The influence of spatial resolution on human health risk co-benefit estimates for global climate policy assessments

Assessment of the ability of climate policies to produce desired improvements in public health through co-benefits of air pollution reduction can consume resources in both time and research funds. These resources increase significantly as the spatial resolution of models increases. In addition, the level of spatial detail available in macroeconomic models at the heart of climate policy assessments is much lower than that available in traditional human health risk modeling. It is therefore important to determine whether increasing spatial resolution considerably affects risk-based decisions; which kinds of decisions might be affected; and under what conditions they will be affected. Human health risk co-benefits from carbon emissions reductions that bring about concurrent reductions in Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions is therefore examined here at four levels of spatial resolution (Uniform Nation, Uniform Region, Uniform County/city, Health Risk Assessment) in a case study of Taiwan as one of the geographic regions of a global macroeceonomic model, with results that are representative of small, industrialized nations within that global model. A metric of human health risk mortality (YOLL, years of life lost in life expectancy) is compared under assessments ranging from a "uniform simulation" in which there is no spatial resolution of changes in ambient air concentration under a policy to a "highly spatially resolved simulation" (called here Health Risk Assessment). PM10 is chosen in this study as the indicator of air pollution for which risks are assessed due to its significance as a co-benefit of carbon emissions reductions within climate mitigation policy. For the policy examined, the four estimates of mortality in the entirety of Taiwan are 747 YOLL, 834 YOLL, 984 YOLL and 916 YOLL, under Uniform Taiwan, Uniform Region, Uniform County and Health Risk Assessment respectively; or differences of 18%, 9%, 7% if the HRA methodology is taken as the baseline. While these differences are small compared to uncertainties in health risk assessment more generally, the ranks of different regions and of emissions categories as the focus of regulatory efforts estimated at these four levels of spatial resolution are quite different. The results suggest that issues of risk equity within a nation might be missed by the lower levels of spatial resolution, suggesting that low resolution models are suited to calculating national cost-benefit ratios but not as suited to assessing co-benefits of climate policies reflecting intersubject variability in risk, or in identifying sub-national regions and emissions sectors on which to focus attention (although even here, the errors introduced by low spatial resolution are generally less than 40%).