air quality management resource centre, u.w.e., bristol, uk opportunities and constraints in...
TRANSCRIPT
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Opportunities and constraints in delivering effective Action Planning:
a UK perspective
Dr Nicky Woodfield
Air Quality Management Resource Centre
University of the West of England, Bristol, U.K.
Workshop on Plans and Programmes of Air Quality and National Emission Ceilings Directives
1st September 2004
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
The AQM Resource CentreUniversity of the West of England, Bristol, UK
• Manage UK local authority air quality review & assessment contract
- Appraisal of air quality reports
- Provision of web site & helpdesk facility
• Official & non-official air quality guidance
• Provide air quality training sessions & workshops
• Develop air quality strategies, action plans & air quality policy
• Undertake independent air quality research
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
• Environment Act 1995
– Air Quality Strategy (1997, 2000)
– Air Quality Regulations (2000)
• Review and Assessment approach (Round 1)
– Predict future concentrations, identify exceedences of air quality objectives
– Focus on public exposure
– Culminated in about 130 local authorities with AQMAs across the UK
– Multi-disciplinary approach
– Air quality action planning underway
UK Air Quality Management Process
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
• Evaluation of Round 1
– Changes to assessment process: Updating and Screening Assessments (identify changes, new monitoring data)
– Air quality assessment long-term timetable to 2010
– Streamlined approach to assessments & guidance
– Updated tools and guidance available for Round 2 (checklists, new spreadsheet tools, new background maps)
– Detailed Assessments
– Annual Progress reports (monitoring data & new developments)
UK Air Quality Management Process
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
AQMAs declared: Sources
• 74% traffic only• 12% mainly traffic• 5% traffic & industrial• 4% industrial only• 1% domestic & traffic
Air Quality Management Areas in UK
AQMAs declared: Pollutants
• 95% Nitrogen dioxide
• 45% Particulate matter PM10
• 4% Sulphur dioxide
• Currently 127 local authorities with AQMAs• Varied topographies: whole borough, isolated properties,
road networks, road links• Revokations, amendments, new AQMAs
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Air Quality Review & Assessment
Stage 4 or
further assessment
Action Plan
Consultation 12 months 18 months
AQMA
UK Air Quality Management Process
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Air Quality Action Planning requirements
Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities with designated AQMAs …
‘ to prepare a written plan for the exercise by the authority, in pursuit of air quality standards and objectives in the designated area, of any powers exercisable by the authority.’
Within guidance, the approach to evaluating options in the plans should contain …
‘evidence that all available options have been considered on the grounds of cost-effectiveness and feasibility’
Policy Guidance 2003
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Air Quality Action Planning (AQAP)
• Action plans requires substantial transition (technical assessment to wider policy integration)
• Corporate adoption of the AQAP is essential
• Local Transport Plans (LTPs) – freedom to integrate Action Plans into LTP
• Integration of wider Plans & Policies essential:
– Local Plan
– Economic Development/ Regeneration Plans
– Sustainability Plans
– Health Action Plans
– Route Management Strategies (Highways Agency)
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
• Air quality improvement necessary (further assessment or Stage 4 provides technical backing to decisions)
• Wider impacts (e.g. climate change, socio-economic impacts, regeneration) need to be considered
• Wider planning involvement, within and external to local authority
• Cost-effectiveness of measures
• Cross-boundary issues may be relevant
Air Quality Action Planning
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Action Planning framework
Identify AQO exceedencesdeclare AQMA
Identify sourcesCONSIDER OPTIONS
AQ improvements Cost effectiveness Non AQ impacts Practicability
PRIORITISATION OF OPTIONS
AIR QUALITY ACTION PLAN
Implementation and monitoring
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
• Source apportionment (Stage 4
or further assessment)
• Often information most useful
for an action plan relates to
‘type’ of sources:– Through-traffic
– School traffic
– Commuter, leisure traffic or tourist
traffic
1. Identifying Sources
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
• Utilise existing or proposed options in other plans
• Balance between what is already under discussion
(and therefore realistically deliverable) and a new
vision for the future
2. Consideration of options
• Options need to be drawn up in
discussion with a variety of
stakeholders
• Knowledge of the locality and
current actions imperative
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
• Often not possible to include
quantitative appraisal
• Some quantitative appraisal of air
quality impacts may be possible
3. Evaluation of options
• Rating system is often useful (high/medium/low)
• Some AQAPs just provide general statements of
non-AQ impacts, perceptions, cost and feasibility
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
4. Prioritisation or Ranking options
• Key challenge of the Action Planning process
• Not an ‘either’ ‘or’ process
• May wish to take a matrix approach in determining a prioritised list e.g. relative scoring or rating of options
• Qualitative and quantitative approaches
• Difficult to incorporate combinations of options
• Need to take account of temporal aspects of options
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Prioritisation: Qualitative example
From NSCA Guidance ‘Air Quality: Planning for Action’
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Prioritisation: Semi-quantitative example
From NSCA Guidance ‘Air Quality: Planning for Action’
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Evaluation: South Lakeland DC (England)
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Evaluation & Prioritisation: Wycombe (England)
From Wycombe District Council’s Air Quality Action Plan
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Prioritisation: Blaby DC, England
From Blaby District Council’s Draft Air Quality Action Plan
% improvement in air quality
<0.01% 0.01-0.1%
0.1-1% 1-5% 5-10% >10%
<£0
£0
£0-£1000
£1000 - £10,000
£10,000 - £100,000
£100,000 -1 million
1 million -10 million
>10 million
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Case Study 1: York, England
• Consultation on Local Transport Plan 83% thought more action
needed to reduce traffic congestion – ideas for necessary measures
arose – starting point
• 48 possible options were divided into three categories
– Public transport and alternative transport measures
– Traffic management and car parking measures
– Planning and promotional measures
• Initial (breakfast) workshop: participants considered options in terms
of acceptability to themselves or their organisation
• Evening workshops: participants prioritised 31 options remaining after
the first workshop
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Case Study 2: Gravesham, England
• Gravesham have two separate AQMAs - 1 traffic, 1
industrial
• A working group was set up as the most effective
way forward to identify options
• The options were chosen and then evaluated in
terms of AQ impacts, non-AQ impacts, feasibility
and cost
• This evaluation was then used in a small workshop
to prioritise the options for the draft Action Plan
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Case Study 3: Bristol, England
• 25% of city declared as AQMA
• Development of Plan led by Transport Planners
• Recognises LTP measures to improve air quality,
and subsequent 27 ‘top up’ measures to ensure a
more rapid improvement of air quality.
• Screening assessment therefore identified:
– NEW/LTP+ (new AQAP measure and ‘top up’ measure)
– LTP (measure adequately covered in LTP)
– N/A (measure not cost-effective as an air quality measure)
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Case Study 4: West Wiltshire, England
• Two separate AQMAs, mainly traffic related
• Example of small rural borough with AQMAs
relating to historic market town and small town
centre
• Consultation has included County Council, town
council, members of the public
• Options identified by Council in consultation with
consultants, and through workshop events and
seminars with consultees
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Case Study 5: London Borough of Richmond
• London-wide measures:– Encourage cleaner fuels & vehicles
– Low Emission Zone for London
• Borough-wide measures:– Minimise commuter parking
– Reduce impact from council fleet
– Encourage Travel Plans
– Emissions testing
• Local measures:– Improvements to roads and junctions
– Pedestrianisation
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Non-UK Case Study: Bangkok
• Much greater issues in terms of AQ concentrations
• Workshop approach to identify options
• Some evaluation of AQ impacts, non-AQ impacts, cost and feasibility undertaken within the workshop
• Similar techniques as York used in terms of prioritising options
• Part of ongoing work to get an effective Action Plan in place for Bangkok
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Bangkok - measures
identified and evaluated through
workshop
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Following on from Action Plan development
• Implementation of Plan
• Monitoring Action Plan effectiveness important in future Progress Reporting of Action Plan
• Different indicators of success can be used (not necessarily only air quality)
• Statutory duty to undertake Action Planning Progress Reports annually (may be linked with Local Transport Planning reviews)
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Ideas for Indicators … • May be more effective to consider monitoring effectiveness of different measures in Plan:
– Cycling facilities: increase in cycle trips
– 20mph zones: speed monitoring (% vehicles exceeding limits)
– Car Clubs: number of new members
– Travel Plans: emission reduction estimates from monitoring business mileage
– Vehicle scrapage: number and types of replacement vehicles
– Indication of air quality awareness through opinion polls
– Reduction in car-parking space allocation in planning developments
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Evaluation of Action Planning process
• Evaluation undertaken by Casella Stanger and
Transport Travel Research Ltd. on behalf of UK
governments
• Issues considered:
– Links between the policy and technical aspects
– Evidence of impact of action planning process on way in
which local authorities work with external organisations
– What does the consultation element of action planning
deliver ?
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
How effective is the action planning process?
• Evidence of the impacts of action planning on local air quality - what are the constraints?
• Analysis of costs and impacts data
• Constraints to the action planning process - funding and responsibilities?
• How could action plans be improved?
• Evaluation of appraisal reports - is it useful?
• Local Air Quality Strategies - what are the links with the action planning process?
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Negative aspects to Action Planning (1)
• Lack of resources a major constraint (staff & implementation of measures)
• Difficult to engage with key stakeholders (Highways Agency, County Council or other internal department)
• Measures not within local authority control
• Timescale for implementing options long-term (requirement to meet objectives beyond the target date, and as such medium to long-term measures will still deliver improvements in future years)
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Negative aspects to Action Planning (2)
• Recent phasing of Action Planning process not
aligned with Local Transport Planning processes
- Impacts on bidding process and funds available
- Difficulty in applying firm time scales for implementation
• Difficulty in quantifying improvements in air quality
resulting from Action Plan implementation
• Difficult to determine whether air quality objectives
will be delivered
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Positive aspects to Action Planning
• Increased liaison with neighbouring local authorities,
external organisations & agencies – development of working
groups to tackle problems (and wider environmental issues)
• Better working relationships within local authority
• Raised status of air quality on political agenda
• Provide new stream of funding for some transport initiatives
• Influence Local Transport Planning processes
• Increasing number of Air Quality Strategies highlighting more
strategical approach to managing air quality
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
Action Planning information & guidance
UK Government Policy Guidance (PG(03))
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/
UK Action Plan Helpdesk
www.stanger.co.uk/actionplan
NSCA Air Quality Action Planning Guidance
www.nsca.org.uk
AQM Centre, U.W.E., Bristol, UK
www.uwe.ac.uk/aqm/centre