Türkiye’de karayolu taşımacılığından kaynaklanan hava kirliliğinin ekonomik maliyetinin tahmini

Year 2024, , 156 - 168, 15.01.2024

Eda Ustaoglu

https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.1336117

Abstract

Hava kirliliğinin sosyo-ekonomik ve çevresel etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi, eylem önceliklerini belirlemek için bir temel oluşturan kirlilik kontrol stratejilerinin maliyet-fayda analizi için çok önemlidir. Bu makale, hava kalitesi modelleme, mühendislik ve ekonomiyi birleştiren entegre bir değerlendirme metodolojisi kullanarak karayolu taşımacılığıyla ilgili hava kirleticilerinin neden olduğu toplam dışsal maliyetlerin tahminine odaklanmaktadır. Karayolu taşımacılığından kaynaklanan emisyonların hesaplanmasında emisyon faktörleri ve ulaşım ağı özellikleri kullanılmış olup uluslararası örnek çalışmalardan uyarlanan ekonomik değerleme yaklaşımları takip edilerek Türkiye’deki hava kirliliğinin ekonomik maliyetinin hesaplanmasında kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, 2018 yılında Türkiye’de hava kirliliğinin toplam dışsal maliyetinin CO emisyonları için hesaplanan 37,500 avro ile NOx emisyonları için üst sınır olarak hesaplanan 2,686 milyon avro arasında değiştiğini gösterdi. CO2 emisyonlarının sosyal maliyetleri ile ilgili olarak, değerler 31 milyon avro ile 1,427 milyon avro arasında değişmektedir. Bunlardan ilki düşük değerli tahmini, ikincisi ise yüksek değerli tahmini temsil etmektedir. Bulgular karayolu taşımacılığından kaynaklanan emisyonların çevre ve toplum üzerindeki etkisinin Türkiye’de önemli olabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, ulaşım emisyonlarını azaltmak ve sosyo-ekonomik refahı sürdürmek için bazı düzenlemeler gereklidir.

Keywords

Karayolu taşımacılığı, Hava kirleticiler, Ekonomik değerleme, Dış maliyetler, Türkiye

Project Number

118C002

Estimation of economic costs of air pollution from road vehicle transportation in Turkey

Abstract

Valuation of the economic, social and environmental impacts of air pollution has become crucial for the benefit-cost analysis of pollution restriction strategies, which serve as a foundation for establishing priorities for action. This paper focuses on the estimation of total external costs caused by road transport-related air pollutants using an integrated evaluation methodology combining air quality modelling, engineering science and economics. Emission factors and transport network characteristics were used to compute emissions from the road transport that is followed by economic valuation approaches adopted from international case studies and used for calculating the economic costs of air pollution in Türkiye. The results showed that total external costs of air pollution in Türkiye in 2018 ranged between 37,500 euros which is computed for CO emissions and 2,686 million euros computed as an upper limit for NOx emissions. Regarding the social costs of CO2 emissions, the values range between 31 million euro and 1,427 million euro, the former represents the low value estimate while the latter is the high value estimate. The findings indicate that the impact of emissions from road transport on environment and society can be substantial in Türkiye. Therefore, some regulations are necessary to reduce transport emissions and to sustain socio-economic welfare.

Keywords

Road transport, Air pollutants, Economic valuation, External costs, Turkey

Supporting Institution

TUBİTAK

Project Number

118C002

References

• Commission of the European Communities. Green paper on the urban environment. European Commission, Brussel, 1990.
• P. Duffy, K. Black, P. O’Brian, B. Hyde, A. M. Ryan, J. Ponzi and M. S. Alam, National inventory report 2017, EPA, Ireland, 2017.
• Y. Van Fan, S. Perry, J. J. Klemes and C. T. Lee, A review on air emissions assessment: Transportation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 673-684, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.151
• V. L. Boothe and D. G. Shendell, Potential health effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primary roads: Review of scientific literature 1999-2006. Journal of Environmental Health, 70(8), 33-41, 2008. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 26327596
• OECD. OECD Environmental performance reviews: Türkiye, OECD, Paris, 2019.
• L. Zhao, Y. Xie, J. Wang and X. Xu, A performance assessment and adjustment program for air quality monitoring networks in Shanghai. Atmospheric Environment, 122, 382-392, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.09.069
• UNITE (Unification of Accounts and Marginal Costs for Transport Efficiency). Funded by EU’s 5th RTD Framework Programme. ITS, University of Leeds, UK. http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/unite, 2000.
• NEEDS. New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS). Deliverable D4.2: Assessment of biodiversity losses: Econcept AG and ESU-services Zurich, Ulster, 2006.
• NEEDS. New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS). Deliverable D6.7: Final report on the monetary valuation of mortality and morbidity risks from air pollution, University of Paris, Paris, 2007.
• HEATCO (Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment). Deliverable 5. Funded by 6th Framework Programme IER, Germany, 2004.
• CAFÉ. Clean air for Europe Programme (CAFE): Damages per tonne of PM2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOC’s of EU-25 Member State and surrounding seas. AEA Technology Environment, Didcot UK, 2005.
• ExternE. Externalities of Energy: Methodology 2005 update. EC, Luxembourg, 2005.
• K. Chen, M. Ni, M. Cai, J. Wang, D. Huang., H. Chen, X. Wang and M. Liu, Optimization of a coastal environmental monitoring network based on the kriging method: A case study of Quanzhou Bay, China. BioMed Research International, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7137310
• K. Z. Benis, E. Fatehifar, S. Shafiei, K. F. Nahr and Y. Purfarhadi, Design of a sensitive air quality monitoring network using an integrated optimization approach. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 30, 779-793, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1189-z
• G. A. Giorgio, M. Ragosta and V. Telasca, Application of a multivariate statistical index on series of wheather measurements at local scale. Measurement, 112, 61-66, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.08.005
• A. Mofarrah and T. Husain, A holistic approach for optimal design of air quality monitoring network expansion in an urban area. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 432-440, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv. 2009.07.045
• J. Zheng, X. Feng, P. Liu, L. Zhong and S. Lai, Site location optimization of regional air quality monitoring network in China: methodology and case study. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13, 3185-3195, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1EM10560D
• INFRAS/IWW. External costs of transport: Update study. INFRAS and IWW, Zurich/Karlsruhe, 2000.
• INFRAS/IWW. External costs of transport: Accident, environmental and congestion costs of transport in Western Europe. INFRAS and IWW, Zurich/Karlsruhe, 2004.
• WHO. Guidelines for community noise. S. I. WHO, Copenhagen, 1999.
• D. J. Carruthers, P. Dickson, C. A. McHugh, S. G. Nixon and W. Oates, Determination of compliance with UK and EU air quality objectives from high-resolution pollutant concentration maps calculated using ADMS-Urban. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 16, 460-471, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2001.000641
• J. C. Chang and S. R. Hanna, Air quality model performance evaluation. Metheorology and Athmospheric Physics, 87, 167-196, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0070-7
• M. Jerrett, A. Arain, P. Kanaroglou, B. Beckerman, D. Potoglou, T. Sahsuvaroglu, J. Morrison and C. Giovis, A review and evaluation of intraurban air pollution exposure models. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 15, 185-204, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500388
• WHO. Economic valuation of transport-related health effects: Review of methods and development of practical approaches, with a special focus on children. WHO, Copenhagen, 2008.
• Y. Sellier, J. Galineau, A. Hulin, F. Caini, N. Marquis et al., Health effects of ambient air pollution: Do different methods for estimating exposure lead to different results? Environment International, 66, 165-173, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014. 02.001
• O. G. Conti, B. Heibati, I. Kloog, M. Fiore and M. Ferrante, A review of AirQ models and their applications for forecasting the air pollution health outcomes. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 6426-6445, 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-016-8180-1
• IEA. Energy policies of IEA countries: Turkey 2016 review. International Energy Agency, France, 2016.
• CE Delft, INFRAS & Fraunhofer ISI. External costs of transport in Europe. CE Delft, Delft, 2011.
• EU-RTR. Technical assistance for improving emissions control. Final Report-Part II: Main Technical Results. PM Project number: 300424. Project co-financed by European Union and Republic of Turkey, 2012.
• EEA. Air pollution fact sheet 2014 Turkey. EEA, Copenhagen, 2014.
• EEA. EMEP/EEA Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019. EEA, Copenhagen, 2019.
• TurkStat. Road vehicle statistics. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/, Accessed. 25 March, 2020
• CE Delft. Health impacts of costs of diesel emissions in the EU. CE Delft, Delft, 2018.
• EC. Handbook on the external costs of transport. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019.
• A. Rabl, J. Spadaro and M. Holland, How much is clean air worth? Calculating the benefits of pollution control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014.
• P. Mock, IPC-mercator policy brief: Policy options to reduce emissions from the road transport sector in Turkey. Istanbul Policy Center, Sabancı University, Istanbul, 2016.
• R. S. J. Tol and S. Lyons, S. Incorporating GHG emission costs in the economic appraisal of projects supported by state development agencies. Working Paper 247. ESRI, Ireland, 2008.
• R. S. J. Tol, The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: An assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy, 33(16), 2064-2074, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.04.002
• P. Watkiss, D. Anthoff, T. Downing, C. Hepburn, C.H.R. Hope, A. Hunt, A and R. Tol, The social cost of carbon (SCC) review-Methodological approaches for using SCC estimates in policy assessment. Final Report December 2005, DEFRA, UK, 2005.
• O. Kuik, L. Brander and R. S. J. Tol, Marginal abatement costs of carbon-dioxide emissions: A meta analysis. Working Paper 248, ESRI, Ireland, 2008.
• O. Kuik, L. Brander, N. Nikitina, S. Navrud, K. Magnussen and E. H. Fall, Report on the monetary valuation of energy related impacts on land-use changes, acidification, eutrophication, visual intrusion and climate change CASES (Cost Assessment of Sustainable Energy Systems) Funded by EU 6th Framework Programme, 2007.
• DEFRA. The social costs of carbon review-Methodological approaches for using SCC estimates in policy assessment. AEA Technology Environment, London, 2005.
• World Bank. Report of the high-level commission of carbon prices. The World Bank, Washington, 2017.
• IEA. Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (ETP 2012), http://www.iea.org/etp/publications/etp2012, Accessed 16 April 2022
• C. Hood, Input to the high-level commission on carbon prices. Background paper for the Commission. EC, Brussels, 2017.
• E. Casey, Estimating Vehicular Emissions and Informing Air Quality Assessments for Dublin, Using Descriptions of Vehicle Activity. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University College Dublin, 2010.
• P. Bickel, S. Schmid, W. Krewitt and R. Friedrich, External costs of transport in ExternE. EC, Louxembourg, 1997.
• OECD. Air and climate: Greenhouse gas emissions from source. OECD Environment Statistics database, Paris, 2020.
• MEU. State of the environment report for Republic of Turkey. Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation: Ankara, Turkey, 2016.