versus noise-level stratied sampling. A number of factors used to stratify noise-maps and
which were considered to be important in the HEATCO study for the
WTP estimate for severe noise annoyance such as constant freight trafc and annoyance at home by road-trafc noise, were not signicant
in our study. Having a higher income level and a university education in
the HEATCO study positive affected WTP estimates. In our study, income
and gender were strongly associated with the WTP estimates for noise
but education was not.
5. Conclusions
Our study shows that perception- and attitude-related variables, i.e. environmental concern, sensitivity and the ability to
relax in polluted places, signicantly affect the WTP estimates for
both types of pollutants. These variables explain to some degree
the differences in WTP estimates between countries. This stresses
that benet transfer from studies in one country to another should
be performed with great care. In addition, the type of information
provided (vignettes) inuenced the WTP estimates. Qualitative information indicated higher WTP estimate for air pollution than for
noise. In contrast, and contrary to expectation, avoiding a half year
shorter life expectancy due to air pollution was valued lower than a
13% increase in severe annoyance by noise. The more policy relevant scenario of combined effects showed little difference between
pollutants.
Acknowledgements
The study was performed within the EU 6th Framework study
INTARESE (coordinated by David Briggs) and the strategic research program of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Erkki
Kuusisto, Jouni Tuomisto, Kari Pesonen, Rainer Friedrich, Anna Sillero
Larena, and Mark Nieuwenhuijsen for their help with the translations
and their useful suggestions during the earlier versions of our survey.
Alistair Hunt provided insightful and valuable comments and advised
in various stages of the project. In addition, we also would like to
thank our respondents for their invaluable contribution to this valuation
study.
428
Appendix A
Information provided to respondents prior to the WTP questions.
Appendix B
B.1. WTP questions related to air pollution
Certain measures can be taken to reduce the current level of air pollution caused by road trafc. These measures require funding, of which
the government will only cover a portion. Therefore, society must contribute the balance. We are interested in determining whether you
would be willing to pay for cleaner air to avoid the negative health
risks due to road trafc.
The amount of money you would be willing to pay for the following
items would come from your own budget. This means reducing your
daily consumption of goods, services, or savings.
B.1.1. General questions regarding road-trafc-related air pollution
Based on your monthly net income, your annual household income
is breferred to respondent's indicated household incomeN.
What is the maximum amount of money you would be willing to
pay (annually, for the rest of your life) to avoid the risks associated
with air pollution due to road trafc in your area?
The maximum amount of money I am willing to pay is..... or | per
year.
429