· The Lancet. Planetary health 2021 · population-based burden-of-disease and cost-of-illness modeling study · n=?

Health and economic impact of air pollution in the states of India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

Cited 726 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Ecological and population-level burden-of-disease modeling (graded by design analogy)

PubMed 33357500 · doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30298-9 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

Using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, the authors estimated exposure to ambient particulate matter, household air pollution, and ambient ozone across every state of India. They calculated attributable deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and evaluated economic impact as lost output from premature mortality and morbidity using the cost-of-illness method.

What was found

In 2019, air pollution caused an estimated 1.67 million deaths (95% UI: 1.42-1.92 million) in India, representing 17.8% (15.8-19.5%) of total deaths. Ambient particulate matter accounted for 0.98 million deaths (0.77-1.19 million) and household air pollution accounted for 0.61 million (0.39-0.86 million). Between 1990 and 2019, the death rate from household air pollution decreased by 64.2% (52.2-74.2%), while death rates from ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone increased by 115.3% (28.3-344.4%) and 139.2% (96.5-195.8%), respectively. Total economic loss from lost output was $36.8 billion (27.4-47.7 billion), or 1.36% of India's GDP ($28.8 billion from premature deaths, $8.0 billion from morbidity). Economic loss as a proportion of state GDP varied 3.2-fold (0.67% to 2.15%), highest in low per-capita GDP states (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh), while Delhi had the highest per-capita economic loss.

Why it matters

This study quantifies state-level health and macroeconomic burdens of air pollution in India, demonstrating that rapidly increasing ambient pollution creates massive economic and health drags that fall disproportionately on poorer states.

Limits

Findings are based on population-level exposure modeling and comparative risk assessment rather than direct individual measurements. The cost-of-illness approach measures lost output rather than full welfare or direct healthcare costs. Specific sample sizes and input data counts are not stated in the abstract.

Cited by