air quality management resource centre, u.w.e., bristol, uk opportunities and constraints in...

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


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


• 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


• 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)



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 Review & Assessment

Stage 4 or

further assessment

Action Plan

Consultation 12 months 18 months

AQMA



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 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 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


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


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


Prioritisation: Qualitative example

From NSCA Guidance ‘Air Quality: Planning for Action’


Prioritisation: Semi-quantitative example

From NSCA Guidance ‘Air Quality: Planning for Action’


Evaluation: South Lakeland DC (England)


Evaluation & Prioritisation: Wycombe (England)

From Wycombe District Council’s Air Quality Action Plan


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


Bangkok - measures

identified and evaluated through

workshop


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)


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


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 ?


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?


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)


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


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


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

air quality management resource centre, u.w.e., bristol, uk opportunities and constraints in...

Documents

air quality strategies

air quality strategy

air quality regulations

programmes of air quality

uk aqmas

uk opportunities

uk action planning framework

new aqmas slide