Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: Indicators: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise): appearnce) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{var | {{var | ||
|Name = | |Name = Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise), Kari's proposal | ||
|Focus = | |Focus = Direct or indirect information about the factors affecting peoples living comfortability related to waste management alternatives (disposal site or MSWI). Direct variables are modelled or measured (ie. noise map) and indicators are based on feedback from local people or from other indirect source. | ||
If the decision model will be used to analyse alternative scenarios, we have to include both modelled variables and feedback variables here or alternatively define these own variable for the Pyrkilö -model. | |||
|Scope = | |Scope = | ||
Areas related to alternative waste management systems in Pirkanmaa. Thus, focus will be on existing dumping place (Tarastejärvi) and planned MSWI plant in Hämeenkyrö. Modelled variables will be estimated using different time scales (day, month, year). Well-being indicators will be monitored continuosly and summarizing reports can be done monthly and annually. People can also be asked what kind of changes in comfortability factors they believe to happen in future when a certain waste management alternative is implemented. | Areas related to alternative waste management systems in Pirkanmaa. Thus, focus will be on existing dumping place (Tarastejärvi) and planned MSWI plant in Hämeenkyrö. Modelled variables will be estimated using different time scales (day, month, year). Well-being indicators will be monitored continuosly and summarizing reports can be done monthly and annually. People can also be asked what kind of changes in comfortability factors they believe to happen in future when a certain waste management alternative is implemented. | ||
MSWI and dumping site alternatives have diffent total noise and smell effects for people living near the emission source. Both should be analysed before final solution. | MSWI and dumping site alternatives have diffent total noise and smell effects for people living near the emission source. Both should be analysed before final solution. | ||
|Description = some ideas of different factors (both a: direct variables and b: indicators) | |||
1 Noise | 1 Noise | ||
a) modelled noise maps / control noise measurements in neighborhoods of site based on: | a) modelled noise maps / control noise measurements in neighborhoods of site based on: | ||
*estimated amount of traffic near waste treatment site | |||
*noise emissions from operating incinerator | |||
*extra noise from birds (near landfill site) | |||
b) noise distubance asked from local people | b) noise distubance asked from local people | ||
*how often people suffer from noise? | |||
*continuous or episodic noise? | |||
2 Smell/odor | 2 Smell/odor | ||
a) maps based on odor dispersion models | a) maps based on odor dispersion models | ||
b) smell information asked from local people | b) smell information asked from local people | ||
3 Social factors | 3 Social factors | ||
b) socioeconomic indicators based on statistics at small area (250x250 m) resolution | b) socioeconomic indicators based on statistics at small area (250x250 m) resolution | ||
*socioeconomic variables (income, unemployment, education) are used to calculate social index | |||
*indicator may be useful information before the decisions, but also for monitoring and forecasting changes in future when plant/landfill site is operating | |||
4 Scenic values | 4 Scenic values | ||
a) visibility maps calculated using GIS | a) visibility maps calculated using GIS (digital elevation model, forest data and other geograpical data) | ||
b) scenic values asked from local people (questionary) | |||
5 Discomfort index | 5 Discomfort index | ||
b) index based on several questions from local people about comfortability of area | b) index based on several questions from local people about comfortability of area (questionary) | ||
6 Concern index (Health effects) | 6 Concern index (Health effects) | ||
b) index based on several questions from local people about concerns their have about the possible health effects | b) index based on several questions from local people about concerns their have about the possible health effects (questionary) | ||
|Inputs = | |Inputs = waste collection data, emission data from plant, bird invetory and voice emission data, Indicator data from systematic post questionaries and continuous feedback forms from web-site, data from waste management processes in landfill site, questionaries & online feedback forms on the web | ||
|Index = | |Index = | ||
|Definition = | |Definition = | ||
|Unit = | |Unit = dB, indices | ||
|Result = | |Result = | ||
|References = | |References = | ||
| Line 113: | Line 66: | ||
{{var | {{var | ||
|Name = Auris proposal | |Name = Auris proposal | ||
|Focus = Factors or issues affecting | |Focus = Factors or issues affecting people's living comfortability in Hämeenkyrö. | ||
|Scope = The basic factors, like | |Scope = The basic factors, like noise, smell, social factors, etc., that affect the comfortability of inhabitants in Hämeenkyrö. Some of these factors can be measured and some are based on a experience and/or common beliefs and thoughts of inhabitants in Hämeenkyrö, like in other places where the municipal solid waste incinerator have been planned earlier (in Viljakkala). | ||
|Description = 1. | |Description = 1.Noise: | ||
:* From the building phase of the municipal solid waste incinerator | :* From the building phase of the municipal solid waste incinerator | ||
:* From operation time of the municipal incinerator | :* From operation time of the municipal incinerator | ||
| Line 125: | Line 78: | ||
:** What is the distance from the industrial site to the settlement?<BR> | :** What is the distance from the industrial site to the settlement?<BR> | ||
:* The noise disturbs the comfortability of the living<BR> | :* The noise disturbs the comfortability of the living<BR> | ||
2. | 2. Smell:<BR> | ||
:* Probable less disturbing comparing it to the dump site.<BR> | :* Probable less disturbing comparing it to the dump site.<BR> | ||
:* Inhabitants, who live near the landfill, think that the smell decreases the living comfortability a lot.<BR> | :* Inhabitants, who live near the landfill, think that the smell decreases the living comfortability a lot.<BR> | ||
3. | 3. Social factors:<BR> | ||
:* Increasing a employment grade<BR> | :* Increasing a employment grade<BR> | ||
:* Decreasing the value of the property (houses, lands, summer cottages)<BR> | :* Decreasing the value of the property (houses, lands, summer cottages)<BR> | ||
Revision as of 09:38, 28 September 2006
See the main page of this assessment: Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: General
- Decisions related to Hämeenkyrö case
- Possible indicators (optimising variables) in Hämeenkyrö
Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise)
Kari Auri
Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise), Kari's proposal
Auris proposal
Effects on economy (esp. gas energy plant)
Juha
Effects on economy
Transportation costs of waste
Changes of waste transportation costs at Hämeenkyrö region
Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5
Anu T
Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5 (conclusion)