Evaluation of Integrated Air Pollution and Climate Change Policies: Case Study in the Thermal Power Sector in Chongqing City, China

Zhou, Qian; Yabar, Helmut; Mizunoya, Takeshi; Higano, Yoshiro

doi:10.3390/su9101741

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Being an urban population group in cities engaged in industry process, which are linked to large air pollutants [48,49], manufacturing workers' attitude to current air pollution could be particularly interested and important. Although Chinese government introduced relevant measures, the reduction of air pollution would curb economic development to a certain extent, then people's attitude is necessary [50].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality and Influencing Factors among Manufacturing Workers in Nanchang, China

Liu

Pan

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Air quality apt to deteriorate in decades in China, people are seeking improvement measures. To assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for improved air quality among manufacturing workers and associated factors influencing their WTP. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in combination with contingent valuation in Nanchang between September and October of 2015. A face-to-face interview was conducted to obtain basic demographic information from manufacturing workers and to understand their WTP for air quality improvement. (3) Results: A total of 600 effective questionnaires were collected in this study and showed that more than half of the respondents (53%) expressed their WTP for improved air quality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the main factors associated with manufacturing workers' WTP were their residence areas, education level, annual household income and travel experience. (4) Conclusions: These findings have provided (a) important information of the concern and desire for air pollution control through their WTP from manufacturing workers, (b) baseline information for the policy-maker and local government for their development of more effective policy in air pollution prevention and control and (c) the need for more study for WTP among different population groups in future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality and Influencing Factors among Manufacturing Workers in Nanchang, China

Liu

Pan

et al. 2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studying emission reduction scenarios for China, Peng, Yang, Wagner, and Mauzerall (2017) find that increasing industrial energy efficiency by 10% would reduce GHG emissions by 440 Mt CO 2 e while improving air quality and saving 27,000 lives annually. There is special emphasis on urban Asia, notably on mega-cities like Delhi (Bhanarkar et al, 2018;Garg, 2011), Beijing (Liu et al, 2013), Ahmedabad (Pathak & Shukla, 2016), Hanoi (Kim Oanh, Thuy Phuong, & Permadi, 2012), Kuala Lumpur (Kwan, Tainio, Woodcock, & Hashim, 2016;Shakya, 2016), Kathmandu (Shakya, 2016;Shakya & Shrestha, 2011;Shrestha, Kim Oanh, Xu, Rupakheti, & Lawrence, 2013) and others (Liu, Huang et al, 2017;Liu, Liao, Lin, Li, & Zeng, 2017;Mittal, Hanaoka, Shukla, & Masui, 2015;Ren et al, 2012;Zheng, Jiang, Qiao, Zhu, & Kennedy, 2016;Zhou, Yabar, Mizunoya, & Higano, 2017). Somewhat unconventionally, Liu et al (2016) use survey data to find that some GHG mitigation strategies may increase citizens' subjective wellbeing, partly due to better air quality.…”

Section: Quantified Health Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern over mitigation costs impedes the adoption of the climate policies needed to achieve agreed global warming targets. While costs are important to consider, so are benefits. However, the evidence for climate policy co-benefits, that is, the benefits in addition to avoided climate change costs, is commonly overlooked in policy-making. In many areas, the research is limited and not comprehensively synthesised. This article counters that problem and reviews 239 peer-reviewed articles, selected from 1,749 hits from a literature search covering 'co-benefits' and related terms. Aiming to aid policy-makers and to identify research gaps, we structure, describe, analyse and synthesize the rapidly expanding knowledge on climate policy co-benefits. Improved air quality is the co-benefit category dominating the literature, but studies covering a broad geographic range also focus on diet, physical activity, soil and water quality, biodiversity, economic performance, and energy security. In these areas, co-benefits are shown to be of substantial economic value, regarding air quality often of the same order of magnitude as mitigation costs, in some instances even larger. However, the share of studies quantifying or monetizing cobenefits is limited, and the empirical evidence is small, in particular for areas besides air quality and health. Furthermore, the knowledge is seldom used in policy-making, meaning that decision-making is often biased and overly concerned with costs, leading to suboptimal climate policies and goal failures. Evidently, more research is needed, as well as improved decision-making. Understanding and acting on climate policy co-benefits can promote policies that better mitigate climate change and improve overall welfare. Key policy insights. Climate policy co-benefits in well-researched fields such as air quality and health are large, often equalling or exceeding mitigation costs. . Despite their significance, co-benefits are seldom considered in decision-making, leading to biased policies and goal failures. . In several areas, such as diet and energy security, co-benefits are sparsely researched, but emerging evidence points to high values. . More research is needed, including on how to describe the total value of different co-benefits. . Improved processes, documentation requirements and criteria in decision-making are needed, in order to ensure that political decision-makers consider co-benefits. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…In recent years, China has plunged into heavy air environmental pollution: 70.7% of Chinese cities failed to meet air quality standards in 2017 [4]. Environmental damage has had a huge impact on China's economy [5], accounting for about 5-6% of China's gross domestic product (GDP) [6]. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to study the synergistic emission reduction of CO 2 and air pollutants in China's steel industry to achieve the national NDC target and win China's "Blue Sky Defense War".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study on an Implementation Scheme of Synergistic Emission Reduction of CO2 and Air Pollutants in China’s Steel Industry

Tan

Jun

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China’s steel industry is an energy-intensive sector. Synergistic reduction of emissions of CO2 and air pollutants (SO2, NOx, and PM2.5) in the steel industry has an important practical significance for climate change and air pollution control. According to the CO2 emission reduction intensity targets (CERO) and air pollutant emission targets (PERO) for 2020 and 2030, 28 types of energy-saving and emission reduction technologies (20 types of carbon reduction technology and eight types of air pollution end-of-pipe technology) were selected for examination, and a two-stage dynamic optimization model with collaborative implementation of PERO and CERO was built to assess the near future (2015–2020) and long-term (2020–2030) implementation plans for synergistic emissions reduction of CO2 and air pollutants. The results show that in the near future, the implementation of PERO will have a greater synergistic effect on CO2 emission reduction. CO2 emission reduction under PERO in 2020 will be 97 million tons (Mt) higher than that of CERO, an increase of nearly 26%. However, the effects of implementing CERO are better in the long run. Under CERO, the emission reductions of SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 in 2030 are 2.44 Mt, 1.47 Mt, and 0.86 Mt, respectively, and 7%, 4%, and 5% higher than the implementation of PERO. As far as marginal abatement cost is concerned, in the near future, the marginal abatement costs of CO2 and air pollutant equivalents are 1.06 yuan/kgCO2 and 133 yuan/kg pollution equivalent (pe) under PERO, which are 23% and 11% lower than that of CERO, while in the long run, the marginal abatement costs of CO2 and pollutant equivalents under CERO are 0.025 yuan/kgCO2 and 2.73 yuan/kgpe, about 96% and 95% lower than that of PERO.

show abstract

Evaluation of Integrated Air Pollution and Climate Change Policies: Case Study in the Thermal Power Sector in Chongqing City, China

Cited by 16 publications

References 37 publications

Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality and Influencing Factors among Manufacturing Workers in Nanchang, China

Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality and Influencing Factors among Manufacturing Workers in Nanchang, China

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

Study on an Implementation Scheme of Synergistic Emission Reduction of CO2 and Air Pollutants in China’s Steel Industry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About