4.7 Article

Quantifying the health benefits of improving environmental efficiency: A case study from coal power plants in China

期刊

ENERGY ECONOMICS
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106672

关键词

Air pollution; Coal power plant; Health benefits; Premature deaths; Data envelopment analysis; Environmental efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an interdisciplinary framework based on a frontier method to quantify the health benefits of improving the environmental efficiency of coal power plants. A case study conducted on 316 coal power plants in China in 2010 confirms the importance of environmental efficiency improvement in mitigating health hazards caused by air pollutants. The study also highlights the spatial variations in the potential for premature death reduction and the lack of correlation between emission reduction potential and mitigation potential at the provincial level.
It is unclear whether improving the environmental efficiency (output per input) of coal power plants mitigate premature deaths due to air pollution. This study proposed an interdisciplinary framework based on a frontier method to quantify the health benefits of improving the environmental efficiency of power plants. A case study based on the input and output data of 316 coal power plants in China in 2010 was conducted to verify the functionality of the proposed framework. The main findings were as follows: (1) the environmental efficiency improvement of power plants can play an important role in mitigating health hazards caused by air pollutants; (2) the mitigation potential of premature deaths has spatial variations; and (3) the emission reduction potential of air pollutants is not correlated with the mitigation potential of premature death at the provincial level. These results highlight the importance of understanding the regional potential for health hazard mitigation as well as the crucial need to implement suitable policies for improving environmental efficiency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据