Difference between revisions of "Risk assessment on airports - Kuopio workshop case study"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Data or literature: Visser moved to cancer page)
(→‎Variables identified/used in this case)
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This page contains the risk assessment conducted as a case study in the Kuopio workshop. Before the workshop begins this page serves as a place to discuss how the case study should be done, e.g. the methodological approaches to be used, the tools to be used, the scoping of the case study, data availability etc.
+
{{release}}
 +
This page contains the general information about risk assessment conducted as a case study in the Kuopio workshop. Before the workshop begins this page serve as a place to discuss how the case study should be done, e.g. the methodological approaches to be used, the tools to be used, the scoping of the case study, data availability etc. Some of these discussion can be found clicking the discussion tab of this page.
  
−
Although editing the page and commenting does not require registering as a user to the system, it is recommendable that Intarese members create their own accounts by following the log in / create account link in top right corner of the window. This will help identifying each ones contributions made anywhere in the Intarese-wiki.
+
'''The case is still incomplete and frozen for the time being. Given the unclarities and several unresolved issues concerning the Intarese framework and method, the resources available in the workshop were not sufficient to complete the case within the workshop period. During the workshop the focus was thus deliberately shifted towards discussing and working on the Intarese framework and method descriptions. See [[Kuopio workshop report | workshop report]] for further information on the progress of the workshop. The case assessment may be continued later if seen necessary and reasonable.'''
  
−
'''I suggest comments be put on the discussion page of this page and the outcomes of these discussions be then added on this page. The comments written so far on this page have been now moved to the discussion page (click the discussion tab on top of the window)'''[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko]] 05:35, 2 March 2007 (EET)
+
[[Category:Risk assessments]] [[Category:Risk assessments on airports]]
  
 +
==Case study description==
  
−
= Case study topic =
+
'''Scope:'''
  
−
'''Scope:'''<br>
+
Following a suggestion originally from David, we chose to focus on airports as the case, and Schiphol especially. A preliminary suggestion of the scoping is to concentrate on air pollution, noise, and road accidents. Airplanes, airport ground transportation and connecting road traffic are the emission sources. Airport related emissions near the airport (say, horizontally 10 km, vertically 1 km [or average boundary mixing layer]) will be considered, but not emissions from the air traffic as whole. Also the target geographic area or population for the risk assessment should be defined. The simplest solution is to target on the same 10 km radius (to be defined on a map). The airport isn't exactly a point source.  
−
Following originally David's suggestion, we will be focusing on airports as the case, and Schiphol especially. A preliminary suggestion of the scoping is to concentrate on air pollution, noise, and road accidents. Airplanes, airport ground transportation and connecting road traffic are the emission sources. Airport related emissions near the airport (say, horizontally 10 km, vertically 1 km [or average boundary mixing layer]) will be considered, but not emissions from the air traffic as whole. Also the target geographic area or population for the risk assessment should be defined. The simplest solution is to target on the same 10 km radius (to be defined on a map). The airport isn't exactly a point source.  
 
  
 
The possible policy scenarios include
 
The possible policy scenarios include
−
* time limitations of airport use (restirctions on night-time activity; noise)
+
* '''time limitations of airport use (restirctions on night-time activity; noise)'''
 
* air traffic restrictions, e.g. overseas only (air pollution + noise)
 
* air traffic restrictions, e.g. overseas only (air pollution + noise)
 
* plane types/sizes (EU airplane noise restrictions already apply, otherwise only indirectly contriollable as a consequence of the previous)  
 
* plane types/sizes (EU airplane noise restrictions already apply, otherwise only indirectly contriollable as a consequence of the previous)  
 
* more efficient flight profiles or a more optimised route network (these relate to between-airport issues, yes? We do not have data to deal with this)
 
* more efficient flight profiles or a more optimised route network (these relate to between-airport issues, yes? We do not have data to deal with this)
 
* and more advanced noise abatement arrival and departure procedures (we do not have data for this, either)
 
* and more advanced noise abatement arrival and departure procedures (we do not have data for this, either)
−
 
−
 
−
Please express your comments on this suggestion. Participants and all other interested, also please collect suitable data you have or can find in relation to this topic.
 
−
 
−
===Framework===
 
−
 
−
This is a draft of the framework that could be used for the airports case study. It includes tasks. Please send me (Anne) comments!!
 
−
 
−
*[[Image:Framework airports new3.jpg]]
 
−
 
−
 
−
'''Comments from Erik, and discussions based on the comments.'''
 
−
 
−
*Overall policies are not acknowledged {{attack|#1: |Policies are not yet part of this framework, since this captures the essence of the environmental health linkages. Policies can be applied to every variable and should be defined at a later stage in policy scenarios (defining the assessment) |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:54, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
*Policy targets like concentration levels and odour limits are not acknowledged
 
−
*If CO2 is omitted, this must be specifically justified. {{attack|#1: |Everything that is omitted should be justified. For CO2, the justification is that we are looking at air''ports'' and not at air''traffic'' as a whole.|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:54, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
**Airports cannot affect airplane CO2 emissions, but ground traffic can be managed.
 
−
***A part of ground work vehicles can be electrified.
 
−
***Railroad could be offered for feeding traffic (but in Schiphol, this is already as good as it can be).
 
−
*Odours are not acknowledged.{{defend|#1: |They are now, with the arrow between Air pollution and Annoyance|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:54, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
*Focus more on policy interventions (incremental) instead of overall benefit assessment. .{{defend|#1: |It is easier to compare different (policy) scenarios than determining the whole benefits of an airport|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:02, 14 March 2007 (CET)}}
 
−
*EU carbon emission policy could be included, althought the policy is not in the airport level. What would be the impacts of the new policy on the airport level?
 
−
*Full chain approach does not work always. - We need an alternative or additional solution, if this is true.
 
−
**Full chain approach works with closed systems. But when the system is open, there is a problem. Airport is a problematic case, as the system boundaries are very open (much of the relevant causalities occur outside the airport).{{defend|#1: |Part of the scoping? Why isn't this part of Intarese full chain?|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:54, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
**O3 effects occur outside the 20 km area -should this be omitted? .{{defend|#1: |Not only O3 effects occur outside - also (secondary) PM effects are strong outside.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:05, 14 March 2007 (CET)}}{{attack|#(number): |PM effects are significant both inside and outside, O<sub>3</sub> effects are in practice only outside 20 km radius|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
 
−
*Most of the noise is from airplanes. Most of the air pollution comes from ground traffic. These could be assessed separately.
 
−
Variables are continous distributions. SHould you consider yes/no variables, like odour/no odour, or percieved noise effects (annoyance) separately from unperceived noise effects (sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects).
 
−
*Risk assessment is always a simplification. There are two criteria:
 
−
**Gives plausible information about the connection
 
−
**Makes it possible to evaluate the effects of marginal changes
 
−
*Risk perception is more like an impact rather than ongoing process.{{defend|#1: |It has been added as an impact. However, taking account of risk perception should occur throughout the assessment process|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:54, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
**A policy option can also affect risk perception directly.
 
−
*Economic impacts of land price is omitted.
 
−
*Climate change issues do not affect within 20 km, and is omitted.
 
−
 
−
'''Comments from Alex''' (14 March 2007 8:30 CET)
 
−
* I would like to rename the two last categories: Impacts should be a synonyme for Health effects (acutally, the ExternE methodology uses it for Health effects and effects on materials, crops and ecosystems). I would then like to rename Impacts to "valuation".
 
−
* Calculation of the costs depends also on the DALYs and YOLLs so an arrow from DALYs to Costs might be sensible. I would like to discuss this with you and especially with Anne.
 
−
* I can give you no help on determining social benefits for the whole airport. We could instead compare different scenarios and express the avoided damage costs as benefits.
 
−
* PM effects are high also outside of a 20 km circle.
 
−
* Why did you not add a "respiratory morb/mort" als parent to costs? These are the important for air pollution.
 
−
* SP 4 is developing a glossary and I have copied words from different glossaries into one file. I would like to use some time to talk this through with some of you and hope to be able to provide only one definition for one word before the SP 4 April meeting. Do you think this would be possible?
 
−
 
  
 
Excluded are:
 
Excluded are:
Line 82: Line 39:
 
''Any actions/ policies!''
 
''Any actions/ policies!''
  
−
==== Variables used in this case====
+
===Framework===
 +
 
 +
This is a draft of the framework that could be used for the airports case study. It includes tasks. Please send me (Anne) comments!!<br>
 +
'''Each variable presented in this model works as a link to the corresponding variable in wiki'''
 +
 
 +
<imagemap>
 +
Image:Framework airports new4.jpg
 +
 
 +
rect 221 107 301 145 [[Airplanes]]
 +
rect 121 284 203 333 [[Economic and leisure activities]]
 +
rect 221 171 304 221 [[Connecting road traffic]]
 +
rect 359 171 436 207 [[Noise emissions]]
 +
rect 354 85 437 152 [[Air pollution emissions]]
 +
rect 462 91 544 145 [[Conc in air]]
 +
rect 463 168 545 207 [[Noise levels]]
 +
rect 577 98 657 137 [[Air pollution exposure]]
 +
rect 575 168 658 208 [[Noise exposure]]
 +
rect 692 61 797 98 [[Respiratory morbidity/mortality]]
 +
rect 695 102 791 121 [[Cancer]]
 +
rect 694 127 795 165 [[Cardiovascular morbidity/mortality]]
 +
rect 695 172 796 190 [[Annoyance]]
 +
rect 694 198 796 235 [[Sleep disturbance]]
 +
rect 574 264 663 297 [[Accidents]]
 +
rect 693 257 798 274 [[Fear]]
 +
rect 694 278 798 300 [[Injury/Mortality]]
 +
rect 827 127 922 151 [[DALYs/QALYs]]
 +
rect 824 170 921 194 [[Costs]]
 +
rect 825 213 920 250 [[Risk perception]]
 +
rect 825 297 921 320 [[Benefits]]
 +
rect 277 345 375 414 [[Emission factors and models]]
 +
rect 392 347 489 413 [[Distributions etc models]]
 +
rect 391 418 488 483 [[Mixtures/multiple exposures]]
 +
rect 390 492 487 509 [[Intake fraction]]
 +
rect 503 343 633 401 [[Exposed population]]
 +
rect 503 407 633 466 [[Information on internal dose]]
 +
rect 502 471 633 489 [[Vulnerable groups]]
 +
rect 500 492 632 510 [[ Geography/GIS]]
 +
rect 644 343 747 401 [[Dose effect relationships/models]]
 +
rect 753 345 850 399 [[Calculation models]]
 +
rect 147 541 904 559 [[Stakeholder involvement]]
 +
rect 147 563 904 580 [[Uncertainty assessment]]
 +
rect 148 584 903 602 [[Risk perception]]
 +
rect 147 607 902 623 [[Presentation and communication tools]]
 +
rect 147 628 903 643 [[Expert judgements]]
 +
rect 147 648 903 666 [[Indicator development]]
 +
 
 +
desc bottom-left
 +
</imagemap>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[media:Airports.ANA| Click here to download original Analytica file]] used to make this diagram. The names of people responsible for different tasks are not in this analytica file.
 +
 
 +
'''Comments from Erik & Alex moved to discussion page'''
 +
 
 +
===Variables identified/used in this case===
  
−
Link to variables are listed here.<BR>
+
Link to variable and method descriptions are listed here. You can reach variables also by clicking corresponding variable on the above framework picture.
  
−
'''Variables'''<br><br>
 
  
 +
'''Variables'''
 
* [[Economic and leisure activities]]
 
* [[Economic and leisure activities]]
 
* [[Airplanes]]
 
* [[Airplanes]]
Line 101: Line 113:
 
* [[Cancer]]
 
* [[Cancer]]
 
* [[Annoyance]]
 
* [[Annoyance]]
−
* [[Sleep disturbance]]
+
* [[Sleep disturbance (noise related)]]
 
* [[Accidents]]
 
* [[Accidents]]
 
* [[Fear]]
 
* [[Fear]]
Line 109: Line 121:
 
* [[DALYs/QALYs]]<br><br>
 
* [[DALYs/QALYs]]<br><br>
  
−
'''Necessary inputs/methods'''<br><br>
+
'''Necessary inputs/methods'''
−
 
 
 
* [[Number of planes/cars]]
 
* [[Number of planes/cars]]
 
* [[Emission factors and models]]
 
* [[Emission factors and models]]
Line 123: Line 134:
 
* [[Calculation models]]<br><br>
 
* [[Calculation models]]<br><br>
  
−
'''Cross-cutting methods'''<br><br>
+
'''Cross-cutting methods'''
−
 
 
 
* [[Stakeholder involvement]]
 
* [[Stakeholder involvement]]
 
* [[Uncertainty assessment]]
 
* [[Uncertainty assessment]]
Line 133: Line 143:
  
  
−
Please have a look at [[Tools needed in Intarese toolbox]] for an overview of needed tools and guidance for Intarese Risk Assessment.
+
Please have a look at [[Tools needed in Intarese toolbox]] for an overview of phases, steps, methods/guidance and tools making risk assessment using the Intarese framework and method.
−
 
 
−
===Data or literature===
 
−
 
 
−
A few relevant studies that might supply valuable data (or insights) include the following:
 
−
 
 
−
Study on Current and Future Aircraft Noise Exposure at and around Community Airports [http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/environment/studies/index_en.htm]
 
−
 
 
−
Public Health Impact of Large Airports [http://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/pdf.php?ID=19&p=1]
 
−
 
 
−
This report evaluates the public health impacts in airport operations systems encompassing the area up to a few tens of kilometres distance from the airport. (airports in general, not really one specific, not really by doing a real HIA or risk assessment; they primarily based their report on individual epidemiological studies and (systematic) reviews). They have considered the health impacts of several environmental factors on health separately:
 
−
 
 
−
*Air pollution
 
−
*Noise
 
−
*Accidents
 
−
*Soil and water pollution at the airport
 
−
*Importation of infectious diseases
 
−
*Occupational health risks at the airport
 
−
 
 
−
Effects of aviation on climate and thereby health and indirect positive and negative public health effects through economic mechanisms, transport possibilities and tourism are outside the scope of this report
 
−
 
 
−
They determine the possible associated health impacts by using the following classification scheme:
 
−
 
 
−
*Evidence for a causal relationship between exposure and health effect (sufficient, limited or inadequate evidence or evidence for a lack of a causal relationship; following the IARC
 
−
*Severity of effect (slight, moderate, severe)
 
−
*Number of people affected (susceptible individuals, specific subgroups, substantial part of the exposed population)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
*Air pollution
 
−
They concluded that air pollution levels around large airports are similar to those in urbanised areas and are to a large extent determined by road traffic emissions. Sufficient causal relationships were identified for premature death, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disorders after an episode (resulting in hospital admission), lung function, increase in chronic respiratory conditions due to chronic exposures and odour annoyance
 
−
 
 
−
*Noise
 
−
Aircraft noise is one of the most important environmental factors of airport operations and is specific to the system. More specific noise from:
 
−
Aircraft taking off and landing
 
−
Aircraft braking and taxiing at the airport
 
−
Aircraft engine testing
 
−
 
 
−
In the vicinity of an airport one will usually find residents where air traffic noise is a dominant source of environmental noise exposure. Sufficient causal relationships were identified for hearing impairments, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep disturbance and performance at school. 
 
−
 
 
−
*Accidents
 
−
The present report focused only on aircraft crashes. Accidents, such as fires may also occur. Terrorist actions have also been recognised as a serious threat associated with airports although they are out of scope in this report.
 
−
For aircraft crashes, the landing and the takeoff stage are the most critical parts of the flight.
 
−
In the past decades world-wide, on average, 50 crashes occurred per year, resulting in about 1500 fatalities per year. The primary victims are the crew and passengers. At present the crash frequency in the vicinity of a large airport is roughly one to two crashes per ten millions movements. This implies that a rough estimate of the average crash rate in the vicinity of a large airport is one to two per decade.
 
−
The individual risk level for people living in the vicinity of an airport (being hit by a crashing aircraft) are very, very low. 
 
−
 
 
−
*Soil and water pollution at the airport
 
−
Leaking underground storage tanks and pipes, fuel spillages or leakage during ground handling of aircraft, washing of aircraft and vehicles and fire training are sources of water and soil pollution at airports. Effects on humans due to exposure to all these compounds appear to be unlikely.
 
−
 
 
−
*Importation of infectious diseases
 
−
World-wide traffic increases the potential for transmission of infectious diseases from one county to another. An example is airport malaria.
 
−
 
 
−
*Occupational health risks at the airport
 
−
Although activities within the airport do affect occupational health, the situation is not out of line with the situation in comparable industries. 
 
−
 
 
−
They make a (very small) effort to integrate the findings. They mentioned that exposures (e.g. from air pollution, noise) can act in a cumulative way, that other factors (e.g. fear for accidents) can modify the impacts etcetera..
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
A project on relevant indicators for health impacts of airports has also been running, including tests on data availability around 3 airports (Malpensa, Heathrow and Schiphol). Follow-up study, however, has been cancelled.
 
−
The report (under 'final report'), the case studies (under 'case-studies') and the list of indicators (also under 'case studies') is to be found at [http://www.personeel.unimaas.nl/wf.passchier/]
 
−
 
 
−
In this report, a set of environmental indicators have been derived that is thought to be useful in monitoring public health at large airports. This set is founded on a sound scientific basis. However, these indicators do not need a scientific base only, they have to be supported by the users, the local and national authorities and representative of the population living near an airport.
 
−
 
 
−
The airport is defined as an airport operation system which is an airport zone encompassing the airport of course, but also business developments, infrastructure and residents. Geographically this area is about a 20 km radius around the airport.
 
−
The proposed set of indicators consists of health indicators, exposure indicators, and throughput indicators.
 
−
Health indicators
 
−
 
 
−
Number of spontaneous complaints per year about noise and odour related to airport activities
 
−
Number of people highly annoyed by air traffic noise stratified to age
 
−
Prevalence of cardiovascular diseases in the 45-65 age group
 
−
Prevalence of respiratory diseases in the 4-12 age group
 
−
Number of people highly sleep annoyed by air traffic noise stratified to age
 
−
 
 
−
Emission / Exposure indicators
 
−
 
 
−
Fraction of population exposed to aircraft noise with Lden of <55, >55-60, >60 dB(A)
 
−
Fraction of population exposed to aircraft noise with LAeq, 23-7h of <40, >40-50, >50 dB(A)
 
−
Annual emissions of PM10 from air traffic, road traffic and other sources
 
−
Mean annual concentration of PM10
 
−
Annual emissions of gaseous hydrocarbons from air traffic, road traffic and other sources
 
−
Mean annual concentration of gaseous hydrocarbons
 
−
Annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from air traffic, road traffic and other sources
 
−
Mean annual concentration of NOx
 
−
 
 
−
Throughput indicators
 
−
Arriving and departing aircraft per year (scheduled flights, chartered flights and ‘general’ aviation
 
−
Arriving and departing aircraft per year during 23-7h (scheduled flights, chartered flights and ‘general’ aviation
 
−
Number of arriving and departing passengers per year
 
−
Number of transfer passengers per year
 
−
Freight and mail loaded and unload per year
 
−
Fraction of passengers going to and from the airport using public transport
 
−
Area of the airport
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Furthermore, for general discussion it would be useful to see (more detailed) what SP3 are planning to do in their case studies. They are currently drafting scoping reports. Some of these (or related information) are available at wiki:
 
−
*Housing: [[Potential case study areas]]
 
−
*Water: [[WP3.4 Water Policy Scoping Document]]
 
−
*Transport: [[Image:Scoping report WP3.1Transport.doc]]
 
−
 
 
−
I (Anne) will bring along some others to Finland.
 
−
 
 
−
Maybe some other interesting reports:
 
−
 
 
−
The project UNITE produced some nice reports about airports and aircrafts (check e.g appendix 9F and Annex A5)
 
−
[http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/unite/]
 
−
 
 
−
{{defend|1: |The appendix 9F, environmental marginal costs for air traffic, provides information about the monetary valuation of the air pollution (fuel burned in the air crafts and production of the fuel), effects to global warming and noise from the aircrafts (the last one not strongly covered). The emissions that are considered are the ones that happen in proximity of the airports, i.e. taxi-in, taxi-out, take off, climb out, and approach & landing. The environmental effects considered cover health effects to humans, damages to crops and damages to materials in man-made constructions. Dispersion modelling was made using EcoSense model. UNITE project has also produced similar kind of information on ground traffic, e.g. appendix 9A, which may be used if ground traffic becomes chosen to be considered extensively in our case study.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko]] 09:00, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
 
 
−
For airport Schiphol A statistical annual review is published every year for actual numbers. They also make a comparison with other European airports [http://www.schiphol.nl/schiphol_group/portlet/Statistical_Annual_Review.jsp;jsessionid=FcQH1J4lhQ0KGc5FLVPy7kHQg!-1067900902?PORTLET%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673767234&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302573694&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395729578&VIRTUAL_TEMPLATE%3C%3Evt_id=10134198673767371&bmUID=1172062343776&bmLocale=nl]
 
−
 
 
−
{{defend|1: |These statistical annual reviews from Schiphol airport from year 2000 to 2006 are mainly involved with air transport, passengers and cargo movements as individual numbers (monthly and annual totals) or as proportions (landings, take-offs e.g. per hr of d). Also information on Europe-scale as well as intercontinental origins and destinations. Information on average max take-off weights as well. Proportional cargo expressed as tonnes: this might be useful in some circumstances. Also: overall infrastructure so if we need runway lenghts and widths for further calculations on land-use issues, here they are.|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 20:11, 12 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
For the German Frankfurt-airport some (German) reports are available:
 
−
* "our" report: [http://www.dialogforum-flughafen.de/fileadmin/PDF/Gutachten/Externe_Kosten_Gutachten.pdf]
 
−
** English Information on the [[FrankfurtReport]]
 
−
* main page for reports: [http://www.dialogforum-flughafen.de/index.php?id=67]
 
−
* study on aircraft noise: [http://www.dialogforum-flughafen.de/index.php?id=185]
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
  
−
Determination and applications of environmental costs at different sized airports – aircraft noise and engine emissions [http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/f4k6v178145t58j7/fulltext.pdf]
+
=== Policy assessment of nighttime noise limits ===
  
−
*The social costs of noise and aircraft engine emissions are calculated for Schiphol airport surroundings (among other airports).
+
As a policy assessment, we have chosen to look at the effects of reducing nighttime noise levels around Schiphol on sleep disturbance in the area around Schiphol. The desired outcome would be 'number of people sleep disturbed' in the two scenarios (with and without noise limits). DALYs are not useful for this specific policy question. Costs might be useful, especially if the costs of implemeting the noise limits (economical costs) are also known. Data on monetary valutation exist for coronary (fatal, not fatal), angina pectoris, hypertension, sleep disturbance (cost-of-illnes and willingness-to-pay).  
−
*'''Noise social cost:''' Hedonic price method (HPM) is used, which is based on the household equilibrium marginal willingness to pay. It extracts the implicit prices of certain characteristics that determine property values (location, attributes of the neighbourhood and community, environmental quality).
 
  
−
[[Image:Noise social cost.PNG]]
+
The following diagram provides an overview (limited!) of some ways to get to the desired outcome. In the specific case of Schiphol, we have the ''green nodes'' available, which makes it possible to come to the desired outcome (via the ''yellow nodes'').  
  
 +
The diagram also shows some other options to derive the different variables. In white, a few question are asked that should be posed when doing this assessment in reality. '''Everything is just an example, not everything is covered'''
  
−
*'''Aircraft engine emissions (HC, CO, NOx, SO2, CO2, N2O):''' Environmental costs are calculated for individual aircraft movements applying the social cost unit for each pollutant. Annual cost is determined by summing across the annual aircraft movements and emission inventory. Landing, take-off, and 30-minute cruise stage prior to landing or after take-off are considered in the calculations.
+
A question that is not addressed in this diagram is where to set the boundaries for the assessment.
  
−
[[Image:Aircraft emission cost.PNG]]
+
[[Image:Noise sleepdisturbance Schiphol assessment 2.jpg]]
  
 +
[[media:Noiseschiphol.ANA | Click here to download original Analytica file]]
  
−
'''Data for Schiphol:'''
 
−
*Aircraft movement in 2001 (aircrafts categorised into 7 categories)
 
−
*Number of residences within each noise contour zone in 2001
 
−
*Unit social costs of pollutants (HC, CO, NOx, SO2, CO2, N2O) (€/kg). Unit costs are based on the relationship between pollution and damages on human health, vegetation, buildings, climate change and global warming.
 
  
−
'''Results for Schiphol:'''
+
The noise policy case in the Schiphol assessment (see figure) tests and applies the selected Intarese methods and tools [[Tools needed in Intarese toolbox|(see table)]]. We start with the green and yellow variables, since there are data available. For each variable we describe the methods and tools needed and give an example/application of available methods and tools in the noise policy case.
−
*Average and annual noise social cost (€/landing)
 
−
*Average and annual emission cost (€/landing)
 
  
−
What do you mean by social costs? Are the external costs included or are these the internal costs only? [[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 7:23, 14 March 2007 (CET)
+
====Noise level distribution: Application in noise policy case====
  
 +
Original variable: [[Noise levels|Noise levels]]
  
 +
'''Methods and tools needed'''
  
 +
''Development of noise level indicator''
  
−
One thorough review on exposure-response functions of noise (comprising mostly traffic noise and aviation) and health
+
Methods and tools available:
−
[http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/630400001.pdf]
+
*WHO indicator development methodology
 +
**Application in case:
 +
**Input to method: Noise level measurements
 +
**Output of method: Noise level indicator
  
 +
====Population distribution====
  
−
In this systematic review the exposure response relations in the field of noise and health are evaluated by the use of both epidemiological studies and other reviews.
+
Original variable: [[Exposed population|Exposed population]]
−
Only the relationships for which the evidence were sufficient and which were derived either by means of a quantitative summary of published data or a re-analysis of individual data based on primary studies (pooling), were selected.
 
  
−
Some possible references for airport risk study (23.2.2007):
+
'''Methods and tools needed'''
  
−
http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198526292
 
−
Book available from Kuopio university library
 
  
−
{{attack|1: |Very general book about health impact assessment. Maybe useful as a reference if we’re stuck, but not necessary reading material for the case study|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:09, 12 March 2007 (EET)}}
+
Methods and tools available:
  
−
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01959255/2002/00000022/00000006/art00015
+
**Application in case:
−
Article must be ordered through the library.
+
**Input to method:
 +
**Output of method: Noise level indicator
  
−
{{defend|1: |This article (called Assessing health consequences in an environmental impact assessment - The case of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, 2002) is very useful, as they ¨estimated quantitatively the impact of aircraft-related pollution in terms of the number of affected people for aircraft noise annoyance, odour annoyance and hypertension¨ and they also looked annoyance and risk perception. If it doesn’t overlap with the 1994 report, I could also get it through RIVM (probably quicker than through the library).|--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:09, 12 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
  
−
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ZD5Kuhq8Ao8J:www.scan-uk.mmu.ac.uk/Topics/thirdparty.html+schiphol+risk+assessment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
+
====Number of people exposed to certain noise levels: Application in noise policy case====
−
7 References for airport risk assessment studies.
 
  
−
{{attack|1: |This page cannot be found, but probably linked to an overview of even more studies? |--[[User:Anne.knol|Anne.knol]] 15:09, 12 March 2007 (EET)}}
+
Original variable: [[Noise exposure|Noise exposure]]
  
−
*[[media:Ale airport 2000.pdf]]
+
'''Methods and tools needed'''
  
−
{{attack|1: |Deals about the individual and societal risk of being killed by a plane and about their acceptable risk limits. Not within the primary scope of our workshop (noise, air pollution)? | [[User:Olli|Olli]] 15.50, 12 March 2007 (EET) }}
+
''Noise exposure model''
  
−
[http://www.pyrkilo.fi/intarese/images/3/33/Ale_and_Piers_2000_summary.doc]
+
Methods and tools available:
 +
*WP1.2 exposure models
 +
**Application in case:
 +
**Input to method:
 +
**Output of method:
  
−
*[[Media:Ale airport 2006.pdf]]
+
''Development of noise exposure indicator''
−
*[[media:Eindrapport WFP 2002 06 13.pdf]]
 
−
**Airport environmental health indicator development
 
−
***Selected indicators: (i) health indicators e.g. annoyance; (ii) emission/exposure indicators e.g. aircraft noise (iii) throughput indicators e.g. geography --[[User:Eva Kunseler|Eva Kunseler]] 09:33, 13 March 2007 (EET)
 
−
*[[media:Externe Kosten Gutachten.pdf]]
 
−
*[[media:Hale airport 2002.pdf]]
 
  
−
{{attack|1: |This paper summarizes the development of methods being used for risk assessment of Sciplhol airport: the experiences and practices of RA at Schiphol. Scenarios and models used in various RAs, related data needs, various steps in RAs, some legal and policy issues... Written in a descriptive way, so no actual numeric information available from here.|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 20:11, 12 March 2007 (EET)}}
+
Methods and tools available:
−
*[[media:Maas airport 2004.pdf]]
+
*WHO indicator development methodology
−
*[[media:Risk factors of jet fuel combustion products.pdf]]
+
**Application in case:
−
**VOC emission data for jet fuel
+
**Input to method: ''None''
−
**Air pollutant concentrations in airports (monitoring data from three airports)
+
**Output of method: Noise exposure indicator (for example: ''Fraction of population with a given Lden of <55 dB(A), 55-60 dB(A), >60 dB(A)'')
  
−
{{defend|1: |Article concludes, that air pollution derived health risk from airports in adjancet communities is no higher than the risk from typical urban environment. |--[[User:Virpi|Virpi]] 09:30, 13 March 2007 (EET)}}
 
  
−
*[[media:Staatsen airport 1994 raport.pdf]]
+
====Model to translate noise levels into sleep disturbance : Application in noise policy case====
−
*[[media:Viser airport 2005.pdf]]
+
Original variable [[Sleep disturbance (noise related)|Sleep disturbance (noise related)]]
  
−
===Models===
+
'''Methods and tools needed'''
−
* I (Alex) can bring a single source Ecosense model (old version; for use in the workshop only, not for distribution)
 
−
** Input: emissions into the air of a single source (needed e.g. emissions per year, location...)
 
−
** Calculations: dispersion on 50 * 50 km grid for Europe using the Windrose Trajectory Model (a very simple model); calculation of the health impacts (also crops) and calculation of the external costs caused by this.
 
−
* Or if you would like to do the dispersion modelling with another model, I could bring factors for calculating the health impacts and the external costs. I would need delta concentration (background without airport - with airport) per grid cell and population in the same grid cells. I could use Excel to do the rest like it is done in Ecosense.
 
  
 +
* WP1.3 methods of systemtic review/meta-analysis
 +
**Application in case:
 +
**Input to method: specific epidemiological studies dealing with noise and sleep disturbance
 +
**Output of method: One specific study/ model that can be best used to model noise related sleep disturbance. (For example: Miedema functions, see [[Sleep disturbance (noise related)|Sleep disturbance (noise related)]]
  
 
----
 
----
 +
The data or literature part was archived and can be found from [http://www.pyrkilo.fi/intarese/index.php?title=Risk_assessment_on_airports_-_Kuopio_workshop_case_study&oldid=5099 a previous version]
  
 
Suggested case study topics were removed, but they can be found from [http://www.pyrkilo.fi/intarese/index.php?title=Risk_assessment_on_airports_-_Kuopio_workshop_case_study&oldid=4127 a previous version].
 
Suggested case study topics were removed, but they can be found from [http://www.pyrkilo.fi/intarese/index.php?title=Risk_assessment_on_airports_-_Kuopio_workshop_case_study&oldid=4127 a previous version].
Line 343: Line 230:
  
 
[[category:Kuopio workshop]]
 
[[category:Kuopio workshop]]
 +
[[category:Intarese]]

Latest revision as of 07:14, 30 June 2010

Template:Release This page contains the general information about risk assessment conducted as a case study in the Kuopio workshop. Before the workshop begins this page serve as a place to discuss how the case study should be done, e.g. the methodological approaches to be used, the tools to be used, the scoping of the case study, data availability etc. Some of these discussion can be found clicking the discussion tab of this page.

The case is still incomplete and frozen for the time being. Given the unclarities and several unresolved issues concerning the Intarese framework and method, the resources available in the workshop were not sufficient to complete the case within the workshop period. During the workshop the focus was thus deliberately shifted towards discussing and working on the Intarese framework and method descriptions. See workshop report for further information on the progress of the workshop. The case assessment may be continued later if seen necessary and reasonable.

Case study description

Scope:

Following a suggestion originally from David, we chose to focus on airports as the case, and Schiphol especially. A preliminary suggestion of the scoping is to concentrate on air pollution, noise, and road accidents. Airplanes, airport ground transportation and connecting road traffic are the emission sources. Airport related emissions near the airport (say, horizontally 10 km, vertically 1 km [or average boundary mixing layer]) will be considered, but not emissions from the air traffic as whole. Also the target geographic area or population for the risk assessment should be defined. The simplest solution is to target on the same 10 km radius (to be defined on a map). The airport isn't exactly a point source.

The possible policy scenarios include

  • time limitations of airport use (restirctions on night-time activity; noise)
  • air traffic restrictions, e.g. overseas only (air pollution + noise)
  • plane types/sizes (EU airplane noise restrictions already apply, otherwise only indirectly contriollable as a consequence of the previous)
  • more efficient flight profiles or a more optimised route network (these relate to between-airport issues, yes? We do not have data to deal with this)
  • and more advanced noise abatement arrival and departure procedures (we do not have data for this, either)

Excluded are:

Sources:

  • air traffic as a whole (what is ment by this? Air traffic outside of the 10 km rad 1 km x volunme?)
  • economic activities outside airport (hotels, storage, etc)

Releases/ exposures:

  • odour
  • climate change effects
  • water/soil pollution
  • indoor environment
  • loss of public space/ natural habitat
  • waste problems
  • occupational problems (eg people working at airport with chemicals, fires, etc)

Effects

  • accidents with airplanes
  • hearing impairments
  • transport of infectious diseases
  • possible effects related to releases mentioned above

Any actions/ policies!

Framework

This is a draft of the framework that could be used for the airports case study. It includes tasks. Please send me (Anne) comments!!
Each variable presented in this model works as a link to the corresponding variable in wiki

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.


Click here to download original Analytica file used to make this diagram. The names of people responsible for different tasks are not in this analytica file.

Comments from Erik & Alex moved to discussion page

Variables identified/used in this case

Link to variable and method descriptions are listed here. You can reach variables also by clicking corresponding variable on the above framework picture.


Variables

Necessary inputs/methods

Cross-cutting methods


Please have a look at Tools needed in Intarese toolbox for an overview of phases, steps, methods/guidance and tools making risk assessment using the Intarese framework and method.

Policy assessment of nighttime noise limits

As a policy assessment, we have chosen to look at the effects of reducing nighttime noise levels around Schiphol on sleep disturbance in the area around Schiphol. The desired outcome would be 'number of people sleep disturbed' in the two scenarios (with and without noise limits). DALYs are not useful for this specific policy question. Costs might be useful, especially if the costs of implemeting the noise limits (economical costs) are also known. Data on monetary valutation exist for coronary (fatal, not fatal), angina pectoris, hypertension, sleep disturbance (cost-of-illnes and willingness-to-pay).

The following diagram provides an overview (limited!) of some ways to get to the desired outcome. In the specific case of Schiphol, we have the green nodes available, which makes it possible to come to the desired outcome (via the yellow nodes).

The diagram also shows some other options to derive the different variables. In white, a few question are asked that should be posed when doing this assessment in reality. Everything is just an example, not everything is covered

A question that is not addressed in this diagram is where to set the boundaries for the assessment.

Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination

Click here to download original Analytica file


The noise policy case in the Schiphol assessment (see figure) tests and applies the selected Intarese methods and tools (see table). We start with the green and yellow variables, since there are data available. For each variable we describe the methods and tools needed and give an example/application of available methods and tools in the noise policy case.

Noise level distribution: Application in noise policy case

Original variable: Noise levels

Methods and tools needed

Development of noise level indicator

Methods and tools available:

  • WHO indicator development methodology
    • Application in case:
    • Input to method: Noise level measurements
    • Output of method: Noise level indicator

Population distribution

Original variable: Exposed population

Methods and tools needed


Methods and tools available:

    • Application in case:
    • Input to method:
    • Output of method: Noise level indicator


Number of people exposed to certain noise levels: Application in noise policy case

Original variable: Noise exposure

Methods and tools needed

Noise exposure model

Methods and tools available:

  • WP1.2 exposure models
    • Application in case:
    • Input to method:
    • Output of method:

Development of noise exposure indicator

Methods and tools available:

  • WHO indicator development methodology
    • Application in case:
    • Input to method: None
    • Output of method: Noise exposure indicator (for example: Fraction of population with a given Lden of <55 dB(A), 55-60 dB(A), >60 dB(A))


Model to translate noise levels into sleep disturbance : Application in noise policy case

Original variable Sleep disturbance (noise related)

Methods and tools needed

  • WP1.3 methods of systemtic review/meta-analysis
    • Application in case:
    • Input to method: specific epidemiological studies dealing with noise and sleep disturbance
    • Output of method: One specific study/ model that can be best used to model noise related sleep disturbance. (For example: Miedema functions, see Sleep disturbance (noise related)

The data or literature part was archived and can be found from a previous version

Suggested case study topics were removed, but they can be found from a previous version.

Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Risk_assessment_on_airports_-_Kuopio_workshop_case_study&oldid=16318"