Action Planning Resource

Potential Air Quality Impact

This is a key assessment in that the AQAP must focus on prioritising options that improve air quality most effectively. The assessment is complex in that the detailed assessment of any given option could normally be subject to a detailed scenario analysis study of its own, particularly where traffic management scenarios are being considered. However, this is not always possible, and in such circumstances a semi-quantitative assessment relying on a level of judgement can be adopted. The authority should utilise the data at its disposal and develop a transparent methodology that can be well documented and appropriate. An example of such a methodology adopted in several action plans is outlined below for reference:

1. The description of the option and the proposed change to be brought about by the option is used alongside the source apportionment analysis to define what proportion of road transport emissions would potentially be affected by the option.
2. A view is then expressed on how much of the traffic would actually be changed by the option.
3. The proportion of emissions potentially affected by the option and the view on how far they could be changed by the option are combined to express a view on how much transport emissions may be reduced in the AQMA due to the option.
4. A view is then expressed on how significant this change in emissions would be in terms of making progress towards the air quality standard in the AQMA.

For the purpose of the AQ assessment the result of the realistic intervention has been assessed as having a potentially:

• Zero local AQ benefit if the realistic intervention is 0% or worse;
• Small local AQ benefit if the realistic intervention is 1%;
• Medium local AQ benefit if the realistic intervention is 2-5%;
• Large local AQ benefit if the realistic intervention is >5%.

Consideration of potential co-environmental benefits, risk factors and social impacts

In addition to considering the associated costs and potential air quality impacts, the action plan should also consider a number of other factors when evaluating proposed measures to help assess their feasibility and prioritisation within the overall plan. Unless detailed information is readily available, it is reasonable for these assessments to be qualitative in nature.

As part of this, it is useful for the plan to assess the potential impact of proposed measures on other environmental parameters, such as greenhouse gas emissions and noise.

Any potential risks associated with the proposed measure should also be considered and summarised within the plan, such as:

• The potential to relocate emissions from one area to another;
• Placing limits on the pace of development or significantly increasing the costs of development.
• Potential social impacts - e.g. changes in road safety and accessibility.

Potential Risk Factors

In this assessment risk factors are highlighted. These may be looked at more closely within a Strategic Environmental Assessment of any measure implemented. At this stage it is simply highlighted whether or not it is likely that the measure would:

1. Relocate emissions and hence lead to worsening air quality elsewhere
2. Require a change in land use
3. Place limits on pace of development, or increase costs of development significantly.

Without detailed information on the true impacts of the measures, these assessments rely on judgement.

Feasibility and Acceptability

Once each measure has been evaluated, each measure should be assessed for its feasibility and acceptability. It is at this point where it is particularly important to include representation from key stakeholders who are anticipated to have a significant role in the implementation of proposed measures. When assessing the feasibility of proposed measures it may be useful to consider things such as the availability of legislative powers to implement and enforce the proposed measure and the availability and sources of funding to support the implementation of the proposed measure.

In relation to the acceptability, the steering group should make a preliminary judgement on how acceptable each option might be to stakeholders. When making such a judgement, the steering group may wish to consider if the action is to propose unacceptably intrusive changes in behaviour or large personal costs.

Potential Social Impacts

Potential social impacts are highlighted. These may need to be examined more closely when developing the options further. At this stage it is simply highlighted whether or not it is likely that the option would potentially:

1. Provide health benefits in terms of lower exposure to pollutants or increased mobility
2. Increase road safety
3. Improve accessibility

Without detailed information on the true impacts of the options these assessments rely on judgement.

Timescales for the implementation of proposed measures

Following the evaluation of proposed measures, the steering group should outline and agree the feasible timescales for completion of each proposed measure. In many cases this consideration should look at planning and implementation phases of each measure, and to facilitate this the steering group may wish to prepare sub-measures below each measures so that the timescales for these can be clearly outlined within the draft action plan and facilitate progress during the implementation of the action plan.

Implementation costs and Cost-effectiveness

In order to help prioritise actions for implementation, it is necessary to consider the anticipated planning and implementation cost-effectiveness for each of the shortlisted measures. As part of this process the authority should consider the likely costs associated with the implementation of each option. As it may be difficult to obtain detailed and accurate costs associated with the implementation of some options, a matrix approach to evaluating the cost-effectiveness can be adopted within air quality action plans. An example of such an approach is outlined below:

The potential implementation costs of each option

• Cost neutral (measure already implemented through existing plans/programmes)
• Low costs (up to £20k )
• Medium costs (up to £60k )
• High costs (up to £200k )
• Very high costs (above £200k e.g. for new infrastructure)

The assessed costs should attempt to include the costs to the authority and other stakeholders. These cost bandings may be subject to revision depending on comments received from those consulted.

Following this determination, the effectiveness of each measure in improving air quality can then be compared with the implementation costs in the following matrix to provide an estimate of cost-effectiveness:

In this table the assessed implementation costs and potential air quality impacts have been given a weighted score. The product of the weighted scores for each option is calculated. The results can be interpreted as follows:

• If the product is high (10 or more) then the measure is more cost-effective (significant impacts for the cost involved) and perhaps favourably cost-effective;
• If the product is medium (between 5-9) then the measure is in the medium range of cost-effectiveness;
• If the product is low (4 or less) then the measure is less cost-effective (small impacts for the cost involved) and perhaps unacceptably poor in cost-effectiveness terms.

This method only estimates the relative cost-effectiveness of options rather than their absolute values. The method is useful during discussions of the relative priority of different options. The final cost-effectiveness value is sensitive to changes in the assumptions of how effective a measure might be in reducing emissions and how costly it is.