The book presents a major meta-analysis of 'value of a statistical life' (VSL) estimates derived from surveys where people around the world have been asked about their willingness to pay for small reduction in mortality risks.

In light of recent evidence on the relationship of ozone to mortality and questions about its implications for benefit analysis, the Environmental Protection Agency asked the National Research Council to establish a committee of experts to evaluate independently the contributions of recent epidemiologic studies to understanding the size of the ozone-mortality effect in the context of benefit analysis. The committee was also asked to assess methods for estimating how much a reduction in short-term exposure to ozone would reduce premature deaths, to assess methods for estimating associated increases in life expectancy, and to assess methods for estimating the monetary value of the reduced risk of premature death and increased life expectancy in the context of health-benefits analysis. Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution details the committee's findings and posits several recommendations to address these issues.

Two internet-based surveys were conducted with adults aged 35 to 84 - 885 respondents in the United States and 641 respondents in Canada - to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for reducing mortality risks through out-of-pocket costs for health-care programs. All respondents were asked a series of choice questions followed by a payment-card question. Causes of death included cancer and heart attack. Levels of annual mortality-risk reduction were 1, 2, and 5 in 10,000. Converted to values of statistical life, results were in the range of $4-5 million (2002 U.S. dollars) for the choice-question results for a 2-in-10,000 annual risk reduction for illness-related mortality. U.S. and Canadian results were similar. The payment-card results were about 50% lower than the choice-question results. WTP to reduce mortality risk was essentially the same for cancer and heart attack. The results showed WTP weakly increasing with age, and no evidence of lower WTP for older adults versus middle-aged adults.

The relationship between environment and children’s health has been the subject of increasing interest these last ten years. For instance, many OECD Member countries are reporting asthma epidemics exacerbated by air pollution: in the United States nearly 1 in 13 school-age children (approximately 4.8 million) has asthma, and the rate is increasing more rapidly in school-age children than in any other group. The importance of this issue has resulted in a growing number of epidemiological studies aiming at better understanding and better characterising the relationship between environmental pollution and the health of children. However, in many respects, the valuation of children’s health strongly differs from the valuation of adults’ health and constitutes a real challenge for analysts as well as for decision-makers. Consequently, this book proposes an in depth analysis of the main methodological difficulties associated with estimating the social value of a reduction in risk to children. Questions such as how to elicit children’s preferences, what valuation methodology and benefit measure to choose, how to discount benefits to children’s health, and how to account for economic uncertainties in this specific context of economic valuation will be systematically examined in order to define key policy implications and to pave the way for further research.

This report, the final output of the Valuation of Environment-Related Health Impacts (VERHI) project, presents new findings on whether the value of reducing environmental risk greater for children than for adults.

This OECD book proposes an in depth analysis of the main methodological difficulties associated with estimating the social value of a reduction in environmental health risks to children.