The urban poor suffer disproportionately from the effects of air pollution. Could changes in patterns of urban and domestic energy use reduce outdoor and indoor air pollution? How can recent advances in environmental economics contribute to pro-poor cost-benefit analysis of options to tackle the growing problem of foul air?

A report from AEA Technology Environment reviews the extensive print and electronic literature on the health and environmental impacts of urban energy-use and what we know and need to learn about links with poverty. The step-by-step methodology in the "impact pathway approach" (which maps the pathway running from an emission to damage to people, buildings, crops or ecosystems) is used to show how to quantify pollutants and their impacts. Guidance on how to assess the effects of energy-related pollution is tested against data from cities in China and South Africa. Arguing the need to pay more attention to indoor air pollution, it sets out research priorities.

Urban energy use in the developing countries is dramatically increasing. While in 1990 developing countries used about a quarter of global commercial energy, this is set to rise to more than two thirds by 2030. Poor urban families often live in badly ventilated homes without chimneys. When they use low-grade coal or wood for domestic energy supply in inefficient stoves or open fires, they’re exposed to pollution levels many times that of outdoor air pollution. Rates of respiratory illness – especially among women, children and the elderly who spend most time indoors - are accordingly high. These families also live in areas with heavy traffic and industry, which leads to high ambient pollution around their homes, and high pollution exposure during their daily activities.

The report highlights the difficulties in assessing the distributive impacts of options to improve ambient air quality on low income groups, but stresses that energy improvement measures that are aimed at these groups may lead to the greatest overall health and environmental benefits. The role of abatement technologies, regulatory measures, emission charges and taxes, market incentives and voluntary agreements is analysed. Criteria often excluded in standard assessments of air quality - benefits and disbenefits for the poor, climate change impacts and potential conflicts between local air quality and global climate - are factored in.

Among the points made by this wide-ranging report are:

• The impact pathway approach to economic valuation of environmental effects, though widely used in the industrialised world, has only been applied sparingly to environmental analysis in developing countries.
• Measures targeting ambient air pollution may miss the very large impacts from indoor air pollution. Different approaches are needed to assess these two issues.
• Air quality management programmes are often aimed at specific pollutants. A better approach would be to address overall air quality for all pollutants in integrated programmes.
• Measures that primarily aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may not result in as great benefits for the urban poor as measures aimed at reducing air pollution.

The report recommends:

• further investigation of the potential synergies and conflicts between local air quality improvements and greenhouse gas emission reductions
• higher priority to measures which simultaneously address greenhouse gas emissions and have a beneficial effect on local air quality
• greater incorporation of considerations of equity within existing frameworks for assessing the costs and benefits of environmental protection
• ranking and prioritisation of remedial measures should include stakeholder analysis and input
• greater international co-ordination to tackle Western methodological bias by devising protocols relevant to developing countries

Source(s):
‘Urban energy-use: guidance on reducing environmental impacts’ by Paul Watkiss, Christian Brand, Nikki Hinds, Mike Holland, Christoph Marx, and Wendy Stephenson, AEA Technology Environment, August 2000

Funded by: DFID (IUDD)

id21 Research Highlight: 26 February 2002

Further Information:
AEA Technology Environment
Culham Laboratory
Abingdon
Oxon
OX14 3ED
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1235 463948
Fax: +44 (0)1235 463574
Contact the contributor: paul.watkiss@aeat.co.uk

AEA Technology, UK

Other related links:
'City politics: a voice for the poor?' Insights #38

'Better urban planning? Spotlight on Bangkok'

'Smog warning: air pollution and health in São Paulo, Brazil'

'Is cooking a waste of energy? Promoting more efficient household stoves'

'Air of mystery: health benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions'

'Smoke filled kitchens: improving indoor air quality in western Kenya'

Take a look at the ExternE site for more on the impact pathway approach