Significant but Inequitable Cost-Effective Benefits of a Clean Heating Campaign in Northern China

Residential emissions significantly contribute to air pollution. To address this issue, a clean heating campaign was implemented to replace coal with electricity or natural gas among 13.9 million rural households in northern China. Despite great success, the cost-benefits and environmental equity of this campaign have never been fully investigated. Here, we modeled the environmental and health benefits, as well as the total costs of the campaign, and analyzed the inequality and inequity. We found that even though the campaign decreased only 1.1% of the total energy consumption, PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 exposure experienced 20% and 36% reduction, respectively, revealing the amplification effects along the causal pathway. Furthermore, the number of premature deaths attributable to residential emissions reduced by 32%, suggesting that the campaign was highly beneficial. Governments and residents shared the cost of 2,520 RMB/household. However, the benefits and the costs were unevenly distributed, as the residents in mountainous areas were not only less benefited from the campaign but also paid more because of the higher costs, resulting in a notably lower cost-effectiveness. Moreover, villages in less developed areas tended to choose natural gas with a lower initial investment but a higher total cost (2,720 RMB/household) over electricity (2,190 RMB/household). With targeted investment and subsidies in less developed areas and the promotion of electricity and other less expensive alternatives, the multidevelopment goals of improved air quality, reduced health impacts, and reduced inequity in future clean heating interventions could be achieved.

Automated summary

A clean heating campaign in northern China replaced coal with electricity or natural gas among 13.9 million rural households, resulting in significant reductions in PM2.5 emissions and exposure, as well as a decrease in premature deaths attributable to residential emissions. However, the benefits and costs were unevenly distributed, with residents in mountainous areas experiencing less benefit but paying more due to higher costs. Targeted investment and subsidies in less developed areas, as well as promoting less expensive alternatives, could help achieve improved air quality, reduced health impacts, and reduced inequity in future clean heating interventions.