Quantifying the Efficiency and Equity Implications of Power Plant Air Pollution Control Strategies in the United States

By Levy, Jonathan I.; Wilson, Andrew M. et al. | Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2007 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Quantifying the Efficiency and Equity Implications of Power Plant Air Pollution Control Strategies in the United States

Levy, Jonathan I., Wilson, Andrew M., Zwack, Leonard M., Environmental Health Perspectives

BACKGROUND: In deciding among competing approaches for emissions control, debates often hinge on the potential tradeoffs between efficiency and equity. However, previous health benefits analyses have not formally addressed both dimensions.

OBJECTIVES: We modeled the public health benefits and the change in the spatial inequality of health risk for a number of hypothetical control scenarios for power plants in the United States to determine optimal control strategies.

METHODS: We simulated various ways by which emission reductions of sulfur dioxide (S[O.sub.2]), nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate matter (particulate matter < 2.5 [micro]m in diameter; P[M.sub.2.5]) could be distributed to reach national emissions caps. We applied a source-receptor matrix to determine the P[M.sub.2.5] concentration changes associated with each control scenario and estimated the mortality reductions. We estimated changes in the spatial inequality of health risk using the Atkinson index and other indicators, following previously derived axioms for measuring health risk inequality.

RESULTS: In our baseline model, benefits ranged from 17,000-21,000 fewer premature deaths per year across control scenarios. Scenarios with greater health benefits also tended to have greater reductions in the spatial inequality of health risk, as many sources with high health benefits per unit emissions of S[O.sub.2] were in areas with high background P[M.sub.2.5] concentrations. Sensitivity analyses indicated that conclusions were generally robust to the choice of indicator and other model specifications.

CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates an approach for formally quantifying both the magnitude and spatial distribution of health benefits of pollution control strategies, allowing for joint consideration of efficiency and equity.

KEY WORDS: environmental justice, equity, particulate matter, power plant, premature mortality, risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 115:743-750 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9712 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 22 January 2007]


In many settings there are tensions between efficiency and equity in deciding on optimal pollution control strategies. Within the context of benefit-cost analysis, efficiency may be related to implementing the least-cost control strategy to achieve a given health benefit, or alternatively, to maximizing net benefits. Similarly, equity can involve procedural fairness (i.e., equal involvement in public proceedings) or equity in the distribution of outcomes (Jacobson et al. 2005). Inequity consists of those inequalities that may be considered unjust or unfair

(Macinko and Starfield 2002). Although there are multiple interpretations of these terms, we focus here on efficiency as maximizing the public health benefits of a control measure, and on equality in the distribution of those benefits across at-risk individuals as the dimension of equity that can be included in quantitative analysis.

Given these definitions, although efficiency is incorporated into any health benefits analysis, equity and related distributional issues are often omitted (Yitzhaki 2003). Most regulatory impact analyses have focused exclusively on aggregate benefits [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1999a, 1999b] without formally considering the geographic or demographic distributions of these benefits. In parallel, many studies of equity or environmental justice did not quantify health risks, instead focusing on proximity to sources (Burke 1993; Pollack and Vittas 1995; Sheppard et al. 1999), emissions (Millimet and Slottje 2002a, 2002b; Perlin et al. 1995), or concentrations (Lopez 2002). Studies that quantified risk inequality (Apelberg et al. 2005; Morello-Frosch and Jesdale 2006) or proposed a framework to do so (Finkel 1990, 1997) focused on characterizing baseline distributions of risk rather than the benefits of control strategies, and the appropriate methodology may differ in this context.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Quantifying the Efficiency and Equity Implications of Power Plant Air Pollution Control Strategies in the United States


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?