Abstract :
- Air pollution impacts health. In France, for example, Santé Publique France estimates that 48,000 premature deaths per year are linked to fine particulate matter.
- Air pollution also has a direct impact on our economies. Several studies suggest that absenteeism increases on days with high pollution levels and, conversely, decreases when a source of pollution is eliminated.
- Air pollution could also impact the productivity of workers present in their workplaces. This effect would not necessarily be limited to physically demanding jobs.
The fight against air pollution is sometimes perceived as entailing immediate and identifiable costs for future and diffuse benefits. On the contrary, this article shows that there can be immediate economic gains from reducing air pollution.
Air quality is a major factor affecting individual health. In 2016, the European Environment Agency estimated that exposure to air pollution caused 550,000 premature deaths in Europe each year (EEA 2016). Similarly, the World Health Organization estimated that fine particulate matter (PM2.5 [1]) reduced average life expectancy in Europe by 8.6 months. In France, Santé Publique France estimates that 48,000 premature deaths per year are due to exposure to these fine particles, and the EEA arrives at similar figures: 45,120 linked to fine particles (PM2.5), 8,230 linked to nitrogen dioxide, and 1,780 to ozone. It is also associated with a significant number of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (see Kelly and Fussell (2015) for a review of the literature).
Economists have long studied the effects of pollution, at least in order to measure its social cost. In 2015, for example, this cost was estimated at €101.3 billion per year in France in a Senate report (note that it was underestimated, according to Leïla Aïchi, who was the commission’s rapporteur). One of the elements of this cost that economists are trying to highlight is the direct effects of pollution on worker productivity. This article, far from being exhaustive, presents some of the recent findings from this literature.
Direct effects of pollution on absenteeism
Pollution causes absenteeism among some workers. While it is generally fairly easy to correlate peaks in pollution with an increase in absenteeism, it is often difficult to ensure that the relationship is causal. Indeed, to measure a causal relationship, it would be necessary to compare groups of similar individuals exposed to different levels of air pollution. In practice, however, it is doubtful that people exposed to pollution, especially chronically, are identical to those who are not. For example, wealthier people avoid living in the most polluted areas. By comparing individuals solely on the basis of their exposure to air pollution, it is therefore likely that these differences in income will be inadvertently captured. There is a strong likelihood that these differences will also impact absenteeism at work (differences in quality of life, job stress, health coverage, etc.). Economists and statisticians cannot therefore directly compare the levels of absenteeism between these two groups and must find ways to limit potential biases.
However, it is sometimes possible to improve the quality of estimators through case studies. For example, Hanna and Olivia (2015) studied the consequences of the closure of a refinery in Mexico City in 1991 on the inhabitants of neighborhoods near the plant (i.e., individuals who were potentially « similar »). After the plant closed, they showed an immediate decrease (1) in pollution for the neighborhoods closest to the plant site and (2) in absenteeism for residents of these neighborhoods in significant proportions (on average, 1.3 hours per week per employee, or a 3.5% increase in working time).
School absenteeism was also studied. Curie et al. (2009) show, using data from some 40 school districts in Texas, that absenteeism increases on days when carbon monoxide levels in the air are highest. For example, based on the Air Quality Standards defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they show that an additional day with pollution levels between 75% and 100% of the EPA limits resulted in a 5% increase in absenteeism. An additional day where the concentration of carbon monoxide exceeded the thresholds defined by the EPA would see absenteeism increase by 9%.
Effects on the productivity of those present
The impact of pollution is not limited to increased absenteeism. In recent years, several studies have highlighted the consequences of pollution peaks on workers present at their workplaces.
The first of these, conducted by Litcher, Pestel, and Sommer (2017), focuses on occupations that require significant physical effort and uses soccer players as an example. Can we observe differences in playing style during pollution peaks? Litcher, Pestel, and Sommer (2017) analyzed the consequences of pollution peaks (concentrations of PM10 and ozone in the air) on professional soccer matches. They show that when air pollution increases, particularly PM10 levels, players make fewer passes (a 1% increase in PM10 levels reduces the number of passes by 0.02%), that these passes are slightly less accurate, and that players tend to favor « long-distance » passes, perhaps to limit physical exertion (short passes can involve more dynamic play and a greater probability of regaining possession of the ball in the short term). This effect appears to be heterogeneous, mainly affecting older players. Beyond the anecdotal aspect of the soccer match example, this study suggests that people with « physical » jobs see part of their performance reduced by pollution peaks.
However, physical activities are not the only ones affected. Ebenstein, Lavy, and Roth (2016) show that students taking the Bagrut (a series of exams equivalent to the high school diploma in Israel) are affected by pollution (measured by PM2.5 levels) and perform less well on the most polluted days. Once again, the effect of pollution appears to be quite heterogeneous. It seems to be stronger in men than in women. This result could be linked to the fact that men are more likely to have asthma or attention disorders, making them more vulnerable to environmental factors such as pollution. Finally, the most « vulnerable » students also seem to be more affected than others. These inequalities are worth highlighting, given the importance of the exam, which determines whether students can continue on to higher education.
Finally, we can mention a study by Chang et al. (2016). This study looks at the productivity of call center workers in China, measured by the time spent on the phone. They show that pollution affects the behavior of workers, who take more frequent or longer breaks. This further suggests that while people in physical jobs are most likely to be affected by air pollution, an effect can also be detected in office jobs.
Conclusion
This article presents some of the recent articles that highlight the immediate economic gains of reducing air pollution. A reduction in air pollution would lead to a decrease in worker absenteeism and an increase in the productivity of workers who are present. This effect would not be limited to workers in jobs that require particular physical effort.
While this article is limited to presenting arguments related to worker output and productivity, the preceding discussion also suggests that the issue of pollution is linked to issues of social justice. Indeed, it appears that the wealthiest individuals can avoid (at least in part) living in and frequenting the most polluted areas, with the harmful effects of pollution tending to concentrate on those who are already the most « fragile » or « vulnerable » [2].
References:
Tom Chang, Joshua Graff Zivin, Tal Gross, and Matthew Neidel, The Effect of Pollution on Worker Productivity: Evidence from Call-center workers in China, NBER working paper, 2016.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22328.pdf
Frank J. Kelly and Julia C. Fussell, Air pollution and public health: emerging hazards and improved understanding of risk, Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2015, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 631–649
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-015-9720-1
Victor Lavy, Avraham Ebenstein, Sefi Roth, The Impact of Air Pollution on Cognitive Performance and Human Capital Formation, NBER working paper, 2012.
Janet Currie, Eric A. Hanushek, E. Megan Kahn, Matthew Neidell, and Steven G. Rivkin Does Pollution increase school absences? The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2009, 91(4): 682–694
http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco7377/papers/currie%20et%20al.pdf
Wanda Diebolt, Annick Helias, Dominique Bidou, and Georges Crepey, Les inégalités écologiques en milieu urbain (Environmental Inequality in Urban Areas), Report by the General Inspectorate of the Environment, Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2005.
http://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/docs/Temis/0076/Temis-0076401/20387.pdf
Andreas Lichter, Nico Pestel, and Eric Sommer, Productivity Effects of Air Pollution: Evidence from professional soccer, Labor Economics, 48, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537117302658?via%3Dihub
Remal Hanna and Paulina Olivia, The effect of pollution on labor supply: Evidence from a natural experiment in Mexico City, Journal of Public Economics, v122, 2015 p68-79.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272714002096
Gordon Mitchell and Danny Dorling, An Environmental justice analysis of British air quality, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2003, p909-929.
http://journals.sagepub.com/home/epn
Lionel Charles, Cyria Emelianoff, Cynthia Ghorra-Gobin, Isabelle Roussel, François-Xavier Roussel, and Helga-Jane Scarwell, « The Many Facets of Environmental Inequality, » Sustainable Development and Territories, Dossier 9, 2007
http://journals.openedition.org/developpementdurable/3892
Emelianoff Cyria, « The issue of ecological inequalities, a new conceptual landscape, » Ecology & Politics, 2008/1 (No. 35), pp. 19-31
https://www.cairn.info/revue-ecologie-et-politique1-2008-1-page-19.htm
Air Quality in Europe – 2016 report, European Environment Agency, N28/2016
file:///C:/Users/cleveque/Downloads/THAL16127ENN_Air_quality_in_europe_report_2016.pdf
Ambient air quality and health, World Health Organization, Fact Sheet No. 313, September 2016
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/fr/
Health impacts of air pollution in France: new data and perspectives, Santé Publique France, 2016.
Air pollution: the cost of inaction, Report by Ms. Leila AÏCHI, on behalf of the EC, economic and financial cost of air pollution No. 610 Volume I (2014-2015) – July 8, 2015
https://www.senat.fr/rap/r14-610-1/r14-610-1.html
PDF link:
https://www.senat.fr/rap/r14-610-1/r14-610-11.pdf
Press article in which Ms. Leila Aïchi suggests that the cost is underestimated:
[1]The issue of particle size is crucial for public health issues.
This is evidenced by the recent debate surrounding the significant increase in the number of serious illnesses in Fos-Sur-Mer, where air quality—measured for particles between 10 and 2.5 microns—appeared to be good.
https://www.franceculture.fr/environnement/pourquoi-tant-de-maladies-rares-a-fos-sur-mer
[2] The relationship between « social justice, » « environmental justice, » and pollution has been studied for a long time. Interested readers can consult, for example, Mitchell and Dorling (2003), Charles et al. (2007), and Emelianoff (2008).
