Abstract
This research examined public understanding of the environmental effects of a proposed energy-from-waste facility from the perspective of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practitioner. Disparities were identified between the public perceptions examined and the results of the EIA, notably on air quality and health effects from chimney emissions; the facility's noise characteristics; traffic volumes and associated air quality, noise and amenity effects; daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects; and cumulative effects. Lessons for EIA practitioners are drawn that enable better appreciation of specific areas of public concern. Ways in which communications might be improved in future EIAs to aid public understanding are also identified.
Introduction
This research examined public understanding of the environmental effects of a proposed energy-from-waste facility, as expressed through the 616 letters of representation on the planning application that were submitted, from the perspective of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practitioner.
Waste management company MVV has planning permission for an Energy-from-Waste Combined Heat and Power (EfW CHP) facility at Devonport, Plymouth, UK. The facility will treat up to 265,000 tonnes of residualFootnote1 solid waste per annum after its opening in late 2014. Waste will be combusted and the heat used to generate steam, which will drive a turbine that will generate electricity. Importantly, the site's location will also allow steam to be fed into the existing Devonport Dockyard and Naval Base heating network. However, the site is also close to residential property, which increases the potential effects of a number of the environmental impacts associated with this type of development.
The project was subject to an EIA and an Environmental Statement (ES) reporting the results of the EIA, including an ES Non Technical Summary, was prepared by consultancy Scott Wilson (Citation2011a) (now URS following acquisition). Addenda to the ES that provided additional environmental information, further to requests from the Waste Planning Authority (Plymouth City Council), were subsequently submitted (Scott Wilson Citation2011b, Citation2011c). Planning permission was granted in February 2012.
The author of this paper led the team of EIA consultants. The intentions of the research were to retrospectively enable a greater understanding of the public's concerns, and to identify any common misunderstandings or differences in value judgements, so that communication in future ESs can be improved.
Literature review
On the subject of public concern about EfW facilities, Bredee and Georgeson (Citation2011) found that ‘the public generally are supportive of the idea and principle of energy from waste … but express concerns about local siting, and perceptions of pollution, risk and property values … the public continue to require reassurance, information and transparency about perceived pollution risks, noise, fumes and traffic concerns’. This provides a useful focus on some specific areas of public concern.
Stewart et al. (Citation2010) researched 10 case studies in England, including EfW facilities, and in conclusion their research, ‘enabled very clear lessons to emerge about how risk perception of environmental hazards causes anxiety which has a significant impact on public health and that professional debates about the statistics are of little interest, nor use to assist the public understanding of environmental hazards. The dismissal of public concerns because they are not supported by statistical evidence appears to generate distrust rather than offer reassurance’. This chimes with the key thesis of Bennett and Calman (Citation1999): ‘Perceived risk can cause significant public concern and anxiety, which can itself have adverse health effects in turn. It is imperative that EIA adequately acknowledges perceived risk’. Maynard and Smethurst (Citation2009) discussed perceptions, attitudes and communication in relation to EfW, concluding, ‘Problems are sometimes encountered where applications include much complex science, particularly in the field of modelling dispersion of pollutants and predicting their effects on health. We need to find ways of simplifying such presentations so they can be more widely understood’. It was also noted that, ‘In presenting evidence, particularly for contentious issues such as the possible effects on health of dioxins, more than the “standard scientific line” or received wisdom, is needed’. It is therefore important to appreciate the ways in which information on environmental risk is perceived and understood by members of the public.
There have also been studies investigating the public understanding of EIA outside the sphere of EfW, which offer useful insight. Peterlin et al. (Citation2006) surveyed opinion of the impacts of a Slovenian port and found that respondents ‘did not find the EIA presentations effective’ and received more information from the media. Mak et al. (Citation2006) considered proposed harbour reclamation works in Hong Kong and found that the ‘wordy and technical contents’ of the EIA report ‘were not well received by the public’. Mak et al. developed a web based platform to explore alternative visual presentation, such as maps, graphics, photos, videos and animations, and demonstrated that they are viable substitutes to written statements, albeit with limitations. McDonald et al. (Citation2002) examined public understanding of UK air quality management, reporting that study participants ‘struggled with the concept of air pollution … and they did not understand the scientific basis or modelling … This is partly a result of the way this information is presented. They did not relate the technological evidence to their opinions’.
Robinson and Bond (Citation2003) examined views and aspirations about public involvement in EIA of three different groups – urban/suburban public, rural public and EIA consultants – a key conclusion being that, ‘consultants need to be aware of the range of views of stakeholders in order to develop successful public involvement programmes’.
The literature shows that there have been public concerns about the environmental and health effects of EfW facilities, and that it is important to appreciate the different ways in which these effects and the risk of their occurrence are perceived and understood by members of the public. Through examination of a case study, the purposes of this research were therefore to identify:
| 1. | specific areas of public concern to better inform EIA practitioners; and | ||||
| 2. | ways in which EIA practitioners can seek to improve communication in their work to enable better public understanding of the environmental effects of development proposals, in particular EfW facilities. | ||||
The ES for the EfW CHP facility in Devonport and further information collectively assessed the development's environmental effects. The ES concluded that the majority of the effects would not be significant. The ES identified some potentially significant adverse effects on visual amenity for a limited number of local viewpoints, but concluded that the design of the facility and comprehensive landscaping were sufficient to overcome them. The ES also found that, while construction noise would probably cause some short-term, localized significant adverse effects, acoustic barriers would reduce effects to low or negligible significance.
Throughout the planning process MVV engaged extensively with the community. Information was presented and consulted upon using a website, press releases, leaflets and public exhibitions. MVV prepared a Statement of Community Involvement (Citation2011a) and this was updated during the course of the planning application's determination (Citation2011b).
Methodology
Each of the (n = 616) letters of representation sent to the Waste Planning Authority was read in detail and analysed by the author. The objective was not to quantify all of the concerns – instead, the objectives were to:
| 1. | identify any unexpected concerns that were not addressed in the EIA; and | ||||
| 2. | identify any common differences in value judgements between EIA practitioners and members of the public of the significance of environmental effects, or common misunderstandings. | ||||
The frequency of occurrence of each notable (i) concern and (ii) difference in value judgement/misunderstanding was recorded in a simple spreadsheet. Noteworthy quotations were also extracted and recorded anonymously.
Limitations
One limitation is that the members of the public who wrote letters did not necessarily comprise a representative cross-section of the public.
Although every letter must be taken as expressing its author's opinions, there were several groups formed to object to the development that had an influence on some letters. Some residents were provided with information on which to base their objections – approximately 10% of letters duplicated arguments in other letters verbatim; some even listed objections in ‘speech marks’, suggesting they were taken from a ‘menu’. Some objectors identified inaccurate or irrelevant information from internet searches and circulated it to their groups. Duplicate or similar letters were also sent from different family members from the same address. These influences are considered to be a minor limitation.
Results and discussion
The research identified findings on the subjects of air quality and health effects from chimney emissions; the nature of the facility's noise characteristics; traffic volumes and associated air quality, noise and amenity effects; daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects; and cumulative effects. These are addressed in turn in Section 5 and conclusions are presented in Section 6.
Chimney emissions – air quality and health effects
The main theme expressed by (n = 111) correspondents was that various published toxicological studies indicate that pollutants emitted from EfW facilities are harmful to health, causing diseases including cancer. Such studies are not themselves in question – many will be correct, although many will be outdated and/or out of context. However, the point is that the context here does not appear to have been fully appreciated by correspondents. The atmospheric dispersion modelling in the ES showed that the maximum concentrations of each of the pollutants would be well within the criteria set for the protection of human health such that the overall effects would be negligible.
There was a noteworthy misunderstanding in respect of the chimney height, with (n = 18) correspondents querying why, if the facility is to have no significant health effect, there is a need for such a tall chimney (95 m). Some correspondents (n = 26) were concerned that, since their properties were at the same elevation as the top of the chimney, albeit distant from it, they would be directly exposed to pollution. Some correspondents (n = 10) were concerned that the higher the chimney, the wider the area polluted, and some (n = 14) were concerned that every person living within the 12 mile study area (shown on modelling plots) would be threatened. Although gases are subject to stringent cleaning, there are limits to the technology, so the function of the high chimney is to disperse the remaining pollutants over a wider area, thereby reducing their ground level concentrations.
One unexpected concern was that pollution would be deposited on gardens and allotments, contaminating fruit and vegetables (n = 30). This issue was assessed in the ES in an appendix, which concluded that the effects were not significant.
Facility operation – noise effects
The closest residential properties are 60 m from the main building. Software was used to model in three dimensions the facility and surroundings and calculate the noise levels at nearby properties. The facility was designed to minimize noise as far as practicable, including selection of low-noise plant, building cladding and ventilation systems, and installation of a 3 m high acoustic barrier along the access route. With the noise levels calculated as being at or below the target of 5 decibels (dB(A)) above the minimum measured background level, the ES concluded that the effects would be of negligible to low significance.
Some correspondents (n = 47) expressed concerns about the nature of the noise, not just its level. Concerns often focused on the 24-hour nature of the noise, referring to the threat of a ‘constant drone’. There was also uncertainty about what the (maximum) increase of 5 dB(A) would mean to local residents.
Traffic from facility – air quality, noise and amenity effects
Road traffic – in particular its air quality, noise and amenity effects – was of concern to 142 correspondents. Air quality concerns focussed on health risks but also on climate change. Concerns about noise related not only to engine noise but also to reversing alarms, horns and over-revving. The location of a school adjacent to the facility's primary access route was a concern, although the school is located at an already busy road junction. Examples of quotations include:
How anyone can say this is going to be minor is beyond me. The children from [the] school and its staff are going to have to breathe in these fumes daily, especially at break time when the lorries will be sat at the traffic lights.
How will these children learn and concentrate with a consistent noise of lorries passing their school every three minutes?
A comprehensive transport assessment was included in the ES. The increases in traffic were predicted to be 0.1–8.6%, depending on the road link. Guidance is provided by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (Citation1993), which suggests that assessments should be limited to road links with increases >30%, or >10% if affecting a ‘sensitive area’, such as a school. On this basis, since the increases were < 10%, the ES concluded that the effects would be negligible.
Assessments of traffic-induced air quality and noise effects were also undertaken. The combined effect of chimney emissions and road traffic emissions on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) concentrations was predicted in the model. Adjacent to the school, for example, the existing annual mean NO2 concentration was measured as 30.6 μg/m3. The European Union Air Quality Limit Value for NO2 is 40.0 μg/m3. The predicted increase in NO2 as a result of the facility in the area around the school would be 1.3 μg/m3. The ES concluded that this would be of negligible significance. The maximum predicted change in annual mean PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations would be 0.1 μg/m3, which, the ES concluded, is too small to give rise to a significant effect. Traffic noise near the school was predicted in the ES to increase from 69.7 to 70.0 dB(A), a negligible increase of 0.3 dB(A).
The traffic-related effects of the facility would therefore not be significant according to the ES. This is in marked contrast to correspondents' concerns.
Another disparity encountered was the concerns of (n = 30) correspondents about road safety: ‘With so much traffic, an accident waiting to happen’. However the ES analysed accident data and found that there are no trends in causality or clustering of accidents, and so concluded there would be no adverse effects. Concerns about increased wear and tear on roads were expressed by 14 correspondents.
Presence of facility – daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects
The facility requires a building 134 m in length, 81 m in width and 45 m in height. Some correspondents (n = 30) expressed concern about daylight, sunlight and/or overshadowing effects on their homes and gardens. Information on the scale of the building was widely known, and it is not unreasonable for a member of the public to perceive such effects, for example:
Properties will be literally in the shadow of this huge building, experiencing a huge reduction in natural light.
This contrasts with the results of the ES, in which the analysis showed the facility to comply with the relevant guidelines (Building Research Establishment Citation1991), thereby concluding no significant effects.
The daylight, sunlight and overshadowing consultants, Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, have suggested that correspondents appear to have perceived a direct visual relationship with a harmful effect on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, when they are largely unrelated. At this site the facility will be highly visible, located low in a valley, with residential properties at higher levels. However, because of this topography the facility will have only minimal effects.
Cumulative effects and the ‘Perceived Saturation Point’
Effects of the facility with other existing and proposed major developments were of concern to (n = 82) correspondents (although the term ‘cumulative effects’ was not used). The list of the other developments cited in the letters is provided in Table . Quotations include:
I write to protest at the prospective addition of yet another environmentally unfriendly scheme to an already burdened part of Plymouth.
Table 1 Other developments – perceived and assessed environmental baseline and cumulative effects
Plymouth: the ongoing dumping ground.
Table shows the marked difference between the perceptions of the correspondents and those of the ES authors. Eleven existing developments were cited in the letters, with the implication being that there would be cumulative effects with the facility. These developments were explicitly accounted for in the ES, but as part of the existing environmental baseline because they already exist, rather than as consented or potential future developments with which there could be cumulative effects. This treatment of existing developments as part of the baseline and consented or potential future projects as projects with the potential to cause cumulative effects with the proposed development in question is common practice in the UK. In some ways, as far as members of the public are concerned, distinguishing between ‘baseline’ or ‘cumulative’ developments is moot.
Emerging from this discussion is the concept of what the author has termed the ‘perceived saturation point’ – where people perceive that an environmental or community feature is at or exceeding its capacity. This applies at the broad community level (as above) and/or at the specific level. The specific theme most commonly expressed was the perception of roads already operating at or above capacity, along with perceived noise and air pollution. Of all the (n = 82) comments on this topic, the following most succinctly makes the point:
The risks have been classified as ‘small’, but we should consider the idiom ‘the straw that broke the camel's back’.
Other environmental topics
The ES also assessed ecology; landscape and visual; cultural heritage; land and water quality; hydrology, hydrogeology and flood risk; construction waste; and socio-economic effects. No significant differences in value judgements, misunderstandings or unexpected concerns were identified for these topics.
Conclusions
Chimney emissions – air quality and health effects
There was a considerable disparity between the conclusions of the air quality and health assessment and the concerns of the correspondents. That this subject was an area of such considerable concern to members of the public is firstly a general lesson to EIA practitioners. From the perspective of members of the public, the key information about the small scale of the emissions in relation to background levels and set criteria was not received, not fully understood and/or not trusted by the correspondents. There were also misunderstandings by correspondents about the role of the chimney and its height in dispersion of emissions. EIA practitioners' future communication efforts should be focussed here to aim to improve public understanding, for example through the use of diagrams or perhaps animations showing the site and local topography, baseline conditions and pollutant dispersion patterns.
There was also more concern from the correspondents than anticipated about pollution being deposited on gardens and allotments. This issue was assessed in the ES in a technical appendix. Nevertheless, EIA practitioners should be mindful of this concern and their future communications should make assessment of this issue more prominent.
Facility operation – noise effects
Correspondents appear to have found it difficult to understand the nature and extent of the facility's noise characteristics, reacting with concern. Again, EIA practitioners should be more mindful of these concerns in future projects. Future communications by EIA practitioners should also aim to improve public understanding of this issue. It is suggested that more novel approaches to demonstrating noise impacts are required, such as perhaps sound recordings of noise from similar facilities being played at public exhibitions or on the internet, although these would have limitations and would require careful set up and delivery. One such example is consultancy Arup's SoundLab®, an innovative virtual listening environment (Arup Citation2012) that has been used during public exhibitions relating to the UK's proposed High Speed Two rail project.
Traffic from facility – air quality, noise and amenity effects
The traffic and associated air quality and noise effects were assessed in the ES as being not significant. This is in marked contrast with the considerable concerns of the correspondents. Many correspondents expressed the sentiment that roads had reached their ‘perceived saturation point’ (author's terminology). Again, EIA practitioners should be mindful of the public's value judgements about these issues in future projects. In particular they should also consider enhancing their assessments of road safety effects and wear and tear on roads, given the importance of these issues to the correspondents. The analysis also points to the need to find improved ways of communicating traffic and associated air quality and noise effects to enhance public understanding, particularly setting out more clearly the context of baseline conditions and the impacts, perhaps illustrated by simple diagrams or animations.
Presence of facility – daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects
Correspondents' concern about these issues was evident, which again contrasts with the ES. This points to the need for EIA practitioners to find, through meaningful involvement of members of the public, improved ways of assessing these issues and communicating them, for example animations of overshadowing throughout the day.
Cumulative effects and the ‘Perceived Saturation Point’
There was a marked difference between the views of the correspondents and the EIA practitioners on this subject. A common theme was that the local area was being ‘dumped on’. To some correspondents, the community had reached its ‘perceived saturation point’ of such industrial uses, and the public's values on this subject are informative for EIA practitioners for future projects. Eleven existing developments were cited in the letters, with the implication being that there would be cumulative effects with the facility. These developments were explicitly accounted for in the ES, but as part of the existing baseline because they already exist, rather than as consented or potential future developments with which there could be cumulative effects. However, in order to provide greater clarity EIA practitioners should also consider making even clearer the existence of such existing developments, their contribution to baseline conditions, and the way in which they have been treated in the EIA. Annotated mapping is a simple suggestion for achieving this.
As well as this research highlighting specific public concerns that can aid the understanding of EIA practitioners, and identifying specific areas for improved communication by EIA practitioners that might lead to improved public understanding of the environmental effects of energy-from-waste facilities and other developments, perhaps there is also a case to be made for the reporting of anticipated or actual public perceptions of environmental effects in ESs alongside the assessments of the EIA practitioners, thereby acknowledging the different perspectives.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express thanks to Chris Wildblood and Kristi Tatsi, students at Plymouth University and interns at URS, for assistance with the literature review and data analysis. Thanks are also due to Michael McMullan, Tom Parrish, Alf Maneylaws and Garry Gray of URS, Grant Lock of Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners and Bruce Braithwaite of MVV for comments on this paper. Thanks are also due to MVV and URS for permission to use the case study in this research.
Notes
1. Waste remaining after recyclables and compostables are removed.
References
- Arup. 2012. Acoustic consulting. Available from: http://www.arup.com/Services/Acoustic_Consulting.aspx [Accessed 26 September 2012].
- Bennett , P. and Calman , K. 1999 . Risk communication and public health , Oxford : Oxford University Press .
- Bredee , H. and Georgeson , R. 2011 . Public attitudes to community buy-in for waste and resource infrastructure , Maidenhead : SITA UK .
- Building Research Establishment . 1991 . Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice , Watford : BRE Press .
- Institute of Environmental Assessment . 1993 . Guidelines for the environmental assessment of road traffic , Lincoln : IEMI .
- Mak , A. S. H. , Lai , P. C. , Kwong , R. K. H. and Leung , S. T. S. 2006 . Too much or too little: Visual considerations of public engagement tools in environmental impact assessments . Visual Inform Inform Syst , 3736 : 189 – 202 .
- Maynard , R. L. and Smethurst , H. 2009 . Perceptions, attitudes and communication: their role in delivering effective environmental regulation for municipal waste incineration , Science Report – SC030184/SR1 Bristol : Environment Agency .
- McDonald , Juliette S. , Hession , Martin , Rickard , Anna , Nieuwenhuijsen , Mark J. and Kendall , Michaela . 2002 . Air quality management in UK local authorities: Public understanding and participation . J Environ Plan Manag , 45 ( 4 ) : 571 – 590 .
- MVV Environment Devonport Ltd. 2011a. Statement of community involvement: Application for an energy from waste plant at North Yard, HM Naval Base, Devonport, Plymouth. May 2011.
- MVV Environment Devonport Ltd. 2011b. Statement of community involvement: Addendum: Application for an energy from waste plant at North Yard, HM Naval Base, Devonport, Plymouth. August 2011.
- Peterlin , MONIKA , Kross , BURTON C. and Kontic , BRANKO . 2006 . Information in an EIA process and the influence thereof on public opinion . J Environ Assess Policy Manag , 08 ( 02 ) : 183 – 204 .
- Robinson , MICHAEL and Bond , ALAN . 2003 . Investigation of different stakeholder views of local resident involvement during environmental impact assessments in the UK . J Environ Assess Policy Manag , 05 ( 01 ) : 45 – 82 .
- Scott Wilson. 2011a. Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility, North Yard, Devonport, Plymouth: Environmental Statement May 2011.
- Scott Wilson. 2011b. Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility, North Yard, Devonport, Plymouth: Environmental Statement: Further Information September 2011.
- Scott Wilson. 2011c. Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility, North Yard, Devonport, Plymouth: Environmental Statement: Further Information November 2011.
- Stewart , Alex G. , Luria , Paolo , Reid , John , Lyons , Mary and Jarvis , Richard . 2010 . Real or illusory? Case studies on the public perception of environmental health risks in the north west of England . Int J Environ Res Public Health , 7 ( 3 ) : 1153 – 1173 .