Abstract
This work reports marginal damage costs to façades due to air pollution exposure estimated “bottom up,” for Norway and Oslo (Norway) by the use of exposure response functions (ERFs) and impact pathway analysis from the emission to the deteriorating impact. The aim of the work was to supply cost estimates that could be compared with reported damage costs to health, agriculture, and ecosystems, and that could be used in cost-benefit analysis by environmental authorities. The marginal damage costs for cleaning, repair, and in total (cleaning + repair) were found to be, in Norway: eight, two, and 10, respectively, and for a traffic situation in Oslo: 50 (77), 50 (28), and 100 (105), (×/÷ 2.5) Euro/kg emission of PM10, SO2, and NO2 in total. For Oslo, the values represent a recorded façade materials inventory for 17–18th century buildings, and in the brackets the same façade inventory as for Norway. In total, 5–10% of the marginal damage cost was found to be due to NO2. The total marginal cost was found to be shared about equally between the impact of PM10 and SO2 in Norway (50 and 42% of the impact) and for the 17–18th century buildings in Oslo (45% and 49% of the impact), but for a similar façade materials inventory in Oslo as Norway, the total marginal cost due to PM10 was about two-thirds and that due to SO2 about one-third of the total, with about 5% of the cost still being due to NO2. The division of the costs between the separate pollutant influences on the cleaning and repair was, however, found to be significantly different in Norway and Oslo. In Norway, about 60% of the marginal cleaning cost was found to be due to PM10, 30% due to SO2, and 10% due to NO2. In Oslo, about 85% of the marginal cleaning costs were found to be due to PM10, 10% due to SO2, and 5% due to NO2. For the marginal repair cost, the opposite situation was found, in both Norway and Oslo, with 80–90% of the cost being due to SO2, 5–10% being due to PM10, and 5–10% due to NO2. As other factors than air pollution deteriorates façades and influences maintenance decisions, the expenses that can be attributed to the air pollution could be significantly lower.
Highlights
In this work, the marginal damage costs to building façades per kilo emission of air pollution were estimated “bottom up” by impact pathway analysis (IPA) from the pollution emissions to the effect, for a regional Norwegian and urban scenario in Oslo, Norway, by the Uniform World Model method described by [1], and using damage functions for the pollution influence on the façade materials developed through [2] (ICP materials, the InternationalCo-operative Programme on Effects on Materials including Historic and Cultural Monuments, within the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, CLRTAP)
The values for the slopes of the exposure response functions (ERFs) are reported per kg/m3 as they are related to the calculation of the marginal cost in Euro/kg
The marginal costs are reported per μg/m3 to relate them to the concentration of air pollution
Summary
The marginal damage costs to building façades per kilo emission of air pollution were estimated “bottom up” by impact pathway analysis (IPA) from the pollution emissions to the effect, for a regional Norwegian and urban scenario in Oslo, Norway, by the Uniform World Model method described by [1], and using damage functions (exposure-response functions, ERFs) for the pollution influence on the façade materials developed through [2] (ICP materials, the InternationalCo-operative Programme on Effects on Materials including Historic and Cultural Monuments, within the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, CLRTAP). The purpose of the work was to supply cost estimates to environmental authorities that could be compared with reported damage costs to health, agriculture, and ecosystems, and that can be used in cost-benefit analysis. Air pollution is a consequence of our economic activities It damages people’s health [4,5,6], reduces crops, has negative impacts on vegetation and ecosystems [7,8,9] and damages the built environment [10,11], with consequent costs to society. The environmental costs have been described as “external” to the decision makers’ main, often short term, economic goals. As such, they have often not been fully included in accounting. Ozone concentration in air Pollution species Acidity.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
