>From the DETR web site:
> 
>
>213 9 March 1999
>
>RESEARCH SHOWS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL 
>COSTS TO QUARRYING
>
>Research shows that the costs of quarrying Britain's construction
>aggregates - in terms of damage to the local and national
>environment - are significant. The research was one factor in
>informing the Chancellor's decision on a possible aggregates tax in
>Budget 1999(1).
>
>The findings emerge from results of research by consultants London
>Economics, commissioned by the Department of the Environment,
>Transport and the Regions after the Chancellor's 1998 Budget. The
>full results will be published in the next few months. 
>
>Local impacts, including noise, dust, visual intrusion and loss of
>amenity, were assessed by surveying almost 10,000 people within
>five miles of a number of representative sites. Headline results
>are shown in the table below, although there is significant variation
>between individual quarries, and between material types, due in large
>part to differences in population density around each site. The
>estimates are likely to be on the low side because of the cautious
>design of the survey and because they are unlikely to pick up all
>environmental impacts.
>
>
>Material Type Average Environmental Cost AverageEnvironmental Cost
>(per household per annum)()         (per tonne per annum) (2)
>Hard Rock          #12.50p               #0.40
>Sand & Gravel      #14.50p               #1.10
> 
>Average            #13.25p               #0.70
>  
>
>A separate national survey of public attitudes measures the costs
>of quarrying in areas designated for special protection from
>development. The survey asked specifically about quarrying in
>National Parks but the results are also relevant to Areas of
>Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). The national survey indicates
>that the general public place a high value on the amenity loss
>associated with quarrying in areas designated for special
>protection from development - the external costs of quarrying in
>National Parks are at least #6 per tonne.
>
>The two components of the work can be combined to give a rough
>overall estimate of the external cost from aggregates extraction.
>The local results apply to all land won aggregates extracted in
>Great Britain each year, while the national survey results can be
>applied to the smaller proportion of output extracted from National
>Parks and AONBs (of the order of 10% of the total). Ignoring
>non-local amenity effects of quarrying in other sparsely populated
>areas, the overall external cost of aggregates extraction is
>estimated to be at least #250 million per annum.
>
>Notes For Editors
>
>Background
>
>An accompanying HMT Press Notice contains full details of the
>Chancellor's statement on a possible aggregates tax.
>
>In August 1998 DETR commissioned London Economics to carry out
>research to value the external environmental costs and benefits
>associated with the supply of aggregates for the UK construction
>industry using Contingent Valuation surveys and building on the
>first phase of this project, which was published in April 1998.
>
>Primary aggregates consist of hard rock and sand and gravel used by
>the construction industry to form the part or the whole of a
>building or civil engineering structure. Important uses of
>aggregate include roadstone and concrete. Current annual production
>in Great Britain is about 220 million tonnes, about 60% hard rock
>and 40% sand and gravel. Around 11 million tonnes of primary
>aggregates come from sources within National Parks. About 14 % of
>the sand and gravel is dredged from UK territorial waters. Other
>materials are widely used as aggregate, especially recycled
>construction and demolition waste and a range of secondary
>materials comprising mineral wastes, power station ashes,
>blastfurnace and steel slags and road planings.
>
>In considering policy in relation to aggregates extraction, it is
>necessary to assess all the environmental costs and benefits
>involved and Government guidance(3) states that every effort should
>be made to value these effects in monetary terms where possible, as
>this is an important step in integrating the environment more fully
>into the policy making process. For this reason the Chancellor
>announced in the July 1997 Budget that research would be carried
>out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
>into the environmental costs associated with the supply of
>aggregates.
>
>This research aimed first to identify the main environmental
>impacts of aggregates supply. These impacts include dust and noise,
>reduced visual amenity and the effects on wildlife and the water
>environment. The research then went on to assess the scale of these
>impacts, and estimate the external costs which are not addressed by
>planning or regulatory controls. The first phase of that work,
>undertaken by London Economics using contingent valuation
>techniques showed that there are significant environmental costs
>not already covered by regulation(4).
>
>Contingent Valuation is a technique which can be used to place
>monetary values on environmental impacts. The approach tries to
>identify individuals' preferences by exploring, through detailed
>surveys, the value they would place on specific improvements or
>deterioration in the quality of the environment. Typically, people
>are asked either how much they would be willing to accept (WTA) by
>way of compensation for a specific environmental deterioration or
>for foregoing an improvement, or how much they would be willing to
>pay (WTP) in order to receive a specific environmental improvement or
>to avoid a deterioration. Further details are provided in Box 5.4
>of the Pre-Budget Report, HM Treasury, November 1998. 
>
>The Budget of March 1998 announced that further work was required to 
>build upon the initial research findings and to consider tax and 
>other options as a means of addressing these costs. An independent 
>expert review of the first research project, undertaken by Professor 
>David Pearce and Susana Mourato of University College London, 
>confirmed that contingent valuation was the appropriate technique for
>valuing the environmental costs of aggregates supply(5). 
>Furthermore,the review advised that further research should be 
>informed and advised by a panel of experts in the field of contingent
>valuation.
>
>Phase II Research
>
>London Economics were appointed in August 1998 to carry out
>additional research for the DETR on the environmental costs and 
>benefits of aggregates supply. This study built on the previous work 
>by incorporating the technical recommendations of the independent 
>review and an "Expert Group"(6) set up to advise the DETR and London 
>Economics on the design and implementation of the research. The 
>major innovations included a larger sample and improvements in the 
>questionnaire design process and the choice of WTP as measure of 
>environmental cost. Changes were made to the econometric analysis and
>a national survey was undertaken to capture non-use and visitor 
>values placed by the general population on quarrying in nationally 
>designated areas of special value.
>
>Given the policy context, the Expert Group took the view that the 
>research should be designed to adopt a cautious approach whereby the 
>results generated could be considered as being towards the lower end 
>of the range of plausible results. This would provide a more robust 
>basis for application of the polluter pays principle and considering 
>alternative policies to address the environmental impacts involved. 
>The study employed the more conservative WTP framework, in contrast 
>to the WTA framework used in the Phase I research, and which tends to
>generate higher values(7).
>
>Greater pre-testing of the survey design was also undertaken, both 
>through the extensive use of focus groups and piloting of the 
>completed questionnaires. This process, and the input of the Expert 
>Group throughout the study, was designed to ensure that the conduct 
>of the research followed best practice and generated robust results.
>
>The survey work consisted of two main elements. A Local Survey
>considered the value placed on environmental impacts of aggregates
>supply by local people living within 5 miles of selected sites. The
>National Survey assessed the non-use and visitor values placed by the
>population in general on quarrying in nationally designated areas of
>special value. 
>
>The Local Survey
>
>The Local survey differed from that undertaken in Phase I by
>sampling a greater number of sites and increasing the sample size
>at each site. Around 10,000 people were surveyed across the country
>at 21 sites. The 16 hard rock and sand and gravel sites were chosen
>to give a representative mix in terms of production, surrounding
>population density and regional distribution. The available
>information does not provide an adequate basis for choosing a
>representative sample of marine wharves and recycling sites. Two of
>the hard rock quarries surveyed were in National Parks.
>
>Source of Material No. of Sites Sampled
>Hard Rock Quarries 8
>Sand & Gravel Sites 8
>Marine Wharves 2
>Reprocessing Sites 3
>
>The National Survey
>
>A sample of approximately 1,000 individuals nationwide was 
>undertaken to evaluate the additional values placed on the costs of 
>quarrying in areas of special environmental value. This survey was 
>designed to pick up the values of visitors, and non-use or 
>"existence" values. To elicit such values, respondents were asked 
>about their attitudes to quarrying in the Yorkshire Dales and Peak 
>District National Parks, and the results of the national survey can 
>be used to inform judgements about the values placed on quarrying in 
>the other national parks and other scenic areas such as Areas of 
>Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).
>
>Results: (a) The Local Survey
>
>The results of the local survey show that significant external
>costs are associated with the extraction of aggregate. While these
>vary on a site by site basis, and by material type, a considerable
>portion of this variation can be attributed to variations in the
>population density around the surveyed sites. The provisional
>results for the hard rock and sand and gravel sources are shown in
>the table below. The per household figures relate to those living
>within five miles of quarries.
>
>Land Won Results - Local Survey
>
>Land Won Material Type Average WTP (2) Average WTP(2)
>(per household per annum) (per tonne per
>annum) 
>Hard Rock #12.50p #0.40
>Sand & Gravel #14.50p #1.10
>Average #13.25p #0.70
>
>These average figures were generated by using the responses from the 
>questionnaires to estimate an overall distribution for the likely 
>size of WTP for the population living around all the quarries in the
>country. The figures for hard rock are lower as a result of the 
>generally lower population densities found around such sites, which 
>are often found in upland or other mainly rural areas. The household
>WTP figures are comparable for sand and gravel and hard rock. The 
>results from the local survey do not fully account for the negative 
>impacts on biodiversity or the water environment because local 
>residents may not know about or fully appreciate such effects. The 
>results do not aim to capture any local impacts outside the surveyed
>five mile radius, or visitor and non-use values of the kind 
>addressed by the national survey.
>
>Three stand-alone recycling sites were also surveyed. The results
>cannot be regarded as representative of the environmental costs of
>recycling. To be able to identify separately the impacts of
>recycling operations the surveyed sites had to be stand-alone sites.
>Such sites account for a very small fraction of all recycling
>activity; most construction and demolition waste - over 90% of
>arisings that are not disposed of - is used as aggregate either on
>demolition sites or on landfill sites. Stand alone sites are usually
>located in urban areas near to the source of material and where the
>population density is high. WTP for the three stand-alone sites
>surveyed was #8.75 per household and #10.50 per tonne. 
>
>Two wharves were surveyed. The WTP per household was #31.50 and 
>#10.75 per tonne.
>
>Results: (b) The National Survey
>
>The results from the national survey differ from those of the local 
>survey results in that they apply to more households but only a 
>proportion of total output. They indicate that the general population
>are concerned about the impacts of quarrying in areas designated for 
>special protection from such as National Parks. Although the survey 
>did not address the issue directly, the results suggest by extension 
>that quarrying activity in other sparsely populated areas is also 
>likely to be a cause for concern to people outside a five mile radius
>given the amenity and environmental benefits that such areas provide.
>In assessing the overall environmental cost of quarrying, the values 
>arising from the national and local surveys must be combined. The 
>provisional results of the national survey are summarised in the 
>table below.
>
>WTP (per household) (2) WTP (per tonne) (2)
>National Parks #2.75 #6.00
>
>Conclusions
>
>The results of the research have shown that significant adverse
>environmental impacts are generated by the extraction of
>aggregates. On the cautious assumptions that the national survey
>results are relevant only to National Parks and AONBs, and that
>non-use and visitor values to the general public are zero for all
>other quarries, the sum total of the externalities identified by
>the research is estimated to be at least #250 million per annum.
>These externalities are not removed by the present controls which
>apply to aggregates extraction through the planning and
>environmental protection systems. The research method used suggests
>that these values are likely to understate the true costs involved.
>
>The research is nearing completion and the DETR will publish a full
>report when the project is completed, within the next few months.
>
>(1) See Accompanying HMT Press Release on a Possible Aggregates Tax.
>(2) Provisional results from London Economics rounded to the nearest 
>25p, local durvey per tonnage.
>(3) Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, HM Treasury 1997,
>ISBN 0115600345
>(4) "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of
>Aggregates" DETR April 1998, ISBN 1851120823
>(5) "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply Aggregates:
>A Review of the London Economics Report", Department of the 
>Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998
>(6) The "Expert Group" consisted of Professor Ian Bateman, University
>of East Anglia; Professor Michael Hanemann, University of
>California, Berkeley; Professor Nick Hanley, University of 
>Edinburgh; Dr Susana Mourato, Imperial College; Professor Richard
>Ready, Agricultural University of Norway; Toby Taper of MORI; and
>Professor Ken M Willis, University of Newcastle. It was chaired
>by Chris Riley, the DETR Chief Economist.
>(7) The Literature suggests the difference between "Willingness to
>Pay" and "Willingness to Accept" is frequently a factor of 3 to 5. 
>See "Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of 
>Aggregates", DETR April 1998
>
>
>
>
>
>
># = pounds sterling
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%