See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40499026

The role of environmental factors in industrial site selection activities: a case

of limestone quarry expansion in Barbados, West Indies

Article  in  Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal · June 2005

DOI: 10.3152/147154605781765670 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

18 1,585

2 authors, including:

Prasanta Kumar Dey

Aston University
251 PUBLICATIONS   9,893 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Unified Sustainability Index Framework for Small and Medium Enterprises View project

Healthcare quality management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Prasanta Kumar Dey on 16 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 23, number 2, June 2005, pages 147–154, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK
Practice report
The role of environmental factors in industrial
site selection activities: a case of limestone
quarry expansion in Barbados, West Indies
Eugene K Ramcharan and Prasanta Kumar Dey
Site selection is a key activity for quarry expansion
to support cement production, and is governed by
factors such as resource availability, logistics,
costs, and socio-environmental factors. Adequate
consideration of all factors facilitates both indus-
trial productivity and sustainable economic
growth. This study illustrates the site selection
process that was undertaken for the expansion of
limestone quarry operations to support cement
production in Barbados. First, alternate sites
with adequate resources to support a 25-year de-
velopment horizon were identified. Second,
socio-environmental conditions were described
and potential impacts identified. Third, a com-
parative matrix was constructed to evaluate rela-
tive site characteristics with respect to physical,
ecological, socio-cultural and economic factors.
The study shows that environmental factors were
essential to the final site recommendation.
Keywords: quarry expansion; site selection; environmental
impact assessment; cement production; Barbados
Eugene K Ramcharan is Environmental Management Specialist,
TROPECOL, 605-966 Inverhouse Drive, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada L5J 4B6; E-mail: tropecol@yahoo.com. Prasanta Kumar
Dey (PhD) is Senior Lecturer, Aston Business School, Aston
University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK; E-mail: p.k.dey@aston.
ac.uk.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005
S
ITE SELECTION is one of the key activities
for a new project or a capacity expansion pro-
ject of any manufacturing organization. This is
mostly governed by factors such as availability of
resources (raw materials, utilities, labor forces and
so on), construction suitability, further expansion
possibility, logistics, availability of market, social
and environmental factors, and physical planning
considerations.
Social and environmental factors play a major
role today in industrial site selection activities
(Dey, 2001), because of global awareness of envi-
ronmental issues and the presence, in most countries,
of regulatory agencies that closely monitor devel-
opment activities. These agencies are empowered,
not only to require organizations to conform to
stipulated environmental practices while approving
infrastructure/construction projects, but also to
monitor environmental parameters during construc-
tion and operations (Calvin and Dey, 2002).
Expansion of limestone quarry operations to
support cement production presents environment-
ally sensitive issues because of the extraction
processes used in quarry operations and downstream
cement production activities. This is acutely so in
Barbados where limestone is widely available and
the human settlements are widespread. Because of
this, site selection activities to support quarry
expansion is governed, not only by resource avail-
ability, but also by logistics, economic cost, and
socio-environmental issues. This paper will illustrate
the site selection process for this expansion in
Barbados.
1461-5517/05/020147-8 US$08.00  IAIA 2005 147
Environmental factors in industrial site selection
Methodology
The steps for site selection for the limestone quarry
expansion project were:
• Identifying alternative sites with adequate re-
sources to support a 25–50 years development
horizon;
• Describing the socio-environmental conditions of
each site and identifying potential impacts;
• Constructing a comparative matrix to evaluate
relative site characteristics with respect to physi-
cal, ecological, socio-cultural and economic
factors; and
• Selecting the most suitable site based on the
above factors and with the stakeholder participa-
tion.
The next section describes quarry operations. This is
followed by the characteristics of the available alter-
native sites. Then the socio-environmental condi-
tions of each site are characterized, identifying
potential impacts and suggesting possible mitigation
measures. Finally, the matrix of site selection criteria
against each alternative site is given together with
the decision-making process for site selection.
Quarry operations
Quarry operations involve removal of over-burden,
drilling, blasting, excavating, stockpiling, loading
and transporting the limestone rocks to the crushing
plant. Blasting operations at the organization under
study include:
• removing over-burden and piling around the
perimeter of the area to be worked using earth-
moving equipment;
• transporting and delivering explosive from an au-
thorized storage location to the blast site;
• implementing safety and security measures;
• drilling 10–35 holes (76–102mm diameter, 3–4m
apart, and 12m deep) in the limestone rock and
filling them with an ammonium nitrate/fuel oil
(ANFO) explosive;
• blasting with non-electric detonators;
• verifying that it was a successful blast (5,000–
8,000 tonnes limestone per blast);
• stockpiling limestone with earth-moving equip-
ment for delivery to the crushing plant;
• loading and haulage to crushing plant.
Alternative sites for quarry operations
Resource availability, planning considerations, po-
tential socio-environmental impacts, and economic
costs of operation, are the important criteria in se-
lecting an appropriate site for a limestone quarry op-
eration associated with cement production. In this
148
study, the developer requires a total of 25 million
tonnes (mt) of limestone over a 50-year horizon
based on demand forecasting, and the chosen site
should contain the desired quantity of material.
Because quarrying is a resource-depleting activity
that causes significant landscape and socio-cultural
changes, pre-selection of sites seeks to determine
that special industry-specific conditions occur in the
preferred location. These include physical factors,
such as: accessibility by heavy transport vehicles;
being, or having the potential to be, well drained; re-
sulting in minimal soil loss and erosion; not degrad-
ing water quality in waterways and aquifers; stable
enough to attenuate noise and vibration levels;
screened to minimize dust pollution; being restor-
able to a suitable condition. There are also biological/
ecological factors, such as: maintenance of the qual-
ity, structure and functioning of important natural
and sensitive ecosystems; and minimizing impacts
on species populations and biodiversity. Socio-
cultural factors include: infrastructure; public goods
and services; aquifers; recreation; community activi-
ties; aesthetics; quality of life; property values; and
open space.
Controlling production costs is fundamental to
business success. While site development and day-to
day operational costs might be similar for alternative
quarry sites, several other cost items could combine
to make one or more sites economically unattractive
for development. In this study, additional cost fac-
tors include the cost of road development, additional
trucks to transport limestone to the crushing plant,
employing additional drivers, increased vehicle op-
erational and maintenance costs, reduced life expec-
tancy of vehicles, the potential risk to other road
users along the transport route, and the potential risk
to home-owners along the transport route.
These factors were used to evaluate three sites —
Lamberts, Harrison’s Point, and Maycocks/
Bromefield — that are located in the north of Barba-
dos, West Indies (Figure 1). Barbados’ land surface
is composed of coralline limestone that covers sedi-
mentary material. The coral cap, which covers 85%
of the island, is approximately 100m thick, and the
oldest sections found in the middle of the island, are
more than 1 million years old (Senn, 1946). Younger
deposits, representing more recent uplift of the is-
land, are found near the coast. Adequate reserves of
limestone are present on the island.
The Lamberts site is approximately 7km (4
miles), by road, from the cement plant, and the rock
cover is approximately 72m thick. Topsoil cover is
variable, but less than 1m. The area is not prone to
land slippage and is covered with sugar cane with
fringe communities of weeds and grasses. No
unique, distinct, rare or threatened species are pre-
sent. The site is connected to the cement plant cur-
rently by a paved secondary road that joins a
highway. Because of the depth of the water table, the
site is not subject to Barbados’ water protection
zones policies.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005

Figure 1. Outline of Barbados showing the alternative sites in the northern part of the island
The second site, Harrison's Point, is located on the
coast at a distance of approximately 3.5km (2 miles),
by road, from the cement plant. This coastal location
exposes it to strong, salt-laden (high chloride con-
tent) winds that could add chloride ions to the rock
and impair the quality of cement by reducing its
binding capabilities. The area is classified as only
slightly erodable, and is not prone to land slippage.
High-quality near-shore fringing reefs lie between
100m to 1km from the shoreline, where a rare, ex-
tensive littoral vegetation community occurs. On the
terrace, the vegetation is comprised of sugar cane,
with a weedy flora of grasses and shrubs.
The site is connected to the cement plant via nar-
row secondary roads that would require substantial
upgrading to service the expected increase in heavy-
duty vehicles. The poor quality of the roads creates
concerns about the capacity for emergency response
if accidents should occur. Several low-income, rural
communities live in the area, and the population is
sparse. The depth to the aquifer is 29m, but no
abstraction of water for public use occurs now.
However, the aquifer could be brought into produc-
tion to meet future needs.
The Maycocks/Bromefield location comprises
two parcels of land that lie at least 1km from the
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005
Environmental factors in industrial site selection
coast, but adjacent to the existing quarry. The depth
from the surface to the aquifer averages 31m. The
Bromefield portion of the site lies adjacent to a key
‘water protection area’, and a dry watercourse trav-
erses the area. Several sinkholes and dolines (swal-
low holes) are present, but the land is considered to
be slightly erodable, and not prone to slippage.
Maycocks Bay lies west of the site. The back-
shore supports a littoral community of trees, shrubs
and grasses that is protected from land-based effects
by a terrace that runs parallel to the shore. Several
villages are located nearby, and these residents
would experience impacts from dust, noise and vi-
bration from quarrying activities. The proposal to
use tunnels and an internal quarry road on which to
transport limestone presents no transportation-linked
impacts to villagers and other road users.
Environmental issues at the sites
Quarry operations impose significant impacts on
environmental features. Although most of the
development and operational items are common to
all three sites, there are some differences. The
main ones are the proposal to construct a conveyor
149
Environmental factors in industrial site selection

belt to service the Harrison’s Point site, access tun- Table 1 shows the environmental aspects of quarry
nels for the Maycocks/Bromefield site, and road im- expansion project for cement production at the three
provement and upgrade for the Lamberts site. sites.
Table 1. Environmental aspects, potential impacts and mitigation measures for the individual project components of quarrying
operations

Component of Environmental aspects Potential impacts Receptors Possible mitigation measures

quarrying

Infrastructure
Upgrade of roads (except 1. Safety 1. Inadequate roads can 1. Workers, residents 1. Employ sound technical
at Maycock’s) cause increased construction methods
potential of accidents
2. Access 2. New roads can impair 2. Residents 2. Meet with residents to avoid
access to community conflicts about road usage
facilities
Construction of tunnels 3. Land stability 3. Land collapse 3. Workers 3. Employ sound technical
(only at Maycock’s) methods in construction
Construction of conveyor 4. Sedimentation 4. Increased sediment 4. Near-shore 4. Use sediment traps during
belt (only at Harrison’s load in the near-shore construction and operation
Point)
Removal of over- 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Residents 1. Moisten area before clearing site
burden(used to create 2. Land surface 2. Wind erosion of loose 2. Soil and vegetation 2. Survey area to know what exists
a 6m berm around disturbance soil before removal; revegetate berm
perimeter of quarry) rather than allow it to self-
vegetate
3. Aesthetics 3. Visual 3. Landscape, and 3. Keep berm densely vegetated;
intrusion/scarring residents mine areas furthest away from
populated areas first
Transport and delivery of 1. Safety 1. Vehicle overturn or 1. Workers, villagers, 1. Limit the speed of trucks to
explosives collision could cause road users <20km/h in and near quarry
unplanned/ 2. Consider alternative extraction
unmonitored explosion procedures
Warning siren sounded 1. Noise nuisance 1. Sound intrusion for a 1. Residents 1. Limit duration of siren
few seconds
(acceptable nuisance)
2. Consider alternative extraction
procedures
Drill 10–35 holes up to 3 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Residents, workers, 1. Moisten areas before drilling
rows (12m deep; 3–4m vegetation
apart) 2. Noise 2. Noise nuisance 2. Residents 2. Keep berm high (6m) and
densely vegetated
3. Vibration 3. Cracks created and 3. Houses, buildings 3. Ensure proper training of drill-
widened in structural crew, especially procedures and
effects timing of drilling
4. Consider alternative extraction
procedures
Fill holes with ANFO 1. Safety 1. Improper sealing of 1. Workers 1. Use only specially trained staff
(Cover holes with holes triggers explo-
12mm–19mm stones to sion before schedule
eliminate fly rock) 2. Consider alternative extraction
procedures
Blasting done with non- 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust and 1. Workers, residents1. Proper blasting practices that
electric detonators oxides of nitrogen minimize airborne particulates;
(monitor for noise and emitted appropriate pollution control
vibration 450m away) devices should be installed to
capture emissions
2. Noise 2. Noise levels increase 2. Workers, residents 2. Ensure berm is high and
densely vegetated
3. Vibrations 3. Creation and widening 3. Residents 3. Use blasting procedures to
of cracks in structural minimize vibrations to nearby
elements residents and structures
4. Slope stability 4. Sinkholes may 4. Workers 4. Constant monitoring for
collapse. weaknesses in topography;
restrict unscheduled access to
subsidence areas
5. Land-use 5. Undue interruption of 5. Sensitive populations; 5. Ensure community is aware of
conflicts daily activities for schools, offices, etc blasting hours; update
community community on the expected
impacts of operations
6. Capacity for 6. Fly rock may cause 6. Workers 6. Ongoing training for best
emergency response injury to workers quarrying practices

(continued)

150 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005

 Environmental factors in industrial site selection

Table 1 (continued)

Component of quarrying Environmental Potential impacts Receptors Possible mitigation measures

aspects

Verification of successful 1. No known issue 1. Noise 1. Noise 1. Limit duration of the blast
blast (5,00 – 8,000 2. Consider alternate extraction
tonnes limestone per procedures
blast)
All clear siren sounded
Excavate limestone 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Workers, residents
1. Training for best quarrying
(using CAT 973 with practices; use particulate trapping
bucket and ripper) devices; wet area
2. Noise 2. Noise as a result of 2. Workers, residents 2. Use of ear mufflers for workers;
scraping and ripping densely vegetated berm should
attenuate noise
3. Land space 3. Permanent loss of 3. Land use 3. Rehabilitate area with appropriate
soil land use eg recreational ground
4. Slope stability 4. Stress of earth 4. Equipment, workers 4. Periodic monitoring of quarry floor
moving equipment to detect weaknesses in rock;
may cause collapse frequent safety reminders
of earth surface
5. Aesthetics 5. Scarring, over time, 5. Community 5. Ongoing rehabilitation, where
is visually feasible; restrict unauthorized
unappealing access to site
Mechanically break large 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Workers. 1. Ensure safety gear is worn
boulders (using generated
hydraulic hammer) 2. Vibrations 2. Vibrations from the 2. Workers. 2. Conduct periodic checks for onsite
pounding can structures to detect weaknesses
damage onsite
buildings
Stockpile limestone 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Workers, residents. 1. Keep stockpile covered; moisten if
(according to quality and generated conditions are windy
size)
Load 2,500 tonnes of rock 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Workers. 1. Use dust-reduction devices
onto 6 trucks (22 at generated
Lamberts) using wheel
loaders
Haul load to crusher at 1. Air quality 1. Airborne dust 1. Residents. 1. Use tarpaulin to cover load on
cement plant along a generated during trucks
private roadway (22 transport
trucks for 160 trips daily 2. Noise 2. Increased vehicular 2. Residents. 2. Ensure drivers become aware of
at Lamberts) (along traffic leads to more sensitivities of residents (no
conveyor belt system for noise unnecessary tooting of horns, etc)
Harrison’s Point) 3. Emission of vehicular 3. Traffic congestion 3. Residents, workers. 3. Proper servicing of trucks can
fumes causes increased reduce vehicular emissions
emissions
4. Land-use conflicts 4. Access roads may 4. Residents 4. Discuss with residents about the
dislocate community best location of access roads
activities (except at Maycock’s)
5. Accidental spill of 5. Increased 5. Roads, vegetation 5. Contingency plan to counter
limestone from trucks sedimentation (Lamberts) and near- accidental spills, including
(Lamberts) or shore (Harrison’s maintenance and clean-up
conveyor belt Point) activities
(Harrison’s Point)
6. Capacity for 6. Increased number 6. Workers, residents 6. Design roads for adequate
emergency response of vehicles along capacity and visibility (except at
steep roadways Maycock’s)
increases potential
for accidents

Site selection matrix Differences include proximity to important

The factors to evaluate the suitability for develop-
ment (Table 2) show similarities and differences
among the sites. Similarities include, having adequate
amounts of limestone to meet forecast demands, site
stability, good drainage, and the need to encroach on
agricultural lands. A principal socio-environmental
similarity is that residential communities lie near, or
adjacent to, all sites.
coastal and marine ecosystems (Harrison’s Point),
encroachment on natural drainage patterns (Brome-
field), near residential communities (Lamberts),
adjacent to residential communities (Maycocks and
Bromefield), requires upgrading of roadway to ac-
commodate traffic (Lamberts), proposals to install a
“conveyor belt system” for rock delivery (Harrison’s
Point), requires tunnels and quarry roads for trans-
port of rock to the crusher (Maycocks/Bromefield),

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005 151

Environmental factors in industrial site selection

Table 2. Environmental site comparison of locations proposed for expansion of quarry operations

Ideal site characteristics Site 1: Lamberts Site 2: Harrison’s Point Site 3: Maycock’s/Bromefield

Physical
1. Proven quantity of limestone to 1. Height above sea level = 1. Height above sea level = 46m 1. Height above sea level = 36–
ensure 50 years of mining 145m Depth of coral rock is Adequate supplies of limestone 50m Adequate supplies of
84m Adequate supplies of available limestone available
limestone available
2. Not prone to erosion or land 2. Classified as slightly erodable 2. Classified as slightly erodable 2. Classified as slightly erodable
slippage
3. Area must have good drainage, 3. Area has pervious rock 3. Area has pervious rock 3. Area has pervious rock
so water does not remain
stagnant
4. Area must not be near a 4. Located within low risk water 4. Located within mild risk water 4. Bromefield is located in a mild
potable water supply (eg High protection area protection area risk, but adjacent to a medium
risk water protection areas) risk water protection area
5. No impact on the underground 5. No expected impact on 5. No expected impact on 5. Potential impacts on
hydrology groundwater hydrology groundwater hydrology groundwater hydrology
unknown
6. Abandonment depth must be 6. 75m above sea level 6. Not less than 20m above the 6. Not less than 20m above the
at adequate distance above aquifer aquifer
water table
Biological/ecological
1. No encroachment on 1. Terrestrial vegetation consists 1. Terrestrial vegetation consists 1. Terrestrial vegetation consists
Terrestrial flora or fauna of grasses, herbs and shrubs of grasses and shrubs. Coastal of scrubs. Coastal vegetation
vegetation consists of manchi- consists of manchineel trees
neel trees, shrubs and grasses and grasses.
2. No encroachment on marine 2. No marine flora or fauna 2. Near-shore fringing reefs 2. Fringing reefs offshore.
flora or fauna
Socio-cultural
1. Roads and other infrastructure 1. Class I and II roadways; no 1. Class II and III roadways of 1. Class II roadway – private
necessary to accommodate additional infrastructure needed poor quality roadway; use of tunnels
quarry must be adequate (if not expected
developer must meet the cost of
upgrading)
2. Other sensitive land uses (eg 2. Residential population growing; 2. Sparsely populated rural 2. Residential population adjacent
residential, tourist districts, agricultural land needed for settlements; agricultural land to site; agricultural land needed
beaches or recreational areas, conversion needed for conversion; for conversion; children’s home
community facilities) must not considered for tourism 500m away
be adversely affected development
3. Site must not adversely affect 3. No nearby heritage or 3. Site lies immediately inland of a 3. No heritage or conservation
heritage or conservation areas conservation areas ‘Coastal Landscape Protection area
Zone’
4. Close proximity to existing 4. No existing special industry 4. No existing special industry 4. Adjacent to existing limestone
special industries is favored nearby: 7km, by road, from nearby; 3.5km, by road, from quarry
cement plant cement plant
5. Visual intrusion of the site must 5. Site is exposed to road users 5. Site is not exposed when 5. Site is not exposed when
be minimal bermed bermed
Development and economy
1. Transportation needs 1. 22 trucks 1. 6 trucks 1. 6 trucks
2. Infrastructure needs (eg roads) 2. Significant road upgrade 2. Road upgrade and conveyor 2. Underground tunnels to be put
needed belt system required in place
3. Potential for increased risk 3. Steeper slopes over a longer 3. Significant increased risk to
distance may incur accidents residents if adequate measures
during haulage are not implemented
4. Significant potential impacts for
road and community safety

presents significant adverse visual and aesthetic
impacts (Lamberts), presents significant traffic
management and safety concerns (Lamberts), re-
quires significant increase in set-up and operating
costs (Lamberts), presents socio-environmental im-
pacts that have planning implications (Maycocks/
Bromefield), and requires significant increase in set-
up costs (Lamberts and Harrison’s Point).
These similarities and differences are considered
in relation to the four selection criteria — resource
availability, socio-environmental impacts, planning
considerations, and economic costs. With respect to
resource availability, all three sites are suitable for
quarrying, since adequate supplies of raw material
are available. While no significant biological, eco-
logical or heritage resources are present at Lamberts
and Maycocks/Bromefield, unique littoral wood-
lands occur at Harrison’s Point, and healthy reefs lie
immediately offshore the Harrison’s Point and May-
cocks/Bromefield sites.
On the basis of national planning policies and
guidelines (Government of Barbados, 1998), current
and proposed legislation for quarrying (Government
of Barbados, 1963; 1996), standards for vibration
from quarry operations (United States Bureau of
Mines, undated), and general descriptions of the

152 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005


The suitability for quarrying at three
sites was compared on the basis of
national planning policies and
guidelines, current and proposed
legislation, standards for vibration
from such operations, and general
descriptions of the physical, biological
and socio-cultural conditions
physical, biological and socio-cultural conditions at
the three alternative sites, it is possible to compare
their suitability for quarrying. All sites present some
difficulties, most of which can be resolved through
engineering methods, operational changes, planning
considerations, and other mitigation measures. How-
ever, some difficulties appear to be critical.
Since the proposed quarry site lies adjacent to ex-
isting villages, dust, noise and vibration will affect
nearby residents more at Maycocks/Bromefield than
at either Harrison’s Point or Lamberts. Dust and
noise will also affect residents along the haulage
route from all three sites, although maybe less so at
Harrison’s Point and Maycocks/Bromefield.
Off-site vibration from blasting and its effects on
nearby residences is more of an issue at May-
cocks/Bromefield than either Harrison’s Point or
Lamberts. Vibration effects on residences at Harri-
son’s Point and Lamberts are not expected to be an
issue, as the buildings are several hundred meters
away from the proposed quarry sites.
They are, however, an issue at the May-
cocks/Bromefield site, since residents occupy lands
adjacent to the proposed quarry site. This impact can
be partially mitigated by appropriate planning
strategies that include establishing a minimum dis-
tance of 100m between a blasting point and resi-
dences, and conducting the blasting event with
appropriate monitoring programs so that future
events can be guided by recent, relevant, real-time
data gathered from recent past events.
Establishing a limestone quarry presents aesthetic
and visual impacts that are long-term and difficult to
mitigate. Quarrying at both Harrison’s Point and
Maycocks/Bromefield is proposed for lands that are
of gentle gradient and uniform elevation, so that it is
possible to shield on-site operations with a berm
(mound or wall of earth) that is unobtrusive in its
design.
This is not possible at Lamberts, where the
proposed site lies in a depressed area that is ap-
proximately 20m lower than the adjacent roadway.
This creates an aesthetic/visual impact to residents
and road users in the Lamberts area that is difficult,
if not impossible, to mitigate, and is long-term. At
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005
Environmental factors in industrial site selection
Harrison’s Point, the sight of a conveyor belt and its
supporting infrastructure may compromise the visual
and aesthetic amenities of the landscape, notwith-
standing that the location of the belt is below the cliff-
line and that it is screened by the natural vegetation.
The environmental impact of haulage from Harri-
son’s Point and Maycocks/Bromefield will result
mainly from dust and equipment-generated noise.
This impact is expected to be less at Maycocks/
Bromefield than at Harrison’s Point, where the aes-
thetic and visual value of the area may be compro-
mised. More significant impacts will be generated by
haulage from Lamberts, since this will include the
dust and noise impacts, but also involves compromis-
ing the safety of residents and road users along the
route, and compromising the scenic rural views that
contribute to the visitor appeal of the island.
Quarry development at Lamberts will likely incur
a very high start-up infrastructural cost and high
operating costs. At Harrison’s Point, there will be a
high start-up infrastructural cost and moderate oper-
ating costs. At Maycocks/Bromefield, there will be
moderate start-up infrastructural costs and low on-
going costs.
The key factors influencing development at the
individual sites relate to socio-environmental, eco-
nomic and planning issues. At Lamberts, socio-
environmental impacts and economic considerations
are important. The socio-environmental factors are:
• clear visibility of the site from roadways creating
a significant visual aesthetic impact to residents
and visitors; and
• sustained, long-term impacts and risks associated
with the continuous use of the highway by heavy
trucks (20mt, approximately) to haul limestone to
the crushing plant.
The economic factors are:
• high cost of road development to meet the Gov-
ernment’s requirement that developers bear the
full cost of infrastructure development or upgrade
to meet development needs; and
• high operating cost of haulage from the quarry to
the crushing plant.
At Maycocks/Bromefield, socio-environmental and
planning factors affect development scenarios. The
socio-environmental impacts are:
• close proximity to residential areas (dust, noise
and vibration effects, aesthetic impacts and im-
pairment of the quality of life to villagers);
• encroachment on an important watercourse, and
• risks to property and quality of life from insecure
access to the quarry.
At Harrison’s Point, socio-environmental impacts
and planning considerations and important con-
straints. These are:
153
Environmental factors in industrial site selection
• proximity to unique coastal and marine ecosys-
tems, and
• visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed con-
veyor belt system for transporting rock to the
crushing plant.
From the socio-environmental and other data
available, we consider that the Lamberts site presents
significant economic constraints and socio-
environmental impacts that are difficult to mitigate.
The Harrison’s Point site has planning and environ-
mental constraints that preclude its use as a limestone
quarry, while the Maycocks/Bromefield area presents
socio-environmental impacts, the most serious of
which are the operational impacts (dust, noise, blast-
ing and vibration on adjacent residents). These im-
pacts can be mitigated, but at a financial cost.
Based on the mitigation probability of the socio-
environmental impacts, we consider the Lamberts
site to be the least suitable for quarry development.
While the Maycocks/Bromefield and Harrison’s
Point sites are more closely matched, the Govern-
ment’s policy to maintain the unique ecosystems in
the vicinity of Harrison’s Point precludes its devel-
opment. This leaves the Maycocks/Bromefield site
as the one with development potential if the devel-
oper can meet the costs of mitigation. This recom-
mendation may face constraints arising from
planning considerations, and site development could
depend on a financial analysis to assess the costs of
development and operation of the three sites, which
includes the costs of mitigation.
Conclusion
Site selection for any operation (manufacturing and
services) is one of the important activities in overall
project planning, which is governed by factors such
as resource availability, logistics, nearness to de-
mand centers, environment, and socio-economic
considerations. These factors need to be analyzed
154
View publication stats
over the entire life of the project’s operations so as
to determine suitability of a specific site.
Moreover, projects having multiple stakeholders
create a complex decision-making situation, as gen-
erally no site will satisfy either the developer or the
regulatory agency fully, since each views the impor-
tance of factors differently and could prefer other
alternatives. Therefore, an integrated analysis of all
the factors that are relevant to the alternative sites is
required to establish the benefits and constraints pre-
sented by different development scenarios, with
stakeholder group consensus identifying the most
suitable location.
The procedures for expanding limestone quarry
operations to support cement production in Barbados
are similar to this. The study shows that, while eco-
nomic factors such as logistics and resource avail-
ability could favor a particular site, environmental
and social factors were critical to the final selection.
Prioritizing environmental and social factors for site
selection issues not only ensures sustainable devel-
opment, but also maintains high levels of organiza-
tional productivity as it ensures uninterrupted
operations with minimum failure throughout the
project’s life.
References
Calvin, H, and P K Dey (2002), “Social impact assessment of a
sewerage project in Barbados”, Impact Assessment and Pro-
ject Appraisal, 20(2), September, pages 215–223.
Dey, P K (2001), “Integrated approach to project feasibility analy-
sis”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(3),
September, pages 235–245.
Government of Barbados (1963), The Quarries Act – CAP 353
(1963) (Government of Barbados, Bridgetown).
Government of Barbados, (1996), The Quarries Act (Revised) –
CAP 353 (1996) (Government of Barbados, Bridgetown).
Government of Barbados (1998), National Physical Development
Plan (Draft) (Government of Barbados, Bridgetown).
Senn, H A (1946), “Geological investigations of the groundwater
resources of Barbados”, West Indies Report of the British Un-
ion Oil Company.
United States Bureau of Mines (undated), The Pennsylvania
Code, chapter 25, section 77.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal June 2005