Pearce D, Mooney G, Akehurst R, West P
Environ Health Perspect. 1983 Oct;52:207-13. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8352207.
This paper attempts to apply two principles of rationality--efficiency and equity--to the establishment of air quality standards for total suspended particulates in the USA. It is argued that standard setting should embrace either the use of some cost-benefit-risk criterion, or some concept of equity whereby risks are not reduced below levels judged to be acceptable elsewhere. There is often a trade-off to be made between these principles of efficiency and equity and that both cannot be pursued in tandem. In other words, the cost of fairness is more deaths in total than there need be at a particular level of expenditure. The concept of the "margin of safety" is also discussed, and we conclude that, as currently defined, it is of doubtful relevance in either the context of efficiency or of equity. Finally, and using evidence from other studies, we conclude that there are much more cost-effective ways of using scarce resources to save lives (e.g., in health care and in road safety) than pursuing the primary standards for TSP laid down by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in light of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977.
本文试图将合理性的两项原则——效率与公平——应用于美国总悬浮颗粒物空气质量标准的制定。有人认为,标准制定应采用某种成本效益风险标准,或某种公平概念,即风险不应降低到被认为在其他地方可接受的水平以下。在效率和公平这两项原则之间往往需要进行权衡,而且两者不能同时兼顾。换句话说,公平的代价是在特定支出水平下总的死亡人数比必要的更多。文中还讨论了“安全边际”的概念,我们得出结论,按照目前的定义,它在效率或公平的背景下都与实际情况关系不大。最后,根据其他研究的证据,我们得出结论,与按照1970年和1977年美国《清洁空气法》修正案制定的美国环境保护局总悬浮颗粒物主要标准相比,利用稀缺资源拯救生命(如在医疗保健和道路安全方面)有更具成本效益的方法。