Monetary benefits of preventing childhood lead poisoning with lead-safe window replacement

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2007.09.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Previous estimates of childhood lead poisoning prevention benefits have quantified the present value of some health benefits, but not the costs of lead paint hazard control or the benefits associated with housing and energy markets. Because older housing with lead paint constitutes the main exposure source today in the US, we quantify health benefits, costs, market value benefits, energy savings, and net economic benefits of lead-safe window replacement (which includes paint stabilization and other measures). The benefit per resident child from improved lifetime earnings alone is $21,195 in pre-1940 housing and $8685 in 1940–59 housing (in 2005 dollars). Annual energy savings are $130–486 per housing unit, with or without young resident children, with an associated increase in housing market value of $5900–14,300 per housing unit, depending on home size and number of windows replaced. Net benefits are $4490–5,629 for each housing unit built before 1940, and $491–1629 for each unit built from 1940–1959, depending on home size and number of windows replaced. Lead-safe window replacement in all pre-1960 US housing would yield net benefits of at least $67 billion, which does not include many other benefits. These other benefits, which are shown in this paper, include avoided Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, other medical costs of childhood lead exposure, avoided special education, and reduced crime and juvenile delinquency in later life. In addition, such a window replacement effort would reduce peak demand for electricity, carbon emissions from power plants, and associated long-term costs of climate change.

Introduction

Early childhood lead exposure impairs neurobehavioral development, reducing average educational achievement and lifetime income (National Academy of Sciences, 1993). Previous studies (Schwartz, 1994; Salkever, 1995; Landrigan et al., 2002; Grosse et al., 2002) of the monetized health benefits of avoided preschool lead exposure have focused on the present value of higher lifetime earnings, but not the cost and non-health benefits of lead paint hazard control. Some elevations in childhood blood lead can be caused by lead paint chip ingestion, inhaled air lead, and other types of exposure, but the most pervasive pathway affecting young children today in the US is lead contaminated settled house dust ingested via normal hand-to-mouth activity (Lanphear et al., 1998; Duggan and Inskip, 1985; Bornschein et al., 1987). Leaded gasoline settled as dust lead in years past, but lead emissions fell sharply through the 1980s with the phase out of lead in gasoline (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). The use of lead in residential paint was banned after 1977, but lead paint and the contaminated dust and soil it generates remained a hazard in 24 million older housing units in 1999–2000 (Jacobs et al., 2002).

The US Environmental Protection Agency (2001) now defines housing units with “lead paint hazards” to include units that exceed regulatory standards for lead in soil and/or household dust, and/or deteriorated lead paint. Lead paint hazard reduction can be achieved via interim controls that remove lead dust hazards and stabilize deteriorated lead paint, or via permanent abatement of these hazards (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999) or a combination of the two. Interim controls that do not remove lead paint may be less expensive in the short term but do not provide a permanent solution without ongoing specialized maintenance. Targeting housing with young children is also problematic because the housing units with children are constantly changing as families move. However, lead hazard control using “lead-safe window replacement” is a strategy that can remove dust lead and lead paint surfaces likely to contaminate dust and soil. This can be expected to yield substantial health benefits for young children occupying such units now or in the future, plus substantial energy savings and increased residential market value (Jacobs and Nevin, 2006; Nevin and Jacobs, 2006). Here, we define lead-safe window replacement to be:

  • (1)

    Replacement of all single-pane windows with high-efficiency Energy Star windows;

  • (2)

    Stabilization of any significantly deteriorated paint;

  • (3)

    Specialized cleaning to remove any lead-contaminated dust following the repairs; and

  • (4)

    Clearance testing (which includes dust wipe analysis) to confirm the absence of lead dust hazards after project cleanup.

Replacing single-pane windows substantially reduces energy bills and also effectively targets older housing likely to have lead dust, because single-pane windows are likely to have lead paint on interior surfaces and friction on window surfaces with lead paint cause a large percentage of lead dust hazards (Jacobs and Nevin, 2006). This paper quantifies health benefits realized by young children who occupy housing that has undergone lead-safe window replacement. It also quantifies energy savings and an associated increase in home value that provide ongoing monetary benefits in units not currently occupied by families with children. We quantify the upgrade costs, market benefits, annual energy bill savings, quantifiable health benefits, and net economic benefits of lead-safe window replacement in pre-1978 housing.

Section snippets

Trends in preschool blood lead, and blood lead reduction from window replacement

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2002 blood lead data for children ages 1–5 are compared with 1991–1994 NHANES data to show the 1990s trend in elevated preschool blood lead by age of housing. The 1999–2000 National Survey of Lead and Allergens in Housing (NSLAH) data on lead paint hazard prevalence by age of housing (Jacobs et al., 2002), and trends in other lead exposure pathways, are then compared with the NHANES trend to confirm that lead paint hazards now cause

Trends in preschool blood lead, and blood lead reduction from window replacement

Table 1 shows that preschool children with blood lead above 10 μg/dL are increasingly concentrated in older housing. The 1991–1994 NHANES data reported a higher prevalence of elevated blood lead in housing built before 1978, but some children in post-1977 housing also had blood lead above 10 μg/dL in the early 1990s (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997). In contrast, the 1999–2002 NHANES data show a very low prevalence over 10 μg/dL, and over 5 μg/dL, among children living in

Discussion

In 2005, there were roughly 22 million pre-1960 housing units with single-pane windows, about equally divided between pre-1940 and 1940–1959 units (Jacobs and Nevin, 2006; US Bureau of the Census, 1998, US Bureau of the Census, 2006). Lead-safe window replacement in these units, at the average benefits and costs in Table 6 for a 1200 ft2 home, would yield net benefits of at least $67 billion. Table 6 reflects lifetime earnings benefits for children under the age of 30 months, but children ages

Conclusions

Lead-safe window replacement would yield at least $67 billion in net monetary benefits. It would also lower energy costs by 15–25% in pre-1960 homes with single-pane windows, which account for about 20% of all US housing units. Homes with single-pane windows were built before the era of home energy codes and are some of the least energy-efficient homes. A 15–25% energy use reduction in this inefficient segment of the housing stock could reduce total national residential energy use by 5% or

References (54)

  • J. Schwartz

    Societal benefits of reducing lead exposure

    Environ. Res.

    (1994)
  • Alfano, S., 2001–2005. Cost vs. Value Report. Remodeling Online, Accessed at:...
  • Arizona Department of Health Services, 2002. Lead Poisoning in Arizona Annual Report 2001. Bureau of Epidemiology and...
  • S. Birnbaum et al.

    Protein kinase C overactivity impairs prefrontal cortical regulation of working memory

    Science

    (2004)
  • R.L. Bornschein et al.

    Exterior surface dust lead, interior house dust and childhood lead exposure in an urban environment

  • J.M. Braun et al.

    Exposures to environmental toxicants and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in US children

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (2006)
  • R.L. Canfield et al.

    Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead levels below 10 μg/dL

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2003)
  • J.B. Corgel et al.

    Measuring energy efficiency for selection and adjustment of comparable sales

    Appraisal J. January,

    (1982)
  • D.W. Denno

    Biology and Violence

    (1990)
  • M.J. Duggan et al.

    Childhood exposure to lead in surface dust and soil: a community health problem

    Public Health Rev.

    (1985)
  • S.D. Grosse et al.

    Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children's exposure to lead in the United States

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (2002)
  • R. Halvorsen et al.

    The effects of fuel prices on house prices

    Urban Stud.

    (1981)
  • A. Honeycutt et al.

    Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral Palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment—United States, 2003

    Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep

    (2003)
  • House Committee on Education & the Workforce, 2006. Issue Brief, Accessed September 15, 2006 at...
  • D.E. Jacobs et al.

    The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in US housing

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (2002)
  • R.C. Johnson et al.

    Housing market capitalization of energy-saving durable good investments

    Econ. Inquiry

    (1983)
  • A.R. Kemper et al.

    Cost-effectiveness analysis of lead poisoning screening strategies following the 1997 guidelines of the CDC

    Arch Pediatr Adolescence Med

    (1998)
  • Cited by (29)

    • Using exterior housing conditions to predict elevated pediatric blood lead levels

      2023, Environmental Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Deterioration of housing conditions may be an obvious predictor for a number of health risks, but they are not regularly included in lead exposure risk assessments. However, research does exist to support the importance of multiple housing elements, including windows (Dixon et al., 2012; Nevin et al., 2008), exterior paint (Billings and Schnepel, 2017; Jones, 2012), and porch conditions (Wilson et al., 2015). Deterioration of lead-based paint involves breakdown, and formation of dust particulate which will inevitably contain lead.

    • Criminal arrests associated with reduced regional brain volumes in an adult population with documented childhood lead exposure

      2021, Environmental Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Pihl and Ervin (1990) observed that violent incarcerated offenders tended to have higher levels of hair lead and cadmium compared with non-violent offenders without differences in age, socioeconomic status or period of incarceration. At the aggregate level, associations between air lead concentrations and crime rates have been observed such as those described by Nevin (2007), Nevin et al. (2008). Stretesky and Lynch (2001) determined that air lead concentrations predicted homicide rates upon analyzing air pollution for 3111 counties in the United States.

    • Childhood lead poisoning prevention through prenatal housing inspection and remediation in St. Louis, MO

      2012, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Further, cost-effectiveness analyses that compare the benefits of this approach with other prevention strategies and other perinatal screening programs could build on the work of previous analyses to help incorporate this strategy into routine prenatal care in high-risk populations.13,14

    • Window replacement and residential lead paint hazard control 12 years later

      2012, Environmental Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      The incremental health benefit of window replacement versus window repair reflects additional reductions in childhood exposure to DPb associated with window replacement. Because there is also an economic benefit associated with improved house appearance and energy savings (Nevin et al., 2008), the net economic benefit of window replacement instead of window repair varies from over $1700 to over $2000 per unit (Table 3). Of course, net benefits would be much greater if the comparison was to windows with lead hazards that are left entirely unattended.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text