Journal of Science Policy & Governance
​Volume 19, Issue 01 | November 01, 2021

Policy Analysis: Analyzing the Effectiveness of Environmental Policies to Reduce Citizens’ Exposure to Air Pollution

Leticia Abarca Velencoso
Carlos III of Madrid University, School of International Studies and Political Science, Madrid, Spain

Corresponding author: l.abarca.velencoso@gmail.com
Keywords: citizen exposure to air pollution; PM2.5; environmental policy; OECD; innovation; feed-in tariffs; energy; green fiscal policy.​

Executive Summary

Exposure to air pollution causes significant damage to health, which leads to large economic and social welfare losses. As a result, the urgency of reducing PM2.5 levels, the main indicator of citizens’ exposure to air pollution, is gaining importance. PM2.5 is a mixture of solid and liquid particles, smaller than 2.5 micrometers, that are suspended in the air. Most literature on the analysis of environmental policies is measured exclusively in CO2 targets, excluding other measurements of air pollution, and failing to analyze the effectiveness of those policies in terms of citizen exposure to air pollution. This paper reviews relevant literature and offers approaches to reducing citizens’ exposure to air pollution by comparing an Ordinary Least Square (OLS) analysis on the effectiveness of environmental policies to reduce PM2.5 emissions in thirty-three OECD countries between 1990 and 2012, grouped into R&D investment policies, economic incentive policies, and fiscal policies. Moreover, this article presents evidence that not all environmental policies are equally effective at minimizing PM2.5 and highlights successful innovation and economic incentive policies that create opportunities to invest or develop alternative forms of production. In summary, state investment policies in R&D show positive but limited results, university-industry research partnerships show highly positive indirect effects on PM2.5 levels; fiscal policies have counterproductive effects, and among economic incentive policies, only feed-in tariffs present an actual opportunity to reduce PM2.5 emissions. The empirical discoveries presented here diversify the research on environmental policies and have profound political implications. Therefore, this study provides a useful tool for environmental policymakers that aim to cut air pollution levels and reduce the human, social and economic consequences.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image photo: The Day The Sun Didn't Rise flickr photo by Christopher.Michel shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license
Leticia Abarca Velencoso is a political scientist with strong focus on Regional, Rural and Climate international policy. She studied a dual Bachelor in Political Science and International Studies in the Carlos III of Madrid University, spending several periods in other universities as Riga Stradins University and the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro. Due to her academic background, she received the Award of Academic Excellence of the Community of Madrid in 2020. Additionally, she has also written several articles on international issues related to environmental policy and she is currently studying a Master on Economy of the European Union at UNED. In the last year, she also trained on European project management in the University of Valencia and works as a Project Manager conducting programs on sustainable development for rural and green protected areas.
 
Acknowledgements
The author would like to first thanks to the Carlos III University’s professors that inspired her during the university period and that have contributed with their expertise to her academic pathway. Additionally, she would like to thank her parents for their tireless support and Willian for sharing with her his passion for science.​

References

  1. Alvarez-Herranz, Agustin, Daniel Balsalobre-Lorente, Muhammad Shahbaz, and José María Cantos. 2017. "Energy Innovation And Renewable Energy Consumption In The Correction Of Air Pollution Levels". Energy Policy 105: 386-397. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.009.
  2. Ashmore, Mike. 2013. “Air Pollution. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition)”. Academic Press: 136-147. doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00283-5.
  3. Balsalobre, Daniel, Agustín Álvarez, and José María Cantos. 2014. "Public Budgets For Energy RD&D And The Effects On Energy Intensity And Pollution Levels". Environmental Science And Pollution Research 22 (7): 4881-4892. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3121-3.
  4. Bättig, Michèle B., and Thomas Bernauer. 2009. "National Institutions And Global Public Goods: Are Democracies More Cooperative In Climate Change Policy?". International Organization 63 (2): 281-308. doi:10.1017/s0020818309090092.
  5. Bilgili, Faik, Emrah Koçak, Ümit Bulut, and Sevda Kuşkaya. 2017. "Can Biomass Energy Be An Efficient Policy Tool For Sustainable Development?". Renewable And Sustainable Energy Reviews 71: 830-845. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.109.
  6. Bilgili, Faik, Emrah Koçak, Ümit Bulut, and M. Nedim Sualp. 2016. "How Did The US Economy React To Shale Gas Production Revolution? An Advanced Time Series Approach". Energy 116: 963-977. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.056.
  7. Bosetti, Valentina, Carlo Carraro, Romain Duval, Alessandra Sgobbi, and Massimo Tavoni. 2009. "The Role Of R&D And Technology Diffusion In Climate Change Mitigation: New Perspectives Using The Witch Model". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1397076.
  8. Bresnahan, Timothy F., and M. Trajtenberg. 1995. "General Purpose Technologies ‘Engines Of Growth’?". Journal Of Econometrics 65 (1): 83-108. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-t.
  9. Cheng, Zhonghua, Lianshui Li, and Jun Liu. 2017. "The Emissions Reduction Effect And Technical Progress Effect Of Environmental Regulation Policy Tools". Journal Of Cleaner Production 149: 191-205. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.105.
  10. Chertow, Marian R. 2000. "The IPAT Equation And Its Variants". Journal Of Industrial Ecology 4 (4): 13-29. doi:10.1162/10881980052541927.
  11. Das, Trishna, Venkat Krishnan, and James D. McCalley. 2015. "Assessing The Benefits And Economics Of Bulk Energy Storage Technologies In The Power Grid". Applied Energy 139: 104-118. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.017.
  12. DEFRA. 2013. “Report: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) In The United Kingdom”, London: Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1212141150_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf
  13. Dinda, Soumyananda. 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey". Ecological Economics 49 (4): 431-455.    doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011.
  14. Ehrlich, P. R., and J. P. Holdren. 1971. "Impact Of Population Growth". Science 171 (3977): 1212-1217.  doi:10.1126/science.171.3977.1212.
  15. Fernández Fernández, Y., M.A. Fernández López, and B. Olmedillas Blanco. 2018. "Innovation For Sustainability: The Impact Of R&D Spending On CO2 Emissions". Journal Of Cleaner Production 172: 3459-3467. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.001.
  16. Fischer, Carolyn, and Richard G. Newell. 2008. "Environmental And Technology Policies For Climate Mitigation". Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management 55 (2): 142-162. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2007.11.001.
  17. Gale, John, John Bradshaw, Amit Garg, Dario Gomez, Hans-Holger Rogner, Zhenlin Chen, Dale Simbeck, and Robert Willians. 2021. "Sources Of CO2 — IPCC". Ipcc.Ch. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage/sources-of-co2/
  18. Garrone, Paola, and Luca Grilli. 2010. "Is There A Relationship Between Public Expenditures In Energy R&D And Carbon Emissions Per GDP? An Empirical Investigation". Energy Policy 38 (10): 5600-5613. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.057.
  19. Gerlagh, Reyer, and Bob van der Zwaan. 2006. "Options And Instruments For A Deep Cut In CO2 Emissions: Carbon Dioxide Capture Or Renewables, Taxes Or Subsidies?". The Energy Journal 27 (3). doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-vol27-no3-3.
  20. Goulder, Lawrence H., and Koshy Mathai. 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement In The Presence Of Induced Technological Change". Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management 39 (1): 1-38. doi:10.1006/jeem.1999.1089.
  21. Goulder, Lawrence H. 2002. “Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions”. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  22. Grafton, R. Quentin, Tom Kompas, Ngo Van Long, and Hang To. 2014. "US Biofuels Subsidies And CO2 Emissions: An Empirical Test For A Weak And A Strong Green Paradox". Energy Policy 68: 550-555. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.006.
  23. Harrison, Roy M., Chiara Giorio, David C.S. Beddows, and Manuel Dall'Osto. 2010. "Size Distribution Of Airborne Particles Controls Outcome Of Epidemiological Studies". Science Of The Total Environment 409 (2): 289-293. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.043.
  24. Hart, Rob. 2008. "The Timing Of Taxes On CO2 Emissions When Technological Change Is Endogenous". Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management 55 (2): 194-212. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2007.06.004.
  25. Haščič, Ivan, Johnstone, Nick, Watson, Fleur and  Kaminker, Christopher. 2010. “Climate Policy and Technological Innovation and Transfer: An Overview of Trends and Recent Empirical Results”. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 30. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5km33bnggcd0-en
  26. Heyes, Anthony, and Sandeep Kapur. 2011. "Regulatory Attitudes And Environmental Innovation In A Model Combining Internal And External R&D". Journal Of Environmental Economics And Management 61 (3): 327-340. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2010.12.003.
  27. International Energy Agency. 2020. “IEA Energy Technology RD&D Statistics” Data and Statistics IAE. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts
  28. Johnstone, Nick, Ivan Haščič, Julie Poirier, Marion Hemar, and Christian Michel. 2012. "Environmental Policy Stringency And Technological Innovation: Evidence From Survey Data And Patent Counts". Applied Economics 44 (17): 2157-2170. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.560110.
  29. Jaffe, Adam B., and Karen Palmer. 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study". Review Of Economics And Statistics 79 (4): 610-619. doi:10.1162/003465397557196.
  30. Jaffe, Adam B., Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins. 2000. "Technological Change And The Environment". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.252927.
  31. Kim, Seoyong, Jae Lee, and Donggeun Kim. 2019. "Searching For The Next New Energy In Energy Transition: Comparing The Impacts Of Economic Incentives On Local Acceptance Of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, And Nuclear Energies". Sustainability 11 (7): 2037. doi:10.3390/su11072037.
  32. Koçak, Emrah, and Zübeyde Şentürk Ulucak. 2019. "The Effect Of Energy R&D Expenditures On CO2 Emission Reduction: Estimation Of The STIRPAT Model For OECD Countries". Environmental Science And Pollution Research 26 (14): 14328-14338. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-04712-2.
  33. Kuik, Onno, Frédéric Branger, and Philippe Quirion. 2019. "Competitive Advantage In The Renewable Energy Industry: Evidence From A Gravity Model". Renewable Energy 131: 472-481. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.046.
  34. Lanjouw, Jean Olson, and Ashoka Mody. 1996. "Innovation And The International Diffusion Of Environmentally Responsive Technology". Research Policy 25 (4): 549-571. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(95)00853-5.
  35. Montgomery, David W. and Smith, Anne. 2007. “Price, Quantity, And Technology Strategies For Climate Change Policy.” Chapter. In Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment, edited by Michael E. Schlesinger, Haroon S. Kheshgi, Joel Smith, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, John M. Reilly, Tom Wilson, and Charles Kolstad, 328–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511619472.032.
  36. Newell, Richard. 2009. “Literature Review of Recent Trends and Future Prospects for Innovation in Climate Change Mitigation”. OECD Environment Working Papers Nº9. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/218688342302
  37. Newell, Richard. 2010. "The Role Of Markets And Policies In Delivering Innovation For Climate Change Mitigation". Oxford Review Of Economic Policy 26 (2): 253-269. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grq009.
  38. Popp, David. 2006. "Comparison Of Climate Policies In The ENTICE-BR Model". The Energy Journal SI2006 (01). doi:10.5547/issn0195-6574-ej-volsi2006-nosi1-7.
  39.  Ouillet, Laetitia. 2003. “Green energy in Europe: Selling green energy with green certificates”. Elsevier 3 (2):52-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-0846(02)80032
  40. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP). 2010. “The Mortality Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution in the United Kingdom”. London: Department of Health. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304641/COMEAP_mortality_effects_of_long_term_exposure.pdf
  41. Schneider, Stephen, and Goulder, Lawrence. 1997. “Achieving Low-cost Emissions Targets” Nature 389(2): 13–14. doi.org/10.1038/37861
  42.  World Bank. 2008. “The World Bank Annual Report 2008: Year in Review”. World Bank Group. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4049. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/452391468323718231/The-World-Bank-annual-report-2008-year-in-review
  43. World Bank. 2020. "Databank | The World Bank". Databank.Worldbank.Org. https://databank.worldbank.org/home.aspx.
  44. Wu, Xiao, Rachel Nethery, Benjamin Sabath, Danielle Braun, and Francesca Dominici. 2020. "Air Pollution And COVID-19 Mortality In The United States: Strengths And Limitations Of An Ecological Regression Analysis".  Science Advances 6(45).​
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.