| 5,192 | 82 | 368 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
为探究《大气污染防治行动计划》(以下简称"大气十条")的健康效应,本文基于中国健康与营养调查(CHNS)数据及省级面板数据,利用基于多项Logit模型的双重差分法(Logit-DID),从微观与宏观两个维度考察"大气十条"政策的健康改善效应及其传导机制,并进一步通过异质性分析探讨环境健康不平等的内在原因。研究发现:"大气十条"实施带来显著的健康效应,该政策不仅能有效控制与空气污染高度相关疾病的发病率和死亡占比,还能够间接降低受空气污染影响较小的疾病病情。其作用机理主要通过控制PM2.5浓度改善公众健康,同时该政策对二氧化硫(SO2)、氮氧化物、烟(粉)尘等其他污染物浓度的下降起到了协同作用。进一步分析显示环境福利不公平的现象依然存在,"大气十条"政策显著降低了疾病高发人群的发病率,且对女性、城镇居民和低、高年龄段等疾病高发人群的健康影响更显著。本文为政府构建环境健康公平发展路径,推进"健康中国"战略提供了经验证据和政策借鉴。
Abstract：To explore the health effects of“Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan”( hereinafter referred to as the Policy),this paper is based on the China Health and Nutrition Survey( CHNS) data and provincial panel data,uses the DID method based on Multinomial Logit Model( Logit-DID),from micro and macro dimensions to investigate health effects and transmission mechanism of the Policy,and further conducts heterogeneity analysis to investigate the internal causes of environmental health inequalities. This paper finds that the Policy can not only effectively control the incidence rate and proportion of death highly related to air pollution,but also indirectly reduce the diseases less affected by air pollution,and the health effects of the Policy are significant. Its transmission mechanism is to improve public health by controlling PM2. 5 concentration and have synergy in reducing the concentration of SO2,NOx,smoke( dust) and other pollutants.Further analysis shows that the phenomenon of environmental welfare inequality still exists. The Policy has significantly reduced the incidence rate among people with a high incidence of diseases,and the health effects are more significant on women,urban residents and people with high incidence rates such as low and high age groups. This paper provides empirical evidence and policy reference for the government to construct the development path of environmental health and equality and promote the strategy of“Healthy China”.
[1]曹彩虹，韩立岩．雾霾带来的社会健康成本估算[J]．统计研究，2015,32(7):19-23.
[2]陈硕，陈婷．空气质量与公共健康:以火电厂二氧化硫排放为例[J]．经济研究，2014,49(8):158-169,183.
[3]谌仁俊．大气污染、公众健康与环境政策研究[D]．武汉:华中师范大学数学与统计学学院，2016.
[4]洪也，张莹，马雁军，等．沈阳大气污染物与气象因素对呼吸疾病门诊数的影响[J]．中国环境科学，2020,40(9):4077-4090.
[5]刘铠豪，佟家栋，刘润娟．中国出口扩张的健康成本:来自成年人发病率的证据[J]．中国工业经济，2019(8):118-135.
[6]祁毓，卢洪友，杜亦譞．环境健康经济学研究进展[J]．经济学动态，2014(3):124-137.
[7]邵帅，李欣，曹建华．中国的城市化推进与雾霾治理[J]．经济研究，2019,54(2):148-165.
[8]武翠芳，姚志春，李玉文，等．环境公平研究进展综述[J]．地球科学进展，2009,24(11):1268-1274.
[9]武卫玲，薛文博，王燕丽，等．《大气污染防治行动计划》实施的环境健康效果评估[J]．环境科学，2019,40(7):2961-2966.
[10]杨斯悦，王凤，刘娜．《大气污染防治行动计划》实施效果评估:双重差分法[J]．中国人口·资源与环境，2020,30(5):110-117.
[11]余明桂，范蕊，钟慧洁．中国产业政策与企业技术创新[J]．中国工业经济，2016(12):5-22.
[12]Aloi M,Tournemaine F. Growth Effects of Environmental Policy When Pollution Affects Health[J]. Economic Modelling,2011,28(1):1683-1695.
[13]Anenberg S C,Horowitz L W,Tong D Q,et al. An Estimate of the Global Burden of Anthropogenic Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter on Premature Human Mortality Using Atmospheric Modeling[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives,2010,118(9):1189-1195.
[14]Bell M L,Davis D L,Gouveia N,et al. The Avoidable Health Effects of Air Pollution in Three Latin American Cities:Santiago,S2o Paulo,and Mexico City[J]. Environmental Research,2006,100(3):431-440.
[15]Chay K Y,Greenstone M. Air Quality,Infant Mortality,and The Clean Air Act of 1970[R]. NBER Working Paper,2003.
[16]Chen Y,Ebenstein A,Greenstone M,et al. Evidence on The Impact of Sustained Exposure to Air Pollution on Life Expectancy from China’s Huai River Policy[J]. PNAS,2013,110(32):12936-12941.
[17]Cropper M L. Measuring the Benefits from Reduced Morbidity[J]. American Economic Review,1981,71(2):235-240.
[18]Deschenes O,Greenstone M,Shapiro J S,et al. Defensive Investments and the Demand for Air Quality:Evidence from the NOx Budget Program[J]. American Economic Review,2017,107(10):2958-2989.
[19]Evans M F,Smith V K. Do New Health Conditions Support Mortality-Air Pollution Effects?[J]. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2005,50(3):496-518.
[20]Fan M,He G,Zhou M. The Winter Choke:Coal-Fired Heating,Air Pollution,and Mortality in China[J]. Journal of Health Economics,2020,71:102316.
[21]Grossman M. On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health[J]. The Journal of Political Economy,1972,80(2):223-255.
[22]Hausman J,Mc Fadden D. Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model[J]. Econometrica,1984,52(5):1219-1240.
[23]Janet C,Matthew N. Air Pollution and Infant Health:What Can We Learn from California’s Recent Experience?[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,2005,120(3):1003-1030.
[24]Severnini E. Impacts of Nuclear Plant Shutdown on Coal-Fired Power Generation and Infant Health in the Tennessee Valley in the1980s[J]. Nature Energy,2017,2(4):1137-1170.
[25]Tanaka S. Environmental Regulations on Air Pollution in China and Their Impact on Infant Mortality[J]. Journal of Health Economics,2015,42:90-103.
[26]Wei S M,Baller E B,Kohn P D,et al. Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Val66Met Genotype and Ovarian Steroids Interactively Modulate Working Memory-Related Hippocampal Function in Women:A Multimodal Neuroimaging Study[J]. Molecular Psychiatry,2018,23(4):1066-1075.
[27]Yang M,Rhea A B,Chou S,et al. The Impact of Prenatal Exposure to Power Plant Emissions on Birth Weight:Evidence from a Pennsylvania Power Plant Located Upwind of New Jersey[J]. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,2017,36(3):557-583.
[28]Zheng S,Wang J,Sun C,et al. Air Pollution Lowers Chinese Urbanites’Expressed Happiness on Social Media[J]. Nature Human Behaviour,2019,3(3):237-243.
(1)来源于习近平总书记在2016年全国卫生与健康大会上的重要讲话，网址:http://www. gov. cn/xinwen/2016-08/20/content_5101024. htm。
(1)由于本文的研究对象于2011年才加入CHNS的调查范围，因此本文仅选取2011年和2015年的数据进行分析。
(2)“大气十条”政策重点关注京津冀、长三角和珠三角三个区域，除去2015年新增的云南、浙江与陕西3个省份，在CHNS涉及的12个调查省份中，北京、上海和江苏3省位于上述区域，选择为处理组，将其余辽宁、黑龙江、山东、河南、湖南、湖北、广西、贵州、重庆9个省份作为控制组。
(1)数据来源:https:www. cpc. unc. edu/projects/china。
(2)CHNS将职业分为了13类，本文依据职业类型主体人群工作中暴露在大气污染中的平均暴露程度，选取“农民、渔民、猎人”“技术工人”“非技术工人”“司机”4类主要分布在农业、工业和非行政办公类工作作为近污染源职业，其他主要在室内工作或行政办公类(如“高级专业/技术工作者”“管理者”“办公室一般人员”等)等9类职业为非近污染源职业。
(3)身体质量指数由CHNS中身高、体重计算而得。按我国标准，18. 5≤BMI<24为健康身体质量指数。
(4)由于数据的可获得性，仅有北京、天津、河南、四川、新疆、浙江与福建7个省份公布了相关疾病死亡占比情况，因此本文考虑将位于京津冀、长三角地区的北京、天津和浙江作为处理组，余下4省份作为控制组，设计准自然实验。
(1)由于数据的可获得性，仅有7个省份公布了疾病死亡占比，其中北京、天津、河南、四川、新疆均为全省份的疾病死亡占比，而浙江与福建两省份的数据以城乡形式公布，因此本文通过该省份每年的城乡人口占比加权平均得到全省份的疾病死亡占比。
(2)大型医院占比为各省份大型医院个数占所有医院个数的比例。
(1)检验具体结果在附件中展示，见《统计研究》网站所列附件。
基本信息:
DOI：10.19343/j.cnki.11-1302/c.2021.09.005
中图分类号:R12;X51
引用信息:
[1]范丹,叶昱圻,王维国.空气污染治理与公众健康——来自“大气十条”政策的证据[J].统计研究,2021,38(09):60-74.DOI:10.19343/j.cnki.11-1302/c.2021.09.005.
基金信息:
国家自然科学基金青年项目“绿色技术创新视阈下我国环境污染的空间效应及差异化环境规制路径研究”(71603042);国家自然科学基金面上项目“省际能源消费的变系数非参空间面板数据模型研究”(71773012)
2021-09-29
2021-09-29
2021-09-29