Cited by 169Energy and Environment ImpactsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Retrofitting houses with insulation: a cost–benefit analysis of a randomised community trial

Chapman, R, Howden-Chapman, P, Viggers, H, O’Dea, D, Kennedy, M·2009·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Background: Housing is an important environmental influence on population health, and there is growing evidence of health effects from indoor environment characteristics such as low indoor temperatures. However, there is relatively little research, and thus little firm guidance, on the cost-effectiveness of public policies to retrospectively improve the standards of houses. The purpose of this study was to value the health, energy and environmental benefits of retrofitting insulation, through assessing a number of forms of possible benefit: a reduced number of visits to GPs, hospitalisations, days off school, days off work, energy savings and CO 2 savings. Methods: All these metrics are used in a cluster randomised trial—the “Housing, Insulation and Health Study”—of retrofitting insulation in 1350 houses, in which at least one person had symptoms of respiratory disease, in predominantly low-income communities in New Zealand. Results: Valuing the health gains, and energy and CO 2 emissions savings, suggests that total benefits in “present value” (discounted) terms are one and a half to two times the magnitude of the cost of retrofitting insulation. Conclusion: This study points to the need to consider as wide a range of benefits as possible, including health and environmental benefits, when assessing the value for money of an intervention to improve housing quality. From an environmental, energy and health perspective, the value for money of improving housing quality by retrofitting insulation is compelling.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech.2007.070037

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., Viggers, H., O’Dea, D., & Kennedy, M.
Affiliations
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Ministry of Health (NZ)
Corresponding author
Chapman, R
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-03-18
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
271-277
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2024876235
Cited by
169
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
cost-effectiveness, housing quality, indoor temperature, respiratory diseases, low-income housing, energy conservation, CO2 emission reduction, health benefits valuation, present value, value for money, housing policy, New Zealand
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adolescent, Child, Conservation of Energy Resources, Construction Materials, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Status, Hospitalization, Housing, Humans, Poverty Areas, Greenhouse Effect, Sick Leave

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review