Cited by 576Air Quality and Health ImpactsEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Environment, health, and human capital

Graff Zivin, Joshua, Neidell, Matthew·2013·Journal of Economic Literature

Abstract

In this review, we discuss three major contributions economists have made to our understanding of the relationship between the environment and individual well-being. First, in explicitly recognizing how optimizing behavior, particularly in the form of residential sorting, can lead to nonrandom assignment of pollution, economists have employed a wide range of quasi-experimental techniques to develop causal estimates of the effect of pollution. Second, economic research has placed a considerable focus on the role of avoidance behavior, which is an important component for understanding the difference between biological and behavioral effects of pollution and for proper welfare calculations. Lastly, economic research has expanded the focus of analysis beyond traditional health outcomes to include measures of human capital, including labor supply, productivity, and cognition. Our review of the quasi-experimental evidence on this topic suggests that pollution does indeed have a wide range of effects on individual well-being, even at levels well below current regulatory standards. Given the importance of health and human capital as an engine for economic growth, these findings underscore the role of environmental conditions as an important factor of production. (JEL I12, I31, J24, Q51, Q53)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/jel.51.3.689

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacts human capital through its negative effect on adolescent mental health.

    “Furthermore, because of the importance of mental health as a component of human capital (Goldsmith et al., 1997; Graff and Neidell, 2013), our findings suggest a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human capital (O’Connell et al., 2022).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graff Zivin, J., & Neidell, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Diego, and National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Venue
Journal of Economic Literature
Published
2013-09-01
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
689-730
ISSN
0022-0515 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2118680768
Cited by
576
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
18.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Economic Literature (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
environmental pollution, health effects of pollution, human capital, well-being, residential sorting, pollution exposure, avoidance behavior, labor supply, productivity, cognition, quasi-experimental evidence

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