| Summary: | This work reports marginal damage costs to façades due to air pollution exposure estimated “bottom up,” for Norway and Oslo (Norway) by the use of exposure response functions (ERFs) and impact pathway analysis from the emission to the deteriorating impact. The aim of the work was to supply cost estimates that could be compared with reported damage costs to health, agriculture, and ecosystems, and that could be used in cost-benefit analysis by environmental authorities. The marginal damage costs for cleaning, repair, and in total (cleaning + repair) were found to be, in Norway: eight, two, and 10, respectively, and for a traffic situation in Oslo: 50 (77), 50 (28), and 100 (105), (×/÷ 2.5) Euro/kg emission of PM<sub>10</sub>, SO<sub>2</sub>, and NO<sub>2</sub> in total. For Oslo, the values represent a recorded façade materials inventory for 17–18th century buildings, and in the brackets the same façade inventory as for Norway. In total, 5–10% of the marginal damage cost was found to be due to NO<sub>2</sub>. The total marginal cost was found to be shared about equally between the impact of PM<sub>10</sub> and SO<sub>2</sub> in Norway (50 and 42% of the impact) and for the 17–18th century buildings in Oslo (45% and 49% of the impact), but for a similar façade materials inventory in Oslo as Norway, the total marginal cost due to PM<sub>10</sub> was about two-thirds and that due to SO<sub>2</sub> about one-third of the total, with about 5% of the cost still being due to NO<sub>2</sub>. The division of the costs between the separate pollutant influences on the cleaning and repair was, however, found to be significantly different in Norway and Oslo. In Norway, about 60% of the marginal cleaning cost was found to be due to PM<sub>10</sub>, 30% due to SO<sub>2</sub>, and 10% due to NO<sub>2</sub>. In Oslo, about 85% of the marginal cleaning costs were found to be due to PM<sub>10</sub>, 10% due to SO<sub>2</sub>, and 5% due to NO<sub>2</sub>. For the marginal repair cost, the opposite situation was found, in both Norway and Oslo, with 80–90% of the cost being due to SO<sub>2</sub>, 5–10% being due to PM<sub>10</sub>, and 5–10% due to NO<sub>2</sub>. As other factors than air pollution deteriorates façades and influences maintenance decisions, the expenses that can be attributed to the air pollution could be significantly lower.
|
|---|
