Monetary Valuation of PM10-Related Health Risks in Beijing China: The Necessity for PM10 Pollution Indemnity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe health risks caused by PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm) pollution have induced inevitable economic losses and have rendered pressure on the sustainable development of society as a whole. In China, with the "Polluters Pay Principle", polluters should pay for the pollution they have caused, but how much they should pay remains an intractable problem for policy makers. This paper integrated an epidemiological exposure-response model with economics methods, including the Amended Human Capital (AHC) approach and the Cost of Illness (COI) method, to value the economic loss of PM10-related health risks in 16 districts and also 4 functional zones in Beijing from 2008 to 2012. The results show that from 2008 to 2012 the estimated annual deaths caused by PM10 in Beijing are around 56,000, 58,000, 63,000, 61,000 and 59,000, respectively, while the economic losses related to health damage increased from around 23 to 31 billion dollars that PM10 polluters should pay for pollution victims between 2008 and 2012. It is illustrated that not only PM10 concentration but also many other social economic factors influence PM10-related health economic losses, which makes health economic losses show a time lag discrepancy compared with the decline of PM10 concentration. In conclusion, health economic loss evaluation is imperative in the pollution indemnity system establishment and should be considered for the urban planning and policy making to control the burgeoning PM10 health economic loss.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".