Final Report

Benefits Assessment:
Randle Reef Sediment Remediation
Prepared for

Environment Canada

Prepared by

Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability
and
Schulich School of Business,
York University
In association with

DSS Management Consultants Inc.
March, 2006

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The International Joint Commission classifies Hamilton Harbour as one of 43 Areas of Concern
(AOC) in the Great Lakes on the basis that its human use benefits are impaired. Under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, AOCs “fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the
agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of the area's
ability to support aquatic life.” Environmental issues facing Hamilton Harbour include water quality
and bacterial contamination, toxic substances and sediment remediation, and public access and
aesthetics. Sediment remediation is a pivotal project that will spur other projects necessary to achieve
harbour delisting. Most of the contaminated sediment is found on and around Randle Reef
(Environment Canada, 2005).
In 2004, Environment Canada retained the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability
(IRIS) at York University to assess the benefits of the Randle Reef remediation project. Given the
success of the first phase of this research, a second contract was issued in 2005 to refine and extend
the Phase I analysis. This report documents the research methods, data and results used by IRIS to
satisfy the three objectives of the study:
1. Cultivate stakeholder support for Randle Reef remediation project;
2. Identify benefits and beneficiaries related to this project; and
3. Assess the benefits to specific beneficiaries from Harbour clean-up projects.
Benefits and beneficiaries were identified and systematically organised in a comprehensive framework
which clearly indicates who will benefit from remediation and in what ways. The assessment provides
estimates of the financial, environmental and social benefits that could be expected by investing in one
or more remediation projects.
This study has resulted in a novel approach to assessing the benefits of contaminated sediment cleanup projects. The approach developed is applicable other types of environmental clean-up and
protection projects and activities. This benefits assessment builds on other harbour-wide remediation
studies and provides a potentially valuable supplement or alternative to benefits assessments that may
have been done or proposed for other clean-up projects.
This project is not a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. However, much of the information
included in this study might be useful for such purposes. To use these results for such purposes
requires some important modifications to the basic methodology.
This study generates estimates of expected benefits from multiple accounting frameworks (i.e., from
the perspective of multiple beneficiaries). Benefits vary as a function of the scale of harbour
remediation and the beneficiary being considered.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
A stakeholder engagement process was designed and conducted to gather local insights regarding
potential benefits emerging from the Randle Reef sediment remediation project. The insights resulting
from this process were used in the development of the benefits assessment framework.

i

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

A number of key themes emerged from the stakeholder interviews around economic, environmental
and social benefits, as well as potential costs of the project and critical success factors necessary to
ensure that potential benefits of the Randle Reef project are fully realized.
Potential Economic Benefits
Potential economic benefits were identified for various stakeholders, in particular:
• The Hamilton Port Authority in terms of new tonnage that they would expect to handle as a result
of their expanded docking and shipping capacity.
• Stelco was described as reaping direct economic benefits from the Randle Reef project through
the anticipated improvements to their operations and improved corporate image.
• Environmental technology and engineering companies in Hamilton in terms of work generated by
the remediation project, and also by the enhanced reputation through their involvement in
applying leading-edge environmental remediation technology.
Economic benefits were also perceived as occurring as a result of an improved image of Hamilton due
to the Randle Reef project.
Potential Social Benefits
Potential social benefits were also identified. Many social benefits were linked to the psychological
impact of the improved image of the harbour. Social benefits included:
• Increased recreational use of the harbour for activities such as hiking on trails surrounding the
area, swimming, angling and boating
• Increased community pride resulting in a psychological benefit for community members
• Enhanced opportunities to market outdoor recreation opportunities and to attract events to the
city, both recreational and business related conferences.
Potential Environmental Benefits
Potential environmental benefits were identified, including:
• Reduced fish killed by the industry water intakes
• Improved fish habitat
• Restoration of Sherman Inlet, the only remaining wetland of significance in that area of the
harbour.
• Overall improvement to harbour health and water quality
• Increased naturalized area associated with the containment facility.
Clean-up Costs
Some stakeholders expressed concerns about the environmental costs of clean-up and the social equity
of the economic costs of clean-up being borne primarily by taxpayers.
Critical Success Factors
A key success factor for harbour remediation is establishing public access and encouraging people
reengaged with the harbour as part of their community.
Social marketing is essential to build social goodwill to maintain community support.
ii

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Stakeholder Charette
The results of the stakeholder interviews were used to design a stakeholder charette. Its purpose was
to engage community thought leaders in strategic thinking and dialogue on the remediation of Randle
Reef and to provide interim feedback to the Randle Reef Benefits Assessment.
The charette resulted in the list of potential benefits being refined. A major outcome was the
quantification of the relationship between harbour remediation and the reduction in stigma for the
Hamilton area.
A second important outcome was the refinement of the critical success factors. A list of specific
actions that stakeholders could initiate provided a concrete basis for continued efforts to clean-up the
harbour.
BENEFITS ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
A comprehensive and systematic benefits assessment framework was developed to organise the
benefits expected from harbour clean-up. The framework facilitates tracking the benefits expected to
be enjoyed by specific stakeholders (i.e., beneficiaries).
Three major categories of benefits and beneficiaries are included in the framework. These are
monetary (what people typically call “economic” since they involve some monetary transaction),
social, and environmental categories. Beneficiaries include different groups within government,
industry, and the general public. These major categories are subdivided into 19 discrete benefits and
19 beneficiaries. A total of 109 combinations of benefits and beneficiaries were identified as being
relevant.
A major objective of this study was to estimate for each relevant combination of benefit and
beneficiary, the benefit that would be realised from the Randle Reef project. Midway through the
project, a significant change to the study design was made. Instead of producing a static, one-off
benefits assessment for the Randle Reef project, the production of a dynamic benefits simulation
model (the Benefits Simulation model or BENSIM) was determined to be of much greater value.
BENSIM MODEL
BENSIM was designed to overcome the challenges evident with past benefits assessments, including:
• Benefits depend on scale of remedial action as a result changing the scale of the project changes
the expected benefits and their distribution.
• Positive feedback among projects means that the benefits of one project could not be assessed
independent of the status of other clean-up projects and changing the timing or scale of one
project affected the benefits of other projects.
• Benefits accrue over time resulting in a stream of benefits that varied with the scale and timing
of remediation projects.
• Need for stakeholder buy-in which is closely connected to the expected benefits and the
distribution of those benefits among various beneficiaries.

iii

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

These challenges demanded a flexible and dynamic benefits assessment system. Having a benefits
simulation model that was transparent and responsive to stakeholder perceptions was an effective
means to overcome these challenges.
The STELLA software was selected for constructing the model. This software provides intuitive iconbased graphical mapping that makes it easy to communicate a model’s structure and function to a wide
audience.
The overall structure of BENSIM reflects the benefits assessment framework. Various categories of
benefits flowing to particular beneficiaries are tracked over time and are dependent on various
remediation activities.
BENSIM includes four basic remediation projects, namely:
• Randle Reef
• Clean-up of other contaminated sediments
• Improvements to wastewater treatment
• Enhancement and expansion of shoreline habitat.
These projects can be implemented individually or in combinations at varying scales and over varying
timetables.
Benefit forecasts are based on similar relationships that would be used to populate a static benefits
assessment framework.
Stakeholders emphasised that the harbour’s listing as an area of concern has a negative impact on its
reputation, what is referred to as a stigma. BENSIM includes a system of five adjustable “contribution
to stigma reduction” parameters that are related to the remediation projects. The results of the
stakeholder charette were used to define the default values for these “stigma reduction” parameters.
The values for other model parameters were obtained from previous studies and available government
data.
EXPERT REVIEW AND REFINEMENT
The initial version of BENSIM was subject to critical review by three independent experts. The
purpose of the review was to identify features of BENSIM requiring refinement. Following this
review, a second version of BENSIM was produced. The results presented in this report are based on
this refined version of BENSIM.
FORECAST BENEFITS
The default settings in BENSIM were used to produce estimates of accumulated benefits from 2007 to
2032 for two scenarios:
1. the Randle Reef project alone and
2. full implementation of all projects.

iv

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table ES.1 provides a summary of the quantified accumulated benefits to each beneficiary. With the
Randle Reef project alone, the top three beneficiaries will be local property owners, local businesses
and the local municipal governments. The distribution of benefits shifts somewhat when all
remediation projects are fully implemented. The top three beneficiaries with this scenario will be local
businesses, recreational users and the federal government.
Table ES.1 - Total Benefits by Beneficiary
Beneficiary

Randle Reef Project

All Projects

Federal Government

$21

$338

Provincial Government

$19

$297

Municipal Governments

$29

$60

Hamilton Port Authority

$11

$11

Stelco

$15

$15

$0

$0.1

Local Businesses

$38

$592

Un(der)employed People

$13

$206

$3

$496

$96

$124

Dofasco

Recreational Users
Local Property Owners

The accumulated gross benefits realised by these different beneficiaries are substantial. Local
businesses are estimated to realise about $600 million in gross accumulated benefits with full
implementation of the various remediation projects. Likewise, recreational users would realise about
$500 million in gross accumulated benefits with full implementation. However, care must be
exercised in interpreting these benefit estimates.
For example, the benefits estimated for local businesses are the increased revenues that they would
receive. The net benefit for local business owners however would be substantially less. Using a profit
margin of 10% net of taxes, local business owners would realise a net benefit in terms of profit in the
range of $60 million. The remainder of the revenue would go to pay the costs of operations, including
wages paid to employees. As well, some of the revenues would flow back to government via taxes.
No total is shown for Table ES.1. These gross benefits are not additive. This project was not designed
to produce benefit estimates for a conventional social cost-benefit analysis. Several important
refinements would be required to use these results for a social cost-benefit analysis.

v

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

If one assumes that the scope or jurisdiction of interest for such a cost-benefit analysis is the local area
and a number of key assumptions are made concerning the benefits flowing to each beneficiary, an
approximate benefit total suitable for cost-benefit analysis can be derived. The result is a cumulative
total benefit for the local area of $126 million over the period 2007 to 2032 with implementation only
of the Randle Reef project and $914 million with full implementation of all remediation projects.
These totals are approximate and are intended to provide an indication as to how the results of this
benefit assessment might be used in a social cost-benefit analysis
RECOMMENDATIONS
Seven recommendations are presented. These recommendations are designed to realise the maximum
value of this study, and in particular the BENSIM software. These recommendations are:
• Maintain ongoing stakeholder support by continuing their involvement in developing and
interpreting BENSIM forecasts as remediation project design progresses and implementation takes
place
• Make further refinements to the BENSIM user interface to increase ease of operation and to allow
a broader range of analytical options
• Conduct BENSIM training sessions to demonstrate the capabilities of the system and to ensure
users have the skill and knowledge to use the system efficiently and reliably
• Make BENSIM broadly available over the Internet
• Expand the BENSIM program to include additional types of benefits
• Undertake a thorough sensitivity analysis of BENSIM to focus and prioritise ongoing refinements
to the supporting database
• Initiate immediately a systematic and rigorous monitoring program focusing on four key indicators
namely:
1. changes in public perception (stigma),
2. level of harbour use, in particular recreational users,
3. trends in shipping volumes through the Hamilton Port Authority,
4. remediation project costs.
The monitoring programs for these indicators should be designed around an adaptive management
framework.

vi

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... i 
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... ix 
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. x 
LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................... x 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... xi 
1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 

Background ..........................................................................................................................................1 

1.2 

Purpose and Scope ...............................................................................................................................1 

1.3 

Methodology Overview........................................................................................................................2 

1.4 

Report Organization ............................................................................................................................3 

1.5 

An Important Caution .........................................................................................................................4 

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 5 
2.1 
2.1.1 
2.1.2 
2.1.3 
2.1.4 
2.1.5 
2.1.6 

2.2 
2.2.1 
2.2.2 
2.2.3 
2.2.4 
2.2.5 
2.2.6 

3. 

Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................................................................5 
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 
Interview Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 5 
Summary of Key Themes ................................................................................................................................. 6 
Perceptions of Potential Costs .......................................................................................................................... 8 
Perceptions of Critical Success Factors ............................................................................................................ 9 
Key Messages from the Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................................................. 9 
Stakeholder Charette ...........................................................................................................................9 
Purpose of the Charette .................................................................................................................................... 9 
Design of the Charette .................................................................................................................................... 10 
Charette Results.............................................................................................................................................. 10 
Review of the Benefits Assessment Framework ............................................................................................ 12 
Results of Breakout Sessions.......................................................................................................................... 12 
Key messages from Charette .......................................................................................................................... 14 

BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 15 
3.1 
3.1.1 
3.1.2 
3.1.3 
3.1.4 
3.1.5 

3.2 
3.2.1 
3.2.2 
3.2.3 
3.2.4 
3.2.5 

Benefits Assessment Framework ......................................................................................................15 
Conceptual Foundation................................................................................................................................... 15 
Detailed Benefits ............................................................................................................................................ 16 
Detailed Beneficiaries .................................................................................................................................... 19 
Integrated Framework .................................................................................................................................... 19 
Comparison with Other Benefits Assessments ............................................................................................... 19 
BENSIM..............................................................................................................................................20 
Challenges with Conventional Benefits Assessments .................................................................................... 21 
Purpose and Foundation of BENSIM ............................................................................................................. 23 
System Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 23 
BENSIM Expert Review ................................................................................................................................ 26 
BENSIM Refinements .................................................................................................................................... 27 

vii

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

4. 

5. 

Final Report

FORECAST BENEFITS .............................................................................................................. 28 
4.1 

Accumulated Benefits by Beneficiary ..............................................................................................29 

4.2 

Accumulated Benefits Summary ......................................................................................................33 

4.3 

Application for Cost-benefit Analysis ..............................................................................................34 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 35 
5.1 

Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement ...................................................................................................36 

5.2 

BENSIM User Interface ....................................................................................................................36 

5.3 

BENSIM Training and User’s Manual ............................................................................................37 

5.4 

Expansion of BENSIM Benefit Categories ......................................................................................37 

5.5 

Testing and Improvement of Key Relationships .............................................................................38 

5.6 

Web Access Version of BENSIM ......................................................................................................38 

5.7 

Indicators and Monitoring ................................................................................................................39 
Public Perceptions (Stigma) ........................................................................................................................... 40 
Harbour Use ................................................................................................................................................... 40 
Hamilton Port Authority Shipping Revenues ................................................................................................. 41 
Project Expenditures....................................................................................................................................... 41 
Adaptive Management ................................................................................................................................... 42 

5.7.1 
5.7.2 
5.7.3 
5.7.4 
5.7.5 

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 43 
APPENDIX A - Review of Other Benefits Assessments...................................................................... 45 
A.1 

Great Lakes Agreement: Impairment of Beneficial Uses...............................................................45 

A.2 

Development Potential and Other Benefits .....................................................................................45 

A.3 

International Joint Commission .......................................................................................................46 

A.4 

St. Clair River Benefits Assessment .................................................................................................46 

APPENDIX B - Stakeholder Engagement........................................................................................... 48 
B.1 

Stakeholder Engagement Participants .............................................................................................48 

B.2 

Transcript of Charette Session .........................................................................................................50 

B.3 

Critical Success Factors.....................................................................................................................51 
Randle Reef Project Complete ....................................................................................................................... 52 
All Wastewater Issues Resolved .................................................................................................................... 52 
All RAP Objectives Met................................................................................................................................. 53 
Harbour Officially De-Listed ......................................................................................................................... 53 

B.3.1 
B.3.2 
B.3.3 
B.3.4 

APPENDIX C - Benefits Assessment Framework............................................................................... 55 
APPENDIX D - BENSIM Model Overview and Operation ................................................................ 57 
D.1 

Interface Level....................................................................................................................................57 

D.2 

System Map Level ..............................................................................................................................64 

D.3 

Equations Level ..................................................................................................................................66 

viii

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

APPENDIX E - BENSIM Equations, Default Parameter Values and Assumptions ........................ 68 
E.1 

Overview .............................................................................................................................................71 

E.2 

High-level Issues.................................................................................................................................71 

E.3 

Expert Advisors General Comments ...............................................................................................72 

E.4 

Common Parameters .........................................................................................................................73 

E.5 

Sediment Contamination Reduction ................................................................................................75 

E.6 

Sediment Clean-up Costs ..................................................................................................................76 

E.7 

Wastewater Improvement .................................................................................................................78 

E.8 

Habitat Improvements ......................................................................................................................80 

E.9 

Delisting ..............................................................................................................................................83 

E.10 

Reduction in Stigma...........................................................................................................................84 

E.11 

Population Growth ............................................................................................................................86 

E.12 

Recreation Benefits ............................................................................................................................87 

E.13 

Health Benefits ...................................................................................................................................93 

E.14 

Residential Property and Land Development Impacts ..................................................................95 

E.15 

Local Economic Impacts ...................................................................................................................98 

E.16 

Federal Government ..........................................................................................................................98 

E.17 

Provincial Government ...................................................................................................................100 

E.18 

Municipal Government ...................................................................................................................101 

E.19 

Hamilton Port Authority .................................................................................................................102 

E.20 

Stelco .................................................................................................................................................103 

E.21 

Dofasco ..............................................................................................................................................104 

E.22 

Local Business Benefits ...................................................................................................................105 

E.23 

Employment Impacts .......................................................................................................................106 

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 - Perceived Relationship Between Cleanup and Benefit Accrual ........................................ 13
Figure D.1 – BENSIM Introductory Screen .......................................................................................... 57
Figure D.2 – BENSIM Welcome Screen ............................................................................................... 58
Figure D.3 – High Level Structure of BENSIM .................................................................................... 59
Figure D.4 – BENSIM Dashboard Screen ............................................................................................. 60
Figure D.5 - Benefits by Beneficiaries Screen....................................................................................... 61
Figure D.6 – Remediation Project Selection Screen .............................................................................. 62
Figure D.7 - Stigma Reduction Relationships Screen ........................................................................... 63
Figure D.8 – Investor Contributions Screen .......................................................................................... 64
Figure D.9 – Other Assumptions Screen .............................................................................................. 65
ix

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Figure D.10 – Example Sector Map: Federal Government ................................................................... 66
Figure D.11 - Example Equations: Federal Government Benefits ........................................................ 67

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1 - Total Benefits by Beneficiary ............................................................................................. v
Table 3.1 - Basic Structure of Benefits Assessment Framework........................................................... 16
Table 3.2 - Disaggregated Economic Benefits. ..................................................................................... 17
Table 3.3 - Disaggregated Environmental Benefits ............................................................................... 17
Table 3.4 - Disaggregated Social Benefits. ........................................................................................... 18
Table 3.5 - Disaggregated Government Beneficiaries ........................................................................... 19
Table 3.6 - Disaggregated Industry Beneficiaries.................................................................................. 19
Table 3.7 - Disaggregated Public Beneficiaries ..................................................................................... 20
Table 3.8 - Harbour Remediation Projects Included in BENSIM ......................................................... 24
Table 3.9 - Default Stigma Reduction Settings in BENSIM ................................................................. 25
Table 4.1 - Federal Government Accumulated Benefits ....................................................................... 29
Table 4.2 - Provincial Government Accumulated Benefits ................................................................... 30
Table 4.3 - Municipal Government Accumulated Benefits ................................................................... 30
Table 4.4 - Hamilton Port Authority Accumulated Benefits ................................................................. 30
Table 4.5 - Stelco Accumulated Benefits .............................................................................................. 31
Table 4.6 - Dofasco Accumulated Benefits ........................................................................................... 31
Table 4.7 - Local Business Accumulated Benefits ................................................................................ 31
Table 4.8 - Un(der)employed Persons Accumulated Benefits............................................................... 32
Table 4.9 - Local Property Owners’ Accumulated Benefits .................................................................. 32
Table 4.10 - Recreational Users’ Accumulated Benefits ....................................................................... 32
Table 4.11 -Improved Public Health Accumulated Benefits ................................................................. 33
Table 4.12 - Benefits of Improved Image .............................................................................................. 33
Table 4.13 - Total Benefits by Beneficiary ............................................................................................ 34
Table B.1 - Phase 1 Interview Participants ............................................................................................ 48
Table B.2 - Phase 2 Interview Participants ............................................................................................ 48
Table B.3 - Charette Attendees .............................................................................................................. 49
Table C.1 – Economic Benefits Framework .......................................................................................... 55
Table C.2 – Social Benefits Framework ................................................................................................ 56
Table C.3 – Environmental Benefits Framework .................................................................................. 56

LIST OF ACRONYMS
AOC
BAIT
BENSIM
BOD
CCIW
GLWQA
HPA

Area of Concern
Bay Area Implementation Team
Benefits Simulation Model
Biological Oxygen Demand
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
Hamilton Port Authority

HRCA
IRIS
PAG
PAH
PIT
RAP
RR
x

Hamilton Region Conservation
Authority
Institute for Research and
Innovation in Sustainability
Project Advisory Group
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Project Implementation Team
Remedial Action Plan
Randall Reef
26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project has benefited from information and knowledge supplied by many people.
John Shaw, Program Manager, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, Environment Canada, provided
ongoing guidance throughout the course of the project. John’s enthusiasm and commitment to harbour
remediation provided sustained support for the project that was essential for its success.
Simon Llewellyn, former Regional Director, Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment
Canada, provided strong support for the underlying concept and technical methodology developed for
the benefits assessment. As well, he has worked to gain support within and outside the federal
government for the benefits assessment methodology developed through this project.
John Hall, Hamilton Harbour RAP Coordinator, Environment Canada, provided important insights
into the overall Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan, as well as providing information on various
aspects of planned remediation projects.
Many stakeholders gave freely of their time to participate in the stakeholder engagement process,
including participating in interviews and workshops and completing questionnaires. Their local
knowledge has been essential to estimate many key benefits of harbour remediation.
Wally Rozenberg, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, attended the stakeholder workshops and the
expert workshop. He ably provided a local perspective with respect to the provincial government’s
role in harbour remediation.
Dr. David Wheeler, Erivan K Haub Professor of Business and Sustainability, Schulich School of
Business, York University was the project manager and actively participated in the conceptual
development of the project. As well, he provided ongoing guidance concerning the stakeholder
engagement process.
Dr. Peter Victor, Professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University was the project
director and played an integral role in all aspects of the development of the benefits assessment
framework and the Benefits Simulation model (BENSIM).
Ed Hanna, DSS Management Consultants Inc and a Research Fellow, Institute for Research and
Innovation in Sustainability, York University, participated in the development of the benefits
assessment framework and the design and implementation of BENSIM. Ed is one of the principal
authors of this report.
Tatiana Koveshnikova, DSS Management Consultants Inc. and a PhD candidate in the Faculty of
Environmental Studies, York University, participated in Phase II of this project. Tatiana made all of
the refinements to BENSIM and undertook much of the research to derive improved estimates for the
default values for key BENSIM parameters. Tatiana is one of the principal authors of this report.

xi

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Elizabeth Kurucz, a former PhD candidate at the Schulich School of Business, York University and
currently a Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability, York
University, designed and implemented the stakeholder engagement process. Elizabeth is the principal
author of Chapter 2 and Appendix A of this report.
Eric Miller, formerly with DSS Management Consultants Inc. and now with the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, participated in the development of the benefits assessment framework. Eric
constructed the original version of BENSIM and had primary responsibility for deriving many of the
initial default values for key BENSIM parameters. Eric was a principal author of the Phase I report,
much of which is included in this final report.
Three expert reviewers provided valuable suggestions for refining this benefits assessment. The three
experts are:
Dr. Philippe Crabbé, Professor Emeritus, Institute of the Environment, University of Ottawa;
Dr. Gail Krantzberg, Professor and Director of the Centre for Engineering and Public Policy in the
School of Engineering Practice, McMaster University; and
Dr. Matthias Ruth, Roy F. Weston Chair in Natural Economics, Director, Environmental Policy
Program, Co-Director, Engineering and Public Policy School of Public Policy, University of Maryland

xii

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The International Joint Commission classifies Hamilton Harbour as one of 43 Areas of Concern
(AOC) in the Great Lakes on the basis that its human use benefits are impaired.1 Under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, AOCs “fail to meet the general or specific objectives of
the agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of
the area's ability to support aquatic life.” Several issues facing Hamilton Harbour include water
quality and bacterial contamination, toxic substances and sediment remediation, and public
access and aesthetics (Environment Canada, 2005).
According to Environment Canada (J. Shaw, personal communication) and many local
stakeholders, sediment remediation is a pivotal project that will spur other projects necessary to
achieve harbour delisting. Most of the contaminated sediment is found on and around Randle
Reef (Environment Canada, 2005). Securing adequate financial support for the Randle Reef
remediation project is partly contingent on a comprehensive and realistic assessment of expected
benefits and how these benefits will accrue to specific interests (i.e., beneficiaries). Potential
investors in the Randle Reef project want to know the benefits that can be expected and the
proportion of the Randle Reef benefits relative to the overall benefits that can be expected when
the entire Hamilton Harbour is de-listed.

1.2 Purpose and Scope
In 2004, Environment Canada retained the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability
(IRIS) at York University to assess the benefits of the Randle Reef remediation project. This
report documents the results of this research.
The purpose of the assessment was to cultivate stakeholder support for the Randle Reef
remediation project. Benefits and beneficiaries were to be identified with the aim of providing a
comprehensive assessment of who stands to benefit from remediation and in what ways. The
assessment was to provide estimates of the financial, environmental and social returns that could
be expected by investing in the project
The original scope of the project was aimed specifically at assessing the benefits of Randle Reef
sediment remediation. The initial concept was to develop and apply a theoretically rigorous and
generic methodology to the Randle Reef project. As the study developed and the complexity of
the benefits assessment methodology emerged, two critical modifications to the study design
were made.
First, Randle Reef is but one project in the overall Hamilton Harbour remediation program that is
designed to result in the harbour being delisted as an Area of Concern. The benefits of the
Randle Reef project were best understood in the context of these other projects and the
incremental benefits that each is expected to contribute. This added dimension to the project not
1

For a list of all sediment projects see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/sedimentprojects.html

1

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

only expanded the scope of the analysis considerably, it also increased the complexity in terms of
the need to consider various combinations of projects as well as the potential for alternate timing
of individual projects. This modification increased the value of the benefits assessment since the
results could be applied to evaluate any one project individually or various combinations of
projects. This modification also made the methodology more universally applicable since many
site remediation programs involve multiple inter-related and staged projects.
The second major modification was the decision to develop a benefits simulation model. The
original intention was to develop a generic methodology and apply that methodology to Randle
Reef. Converting this generic methodology into an interactive simulation model increased the
flexibility and applicability of the methodology. Instead of being restricted to a static benefits
assessment for one or two configurations of the Randle Reef project, alternate configurations of
the Randle Reef project as well as, combinations of other harbour remediation projects, could be
quickly analysed. Furthermore, these analyses could be conducted by an independent third party
using a consistent, theoretically sound and rigorous analytical methodology. Likewise, as new
data come available, the benefits assessment can be updated accordingly without having to
initiate a new benefits assessment project to re-estimate the expected benefits.
The other harbour remediation projects included in this benefits assessment are sediment
remediation in other locations in the Harbour, improved treatment of storm and wastewater, and
fish and wildlife habitat improvement/creation.
The study area varies with the scope of the analysis. The “local” area includes the harbour and
adjoining municipalities of Hamilton (including the former cities of Ancaster, Dundas,
Flamborough, and Stoney Creek), Burlington, and portions of the Regional Municipality of
Halton. These municipalities are economically and socially integrated with a larger region
stretching from Toronto to Niagara (i.e., the “Golden Horseshoe”). For the purposes of this
study, benefits outside the “local” area were grouped into provincial and federal categories.
The planning horizon for the study was determined by practical considerations. Benefits are
forecast over a 25-year time horizon (2005 to 2030) in annual increments. The time horizon can
be extended provided supporting data are available. The 25-year time horizon provides a
medium-term outlook suitable to assess the benefits of delisting after a 10 to 15-year period of
project implementation.

1.3 Methodology Overview
A novel approach to assessing the benefits of contaminated sediment clean-up projects has been
developed. This approach is applicable to other types of environmental clean-up and protection
projects and activities. Other harbour-wide remediation studies and benefits assessments done
for other clean-up projects have provided a valuable foundation on which to develop the
methodology outlined in this report.
The benefits of harbour-wide remediation have been assessed to one degree or another elsewhere
(e.g. Hickling Corporation et al, 1993; Kidd et al., 1999; Tenahi and Muir, 2003; Zegarac and
Muir, 1998). Likewise, various forms of benefits assessment have been undertaken for other
2

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

remedial action plans (RAPs) (Mays, 2003; Rivers, 1999; Sustainable Futures et al., 1995a,
1995b, 1995c). As part of this study, these studies were critically reviewed (see Appendix A).
All of these studies suffer one or more limitations that restrict their applicability to the Randle
Reef project. Some of these limitations include:
• Partial coverage of benefits with some important benefit categories not addressed
• General descriptions of some benefits with little or no potential for quantification
• Static, point-in-time assessments not suitable for assessing streams of benefits over time
• Inability to analyse variable combinations of remediation activities and implementation
schedules
• Theoretical and methodological limitations in the underlying benefits assessment framework
• Inability to adapt the methodology for application to the specifics of the Randle Reef
project.
A benefit transfer methodology relying on these previous studies (i.e., extrapolating benefits
estimated for other projects to estimate the benefits of the Randle Reef project) was rejected due
largely to these limitations. This benefits assessment made as much use as possible of the data
and results of these other studies. Likewise, this study was designed to overcome as much as
possible the limitations identified in the studies reviewed.
The study methodology consisted of the following steps.
1. Conducting stakeholder interviews to identify key benefits and beneficiaries and the
relationships among remediation activities and the realisation of these benefits
2. Researching previous benefits assessments for site remediation
3. Developing a conceptual benefits assessment framework comprising different categories of
benefits (i.e., economic, environmental and social) and beneficiaries (i.e., government,
industry and the general public)
4. Designing an analytical system (i.e., BENSIM) based on the conceptual benefits assessment
framework
5. Conducting stakeholder charettes to derive key parameters and relationships for BENSIM
6. Conducting an expert review of BENSIM and the underlying parameter values
7. Applying the refined BENSIM to produce benefits assessments for different configurations
of remediation projects
8. Presenting BENSIM and the final results to stakeholders for their information and comment.
This report documents the methods, data and results of this research.

1.4 Report Organization
This report is generally organised around the three objectives of the study, namely:
1. Cultivate stakeholder support for Randle Reef remediation project;
2. Identify benefits and beneficiaries related to this project;
3. Assess the benefits to specific beneficiaries from Harbour clean-up projects.
Each of these objectives is covered in separate sections. Details are provided regarding the
research methodology, supporting data, analytical procedures and analysis results. A final
3

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

section combines these individual results and presents overall conclusions and makes
recommendations for further research and analysis.
The research and analysis presented in this report involve a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods. Stakeholders on the Bay Area Implementation Team (BAIT) were
interviewed to help with the benefits assessment and to nurture public interest and support for the
Randle Reef remediation project. Among other things, these interviews helped identify
additional stakeholders, who were interviewed in a second round of meetings. The results of this
stakeholder engagement process are included in Section 2. The results of the interviews played
an integral function in completing the benefits assessment matrix and model reported in Section
3. Section 3 also provides details concerning the quantitative research undertaken to complete
the benefits assessment matrix and model.

1.5 An Important Caution
This project is not a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis. However, much of the
information included in this study might be useful for such purposes. To use these results for
such purposes would require some important modifications to the basic methodology.
This study generates expected benefits from multiple accounting frameworks (i.e., from the
perspective of multiple beneficiaries). Benefits vary as a function of the scale of harbour
remediation and the beneficiary being considered. Accordingly, benefits are reported by
beneficiary and by benefit categories that are of interest to stakeholders.
The benefits assessment framework was designed with this type of application in mind. The
benefits assessment framework was not designed to satisfy the strict specifications common to
cost- benefit analyses. The benefits which accrue to multiple stakeholders cannot be summed
due to overlap among the beneficiary categories. An individual may be a member of multiple
beneficiary categories (e.g., a local property owner who uses the Harbour for boating). The
benefits shown represent different breakdowns among different beneficiary groups of the
expected gross benefits of remediation.
The cost of remediation is not counted as a distinct expense and deducted from the total benefits
to arrive at a net benefit estimate. Project costs are included in the benefits assessment to the
extent that these expenditures result in economic benefits for certain beneficiaries (e.g., local
steel-makers may benefit from increased sales due to increased purchases of steel sheeting for
the Randle Reef remediation project). The source of these project costs is not tracked. In other
words, the distribution of the costs among the beneficiaries is not tracked in a parallel manner to
the benefits. For this reason, the results of this analysis do not provide the information required
in a suitable format to arrive at a net benefit position for a given configuration of remediation
projects or for each individual beneficiary.

4

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

2. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
A stakeholder engagement process was designed and conducted to gather local insights regarding
potential benefits emerging from the Randle Reef sediment remediation project. The insights
resulting from this process were used in the development of the benefits assessment framework.
The stakeholder engagement involved a two-stage process. During the first stage, open-ended
interviews were conducted with stakeholders from various beneficiary categories to gather
perceptions about the potential benefits of the project, as well as any other insights that emerged
from the conversations. In particular, qualitative feedback obtained from interviews with
stakeholders captured some of the less concrete or tangible potential benefits of the Randle Reef
project, providing valuable understanding of the overall project benefits and beneficiaries
The second stage consisted of a full-day stakeholder charette where key themes identified in the
interviews were fed back to the group for discussion. As well, further insights from stakeholders
were generated throughout the day in breakout sessions. The methodology and outcomes of each
of these stages are described further in the following sections.

2.1 Stakeholder Interviews
2.1.1 Purpose
The interviews were designed to engage a cross-section of stakeholders in conversations to
identify perceptions of potential benefits from the Randle Reef project that would assist with
strengthening the benefits assessment framework. The interviews were intended to unearth key
issues associated with the project that may or may not have been directly connected to benefits
assessment but that might affect its overall success within the local community. By surfacing
these issues, they could then be explored in greater depth in the stakeholder charette. This would
allow for a consideration of the implications of these themes for the realization of benefits from
the Randle Reef project.

2.1.2 Interview Methodology
Interviews were conducted from December 2004 to March 2005. The interview process
consisted of two phases. The initial list of potential respondents was gathered from attendees at
the Project Implementation Team (PIT) meeting attended by the Randle Reef Benefits
Assessment project team in November of 2004. Phase 1 interviews were conducted from
December 2004-January 2005 and consisted of 30-60 minute semi-structured conversations.
These conversations asked participants to comment on their perception of potential benefits from
the project and followed up on any other themes that were raised by participants. Phase 2
interviews were conducted from February-March 2005. Identification of a list of potential
respondents was generated from individual recommendations from participants in the Phase 1
interviews of other stakeholders that should be contacted. These interviews were 20-30 minutes
in length and followed the same format as the Phase 1 interviews.
In total, from both Phase 1 and 2 interviews, 27 individuals from 20 organizations were
contacted with an interview request. In addition to the initial contact, 2 follow-up emails were
5

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

sent to each potential respondent who did not reply to the initial requests. Appendix B lists the
organizations that were contacted for this study.

2.1.3 Summary of Key Themes
A number of key themes emerged from the stakeholder interviews around economic,
environmental and social benefits, as well as potential costs of the project and critical success
factors necessary to ensure that potential benefits of the Randle Reef project are fully realized.
Perceptions of potential benefits of the Randle Reef project are organized in this report around
potential economic, environmental and social benefits. There are two items that are important to
note. First, these potential benefits represent perceptions of stakeholders and may or may not be
actual benefits that will emerge from the remediation. Second, these perceived benefits were
described as occurring at different stages of Hamilton Harbour cleanup. Respondents would
often indicate that Randle Reef opened the possibility for these other benefits to accrue, and
without Randle Reef, few of these benefits could be realized. This question of at what stage of
the cleanup can benefits be expected to be realized will be revisited later in this section, where
this point is explored in more detail with charette participants in the first breakout session.
Potential Economic Benefits
Potential economic benefits were identified for the Hamilton Port Authority in terms of the new
tonnage business that they would experience from the expansion of the land base for boats to
dock. Respondents described Hamilton Harbour as a hub, generating business for the other
industry in the area, and so these new boatslips would also benefit other industrial stakeholders.
In even broader terms, the two new cargo terminals were described as translating to increased
GDP for Canada as a whole. Currently, Hamilton Harbour activity is estimated as contributing
to 3% of Canada’s GDP and as an essential part of the industrial wealth generation, this can be
expected to increase with the addition of areas for boats to dock.
One particular industrial player, Stelco Hamilton, was also described as reaping direct economic
benefits from the Randle Reef project through the anticipated improvements to their operations
from the development of a containment facility. As boats travel through the harbour, sediments
that are stirred up from this activity are currently being drawn into Stelco’s water intake lines,
hampering their operations and resulting in associated environmental infractions from
contamination being sent back out into the harbour. Randle Reef project would remove this
problem. Further to this, by Stelco taking part in the remediation work, they would be viewed by
the community as taking ownership of this problem and acting in an environmentally and
socially responsible manner. These perceptions could be expected to improve relations with the
community and facilitate Stelco’s current reinvention that is intended to reposition the
organization as more publicly responsive and responsible than they have been viewed
historically.
More broadly, economic benefits were also suggested to be accrued by environmental
technology and engineering companies in Hamilton. These benefits would be both from the
work generated by the remediation, and also by the enhanced reputation granted these firms
through their involvement in a leading edge solution to remediating an area of concern. This
6

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

enhancement of reputation was suggested as a potential direct carry over into other work in other
Great Lakes remediation sites, as well as more broadly enhancing the reputation in this sector.
Economic benefits are also described as being generated for the community through other jobs
created by the remediation work and the additional tax base gained by the City of Hamilton.
A number of economic benefits were also perceived as occurring as a result of an improved
image of Hamilton that the Randle Reef project would contribute to. These benefits include an
enhanced ability of key local industries, such as steel and health care, to attract recruits for highend jobs, currently a critical issue for these organizations. Similarly, the ability to attract top
students and researchers to McMaster University was described as a potential benefit occurring
as a result of an improved image of the city stimulated by the Randle Reef project. Several
respondents also related enhanced image to a positive impact on property values. Revitalization
of the downtown core and the waterfront were also put forward as potential benefits of the
enhanced image of the city that could be expected from the completion of this remediation work.
Potential Social Benefits
A number of potential social benefits were also identified in relation to the Randle Reef project.
Many of these benefits were identified as being linked to the psychological impact of the
improved image of the harbour resulting from the cleanup. These benefits were identified as
occurring at different stages of cleanup, including some who felt that Randle Reef itself would
generate a high percentage of these benefits, whereas others believed the remediation was only a
necessary step to delisting of the harbour, a stage where these benefits could then be realized.
Again, these perceptions will be explored in further detail in Section III with a discussion of
outcomes from the breakout session where individuals were given the opportunity to clarify
these connections.
Social benefits identified by respondents included the increased recreational use of the harbour
for activities such as hiking on trails surrounding the area, swimming, angling and boating.
Hamilton Harbour already has a very active angling and boating community and the observation
was made by several respondents that as a result of the naturalization of many areas, this
community has grown in size over recent years. The naturalization of the new land base and the
promotion of the cleanup were identified as key actions that would need to occur in order to
realize the potential social benefits of the remediation work.
Another potential social benefit identified as an outcome of the remediation was the increased
community pride that would occur from developing an in situ solution to a local environmental
problem that was co-designed with high involvement from community stakeholders. This was
described as leading to a case study model with learning that could be leveraged across other
areas of concern in the Great Lakes for maximum benefit. The success of this project was
anticipated to have a direct impact on the community of enhancing the volition to deal with other
problems in a way such that success would breed more success. Shifting the image of the city,
from an old polluted industrial past to Hamilton as a city where people would choose to live and
work, was described as not just an important environmental action, but significant also for its
value as a symbolic gesture of addressing post-industrial problems. The related visual

7

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

improvement of the area was described as creating a psychological benefit for community
members.
From a tourism standpoint, the Randle Reef project was suggested to enhance the city’s ability to
market outdoor recreation opportunities and to attract events to the city, both recreational and
business related conferences. Impacts on quality of life were also suggested as accruing by
community members feeling that they live in a safer area and also by the health benefits
anticipated from improved harbour health and the potential increase in the safe consumption of
fish. Other potential benefits highlighted by respondents include the opportunities for McMaster
University to lead research in order to advance knowledge in this area and the potential learning
that could occur from the cooperative work between the public and private sector which could
also be used as a case study for future remediation activities.
Delisting of the harbour was also described as a key benefit occurring from the remediation that
was linked to a range of economic, environmental and social benefits.
Potential Environmental Benefits
Interview respondents also identified many potential environmental benefits of the Randle Reef
project. In particular, the impact of containment of sediments on fish in the harbour was a
potential benefit raised by many stakeholders. The reduction of fish killed by the industry intake
was described as a positive environmental impact of the remediation work. Perceptions that the
remediation would have a positive impact on fish habitat which could then lead to improved fish
health and the potential rebound of fish populations, while not claims of certain causality, were
put forth as potential positive effects that may be observed as a consequence of the clean-up.
Another environmental benefit identified was the compensation of fish habitat for the infilling of
the harbour that was described as leading to the restoration of Sherman Inlet, the only remaining
wetland of significance in that area of the harbour. This restoration was anticipated to have a
positive impact on fish, as well as other wildlife in the area.
Other environmental benefits identified included the overall improvement to harbour health and
water quality that could be expected by the remediation of sediments from this area of concern.
The positive impact that this could have on wildlife through the food web was suggested as a
potential benefit of the Randle Reef project. Finally, the naturalization of the containment
facility was identified as a benefit. This was both for it’s integration of the human made facility
with the natural environment, something that would create positive perceptions of the area,
particularly with recreational boaters who would have greatest exposure to the development, as
well as for its potential positive impact on wildlife in the region.

2.1.4 Perceptions of Potential Costs
While conversations focused mostly on the potential benefits of the Randle Reef project, some
respondents also raised issues of costs of the project. In particular, the environmental cost of
infilling the harbour was mentioned by a number of respondents. Most accepted this as a
necessary compromise to gain the optimum solution to an environmental problem, but still did
recognize it as a downside of the chosen solution. Social equity issues were also raised, in terms
of the inequity of the local community and taxpayers in Canada having to bear the cost of
8

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

remediation, despite the fact that this was a problem created by industry. This generated some
resistance to paying for what was described as a cost for industry to bear.
Other costs included the disadvantage of an “in situ” solution which would create the perception
that the area was not really cleaned-up. Potential costs borne by Stelco in terms of in-kind or
direct costs, as well as in-kind costs from the HRCA were also identified by respondents.
Finally, the building costs for a new marine terminal and the ongoing maintenance of the facility
by the Hamilton Port Authority was noted as a cost of the Randle Reef project that needed to be
accounted for.

2.1.5 Perceptions of Critical Success Factors
Respondents also identified a few critical success factors for the Randle Reef project. A key
factor was the idea of establishing public access in order to get people reengaged with the
harbour as part of their community and to help to facilitate a change in character of that part of
the harbour. Integrating the industrial history of the harbour with the natural environment was
suggested as a way to accomplish this.
Social marketing was also described as essential in order to tell a compelling story and build
social will to bring this project to fruition. Also, as a way to address issues of perception about
the environmental state of Hamilton Harbour, communications would need to be undertaken to
combat the view that the sediments are still there and to convey the significance of the
remediation for the community.
Critical success factors for the Randle Reef project will be explored in greater detail in Section
III of the report, where respondents were engaged in a breakout session to brainstorm ideas
around this emergent theme.

2.1.6 Key Messages from the Stakeholder Interviews
In summary, three key messages from the stakeholder interviews were identified. First, that a
range of economic, environmental and social benefits were perceived as accumulating from
various stages of Hamilton Harbour cleanup. Second, while there was a widespread
acknowledgement of potential benefits of the project, there were also concerns about who was
expected to bear the costs. Finally, some critical success factors were identified that were
described by respondents as essential to fully realize the benefits of the remediation work.

2.2 Stakeholder Charette
2.2.1 Purpose of the Charette
The purpose of the stakeholder charette was to engage community thought leaders in strategic
thinking and dialogue on the remediation of Randle Reef. This engagement was intended to
provide interim feedback to the Randle Reef project Benefits Assessment. The key objectives of
the meeting included reviewing the proposed benefits assessment model, to provide feedback
and extend insights that emerged from stakeholder interviews, and to build a shared
understanding of what is possible, and establish what the community needs to do in order to
strengthen the opportunities for these benefits to be realized.
9

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

2.2.2 Design of the Charette
The charette took place on March 21, 2005 from 9 am to 3 pm and was hosted by Environment
Canada at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters (CCIW) in Burlington, Ontario. The day began
with a session in plenary that included an introduction of attendees designed to facilitate
interactions between participants and to generate some energy for the group tasks laid out
through the day. Presentations of a project update, stakeholder feedback from the interviews and
the benefits assessment model were conducted in plenary. These were followed by an exercise
completed at lunch that was intended to provide more detailed feedback on the benefits
assessment framework and stakeholder themes. Following lunch, two breakout sessions were
facilitated where groups brainstormed critical success factors and action items to be undertaken
in order to fully realize benefits of the remediation. The day concluded with a wrap-up and next
steps.
A wide range of stakeholders were invited to attend the charette including members of the
Randle Reef Project Implementation Team (PIT) and the Project Advisory Group (PAG), along
with all additional stakeholders who had been contacted for an interview in the Phase 2 interview
process. Appendix B lists the 25 people that attended the meeting.

2.2.3 Charette Results
The charette began with an introductory session whose objectives were threefold. First, the
session set expectations for the day and to welcome participants. Second, the session introduced
study team members from the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability at York
University working on the Randle Reef Remediation Project Benefits Assessment initiative.
Third, the session was designed to get participants energized and interacting with each other
right away in order to ensure a high level of involvement and enthusiasm throughout the day.
The introduction exercise, facilitated by Elizabeth Kurucz of York University, consisted of
individuals pairing up with someone they did not know well and discussing their personal
connection to the RAP vision (see inset box). Many participants offered an extensive work
history related to Hamilton Harbour and expressed interest in its tremendous diversity. A good
cross-section of knowledge and experience predating the initial RAP report and continuing
throughout the RAP process generated the perception that the charette would be an excellent
opportunity for adding substance to the consultation process.
Participants expressed both personal and work related interests in Hamilton Harbour. Interests
focused on environmental studies, harbour research, recreational activities (sailing, fishing, bird
watching, and waterfront trail), wastewater treatment and dredging. Shared visions included the
desire to see recovery of the harbour, integration of harbour activities (recreational, industrial,
and economic), benefits from numerous initiatives (social, environmental, economic),
reconnection of people with the waterfront, rejuvenation of the waterfront as a seaside resort and
municipal commitment. It was apparent through the discussion that native Hamiltonians are
passionate about Hamilton Harbour and that local perspectives are of critical importance and
must be factored into the benefits assessment. Overall and as commonly expressed throughout
stakeholder interviews, the RAP vision is clearly embedded as a driving factor.
10

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

The next presentation in the plenary session was intended to bring all charette participants up to
date on the status of the project. John Shaw, from Environment Canada, described to
participants how the recommended conceptual design was accepted through a multi-stakeholder
consultation process conducted in December 2002 and represents approximately 9 hectares of
containment facility, which would be used for port facilities and as a naturalized area. Capping
and filling was the preferred approach opposed to removing the worst contaminated materials.
The naturalized edge would be similar to existing sites. Ongoing engineering studies have been
undertaken as an essential next step to ensure long-term integrity, and to conceptualize the actual
dredging and containment components. Two to three of the recommended engineering options
and detailed cost estimates are anticipated by July of 2005. The document will then be presented
for stakeholder review. Partnership negotiations are also expected to begin in July. Pending
positive negotiations with agreements in place and following public consultation, tendering for
construction is expected to follow in 2006.
To provide insight on the successes of other remediation sites, an overview of a case study on an
industrial waterway in the City of Tacoma was presented. Members of the Randle Reef Steering
Committee recently visited the site to see the results of ongoing remediation efforts. Reflective
of Hamilton Harbour, the site had been contaminated from soils, brownfields and sediments.
Issues to confront included an industrialized waterfront, a depressed downtown core, polluted
image, contaminated soils and contaminated sediments. The approach for remediation focused
on various business tactics. Foss Waterway Development Authority led the initiative allowing
for private investment, development alternatives, cleanup alternatives and a Master Plan. As a
result, property values have increased, properties have returned to the tax role, cultural aspects
have been emphasized and shoreline rejuvenation has occurred. Signage and industrial artefacts
have added enhancements to the industrial legacy. Rehabilitation is evident through newly
constructed condominiums, improved public access, additional events and creative landscape
designs.
With respect to benefits associated with Randle Reef cleanup, remedial evidence is abundant but
little has been quantified. Advancement of methodology for assessing the economic benefits in
both monetary and non-monetary measures presents a challenge. An opportunity for meeting
with experts from the Tacoma project was presented as a possibility.
Next, a presentation by Elizabeth Kurucz from York University provided a summary of the key
themes emerging from the stakeholder interviews, discussed in the Section II of the report. A
short question and answer session followed this presentation, with more in depth feedback
gathered in the following group breakout session. A transcript of that discussion period is
provided in Appendix B.
Comments by John Shaw from Environment Canada were then contributed to clarify the origin
of the economic benefits study. This study was triggered when a group of MPs and MPPs met to
address concerns and costs surrounding wastewater and Randle Reef issues. The study was
considered a good opportunity to advance the science and to quantify the benefits related to
delisting. Results will be incorporated within the EA document providing an opportunity for the
general pubic to offer comments.
11

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

2.2.4 Review of the Benefits Assessment Framework
The final activity of the plenary session was a presentation from Eric Miller of York University
that provided an overview of the proposed framework for the economics benefits model. The
presentation detailed how the development of a flexible framework is underway to deal with the
complexities and dynamics of the project and to ensure the inclusion of many initiatives. At this
stage, incorporation of feedback is the task at hand. The benefits model was described as a
work-in-progress and that input from charette participants would be actively sought throughout
the day.
In particular, the relationship between stigma reduction and stages of cleanup was identified as
critical and one that required further examination. As the stigma declines the expectation would
be that benefits should increase. Delisting of the harbour was described as essential for
eliminating the stigma. Key stakeholder comments on this relationship were solicited in the
following breakout session as a way to assist with developing accurate parameters, essential for
the strength of the model.
The next step for the modellers was presented as the determination of how to engage the public.
One approach suggested was to make the model available on the web. The opportunity for
modifying parameters and relationships in the model was described as helping to build leverage
to achieve potential benefits from the remediation.

2.2.5 Results of Breakout Sessions
For the remainder of the day, breakout sessions were facilitated by Barry Colbert from York
University. Questions were raised in plenary, prior to Breakout Session I, regarding the
definition of cleanup categories labelled in the benefits assessment presentation for evaluating
percentages of stigma reduction. Interpretation of success factors and the cumulative realization
of economic benefits were discussed for clarification. The attainment of potential benefits
through the cleanup of Randle Reef alone versus Hamilton Harbour entirely was debated by the
group. As a result, cleanup categories were revised to accurately reflect cleanup milestones:
Randle Reef project complete, all wastewater issues resolved, all RAP objectives met and
harbour officially de-listed.
Breakout Session I: Achieving Benefits
Worksheet 1: Hamilton Harbour Cleanup and Stigma Reduction
A clear definition of the stigma as it relates to Hamilton Harbour versus the entire city was
solicited through this first activity in Breakout Session I, conducted over lunch. The definition
of stigma was described as being in the eye of the beholder and thus, perceptions from the range
of stakeholders at the charette were described as essential for enhancing the understanding of this
relationship in the model. Some participants indicated that the benefits assessment study should
focus only on Randle Reef although removal of the stigma may be limited while others believed
that Randle Reef should be considered as a catalyst for whole harbour cleanup. To explore this
more fully, a worksheet (Worksheet #1) was distributed to participants where they were asked to
model their perception of the percentage of stigma reduction achieved from different stages of
harbour cleanup.
12

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Two key outcomes emerged from this activity. First, compiling results across the stakeholder
group, the perception that stigma reduction from the Randle Reef cleanup alone would generate
somewhere around 30% stigma reduction was observed. Second, whole harbour cleanup was not
perceived by the group to result in 100% stigma reduction for the city. These were identified as
valuable inputs to the development of the benefits model.
Comments from participants in response to this activity indicated certain activities that were
essential for stigma reduction. More specifically, cosmetic improvements to the harbour were
offered as likely to have a great impact on stigma, as people often judge water quality with a
visual gauge. Also, communication plans in regard to the official recognition and announcement
of delisting were also raised as critical aspects of reducing stigma. These ideas were revisited in
Breakout Session II that explored critical success factors for fully realizing benefits of the
remediation work.
Worksheet 2: Perceptions of When Potential Benefits Will Accrue
Data were also collected from session participants over lunch with regard to the stage of cleanup
where different benefits identified through the stakeholder interviews would be expected to start
accumulating. For many respondents, a number of the potential benefits identified through the
stakeholder interviews were described as occurring across several stages of cleanup. The
following graph represents charette participants’ perceptions of the percentage of benefits they
would anticipate beginning to accumulate at each stage of the cleanup.
Figure 2.1 - Perceived Relationship Between Cleanup and Benefit Accrual
45
40

Percent Responses

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Randle Reef project
complete

All wastewater issues
resolved

All RAP objectives met

Harbour officially delisted

Level of Cleanup

13

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Considering this graph, it is interesting to note that participants indicated approximately 42% of
benefits identified by stakeholders in the interviews would begin to accrue with the Randle Reef
project completion alone. Resolving wastewater issues would enable an additional 11% of the
benefits to begin to accumulate. Meeting all RAP objectives would mean another 25% of the
benefits would start to amass. Finally, according to participants, the delisting of the harbour was
required for the remaining 22% of benefits to be realized.
Breakout Session II: Critical Success Factors
The intent of this breakout session was to engage participants in a strategic thinking exercise in
order to identify key leverage points for realizing potential benefits at each stage of the cleanup.
Participants were divided into four groups, with each group assigned to a flip-chart associated
with one stage of the cleanup. Participants were instructed to brainstorm critical success factors
for realizing the benefits at their particular stage of the cleanup. After a period of time, groups
were instructed to rotate so that, by the end of the exercise, each group had an opportunity to
interact with ideas from each flipchart and to extend insights with their own contribution.
Appendix B summarizes the outcomes.
Summary – Three Common Leverage Points:
Looking across the various stages of cleanup, three common leverage points can be identified in
order to achieve success at each of the levels, namely: communication and marketing of project
to a broader community to reduce stigma, building public/private partnerships to sustain
improvements and establishing public access to the harbour to establish or re-ignite a connection
with this area and thus build social and political will for ongoing improvements.
Breakout Session III: Action Items
For the final session of the day, participants reformed groups to identify specific actions that
could be undertaken by individuals and organizations in order to achieve the critical success
factors they identified in the previous activity. Individuals were encouraged to self-select and
determine which critical success factors for which stage of the cleanup they would comment on,
based on their own interest and expertise, in order to encourage the development of meaningful
and useful recommendations. This task required participants to specify the recommended action
to achieve the critical success factor, who should be involved and who should lead (see
Appendix 4). Notes were scribed by each group.
The discussion that followed this activity focused on how incremental revitalization will provide
the basis for improving the image of Hamilton and that specific strategic actions will be needed
to realize the potential benefits envisaged by stakeholders. Finally, when the model is completed
and available for use, information canvassed from the community can be entered into the model
for assessing benefits and examining implications of particular actions. Depending on the
requirements a message board may also be incorporated to enable community feedback.

2.2.6 Key messages from Charette
The session concluded with project team leader Peter Victor from York University expressing
appreciation for the informative feedback that was generated. The consultation confirmed some
details for study team members at IRIS and also indicated where changes were required on the
14

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

approach. Although the assessment process looks beyond the remediation project, Randle Reef
was confirmed as the main focus of the study.
Discussion points and information generated through the worksheets and group tasks will be
integrated into the modeling exercise. Comment sheets were provided as takeaways for
stakeholders to provide more specific input to the model based on their own expertise in their
respective organizations.

3. BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
A benefits assessment was performed as one of three deliverables for this project. This section
describes in detail the approach that was used to assess benefits and the associated results. A
benefits assessment framework was designed and then populated with qualitative and
quantitative results using a benefits model. The analytical approach extended considerably
beyond the initial contractual commitment. A user-friendly, transparent, and scalable benefits
assessment model (i.e., BENSIM) was produced. This section presents the rationale for
developing this system, describes the structure of BENSIM, and details how BENSIM was used
to populate the benefits assessment framework.

3.1 Benefits Assessment Framework
The benefits assessment framework was designed to organise the many benefits expected to be
derived from the Randle Reef project. A key part of the framework is tracking the benefits that
are expected to be enjoyed by specific stakeholders (i.e., beneficiaries). This need led to the
design of a benefits assessment framework that served as the foundation for the design of
BENSIM. The development and structure of the benefits assessment framework are presented
next.

3.1.1 Conceptual Foundation
The Randle Reef project and other remedial actions will provide diverse benefits over time to
many beneficiaries (e.g., specific recreational users and organisations like governments and
industry). An accounting framework was developed to categorize and track these benefits and
the recipient beneficiaries.
In its most basic form, this accounting system consists of a matrix with the rows comprising
different beneficiaries and the columns, different categories of benefits. This matrix provides an
easily understandable format for envisaging the many combinations of benefits and beneficiaries
and for presenting the actual benefits that are associated with the Randle Reef project.
Stakeholders can readily see where their interests are represented in the matrix and can follow
across a row to see the types of benefits that they can expect to realise from the project.
Three major types of benefits are included in the matrix, namely, monetary (what people
typically call “economic” since they involve some monetary transaction), social, and
environmental. Likewise three major categories of beneficiary are included, namely,
government, industry, and the general public. Table 3.1 illustrates this high-level benefits
assessment matrix.
15

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 3.1 - Basic Structure of Benefits Assessment Framework
Benefits
Economic

Social

Environmental

Government
Beneficiaries

Industry
The Public

Each of the benefits and beneficiaries categories were disaggregated and revised following
recommendations from stakeholders. The finalized disaggregated matrix included 19 benefits
and 19 beneficiaries (see Appendix C). These discrete rows and columns in the matrix are
discussed below.
The large number and diversity of beneficiaries requires careful attention to the accounting
stance being used if benefits are to be summed. Summing across a row (i.e., deriving the total
benefits for a single beneficiary) is straightforward and does not lead to potential double
counting. For this reason, all benefits are attributed to specific beneficiaries so that the
accounting stance is clear and double counting is avoided.
On the other hand, summing down a column generally should not be attempted to avoid double
counting. As one moves down a column, the accounting stance changes with each row.
Columns cannot all be summed to arrive at an overall benefits total for all beneficiaries. The
benefits for some beneficiaries involve a redistribution of benefits (i.e., transfer as opposed to
benefits in the strict sense of the word) and expenditures as opposed to an absolute increase in
the overall benefits. Likewise, the members of each beneficiary category are not unique. Some
individuals may be represented by multiple beneficiaries (e.g., local property owners who boat).

3.1.2 Detailed Benefits
Tables 3.2 to 3.4 breakdown the major benefit categories (i.e., economic, environmental and
social) into discrete benefit types.
Several factors complicate benefits assessments in general and in particular with this project.
First, not all benefits are commonly quantified. The inability to quantify a benefit may not be
evidence of its lack of significance. Instead, many factors can contribute to quantification
barriers (e.g., data limitations, lack of solid conceptual foundation for quantification, unsuitable
metrics). For these reasons, the matrix is not rigid in terms of quantification rules or metrics.
Stakeholders were asked to express benefit functions in terms with which they were comfortable.

16

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 3.2 - Disaggregated Economic Benefits.
Economic Benefit

Description

Direct

Increased revenues directly attributable to remediation
spending, such as government taxes collected on
remediation expenditures.

Indirect

Increased revenues indirectly attributable to remediation and
resulting from spin-off activities, such as government taxes
collected on increased spending generated by a more
attractive harbour (post-remediation).

Direct

Increased value of capital assets directly attributed to
remediation activities, such as the value of the new docking
facility created by building the containment unit at Randle
Reef.

Indirect

Increased value of capital assets indirectly attributed to
remediation activities and resulting from spin-off benefits,
such as the value of increased property values generated by
a more attractive harbour (post-remediation).

Increased Revenues

Increased Capital
Assets

Incremental costs avoided by remediation activities, such as
the reduced costs to industry of removing sediment
contaminants from intake process water obtained from the
harbour.

Cost Savings

Table 3.3 - Disaggregated Environmental Benefits
Environmental Benefit

Description

Improved Environmental
Services

Value of increased ecosystem capacity to assimilate waste,
and provide clean water and air.

Improved Ecosystem Production

Value of increases in quality and /or quantity of ecosystem
products that the harbour is capable of producing and that
are attributable to environmental clean-up.

Improved Biodiversity

Value of increased genetic and species diversity associated
with harbour ecosystem.

17

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 3.4 - Disaggregated Social Benefits.
Social Benefit
Use Values

Non-Use
Values

Description
Value of increased use and enjoyment of the harbour.

Option

Value of being able to enjoy the harbour at a later date.

Existence

Value of simply knowing that remediation took place,
regardless of whether a person will use or see the harbour.

Bequest

Value of providing future generations with a better harbour.

Social Capital Formation

Value of strengthened social capacities including new and
strengthened networks, institutions, governance.

Human Capital Formation

Value of increased training and knowledge formed by
engaging in remedial action projects and learning from the
outcomes.

Improved Image and Pride

Value of reduction in stigma associated with the harbour
being listed as an Area of Concern.

Improved Quality of Life

Value of increased peace of mind from knowing that action is
being taken and that the environment is being improved.

Improved Public Health

Value of avoided health damages caused by exposure to
toxic sediments and contaminated wastewater.

Economic benefits are generally easier to identify and understand due to common day-to-day
experiences with monetary measures. This contrasts with many environmental benefits (e.g.,
improved biodiversity) for which no common metric exists and with which the average
stakeholder has little direct experience making comparative or value-based decisions.
Some benefits are quantifiable but are much more difficult to assign economic values (e.g.,
improvement in human capital). Some benefits are equally difficult to quantify and to assign an
economic value (e.g., increased image and pride which reflect the reputation of the City of
Hamilton as a place to live and work).
The benefits assessment framework was designed first to account for all benefit categories.
Furthermore, the framework was designed to be flexible and able to accommodate differing
levels of quantification and diverse metrics. At a minimum, narrative descriptions were
developed for each benefit category even if full quantification was not possible.
The benefit categories were designed to be as comprehensive and as discrete as possible. In the
case of economic benefits, increased revenues flowing to one beneficiary may in turn lead to
secondary increases for another beneficiary. This “multiplier effect” can be tracked through an

18

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

economy over multiple levels or cycles. For the purposes of this assessment, these benefits are
grouped into direct and indirect categories.

3.1.3 Detailed Beneficiaries
Tables 3.5 to 3.7 breakdown the major beneficiary categories (i.e., government, industry and the
public) into discrete beneficiaries.
Table 3.5 - Disaggregated Government Beneficiaries
Government Beneficiary

Description

Federal

All Government of Canada departments and agencies except for
the Hamilton Port Authority

Provincial

All Government of Ontario departments and agencies, except for
jurisdiction over municipalities

Municipal

Hamilton, Burlington, and portions of the Regional Municipality of
Halton.

Table 3.6 - Disaggregated Industry Beneficiaries
Industry Beneficiary

Description

Hamilton Port Authority

Federal agency with jurisdiction over the Hamilton port.

Stelco

Steel industry with harbour intake and pier near Randle Reef.

Dofasco

Steel industry further away from Randle Reef.

Local Businesses

Businesses servicing port activities such as tug operators.

Other

Other private businesses not included in the above groups.

3.1.4 Integrated Framework
Appendix C contains the detailed benefits assessment framework which includes all of the
detailed benefits and beneficiaries discussed. The yellow shaded cells in these tables represent
specific benefit-beneficiary combinations that are relevant combinations. For example, only
government organizations with taxation powers would benefit from increased tax revenues.

3.1.5 Comparison with Other Benefits Assessments
The Randle Reef benefits assessment framework was designed to capitalise on experiences with
other benefits assessments. Appendix A presents the results of a review of benefits assessments
for other environmental clean-ups associated with AOCs.

19

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 3.7 - Disaggregated Public Beneficiaries
Public Beneficiary

Description

Canada

All Canadian residents.

Ontario

All Ontario residents

Local Residents

Residents in the local area, either renting or owning.

Local Property Owners

People who own property within the local area.

Boaters

People who engage in boating activities within the harbour.

Anglers

People who engage in fishing activities within the harbour.

Swimmers

People who engage in swimming in the area.

Passive Users

People who engage in passive activities around the harbour (e.g.,
walking, wildlife observation, picnicking).

Un/Underemployed

People who are not employed to the level they wish to be.

These other assessments vary significantly from one to another in terms of the scope of benefits
included, valuation methodologies and the underlying conceptual foundation. The Randle Reef
framework shares some elements in common with these other assessments and also has some
unique features. The most notable difference with the Randle Reef framework is the inclusion of
combinations of specific beneficiaries and benefits. This unique feature allows each beneficiary
to see the specific benefits that each is expected to realise.
The most notable common feature among all of the assessments including the Randle Reef
assessment is the significant gaps in reliable and accurate data required to produce a
comprehensive benefits assessment.

3.2 BENSIM
The benefits assessment framework developed as part of this study provided a systematic
structure for estimating the diverse benefits associated with the Randle Reef project and the
delisting of Hamilton Harbour. The original proposal was to produce benefits estimates for each
of the active/meaningful cells in the matrix. For example, the direct revenues to the federal
government expected to be generated by the Randle Reef project could be estimated and used to
fill in the corresponding benefit/beneficiary cell in the framework.
As explained previously, the scope of the analysis was expanded midway through the schedule to
include development of a benefits simulation model (i.e., BENSIM). This change altered
significantly the process for populating the active benefits-beneficiaries cells. Many of the same
sources of information were used (e.g., the available literature, insights from stakeholders) but
this information was used to derive generic functions and a default dataset on which BENSIM
was built.
20

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Further explanation for the reasons for deciding to develop BENSIM is provided following.

3.2.1 Challenges with Conventional Benefits Assessments
Challenge 1: Benefits depend on scale and combination of remedial actions - The Randle
Reef project is one of several projects that need to be undertaken as necessary conditions to
enable harbour delisting. Stakeholders generally understood the Randle Reef project to be a
pivotal project for delisting and that its construction would spur the construction of other
associated projects. The Randle Reef project would deal with most of the contaminated
sediment in the harbour. However, some contaminated sediments would remain; as well, other
forms of environmental impairment would persist even if the Randle Reef project was completed
successfully. The challenge was to make the benefits assessment a function of the nature and
scale of the multiple types of remedial action projects being contemplated for Hamilton Harbour.
Furthermore, the expected benefits are not a linear function of total expenditures on remediation.
Rather, the expected benefits vary substantially based on the combinations of projects being
undertaken. Varying the combination of projects alters significantly the estimated benefits.
Another driving factor was that expected benefits are affected greatly by the perceptions of an
environmentally conscious public. Only when the harbour is perceived to be “free” of
contamination will some benefits be fully realised.
Modifying the static benefit estimates of the Randle Reef project by an adjustment factor was a
possible, but not desirable, solution to this challenge. This adjustment factor would need to have
been based on some assumed combination of other remediation projects. Operationally this
approach would have been straightforward but would have resulted in quite imprecise and
inflexible benefits estimates. A dynamic benefits assessment that forecasts the benefits of
variable combinations of projects allows analysts and other users to vary the scale and phasing of
individual remediation projects and to examine in detail the nature and distribution of the
resulting benefits.
Challenge 2: Positive feedback among related projects - Stakeholders emphasized that
progress on Randle Reef could set the stage for further progress in the harbour as benefits
materialize and spin-off benefits are generated. The benefits in the benefits assessment
framework are not independent of one another. For example, realising health benefits could
spawn community image/pride benefits and improve property values. The relationships among
health, community image and property appreciation benefits are dynamic and feedback upon
each other. Employing a conventional static benefits transfer methodology to estimate the
benefits of property value appreciation would limit the opportunity to reflect these positive
feedbacks. The cells within the benefits assessment framework are connected dynamically in
multiple ways to capture these co-dependencies.
Challenge 3: Benefits accrue over time - Remediation takes time as does the public’s
awareness of its benefits. An accurate benefits assessment requires capturing all of the benefits
that are realized over time, rather than those realised at a single point in time.

21

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

The need to consider a future planning horizon in benefits assessment is not a novel concept.
The literature on the benefits of remedial action is mostly projective and typically total benefits
over a given period of time are reported. However, few benefits assessments chart the realisation
of benefits over time. Charting benefits over time is crucial when evaluating the benefits of a
project. Project investors typically prefer to see the expected stream of benefits over time. This
information is critical for monitoring the actual success of a project compared to the projected
benefits.
The time pattern of benefits is important for public communication. Public support for
remediation plans can be stressed where a delay between project completion and realisation of
the full benefit complement is expected. If benefits are expected to accumulate gradually over
time, premature expectations and an overly optimistic public can be moderated by reporting the
expected stream of benefits rather than the lump-sum, cumulative benefits over a fixed planning
horizon.
Large complex projects like the Randle Reef project are often difficult to schedule precisely
before the detailed design is completed and construction is imminent. The schedule often
changes during the design phase as new issues arise and solutions are sought. Likewise, project
scheduling is highly sensitive to securing necessary funds. All of these factors make project
timing uncertain. At the same time, projected benefits are time sensitive. If progress on
remedial action is prolonged or its start is delayed, forecast benefits will vary. With a static
benefits assessment, each major change in schedule would require re-estimation of the expected
stream of benefits. Having the ability to rapidly re-analyse benefits when project schedules are
revised is a valuable tool.
Challenge 4: Need for stakeholder buy-in - A key strength of this project was the central role
played by stakeholders in driving the assessment. Conventional benefits assessments treat
stakeholders as elements of the analysis and/or as consumers of the final product (i.e., the
benefits assessment audience). From the outset, stakeholders were viewed as critical sources of
information. At the same time, they were seen as critical agents in realising the benefits forecast.
Changes in perceptions drive the realisation of many benefits. This dual role complicates the
benefits assessment.
The feedback between the stakeholders, the benefits assessment and the benefits realised reflects
the complex and dynamic nature of the Randle Reef project. For this reason, active and ongoing
stakeholder participation was essential. A static benefits assessment could not fulfill this
requirement.
Conventional benefits assessments are typically arcane except for those skilled and
knowledgeable in this field. Benefits assessment methods, calculations and assumptions are
difficult to follow often even for a skilled practitioner, let alone for someone without training in
this field. For the average stakeholder these assessments lack transparency. However, as noted,
stakeholders played key roles in this benefits assessment. These roles could not be fulfilled
without understanding and engagement, a difficult challenge with conventional benefits
assessments.
22

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Having BENSIM available overcame many of these barriers. Interested parties can change
assumptions and see how the change affects results. Stakeholders can explore those benefits and
beneficiaries of greatest interest to them and can see how these outcomes are affected by other
elements of the overall remedial action plan. This interaction builds understanding and
commitment, two crucial ingredients for sustained stakeholder participation.

3.2.2 Purpose and Foundation of BENSIM
BENSIM was designed to serve multiple purposes. First, BENSIM results were used to estimate
values for many of the benefits/beneficiary combinations in the benefits assessment framework.
Secondly, BENSIM was designed to be made available to stakeholders so they could explore
alternate project configurations (i.e., timing, project elements and investor contributions) for
harbour remediation and see what benefits would be realised by specific beneficiaries. In so
doing, stakeholders will become increasingly engaged in the process and will gain more in-depth
understanding of the interrelationships among the various projects and initiatives designed to
improve the environmental quality of Hamilton Harbour.
The STELLA software was selected for constructing the model. STELLA was developed by
ISEE systems (http://www.iseesystems.com). The software provides intuitive icon-based
graphical mapping that makes it easy to communicate a model’s structure and function to a wide
audience. As well, the software includes the ability to integrate textual documentation for all
model parameters directly in the program code. This permits novice users to follow through the
model logic relatively easily. A model control “dashboard” allows users to operate the model
with relative ease and to produce and compare graphical outcomes of alternative simulations.
Finally, the software includes the option of run-time storytelling and tracing features to explain
the details of the model to the user.
In summary, BENSIM strengthened greatly the value and flexibility of the benefits assessment
and provides an effective means to engage stakeholders directly in the benefits assessment.

3.2.3 System Overview
The overall structure of BENSIM reflects the structure of the benefits assessment framework.
Various categories of benefits flowing to particular beneficiaries are tracked over time and are
dependent on various remediation activities.
BENSIM permits the scale and timing of remedial action to vary among various combinations of
remediation projects including the Randle Reef project. Alternate assumptions regarding the
relationships among various remediation activities and outcomes and the expected flow of
benefits can be readily explored. The results can be easily compared using built-in graphical
display options for reviewing outputs.
This section summarises the basic structure of BENSIM and the main driving factors affecting its
subsystems. Appendix D provides a more detailed description of BENSIM’s graphical user
interface and instructions on how to operate BENSIM and adjust its assumptions.

23

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

3.2.3.1 Remediation Project Alternatives
Stakeholders helped narrow to four, the remediation projects necessary to achieve harbour
delisting. Table 3.8 describes these projects; they include containment of toxic sediments,
improvements to wastewater treatment and habitat enhancement/creation. The scale of remedial
action can be varied in BENSIM from one project alone (e.g., just the Randle Reef project) to
any combination of the four critical projects. Each project’s start date and completion year can
be adjusted. Alternate assumptions regarding the relationships among various remediation
activities and their outcomes can also be explored by changing the default parameter values and
functional relationships.
Table 3.8 - Harbour Remediation Projects Included in BENSIM
Project

Description

Default Duration

Capital Cost

Randle Reef

Contain toxic sediments at Randle
Reef by building a containment unit
as proposed by the technical Terms
of Reference.

2007-2015

$90 million

Other
Sediments

Contain the remaining 10% of toxic
sediment deposits in the Harbour.

2007-2015

$5 million

Wastewater

Reduce sewer and wastewater
inputs into the harbour.

2007-2015

$480 million

Habitat

Rehabilitate shoreline habitat.

2007-2015

$12 million

3.2.3.2 Benefit Relationships
Some benefits are a direct function of completing these various projects. For example, reduced
toxic sediments reduce the health impacts on people who fish in the area. As the projects are
initiated and completed, corresponding streams of benefits change over time. Some benefit
relationships include delays that may exist between action and results (e.g., property
appreciation).
Other benefits are a function of the public perception of environmental improvements to the
harbour. For example, the reputation of the harbour area will improve once people believe that
the harbour environment has been restored to good quality. These types of indirect benefits are
closely connected to the notion of “stigma reduction”.
Stakeholders stressed the idea that the harbour’s listing as an area of concern has a negative
impact on the image and reputation of the area surrounding the harbour and in particular, the
City of Hamilton. A key objective of remedial action is to de-list the harbour and to improve the
harbour’s reputation. In other words, having the harbour formally listed as an area of concern is
a major contributor to reducing or eliminating stigma. This basic concept drives a number of
benefits that are a function of the area’s reputation.

24

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

BENSIM estimates flows of benefits (i.e., the annual stream of benefits that are expected to be
realised). These flows are cumulated in BENSIM as stock variables to derive the total
cumulative benefit for a specified period of time. Stock variables in BENSIM correspond to the
active cells in the benefits assessment framework. The value of each stock variable at any point
in time is the accumulated benefit realised by a specific beneficiary. The values for these stocks
can be plotted over time to show how benefits accumulate as remediation occurs and thereafter.
An optional discount factor is applied to all flows of benefits. By default, the discount rate is set
to 0%. Discounting streams of benefits allows cumulative total benefits to be expressed in
present value terms.
3.2.3.3 Modelling Stigma Reduction
Each of the four component projects contribute positively to stigma reduction. The extent to
which each project contributes to marginal stigma reduction is modelled as a system of
adjustable parameters.
The official delisting of the harbour was considered by many stakeholders to be highly
significant in reducing stigma. For this reason, de-listing was included as a distinct element in
BENSIM. The result is that BENSIM comprises a system of five adjustable “contribution to
stigma reduction” parameters. The combined effect of these parameters is not allowed to exceed
100%. On the other hand, the combined effect can be less than 100% if some residual stigma is
assumed to remain after the best efforts to remediate the harbour have been implemented.
Table 3.9 lists the default stigma reduction settings included in BENSIM. These default values
correspond to the average stakeholder responses expressed during the stakeholder charette.
Table 3.9 - Default Stigma Reduction Settings in BENSIM
Project or Event

Perception of Incremental Benefits

Default Stigma Reduction (%)

Randle Reef

Low benefits until project completion

28

Other Sediments

Low benefits until project completion

5

Wastewater

Benefits increase steadily until completion

27

Habitat

Benefits increase steadily until completion

7

Official Delisting

Benefits realised immediately after
delisting officially announced

20
Total

25

87

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Most stakeholders indicated that the stigma associated with having the harbour an Area of
Concern cannot be fully removed by 2030 even if delisting is successfully achieved on schedule.
At best, they indicated that 87% of stigma can be reduced if all projects are completed and the
harbour is de-listed. A decay function reduces this remaining stigma based on the default setting
by approximately one half (i.e., from 87% to 93%) 20 years after delisting.
The perception of incremental benefits is an important parameter influencing the benefits
realised. The default settings in BENSIM generate low benefits until completion of each
sediment remediation project. This reflects the view that stigma is more a function of whether
sediment contamination exists rather than the amount. Conversely, wastewater and habitat
projects are set to generate benefits as a linear function of the proportion of each project that is
completed.

3.2.4 BENSIM Expert Review
A recommendation arising from the research was to subject BENSIM to an independent expert
review. The objectives of the review were:
• To evaluate the technical rigour of the BENSIM benefits framework
• To review and improve the default settings for key parameters
• To solicit suggestions for improving user accessibility and functionality
• To determine the existence of parallel or related research.
A two-day expert workshop was held on October 26 and 27, 2005. Three external experts
attended. The three expert reviewers were:
1. Dr. Philippe Crabbé, Professor Emeritus, Institute of the Environment, University of
Ottawa,
2. Dr. Gail Krantzberg, Professor and Director of the Centre for Engineering and Public
Policy in the School of Engineering Practice, McMaster University and
3. Dr. Matthias Ruth, Roy F. Weston Chair in Natural Economics, Director, Environmental
Policy Program, Co-Director, Engineering and Public Policy School of Public Policy,
University of Maryland and Affiliate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, A. James Clark School of Engineering, Marine, Estuarine and
Environmental Sciences Program, National Center for Smart Growth Research and
Education.
The workshop was also attended by:
1. John Hall, Hamilton Harbour RAP Coordinator, CCIW,
2. Wally Rozenberg, Ministry of the Environment (Ontario),
3. Professor Peter Victor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University,
4. Ed Hanna, Principal, DSS Management Consultants Inc., Pickering, ON and
5. Tatiana Koveshnikova, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University.
Background documentation was circulated to the workshop attendees prior to the meeting.
Included in the documentation was:
• The latest version of BENSIM,
• A summary of key assumptions, data and data sources and
26

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

A draft project report.

During the workshop, the details of BENSIM were systematically discussed. The experts were
asked to criticise any weaknesses in the system and to also make suggestions for correcting any
errors or improving the technical foundation of the system. The goal was to provide clear and
practical directions for improvement and refinement.
In addition to undertaking a detail review of BENSIM, the experts were asked to provide broader
comments regarding the overall system. These comments ranged from theoretical considerations
to the practical application and uses of BENSIM.
Following the workshop, the results of the discussion were documented in a report which was
circulated to the experts to ensure that their views were accurately recorded. A modified version
of that report is included as Appendix E.
Subsequently, the project team met and balanced the list of suggested refinements submitted by
the expert reviewers with the available resources. The proposed refinements were prioritised
based on the project objectives of Environment Canada. Following a meeting with Environment
Canada, a final list of refinements was decided. These refinements have been made to BENSIM.
Some of the other suggested refinements have been included in the recommendations section of
this report.
The overall conclusions arising from the workshop were:
• BENSIM is a technically sound system although significant improvements are possible
in terms of the supporting data and information.
• Care is required to ensure that users understand that BENSIM includes only a subset of
the total benefits of environmental improvements. For this reason, interpretation of
BENSIM results must be done carefully with full awareness of what is and is not
included.
• Some BENSIM benefits estimates involve considerable uncertainty. Users should be
encouraged to explore the sensitivity of benefits estimates to the values assigned to key
parameters.

3.2.5 BENSIM Refinements
The following section provides a brief summary of the refinements that have been made to
BENSIM as a result of the expert review.
Over 50 comments and recommendations arose during the expert review of BENSIM. These
suggested refinements are grouped into three broad categories, namely,
1. refinements to key data and assumptions;
2. changes aimed at improving system performance and capabilities; and
3. refinements to the user interface.
Data for key parameters has been updated and refined to ensure that the current version is based
on the best available information. For instance, capital costs for the Randle Reef project as well
27

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

as the default time profiles for the initiation and completion of the projects have been updated.
All data sources and key assumptions have been documented. This documentation is included in
BENSIM at the model and user interface levels.
Certain “non-functional” elements have been deleted; whereas new components have been
added. One of the most significant changes model is the addition of a new beneficiary category,
namely passive users (e.g., bird watchers, walkers and cyclists). This user group is typically the
largest user group among all recreational users. For this reason, passive users are included as a
distinct beneficiary. Another useful addition is the inclusion of non-government project
financing sources. Local organisations may be an important source of funding for certain types
of harbour improvement projects. An “Other sources” category was added for this purpose.
These examples of the refinements at the system level in BENSIM are intended to provide a
general understanding of the nature of the changes. The number and scope of refinements at the
systems level was quite extensive. A detailed explanation of these changes is beyond the scope
of this report. The important point is that these changes have been made to BENSIM and are
reflected in the documentation included in the system.
At the interface level, changes have been made to improve understanding of the system and to
increase the ease of operation. A set of tools and information and navigation buttons were added
to the user interface. These additions provide more detailed descriptions of the key model
assumptions and its operations. For example, a high-level overview diagram was imported
which provides a simplified layout of the key components of the system. This diagram will
assist users in understanding the relationships among various model components.
Not all suggestions for refinement arising from the expert review have been implemented. Some
of the suggested refinements exceeded time and budget constraints. Suggestions for future
improvements are provided in Section 5.

4. FORECAST BENEFITS
A primary objective of this project was to assess the benefits of the Randle Reef project.
BENSIM generates benefits forecasts as a function of project expenditures, expected
environmental improvements resulting from remediation and relationships between
environmental clean-up and stigma reduction. The default settings in BENSIM were used to
produce estimates of accumulated benefits from 2007 to 2032 for two scenarios:
1. the Randle Reef project alone and
2. full implementation of all projects.
These results for these scenarios are presented in this chapter. All results in the following tables
are expressed as millions of dollars in 2005 present value terms. The benefits are accumulated
over a forecast horizon of 2007 to 2032. A social discount rate of 0% was used.
Some of these benefits can be added to yield an estimate of the accumulated benefits. However,
care must be exercised for several reasons when interpreting BENSIM results in this way.

28

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

First, not all benefits have been quantified. Therefore, simply calculating a “bottom line” total
benefit may be misleading. All project evaluation analyses should account for both the
quantified and non-quantified benefits. With environmental clean-up projects in particular, the
total benefit realised is greater than simply the sum of the quantified benefits.
Second, these benefits are gross benefits and do not account for project costs. Net benefit is the
appropriate measure to use for project evaluation. BENSIM is not designed to produce estimates
of social net benefit. Determining the net benefits for any particular beneficiary requires
deducting all costs that may be incurred by that beneficiary. Likewise, deriving an estimate of
the overall social net benefit is not a trivial undertaking and requires a careful accounting of the
type and sources of all benefits and costs to avoid double counting and the confounding of
benefits, costs and transfers from one party to another.
Nonetheless, the tendency to use these results for estimating net social benefit is strong.
Likewise, some of the benefits included in BENSIM are suitable for inclusion in a conventional
social net benefit analysis (more commonly referred to as a social cost-benefit analysis). For this
reason, some guidance is provided at the end of this section on how these benefits estimates
might be used for estimating the social net benefit for a given scenario.

4.1 Accumulated Benefits by Beneficiary
Tables 4.1 to 4.3 provide accumulated benefits to various levels of government for the two
remediation alternatives2. Most of the government benefits are in the form of direct and indirect
revenues, from increased tax collections. The benefits of indirect capital appreciation were not
quantified. Training and knowledge are important benefits of remediation but these benefits
were not quantified in physical or economic measures.
Table 4.1 - Federal Government Accumulated Benefits3
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

All Projects

Direct
revenues

Federal income and sales taxes collected
from all remediation spending.

$14

$211

Indirect
revenues

Federal income and sales taxes collected
from increased spending generated by
spin-off activities that generate income.

$5

$86

Cost savings

Reduced unemployment insurance
payments on the unemployed people who
are now gainfully employed.

$3

$41

$22

$338

Total

2

The tables in this section include the major benefits that have been quantified in BENSIM. Relevant benefitbeneficiary cells for which values have not been estimated using BENSIM are not discussed in this chapter.
3
All values shown in the tables in this chapter are expressed as $(2005) millions.

29

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 4.2 - Provincial Government Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

Direct
revenues

Provincial income and sales taxes
collected from all remediation spending.

Indirect
revenues

Provincial income and sales taxes
collected from increased spending
generated by spin-off activities that
generate income.

Cost savings

Reduced health care system payments
generated by improved health of harbour
users.
Total

All Projects

$14

$211

$5

$86

0

$1

$19

$298

Table 4.3 - Municipal Government Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

All Projects

Indirect
revenues

Property tax collected on improved
property values plus land development tax
collected on new properties.

$16

$23

Cost savings

Avoided infrastructure spending on
developments near to the harbour.

$13

$37

$29

$60

Total

Tables 4.4 to 4.7 present the accumulated benefits to various industrial beneficiaries.
Collectively local businesses, exclusive of the steel companies and the Hamilton Port Authority,
will realise the greatest accumulated benefits within the private sector. Benefits to local
businesses in aggregate are high but are spread across many individual businesses. As a result,
the benefits realised by any one individual local businesses will be considerably less. Stelco and
the Hamilton Port Authority are expected to realise the largest individual private benefits of
harbour remediation.
Table 4.4 - Hamilton Port Authority Accumulated Benefits
Benefit
Indirect
revenues

Description

Randle Reef

Increased revenues from increased
tonnage capabilities and demand

30

$11

All Projects

$11

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 4.5 - Stelco Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

Indirect
revenues

Increased sales from steel and steel
products used in new properties

Cost savings
Reduced
exposure

All Projects

$0

$0.1

Reduced sediment uptake and emissions
back into Harbour

$15

$15

Reduced potential liability for damages
caused by contaminants in the sediments

$0

$0

$15

$15.1

Total

Table 4.6 - Dofasco Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

All Projects

Indirect
revenues

Increased sales from steel and steel
products used in new properties

$0

$0.1

Cost savings

Reduced sediment uptake and emissions
back into Harbour

$0

$0

Reduced
exposure

Reduced potential liability for damages
caused by contaminants in the sediments

$0

$0

$0

$0.1

Total

Table 4.7 - Local Business Accumulated Benefits
Benefit
Indirect
revenues

Description

Randle Reef

Increased sales of goods and services
from increased income generated by
spending on the projects and spin-offs

37.5

All Projects

591.8

Unlike Stelco, no cost savings are forecast for Dofasco from reduced sediment uptake in intake
waters. Dofasco’s intake is situated further away from Randle Reef than that of Stelco. In the
case of both Stelco and Dofasco, no benefit is included for reduced exposure to potential
environmental liabilities. Inclusion of an allowance for this benefit could increase the private
benefit substantially.
Some local industries will benefit directly from project expenditures, such as the costs of
building the Randle Reef sediment containment facility. The value of these benefits was not
31

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

tracked directly but could be significant for some local businesses. Increased training and
knowledge within local businesses is also an important benefit that was not quantified.
Tables 4.8 to 4.11 provide a breakdown of benefits that are expected to be realised by various
segments of the general public. Many social and environmental benefits that will be realised by
residents of Canada, Ontario, and local communities are not quantified in these estimates.
Table 4.8 - Un(der)employed Persons Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

Direct
revenues

Income earned from employment on one
of remedial action projects

Indirect
revenues

Income earned from spin-off economic
activities
Total

All Projects

$2

$34

$11

$172

$13

$206

Table 4.9 - Local Property Owners’ Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Indirect capital
appreciation

Description

Randle Reef

Appreciation of existing residential
property assets
New residential property assets
Total

All Projects

$96

$100

$0

$24

$96

$124

Table 4.10 - Recreational Users’ Accumulated Benefits
Benefit

Description

Randle Reef

Boating

Value to existing and future boaters of
increased boating opportunities

Swimming

Value to existing and future swimmers of
increased swimming opportunities

Angling

Passive users

All Projects

$1

$47

$0.2

$68

Value to existing and future anglers of
increased angling opportunities

$2

$48

Value to existing and future passive users
of increased bird watching, walking, and
cycling opportunities

$1

$333

$4.2

$496

Total

32

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 4.11 -Improved Public Health Accumulated Benefits
Benefit
Local Property
Owners

Description

Randle Reef

Appreciation of property values as stigma
is reduced

$96

All Projects

$124

Table 4.12 shows the improvement in public image that is expected with each scenario. Public
image (i.e., stigma) is a driving force behind many of the benefits. As a result, a portion of this
benefit is captured and quantified in other benefits categories.
Table 4.12 - Benefits of Improved Image
Benefit
Improved
image

Description

Randle Reef

All Projects

The value of a reduction in the stigma
currently associated with the harbour as an
Area of Concern

27% reduction
in stigma

94% reduction
in stigma by
2032

4.2 Accumulated Benefits Summary
Table 4.13 provides a summary of the quantified accumulated benefits to each beneficiary. With
the Randle Reef project alone, the top three beneficiaries will be local property owners, local
businesses and the local municipal governments. The distribution of benefits shifts somewhat
when all remediation projects are fully implemented. The top three beneficiaries with this
scenario will be local businesses, recreational users and the federal government.
The accumulated gross benefits realised by these different beneficiaries are substantial. Local
businesses are estimated to realise about $600 million in gross accumulated benefits with full
implementation of the various remediation projects. Likewise, recreational users would realise
about $500 million in gross accumulated benefits with full implementation. However, care must
be exercised in interpreting these benefit estimates.
For example, the benefits estimated for local businesses are the increased revenues that they
would receive. The net benefit for local business owners however would be substantially less.
Using a profit margin of 10% net of taxes, local business owners would realise a net benefit in
terms of profit in the range of $60 million. The remainder of the revenue would go to pay the
costs of operations, including wages paid to employees. As well, some of the revenues would
flow back to government via taxes.
In the case of recreational users, the benefits are based on people’s willingness to pay for these
recreational opportunities (i.e., the average consumer surplus). As such, these benefits represent
the net benefit that participants will enjoy and do not need to be adjusted to arrive at the net
benefit being realised.

33

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table 4.13 - Total Benefits by Beneficiary
Beneficiary: Benefit

Randle Reef Project

All Projects

Federal Government

$21

$338

Provincial Government

$19

$297

Municipal Governments

$29

$60

Hamilton Port Authority

$11

$11

Stelco

$15

$15

$0

$0.1

Local Businesses

$38

$592

Un(der)employed People

$13

$206

$3

$496

$96

$124

Dofasco

Recreational Users
Local Property Owners

4.3 Application for Cost-benefit Analysis
No total is shown for Table 4.13. The total has been omitted for good reason. These gross
benefits are not additive. This project was not designed to produce benefit estimates for a
conventional social cost-benefit analysis. The objective was to track the benefits that individual
beneficiaries would realise from various remediation projects. Several important refinements
would be required to use these results for a social cost-benefit analysis.
An important consideration in social cost-benefit analysis is the jurisdiction over which net
benefits are to being analysed. Jurisdiction or scope plays a crucial role in determining what is
and is not included as a benefit. Transfers into the jurisdiction are considered benefits.
However, if the scope of the jurisdiction is broadened to include the source of a transfer, these
benefits would be negated and not included. In the case of Hamilton Harbour, if the jurisdiction
of interest is the local area, expenditures by the provincial and federal governments are benefits.
Conversely, if the jurisdiction of interest is the province, provincial expenditures would be
considered transfers and not counted.
If one considers the various beneficiaries in Table 4.13 from the perspective of a social costbenefit analysis of the scenarios for the immediate local area, the following adjustments would
be required.
• The federal and provincial totals would not be included. These “benefits” are actually
transfers out of the jurisdiction, not transfer into the jurisdiction.
34

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

•
•

•
•

•
•

Final Report

The portion of the municipal government “benefits” relating to taxes are internal transfers
and would not be included. On the other hand, savings on infrastructure costs (i.e., about
$37 million with the “all remediation projects” scenario) represent an improvement in
efficiency and would be included.
The Hamilton Port Authority benefits would be included as benefits but only the net
portion. The net gain on shipping revenues would need to be estimated to determine the
appropriate proportion to include (assume 10%).
The avoided expenditures by Stelco for treating contaminated intake water is an
appropriate benefit to include however, the increase revenues from the sale of steel
products would need to be adjusted similarly to that described for local business gross
revenues (assume 10%).
The local businesses benefit would need to be adjusted to include the portion that is aftertax profit (assume 10%).
For unemployed persons, it is assumed that in the absence of the remediation projects that
they would not find employment. In this case, all of these increased wages are a benefit.
In the case of under-employed persons, the increase in their wage rate would be included
if they would not otherwise realise this increase without the remediation projects.
The total recreational users’ benefit would be included as is.
A portion or all of the appreciation of local property values would be included. The
proportion to include would depend on whether selling prices were being driven by
purchasers outside the jurisdiction and the extent to which these prices reflected the
greater recreation and other opportunities that result from harbour remediation. Care
would be required to avoid double counting of any benefits captured in other beneficiary
categories (assume 80% is not included elsewhere).

Summing up these adjusted benefits estimates and accepting the key underlying assumptions
leads to a cumulative total benefit for the local area of $126 million over the period 2007 to 2032
with implementation only of the Randle Reef project and $914 million with full implementation
of all remediation projects. These sums are approximate and are intended to provide an
indication as to how the results of this benefit assessment might be used in a social cost-benefit
analysis.

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has resulted in a novel approach to integrating stakeholders in the assessment of the
benefits of harbour remediation. This integration has improved stakeholder understanding of the
methodology of benefits assessment and the key role that stakeholders play in the realisation of
forecast benefits. As well, the insight and knowledge that stakeholders have provided have
strengthened greatly the benefits assessment itself.
BENSIM has been produced as part of this project and advances environmental clean-up benefits
assessment from several perspectives.
• The underlying benefits assessment framework on which BENSIM is based is
comprehensive and systematically organises the economic, social and environmental

35

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

benefits that may result from harbour remediation. Benefits are expressed simultaneously
and consistently from the perspective of multiple beneficiaries.
BENSIM provides an efficient tool for ongoing project evaluation and for examining the
benefits of varying levels of investments in harbour remediation for a wide range of
beneficiaries. Having a dynamic simulation model to forecast project benefits overcomes
many of the limitations identified with previous static benefits assessments with a single
beneficiary focus.

The estimated benefits of investments in harbour remediation indicate significant benefits will be
enjoyed by all beneficiaries. The greatest benefits will be realised when the harbour is de-listed.
These quantified benefits estimates need to be considered in light of the costs of remediation and
those benefits that have not been quantified.
BENSIM is based on the best available information and focuses on the most readily quantified
and significant benefits associated with harbour remediation. However, BENSIM includes many
sources of imprecision and uncertainty that should be reduced over time. Improving the
empirical foundation for BENSIM will improve its utility.
One of the greatest benefits from BENSIM will be realised by ensuring that it is accessible and
useable by various interested groups. Applying BENSIM to analyse the benefits of specific
configurations of remediation projects is an excellent way to build understanding of, and
commitment to, harbour remediation.
The following specific recommendations have been developed with these thoughts in mind.

5.1 Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholder interest in benefits assessment is high. A common view is shared that having
technically sound measures of the benefits of harbour remediation will be useful to ensure
sustained support for the initiative. Likewise, stakeholder representatives expressed interest in
being able to examine in detail the benefits that specific stakeholders might realised from various
remediation projects. Nurturing this interest requires reliable and relevant benefits information
being provided to stakeholders on an ongoing basis.
It is recommended that BENSIM be made available to the public. BENSIM should first be
made available to the stakeholders actively participating on the Bay Area Implementation Team
for testing and refinement as required. Furthermore, efforts should be made to demonstrate how
BENSIM should be used to determine the expected benefits of Harbour remediation.

5.2 BENSIM User Interface
BENSIM was developed initially for internal use in developing benefits forecasts. The operation
of BENSIM is reasonably straightforward for individuals familiar with this type of model. As
well, the Stella software used to construct BENSIM is designed to facilitate access by diverse
users. Much of the effort in this project has been on designing the system and on ensuring the
internal workings and supporting data are sound.
36

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Significant refinements to the user interface have been incorporated in the current version
BENSIM which will increase the ease of operation. On the other hand, further refinements could
increase the ease of operation significantly, particularly if BENSIM is likely to be used by
multiple users on an ongoing basis.
For this reason, it is recommended that additional effort be allocated to improving the user
interface of BENSIM. Several refinements that would be useful include:
• Additional navigation buttons should be added. This would allow users to “tour”
efficiently and rapidly the system and gain a better understanding of the key components
and relationships.
• A “story-telling” routine should be added that would automatically guide novice users of
the system through its various features and explain the theory and details of its operation.
• Additional internal documentation should be added to BENSIM. BENSIM currently
includes a number of automatic text boxes that provide explanations for key system
functions. However, many system components have yet to be documented in this way.
As well, documentation should be added alerting users to key assumptions, gaps and
uncertainties. This documentation would reduce the potential for misapplication or
interpretation of BENSIM features and/or results.
• Trial runs of BENSIM involving different users should be conducted. The purpose of
these trials is to see which aspects of BENSIM are most helpful and which are most
challenging. This user feedback would be valuable for determining the need for any
additional features to be added or modified.

5.3 BENSIM Training and User’s Manual
The basic operation of BENSIM is straightforward. More complicated procedures and
troubleshooting however, can be more challenging. The Stella software used to construct
BENSIM includes various options for guiding users through the structure of a model and for
explaining key features. As with any software, operation of the system improves as users gain
greater understanding and experience actually using the system.
It is recommended that a training manual and/or tutorials be integrated into BENSIM.
Doing so will ensure that users have ready access to detailed technical information on the
structure and operation of the system.
It is recommended that a training session be conducted for the primary users of BENSIM to
assist them with operating the system. The idea would be to “train the trainers”. In other words,
having a core group of users/stakeholders with knowledge of the operation of BENSIM would
provide a pool of knowledge from which new users could draw when first using the system.

5.4 Expansion of BENSIM Benefit Categories
The current version of BENSIM includes the most significant combinations of benefits and
beneficiaries included in the Randle Reef benefits assessment framework. However, as noted,
the framework includes a total of 109 relevant combinations. BENSIM currently includes only
24 of these combinations. In some cases, benefits are represented by surrogate indicators (e.g.,
37

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

some of the environmental benefits). Not all of the 109 combinations can be fully quantified in
BENSIM; however, some of the current indicators could be improved and some missing benefits
could be added with further research and analysis.
It is recommended that a detailed comparison of the benefit/beneficiary combinations be
included in BENSIM and the benefits assessment framework be undertaken. Where gaps or
weaknesses are identified, the potential for resolving these weaknesses should be evaluated. The
level of effort required to resolve these weaknesses and the likely increased value of these
improvements to BENSIM results should be used to decide what further improvements to
BENSIM are warranted.

5.5 Testing and Improvement of Key Relationships
The current version of BENSIM is based on the best available information. However, gaps and
uncertainties are present in the supporting information base. Some of these gaps and
uncertainties could be reduced or even eliminated by targeted research (e.g., data collection,
analysis and interpretation). The value in any additional research can be partially evaluated
using BENSIM to explore how the new data might influence benefit forecasts.
It is recommended that a systematic sensitivity analysis of key BENSIM parameters and
groups thereof be undertaken. The results of the sensitivity analysis should be used to target
future efforts to refine the BENSIM database.
It is recommended that as part of the sensitivity analysis, the value of improved data be
assessed. Where high levels of sensitivity are identified, the feasibility of obtaining improved
estimates should be undertaken. On the basis of this assessment, a decision should be reached as
to what resources should be allocated and where they should be allocated to improve
significantly the utility and accuracy of BENSIM.

5.6 Web Access Version of BENSIM
A major challenge with producing software is to ensure that users have access to the latest
version. One way to reduce this problem is provide access to software via the Internet. Two
options are available. The first and least complicated is to post periodically the latest version and
allow those interested to download the system. Alternatively, the software can be operated by
users through a web site. With this option, the model resides on the server and the user remotely
designs and conducts a run of the system.
It is recommended that initially, the BENSIM software be posted on the Internet and made
available to a limited group of stakeholders to test. The downloadable version should be kept up
to date as refinements to BENSIM are made from time to time.
It is recommended that the feasibility of having a web-operable version be investigated
further. This option would provide greater safeguards that the latest version of BENSIM is
being used for the production of benefits assessments.

38

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

5.7 Indicators and Monitoring
BENSIM produces estimates of expected future benefits arising from the remediation of
Hamilton Harbour. A key question is whether these benefits actually do materialise in the future.
It is recommended that a focussed monitoring program be initiated to track the behaviour of
key indicators as remediation proceeds. The recommended measures (i.e., indicators) and
means (i.e., monitoring) to do so are discussed following.
The accuracy of BENSIM estimates is affected by the veracity of key functional relationships
(e.g., the role of stigma) and by the accuracy of the underlying parameter estimates. Weaknesses
in the default parameter values in BENSIM are discussed in this report. These weaknesses can
be reduced over time by systematically collecting and analysing relevant data and using these
results to refine the default parameter values in BENSIM. Future research and monitoring
programs should be designed to fulfill the dual purposes of validating and improving BENSIM
benefits estimates and for refining the default parameter values in the system.
Not all benefits, relationships and/or parameters in BENSIM are readily amenable to monitoring
and verification/refinement. In many cases, the amount of “noise” far exceeds the expected
“signal strength”, eliminating the potential for arriving at a definitive conclusion on system
performance. For example, detecting improvements in public health from harbour remediation
would be extremely difficult and would require an intensive and highly sophisticated monitoring
and analysis methodology. A great number of factors other than the environmental quality of
the harbour affect people’s health. Screening out these confounding factors is not easy. As a
result, the prospects for a health impacts monitoring program yielding useful results for refining
the corresponding BENSIM default parameter values are remote at best.
The indicators recommended for monitoring have been selected with this reality in mind. The
focus is on indicators that can be monitored relatively easily and for which monitoring data are
likely to yield conclusive results. Four categories of indicators with a pivotal influence on the
benefit estimates and that are practical to monitor and analyse have been recommended.
Formal monitoring programs should be established for each of these groups of indicators. Each
program should include specific monitoring plans for each of the major indicators or
subdivisions within each group. The specifics of the monitoring plans should be developed
immediately so that benchmark levels can be established immediately for comparison with future
results. The monitoring plans should include specifics in terms of what data will be collected
when, how and how frequently. As well, each plan should include the detailed analytical
methods that will be used to process the data and the expected level of precision or detection of
effect that can be expected.
As discussed in Section 5.7.5, all of the monitoring programs should be built around an adaptive
management framework. In keeping with the adaptive management process, BENSIM benefits
estimates should be continuously evaluated and refined as needed.

39

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

5.7.1 Public Perceptions (Stigma)
BENSIM projects that as the environmental quality of the Harbour improves, negative stigma
will be reduced. However, what constitutes stigma in measurable terms is not define
specifically. Nonetheless, all stakeholders unanimously agree that stigma is a pivotal factor to
realising the benefits of remediation. For this reason, it is recommended that stigma be one of
the indicators for assessing the performance of BENSIM and for assessing the success of
Harbour remediation.
5.7.1.1 Indicators
As noted, a key challenge with using stigma as an indicator is defining precisely what metric(s)
should be used to measure stigma. Stigma reflects the perception of different groups.
Accordingly, stigma will vary from group to group.
The first challenge is to identify the groups to be monitored. Many possibilities exist and
deciding on the groups will be an important decision. For this reason, we recommend that the
stakeholders play a central role in defining the stigma monitoring groups. However, some
guidance on this selection is warranted.
BENSIM identifies key beneficiaries, some of which are influenced directly by stigma (e.g.,
Harbour recreational users). Others are affected more indirectly (e.g., Hamilton Port Authority).
It is recommended that at a minimum, stigma be monitored for each of the recreational user
groups that are directly affected by stigma.
The impact of stigma extends well beyond the immediate Hamilton area. It is recommended that
stigma be monitored at a regional level (i.e., Golden Horseshoe area) and perhaps even a
provincial level. This broader level of impact affects future tourism and economic development
in the area.
5.7.1.2 Monitoring
In terms of actually measuring stigma, the metric will need to be qualitative in the sense that
people in each group will need to state their view of the Harbour at the specific time of the
survey (i.e., at the time of data collection). The actual metrics will depend on the specific
questions that will be asked each individual in the sample. It is recommended that stakeholders
play an active role in reviewing and commenting on the proposed metrics when the stigma
monitoring plans are being designed.
A key requirement will be that the stigma monitoring results are compatible with the stigma
functions included in BENSIM. If the two are not compatible, reconciliation of any
discrepancies should be mandatory before the stigma monitoring program is initiated.

5.7.2 Harbour Use
One of the most demonstrative proofs of the benefits of Harbour remediation is its increased use.
BENSIM projects that the level of use will increase as the environmental quality improves and
the negative stigma is reduced. Four different classes of use are included in BENSIM, each with
its own estimate of the expected change.
40

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

5.7.2.1 Indicators
Four indicators are recommended for monitoring, an indicator for each use group (i.e.,
angling, boating, swimming, passive). Further subdivision of some use categories (e.g., dividing
boating into sailing, canoeing/rowing and power boat subdivisions) may be helpful for stratifying
the monitoring data collection program. As well, depending on the significance of these
subdivisions, future versions of BENSIM might be produced with these subdivisions explicitly
included. The need for and specifics of these subdivisions should be decided through the
stakeholder process.
5.7.2.2 Monitoring
The Harbour user monitoring program should include specific monitoring plans for each
of the major user groups. The specific monitoring methodology may vary substantially from
one to the other. Monitoring will likely need to be distributed strategically over the various
seasons of the year and to capture different socio-economic strata in each group.

5.7.3 Hamilton Port Authority Shipping Revenues
A readily measurable outcome of Harbour remediation included in BENSIM is the impact of the
expanded port capacity arising from the Randle Reef project. This expanded capacity along with
increased economic activity from reduced stigma is projected to result in increased shipping
revenues by the Hamilton Port Authority.
5.7.3.1 Indicators
The actual measures of the impact of Harbour remediation on Hamilton Port Authority
revenues should be developed in close consultation with Authority representatives. A key
prerequisite of any proposed measure is data availability. In other words, the Authority must
agree to provide any specific information that may be required. If information is considered
sensitive or proprietary, an agreeable method for obtaining and presenting monitoring results
needs to be decided at the outset. Likewise, the Authority must be satisfied that whatever
measure is chosen is appropriate to capture Harbour remediation impacts. If the measures
proposed by the Authority differ substantially with that included in BENSIM, these differences
need to be reconciled immediately.
5.7.3.2 Monitoring
Many factors (e.g., economic cycles, changes in industry management like the purchasing of
Stelco) influence shipping rates through Hamilton Harbour. A major challenge with this
indicator will be to net out the influence of these potentially confounding factors. This
monitoring program should include a comprehensive listing of the confounding factors that
need to be considered and the data sources and analytical methods that will be used to account
for these influences.

5.7.4 Project Expenditures
Expenditures on the various remediation projects drive many of the benefits in BENSIM.
Ideally, one would like to track the flow of these expenditures through the local economy.
However, doing so is impractical. Nonetheless, improving the detail and accuracy of project
expenditures will improve benefits estimates.
41

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

5.7.4.1 Indicators
Project expenditure accounts should be maintained for each of the four project types in
BENSIM. Each project should be tracked in terms of key expenditure categories (i.e., labour,
materials and energy). These categories should be further subdivided to allow tracking of those
expenditures that are local, regional, provincial, national and international.
5.7.4.2 Monitoring
Collection of these expenditure data will hinge on the implementation timing of each project. As
the projects progress, updating of the economic data should occur periodically. The specific
breakdowns for each expenditure category should be decided as soon as possible so that those
working on the design and implementation can be made aware of the type of information that is
required.

5.7.5 Adaptive Management
Adaptive management has been adopted as a central operating principle for a diversity of
resource management applications (e.g., forestry, wildlife and fisheries management). Adaptive
management is a formal process for learning (i.e., improving understanding) in the face of great
uncertainty and complexity through practical management operations. The remediation of
Hamilton Harbour is a prime example of the type of practical challenge that adaptive
management is designed to address.
An extensive literature exists that discusses various forms of adaptive management (i.e., active
and passive) and various applications4. The details of applying the principles and procedures of
adaptive management to this project need to be developed as part of the overall monitoring
program. Each of the monitoring programs for specific indicators should be designed to
comply with the requirements of adaptive management. As well, consideration should be
given to the potential to use active adaptive management techniques for some of the more
tractable and significant benefit functions.
A group of adaptive management experts should be convened and should provide oversight
and advice on the individual monitoring plans. A critical part of their responsibility should be
to ensure that the results of the monitoring plans can be used to refine BENSIM and improve the
reliability of benefits estimates.

4

Much information on adaptive management is available on the Internet. The Collaborative Adaptive Management
Network (http://www.adaptivemanagement.net/index.php) offers an abundance of information. A good introductory
document is “An Introductory Guide to Adaptive Management For Project Leaders and Participants
(http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/INTROGD/Toc.htm).

42

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

REFERENCES
Environment Canada, (2005). Hamilton Harbour Area of Concern,
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/hamilton/intro_e.html
Hickling Corporation, LURA Group, Econometric Research Limited and Michael Michalski
Associates, (1993). Development potential and other benefits from restoration, enhancement and
protection of Great Lakes Basin watersheds: Final report. Report prepared for Environment
Canada, Toronto, ON.
Kidd, L. A., D. R. Matthews and M. Sproule-Jones, (1999). What we think and want for the
Hamilton Harbour environment: A community report. Hamilton, Ecowise, McMaster University.
Mays, N. (2003). "Local Benefits from Cleaning Contaminated Sediments." Northeast Midwest
Economic Review (Fall 2003): 7-8. http://www.nemw.org/ERFall03.pdf
Rivers, R. (1999). An Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Justification for Sediment Remediation
in the St. Clair River Area of Concern, Report prepared for Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON
http://www.friendsofstclair.ca/pdf/economics.pdf
Sediment Priority Action Committee (1997). Overcoming obstacles to sediment remediation in
the Great Lakes Basin, Great Lakes Water Quality Board, International Joint Commission.
http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/sedrem.html
Sediment Priority Action Committee (1999). Identifying and assessing the economic benefits of
contaminated aquatic sediment cleanup, Prepared for the September 1999 IJC Biennial Forum in
Milwaukee. http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/wqb/econsed/
Shaw, J. (2005). Personal communication. Program Manager, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund.
Burlington, ON.
Sustainable Futures, IndEco Strategic Consulting Inc., Institute for Research on the Environment
and the Economy, Wanlin and Company, Econometric Research Limited and Anacapa
Consulting Services (1995a). Development potential and other benefits from restoration,
enhancement and protection of the St. Lawrence (Cornwall) Area of Concern: Final report.
Report prepared for Environment Canada, Toronto, ON.
Sustainable Futures, IndEco Strategic Consulting Inc., Wanlin and Company, Econometric
Research Limited and Anacapa Consulting Services (1995b). Development potential and other
benefits from restoration, enhancement and protection of the Nipigon Bay Area of Concern:
Final Report. Report prepared for Environment Canada, Toronto, ON.
Sustainable Futures, LURA Group and Econometric Research Limited (1995c). Development
potential and other benefits from restoration, enhancement and protection of the Metropolitan
Toronto watersheds: Final report. Report prepared for Environment Canada, Toronto, ON.
43

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Tejani, R. and T. Muir (2003). Monetary benefits of the Hamilton-Halton watershed stewardship
program (1994-2002): Final Report. Burlington, Great Lakes Sustainability Fund.
Zegarac, M. and T. Muir (1998). The effects of RAP related restoration and parkland
development on residential property values - A Hamilton case study, Environment Canada Ontario Region.

44

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

APPENDIX A - Review of Other Benefits Assessments
This appendix presents the results of a review of benefits assessment which have been undertaken
for other AOCs. The purpose of this review was to gain insights as to how the Randle Reef
benefits assessment framework might best be structured. As well, the potential of transferring
some of the benefits estimated for other projects to estimate the benefits of the Randle Reef project
was explored.
Several AOCs are comparable to the Randle Reef project either because:
• similar sediment contaminants are present, or
• the areas have similar biophysical characteristics, or
• the benefits of remediation are similar to those with the Randle Reef project.
The AOCs having these similarities include Waukegan Harbour, Black River, Raisin River,
Collingwood Harbour (now de-listed) and the St. Clair River. Published studies and cited
references were investigated to determine how the benefits of remedial action were assessed and
what the results of these assessments were. The four most comprehensive benefits assessment
frameworks were compared with the Randle Reef framework with the aim of strengthening the
latter.
A.1 Great Lakes Agreement: Impairment of Beneficial Uses
Article C of Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) requires RAPs to
restore and protect “beneficial uses”. Beneficial uses are categorized into 14 categories of
potentially impaired benefits. The GLWQA framework includes few economic and social benefits
of remediation beyond direct use benefits. In contrast, the Randle Reef framework includes a
broader array of direct and indirect benefits.
The greatest overlap between the two frameworks involves direct use benefits attributable to
anglers and other active users of the water. Indirect benefits such as greater revenues and
appreciated capital assets are not part of the GLWQA framework. Besides the degradation of
aesthetics, few benefits relate to the issue of community pride. These community pride or image
benefits have been identified as being important in individual RAPs (e.g. Waukegan Harbour, St.
Clair River, etc.). The benefit of increased training and knowledge, increased social capital
(infrastructure) and cost savings to government through economies of scale are not considered.
The GLWQA framework does however consider sediment remediation as a benefit to industry and
agriculture by removing re-suspended solids and toxic substances and nutrients that add costs to
industries that use the water (Sediment Priority Action Committee, 1997).

A.2 Development Potential and Other Benefits
Several reports were prepared for Environment Canada on the development potential and other
benefits of several Canadian AOCs, including Thunder Bay, Cornwall (St. Lawrence River),
Nipigon Bay, Metropolitain Toronto, and Hamilton Harbour (Sustainable Futures, et al. 1995).

45

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

The basic approach used for all of these studies was the same. The studies identified five
development activities that can generate benefits from environmental remediation of these AOCs:
• the initial restoration investments,
• follow-on investments in watershed enhancement,
• waterfront development,
• business relocation and retention, and
• residential intensification.
This benefits framework includes many of the benefits in the Randle Reef framework. A major
difference is the absence of benefits being distributed among potential beneficiaries. The
classification of environmental benefits differs somewhat from that included in the Randle Reef
framework. The Randle Reef framework’s distinguishes between production services and waste
assimilation services; whereas, these are blended together as “production functions” in the
previous frameworks.

A.3 International Joint Commission
In 1997, the Great Lakes Commission recommended that obstacles to AOC remediation could be
reduced if the economic benefits of sediment remediation were better qualified and quantified
(Sediment Priority Action Committee, 1997). This recommendation led to an expanded set of
economic benefits of ecological improvements. Economic benefits were mapped to the
biophysical activities captured by the Great Lakes Commission’s list of impaired benefits. This
framework provides a useful way of translating the GLWQA impaired benefits into a socioeconomic benefits framework.
This expanded framework is more compatible with the Randle Reef framework since it includes
economic development and socio-cultural benefits. Public perception is an important driver in
many benefits categories. Non-use benefits were divided into option, inherent and bequest value
categories.
The explicit linking of economic benefits to biophysical activities is a useful approach that should
perhaps be incorporated into the Randle Reef benefits assessment. The otherwise “qualitative”
account of each benefit-beneficiary combination in the Randle Reef assessment could be adjusted
along the lines of a “biophysical results” to complement a “monetary value” and the narrative. The
biophysical results would list the measured or measurable activity or process. As well, for each
benefit category, an indication of whether the value is reflected in existing markets or could be
captured through alternative markets, or whether quantified valuation is not possible would be
helpful. Those unquantifiable benefits should be excluded from monetary value tabulations.

A.4 St. Clair River Benefits Assessment
The St. Clair River RAP commissioned a study (Rivers, 1999) to estimate the socioeconomic
benefits and costs of sediment remediation. A cost-benefit analysis framework was used to
determining the net benefit of remediation. A problem common with virtually every other benefits
assessments of other RAP was encountered. Data limitations and significant theoretical and
46

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

practical unresolved issues with the basic cost and benefit framework for sediment remediation
were major obstacles. Two alternative remediation options were assessed on the basis of their
expected benefits and costs.
This cost-benefit analysis more clearly identified and categorized beneficiaries than other benefits
assessments. As well, the benefit of reduced liability to local chemical industries was included in
the analysis. This similarity with the Randle Reef framework is important but no allocation of
benefits among specific beneficiaries is included.
The benefit of an improved image to the St Clair River area and Sarnia in general was included in
the analysis. This benefit was valued as the amount that the City could save by not having to
counter the negative image of the area. However, the benefits of de-listing may come about only
after significant advertising after the fact. A benefit to Sarnia of remediation would likely be
improved payback on advertising. Whether or not remediation would increase or decrease the
need for advertising is quite another matter. Likewise, whether increased advertising can offset the
stigma of environmental contamination is also questionable.
This benefit valuation approach differs from the Randle Reef framework where the benefit of an
improved image is measured by the expected increase in economic activity and community pride.

47

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

APPENDIX B - Stakeholder Engagement
B.1 Stakeholder Engagement Participants
During Phase 1, 11 interviews were conducted with the following individuals representing the
organisations shown:
Table B.1 - Phase 1 Interview Participants
Organization

Representative

Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC)

Marilyn Baxter

City of Hamilton

Jim Harnum

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Rick Kiriluk

Environment Canada

John Hall
John Shaw

Hamilton Port Authority

Bill Fitzgerald
Jeff Brookfield

Hamilton Region Conservation Authority

Bruce Duncan

McMaster University

Brian McCarry

Ministry of the Environment (Ontario)

Wally Rozenberg

Stelco Hamilton

Andy Sebestyen

Phase 2 involved 6 interviews with the following individuals:
Table B.2 - Phase 2 Interview Participants
Organization

Representative

City of Burlington

Leo DeLloyde (GM Corporate Services)

Dofasco

Craig McGinlay (Environment Manager)
Bill Gair (Communications)

Hamilton Chamber of Commerce

John Dolbec (CEO)

Royal Botanical Gardens

Jennifer Kovecses (Coordinator Fisheries Management Plan)

Tourism Hamilton

David Adames (Executive Director)

48

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

The following people attended the charette.
Table B.3 - Charette Attendees
Organization

Representative

Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC)

Marilyn Baxter

Bay Area Restoration Council/McMaster
University/Clean Air Hamilton

Brian McCarry

Beach Preservation Committee

Brian Butler

City of Burlington

Lynn Robichaud

City of Hamilton

Mark Bainbridge

Dofasco/Hamilton Chamber of Commerce

Brian Wilson

Environment Canada

Anne Borgmann
Chris Marvin
John Shaw
Kathy Forde (Recording
secretary)
Mike Zarull

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Rick Kiriluk

Hamilton Conservation Authority

Nora Jamieson

Hamilton Harbour RAP Office

John Hall

Hamilton Port Authority

Bill Fitzgerald

Ontario Ministry of Environment

Wally Rozenberg
Mary Ellen Scanlon
Cheriene Viera

Public Works and Government Services
Canada

Ansar Khan

Stelco

Andy Sebestyen

York University

Barry Colbert
Ed Hanna
Elizabeth Kurucz
Eric Miller
Peter Victor

49

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

B.2 Transcript of Charette Session
1. Were the same questions provided to all interviewees?
The approach was inductive. Conversation flowed from an interviewee perspective. Broad
questions and open discussions were intended to unearth insights not to test ideas.
2. In terms of delisting Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern, the Randle Reef project
is a significant factor. Comments?
Noted.
3. The general public seems to be under-represented. Comments?
Agree. We need to engage with the general public more accurately. It is a critical part of the
assessment. This exercise is a starting point. Connection with the public should emerge more
fully in a phase three of engagement.
4. Water quality should be added as a success factor. Comments?
Noted and will be added under potential environmental benefits.
5. This is not a top-down government approach. Environment Canada is the key driver of a
horizontal process. Comments?
Study point noted. Process can be used as a case study to advance future initiatives.
6. A collection of news articles maintained by the RAP Office is tangible proof of public
interest. Comments?
Appreciated and noted.
7. It will be important to incorporate terrestrial habitat with naturalization of the shoreline.
Comment noted.
8. The health of fish is expected to improve but the actual rebound will have to be carefully
watched.
Yes, potential impacts need to be discussed and will be very difficult to measure. Results will
depend on the methods of measurement.

50

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

9. Containment of contaminants at Randle Reef may result in improvements but since it is
located in an industrial area perception of cleanup achievements may vary. Social
marketing will be the link to an improved image. Comments?
Potential benefits will kick in at various stages of cleanup. Whole harbour cleanup and overall
improvements to be considered. Various stages of improvements will need to be recognized.
10. Tremendous focus rests on Randle Reef as the key initiative due to toxic issues. Even
though watershed issues impact the Harbour and other direct linkages are important,
Randle Reef remains the driving factor. The sum of Randle Reef benefits is a key driver.
Yes, the consultation is an exercise to think through those relationships.
11. Benefits should be realized as incremental gains. Steps will be necessary for achieving
incremental gains. A green gateway to the city would provide good distraction from its
industrial image. The Hamilton Waterfront Trust should be participating in stakeholder
consultation. Harbour tours will provide an opportunity for added gains.
Comments noted.
12. The design process and EA process are known but what is the driver for benefits
assessment and how does it connect to the project and public buy-in?
The idea behind qualitative research is to develop deeper insights and examine available
knowledge. It is not a general representation but provides a starting point to feed into the
benefits assessment model. It is a robust and ongoing interpretive process that helps to guide
some of the assumptions. Another phase is would be required to extend to a larger group.

B.3 Critical Success Factors
The following summary presents the critical success factors captured from the flipcharts, and
organizes the feedback associated with each factor according to the following three headings:
tasks, outcomes and leverage points that are critical for success at each stage. Leverage points are
those activities that will support the execution of relevant tasks and will assist with achieving
desired outcomes and, thus, are the focus of this exercise on strategic thinking. At the end of this
presentation of results, three key leverage points occurring across all stages of cleanup will be
identified.

51

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

B.3.1 Randle Reef Project Complete
Tasks:
• Develop financial partnerships
• Ensure technology transfer
• Confirm that the project has met clean up objectives through monitoring
• Complete tasks required for environment assessment
• Timely implementation
• Tie this project in with broader environmental targets
• Do it!
Outcomes:
• Political will is developed
• Community stakeholder support is established
• A long-term facility maintenance program is in place
• Additional greenspace at Sherman Inlet, the ECF and Windermere have been created
Leverage Points:
• Celebrate the success of the project through public relations and media involvement –in the
science community, the educational community and with the general public – in order to
reduce stigma
• Randle Reef must be linked to the delisting of the Harbour
• Develop a communication plan to build on this success in order to use this remediation as a
catalyst for the implementation of other remedial projects

B.3.2 All Wastewater Issues Resolved
Tasks:
• Determine if current targets are appropriate – refine and/or confirm targets in the RAP
• Establish sufficient funding to achieve targets
• Sustain local increases to water rates
• Make this a federal and provincial priority
• Complete water, wastewater and storm water master plan
• Continue to maintain infrastructure to up to date standards
• Implement new technologies to reduce solids loading to harbour
Outcomes:
• Enhanced public and political understanding and support of the issues
• Municipal buy-in resulting in increased capacity, increased development potential and
improved return on investment
• Sustainable infrastructure management with implementation of water conservation
measures
• Preventative maintenance program established
• Water quality improved
52

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Leverage Points:
• Improve and support communication to the public through media on an ongoing basis
• Put this stage of the project in context for the public e.g. the relevance of wastewater
upgrades to them, that the water is swimmable, drinkable and fishable
• Water quality must be improved in terms of visual impacts, addressing the affect of the
aesthetic on stigma

B.3.3 All RAP Objectives Met
Tasks:
• Toxic sediment management (include funding for Randle Reef and wastewater treatment
plants)
Outcomes:
• Established ongoing funding for RAP projects
• Continued measurable success
• Improved emphasis on NPS issues as wastewater issues become resolved
• Determination of what is the end point – NPS stewardship – landowner?
• Improved tourism, business opportunities, local economy
Leverage Points:
• Effective communication program to inform and educate stakeholders – at the local,
national and global levels
• Community support and investment
• Public access and fishing tournaments promoted
• Development and broadening of partnerships and sponsorships

B.3.4 Harbour Officially De-Listed
Tasks:
• 13 beneficial use impairments must meet RAP objectives e.g. water quality, eutrophication
and undesirable algae, beach closings, degradation of aesthetics, added cost to agriculture
and industry
• Develop credible and convincing monitoring data
• Build stakeholder support
Outcomes:
• Randle Reef remediated
• Wastewater effluent addressed
• Benefits of delisting including improved image and public enjoyment of the harbour are
realized
• Higher property values
• Increased revenue to municipality
• Hamilton’s image improves
53

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

IJC is convinced and satisfied that delisting is warranted

Leverage Points:
• Promotion through advertising and other modes of communication by City of Hamilton and
Burlington, academics, industry, provincial and federal government, international agencies
• Major harbour community celebration
• Promote this as a world class example, a marketable success, intellectual property transfer
• Establish public/private funding partnerships to maintain/sustain improvements

54

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

APPENDIX C - Benefits Assessment Framework
This appendix contains the detailed benefits assessment framework that was designed in the early
stages of this project and which was used to guide the design of BENSIM.
The framework consists of three tables, one each for economic, social and environmental benefits.
(Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3, respectively). The rows in each table represent the beneficiary
categories. These rows are the same for each table. The columns represent the benefits categories.
These vary from one table to the next. Some of the cells in the tables are shaded yellow. These
cells are the relevant or active cells. Relevant cells are those combinations of beneficiaries and
benefits that are applicable for this benefits assessment. Note, many combinations of benefits and
beneficiaries are possible; however, care was taken to avoid double-counting and overlap. The
results of this exercise are the yellow shaded cells.
BENSIM produces quantified benefit estimates for some but not all of these cells. The cells for
those beneficiary/benefit combinations that are included in BENSIM either partially or completely
are shown in red. Quantification of some benefits was not possible at this time.
Table C.1 – Economic Benefits Framework

Economic Benefits
Beneficiaries

Revenues
Direct

Indirect

Capital Assets
Direct

Reduced
Cost
Exposure Savings

Indirect

Government Federal
Provincial
Halton Region
City of Hamilton
City of Burlington
Commercial Port Authority
Stelco
Dofasco
Local Businesses
Other
Public
Canada
Ontario
Local residents
Local Property Owners
Boaters
Anglers
Birders
Un/Underemployed
Other

55

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Table C.2 – Social Benefits Framework
Social Benefits
Beneficiaries

InfraTraining/
structure Knowledge

Use
Active

Image/
Pride

Quality of
Life

Avoided
Future
Health
Other
Possibilities
Impacts

Passive

Government Federal
Provincial
Halton Region
City of Hamilton
City of Burlington
Commercial Port Authority
Stelco
Dofasco
Local Businesses
Other
Public
Canada
Ontario
Local residents
Local Property Owners
Boaters
Anglers
Birders
Un/Underemployed
Other

Table C.3 – Environmental Benefits Framework
Environmental Benefits
Beneficiaries

Environmental Services
Water

Air

Ecosystem
Productivity

Biodiversity

Waste
Treatment

Government Federal
Provincial
Halton Region
City of Hamilton
City of Burlington
Commercial Port Authority
Stelco
Dofasco
Local Businesses
Other
Public
Canada
Ontario
Local residents
Local Property Owners
Boaters
Anglers
Birders
Un/Underemployed
Other

56

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

APPENDIX D - BENSIM Model Overview and Operation
BENSIM takes advantage of STELLA’s three system levels:
1. An interface level provides the most intuitive and user-friendly environment to adjust
parameters and see its effects on output. This level also provides a high-level map of the
relationships between the model’s subsystems.
2. A model level provides a graphical overview of stocks and flows and how their behaviour
is governed by parameters and the passage of time.
3. A third equation level provides the detailed system of equations that drive the model.
Users can toggle between levels by using the “Ctrl” and “Up” and “Down” arrow keys.

D.1 Interface Level
The interface level facilitates users navigating among screens using intuitive buttons common in
Windows and Mac-based software. All users enter BENSIM through the introductory screen.
Figure D.1 – BENSIM Introductory Screen

Benefits and Economic Impacts Model
Randle Reef Remediation Project
For Environment Canada Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
V7.0610
Click here to continue

Institute for Research on Innovation and Sustainability
Schulich School of Business
Faculty of Environmental Studies
DSS Management Consultants Inc
The picture is too
large to f it in
memory or its f ile
was not f ound.

The picture is too large to f it in memory or its
f ile was not f ound.

57

The picture is too
large to f it in
memory or its f ile
was not f ound.

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

When the “Click here to continue” button is activated, users are navigated to the welcome screen
(Figure D.2).
Figure D.2 – BENSIM Welcome Screen
BENEFITS SIMULATION MODEL

BENSIM is a dynamic benefits simulation model designed to estimate benefits of
remediation of Hamilton Harbour. It allows exploring alternative project configurations to
assess potential benefits realised by specific beneficiary groups.

To get started click on MODEL DESCRIPTION to learn more about the model and then
HIGH LEVEL DIAGRAM to get an overview of the model structure or go straight to the
DASHBOARD and run the model.

MODEL DESCRIPTION

HIGH LEVEL DIAGRAM

DASHBOARD

The welcome screen has three buttons from which to choose. The button labelled “Model
Description” opens up a text box which provides a brief history and explains the purpose of the
BENSIM model. The button labelled "High Level Diagram" displays a high-level diagram
showing the relationships between the model’s subsystems (Figure D.3). Finally, the “Dashboard”
button navigates to the dashboard screen.
The dashboard screen displays output graphs, allows default assumptions to be changed and is
where model runs are launched (Figure D.4). Two sets of selection buttons are shown on this
screen. A set of information and operation buttons is located at the top of the screen. On the left
side of the screen are a series of buttons that allow the user to change default assumptions in the
model.
The “Run Model and Display Results” button executes a simulation run using on the assumptions
selected by the user (including the default settings if they have not been changed by the user).
When the user clicks on this button, the results are plotted on the output display graphs as the
simulation proceeds. Users can switch among results graphs by clicking on the triangle in the
lower left corner of the graph. An index of display graphs is provided along the right side of the
screen. All of the benefits included in BENSIM can be graphed; however, the default set of graphs
58

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

include a subset of monetary, social, or environmental benefits. Adding an output graph to the
display screen does require a certain level of knowledge of Stella programming and is not
something the average user will attempt.
Figure D.3 – High Level Structure of BENSIM

59

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Figure D.4 – BENSIM Dashboard Screen

60

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Users can view the full suite of benefits included in BENSIM by clicking on button “View
Detailed Benefits by Beneficiary”. A series of table are displayed that list in tabular form by year
all of the benefits and beneficiaries that have been included in the simulation (Figure D.5). Users
can toggle among beneficiary-specific tables by clicking on the triangle in the lower right corner.
Users can also adjust the precision and units of the graphical displays to make them easier to
interpret.
Figure D.5 - Benefits by Beneficiaries Screen

Activating the “Return to results” button displays the dashboard screen.
When the “Select Projects and Timelines” button is selected, a remediation project selection screen
appears (Figure D-6). Which projects are to be implemented can be specified, as well as when each
project is to start and the length of time to completion. All combinations of the four remediation
projects can be selected by toggling one or more on (green) or off (grey). The project options are
selected by clicking on/off the corresponding button on the left side of the screen. Next to the
61

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

toggle button are two “sliders” controlling the year in which a project is to begin and the years to
completion. The default start date for all projects is 2007. The default completion time is 8 years.
Projects cannot be started before 2007.
Figure D.6 – Remediation Project Selection Screen

Select Projects to Run and Adjust Parameters
Select what project(s) you want be acheived by clicking on their button so it
lights up green. Adjust their timelines if necessary.
Randle Reef y ear begin

Randle Reef y ears to complete

Randle Reef ON
?

2007

?

Other sediments y ear begin

8

Other seds y ears to complete

Other Sediments ON
?

2007

?

Wastewater y ear begin

8

Wastewater y ears to complete

Wastewater ON
?

2007

?

Habitat y ear begin

8

Habitat y ears to complete

Habitat Project ON
?

2007

?

8

RETURN TO RESULTS

Activating the “Change Stigma Reduction Assumptions” button displays the screen shown in
Figure D.7. The relationships between the implementation of various projects and stigma
reduction can be modified from this screen. These relationships are pivotal for many of the
indirect benefits of remediation. Each “slider” can be adjusted, including the “delisting official”
slider. This slider controls the extent to which stigma is reduced by the official delisting of the
harbour as an area of concern. The “unallocated” total at the bottom indicates how much stigma
remains after full implementation of all of the remediation projects. The “allocated” and
“unallocated” portions sum to 100%. Once the unallocated portion is zero, increasing any slider
will automatically adjust the other sliders proportionally to keep the total to 100%. Leaving a
portion of the stigma unallocated indicates that even after full implementation of all remediation
projects, some residual stigma will remain. The BENSIM decay function reduces over the next 20
years after delisting this remaining stigma approximately by half.

62

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Figure D.7 - Stigma Reduction Relationships Screen

Assumption: Community Perception of Improvements
Choose how much of existing harbour stigma can be reduced by each of the projects
and by officially delisting the harbour as an AOC.
0

100%

Randle Reef Project

28

0

100%

Other Sediment Projects

5

0

100%

Wastewater Projects

27

0

100%

Habitat Projects

7

0

100%

Delising of f icial

20
Allocated:

87

Unallocated:

13

Adjust how the public perceives incremental benefits of: 1) Randle Reef; 2) Other
sediment ; 3) Wastewater reduction; and 4) Habitat improvement
RR perceiv ed impr…

Other Sed perceiv e…

WW perceiv ed imp…

Habitat perciev ed i…

?

?

?

?

RETURN TO RESULTS

Button “Change Investor Contributions” allows the user to change the proportions of capital and
operating cost funding contributed by various government and non-government sources (Figure
D.8). The default assumption is that each level of government provides 33 percent of the financing
for each remediation project. The remaining one percent of the costs is assigned to other (nongovernmental) sources. The contributions made by various investors can be changed for each
project. The “unallocated” total at the bottom indicates the proportion of funding that has not been
attributed to a funding source. The “allocated” and “unallocated” portions sum to 100%. Once the
63

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

unallocated portion is zero, increasing any slider will automatically adjust the other sliders
proportionally to keep the total to 100%.
Figure D.8 – Investor Contributions Screen
DESCRIBE ASSUMPTIONS
ABOUT PROJECTS'
FINANCING

INVESTOR CONTRIBUTIONS

RETURN TO RESULTS

Capital Funding
0
?

100%
33

0
?

100%
33

0
?

100%
33

0
?

100%
1
Allocated:
Unallocated:

Fed Cap
Sediments

Prov Cap
Sediments

Mun Cap
Sediments

Other Cap
Sediments

100

0

100%
33

0

100%
33

0

100%
33

0

100%
1
Allocated:

0

Unallocated:

Fed Op
Sediments

Prov Op
Sediments

Mun Op
Sediments

Other Op
Sediments

100
0

The “Change Other Assumptions” button on the dashboard screen allows the user to change
various economic parameter settings, including benefit relationships for industry and recreational
use (Figure D.9). The default values for each parameter in each of the four major categories can be
viewed and adjusted by clicking on the selection drop-down box at the top of this screen. The
other table layers that can be displayed include macroeconomic assumptions and key economic
assumptions for each of the four remediation projects.

D.2 System Map Level
The model/map level displays the relations among stocks and flows5. The system map level can be
accessed from the interface level by clicking on the “Down” arrow in the upper left corner of the
screen.
The benefit/beneficiary combinations are grouped into intuitive sectors such as “Recreation
benefits” and “Stelco.” Users can scroll through the large map of sectors and zoom in and out on a

5

The Stella software is based on the system dynamics concept of stocks and flows. Stocks are accumulated or depleted
over time. Flows represent the rate of accumulation/depletion and track the movement of one type of stock to another.
Figure D-10 illustrates the way that this network of stocks and flows is represented in Stella.

64

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

specific sector. An example of a detailed map for the “Federal Government” sector shows how
benefits are estimated and costs are tabulated (Figure D.10). In this example, the boxes are stocks
Figure D.9 – Other Assumptions Screen

Click on the header to view and select available lists of assumptions
R ecre a ti o n a l u s e rs
anglers prop base

0.07

anglers prop max

0.3521

boaters prop max

0.4056

swimmers prop base

0.038

swimmers prop max

0.559

value stigmafree angling … 34.1867
value stigmafree boating … 34.1867
value stigmafree swimmi… 27.8558
Value stigmafree passive … 27.8558
boaters prop base

0.13

Ratio of passive to active … 9

DESCRIBE ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

DESCRIBE INDUSTRY ASSUMPTIONS

DESCRIBE RECREATIONAL USERS'
ASSUMPTIONS

DESCRIBE MACROECONOMIC
ASSUNPTIONS

Y rs delay property appreciation
multiplier
3
5

multiplier on
0.45

RETURN TO RESULTS

?

0

10

(i.e., beneficiary-specific accounts) that accumulate flows of revenues and costs. The flows are
governed by circular converters whose connecting arrows indicate the stock or flow that is being
influenced by the converter (i.e., when the arrow is going from the converter to the stock or flow)
or the converter that is being influenced by the stock or flow (i.e., when the arrow is going from
the stock or flow to the converter).
Individual stocks, flows, or converters can be selected and examined so that their detailed
functional relationship with other connecting stocks, flows, or converters can be investigated. This

65

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

level of investigation however, will be helpful primarily for users with a sound understanding of
the basic principles of simulation modelling.
Figure D.10 – Example Sector Map: Federal Government
Federal Government

Fed habitat spending

Social discount factor

Fed PAH spending

FED acc indirect revenues

Fed waste water
spending

acc spend fed

Social discount factor
Fed indirect rev DS
Fed expenses DS
inc total gross spending

fed tax rate

projects total spending

FED acc direct revenues

Fed direct revenues DS

Social discount factor
FED acc net balance
Social discount factor

FED acc cost savings
fed acc benefits

fed acc costs
FED acc total benefits

Fed savings DS
Inc indirect income unempl
Inc direct income unempl

Fed savings and benefits

EI replacement rate PC

D.3 Equations Level
The equations level displays the specific equations governing the relations among stocks and
flows. The equations level can be accessed by from the model/map level by clicking on the
“Down” arrow in the upper left corner of the screen.
The equations level organises the BENSIM equations according the sectors shown in the systems
map level. These sets of equations are much less intuitive than the sector maps and require
considerable effort to track through all of the detailed relationships. On the other hand, these
equations allow skilled users to follow in detail the functional relationships that govern how
BENSIM operates. Note the key equations and supporting assumptions and data are reviewed in
detail in the Appendix E.
The equations shown in Figure D.11 relate to the federal government sector map shown. The
equations use the same parameter and variable names that appear on the sector map figures.
66

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Figure D.11 - Example Equations: Federal Government Benefits

67

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

APPENDIX E - BENSIM Equations, Default Parameter Values
and Assumptions
Appendix E - Table of Contents
E.1

Overview ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.2

High-level Issues .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.2.1
E.2.2
E.2.3
E.2.4

E.3
E.3.1
E.3.2
E.3.3

E.4
E.4.1
E.4.2
E.4.3
E.4.4
E.4.5

E.5
E.5.1
E.5.2
E.5.3

E.6
E.6.1
E.6.2
E.6.3
E.6.4
E.6.5
E.6.6
E.6.7
E.6.8
E.6.9

E.7
E.7.1
E.7.2
E.7.3
E.7.4
E.7.5
E.7.6
E.7.7
E.7.8

E.8

Time Horizon ................................................................................................................................................. 71
High-level BENSIM Diagram ....................................................................................................................... 72
User Interface................................................................................................................................................. 72
Key BENSIM Functions ................................................................................................................................ 72

Expert Advisors General Comments ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Professor Philippe Crabbe ............................................................................................................................. 72
Professor Gail Krantzberg ............................................................................................................................. 73
Professor Matthias Ruth................................................................................................................................. 73

Common Parameters............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Discussion Points ........................................................................................................................................... 73
Social Discount Factor ................................................................................................................................... 74
Tax Rates ....................................................................................................................................................... 74
Labour Ratio .................................................................................................................................................. 74
Macroeconomic Multiplier ............................................................................................................................ 74

Sediment Contamination Reduction .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Discussion Points ........................................................................................................................................... 75
Randle Reef ................................................................................................................................................... 75
Other Sediment Clean-up Projects ................................................................................................................. 75

Sediment Clean-up Costs ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Discussion Points ........................................................................................................................................... 76
Randle Reef Capital Cost ............................................................................................................................... 76
Randle Reef Operating Cost .......................................................................................................................... 76
Other Sediment Projects Capital Cost ............................................................................................................ 76
Other Sediment Projects Operating Cost ....................................................................................................... 77
Federal Government Proportion .................................................................................................................... 77
Provincial Government Proportion ................................................................................................................ 77
Municipal Government Proportion ................................................................................................................ 77
Other Funding Sources Proportion ................................................................................................................ 78

Wastewater Improvement .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Discussion Points ........................................................................................................................................... 78
Wastewater Improvement Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 78
Wastewater Improvement Capital Cost ......................................................................................................... 79
Wastewater Improvement Operating Cost ..................................................................................................... 79
Federal Government Proportion .................................................................................................................... 79
Provincial Government Proportion ................................................................................................................ 79
Municipal Government Proportion ................................................................................................................ 80
Other Funding Sources Proportion ................................................................................................................ 80

Habitat Improvements .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

68

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

E.8.1
E.8.2
E.8.3
E.8.4
E.8.5
E.8.6
E.8.7
E.8.8

E.9

Discussion Points ........................................................................................................................................... 80
Habitat Improvement Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 81
Habitat Improvement Capital Cost ................................................................................................................ 81
Habitat Improvement Operating Cost ............................................................................................................ 81
Federal Government Proportion .................................................................................................................... 81
Provincial Government Proportion ................................................................................................................ 82
Municipal Government Proportion ................................................................................................................ 82
Other Funding Sources Proportion ................................................................................................................ 82

Delisting .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.9.1
E.9.2
E.9.3

E.10

Discussion Points ........................................................................................................................................... 83
Necessary Conditions for Delisting ............................................................................................................... 83
Delisting Time Delay ..................................................................................................................................... 84

Reduction in Stigma. ............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.10.1
E.10.2
E.10.3

E.11

Discussion points ...................................................................................................................................... 95
Property Value Appreciation..................................................................................................................... 96
New Land Development ........................................................................................................................... 96

Local Economic Impacts ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.15.1
E.15.2
E.15.3

E.16

Discussion Points ...................................................................................................................................... 93
Exposure to Contaminants ........................................................................................................................ 93
Health Care Costs...................................................................................................................................... 94
Pain and Suffering Costs ........................................................................................................................... 94
Lost Productivity ....................................................................................................................................... 95

Residential Property and Land Development Impacts ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.14.1
E.14.2
E.14.3

E.15

Discussion Points ...................................................................................................................................... 87
Angling Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... 87
Boating Benefits........................................................................................................................................ 88
Swimming Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 90
Passive Users Benefits .............................................................................................................................. 91
Increased Recreational Expenditures ........................................................................................................ 93

Health Benefits ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.13.1
E.13.2
E.13.3
E.13.4
E.13.5

E.14

Discussion Points ...................................................................................................................................... 86
Increased Visitors...................................................................................................................................... 86
Increased Residents ................................................................................................................................... 86
Increased Population ................................................................................................................................. 86

Recreation Benefits ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.12.1
E.12.2
E.12.3
E.12.4
E.12.5
E.12.6

E.13

Discussion Points ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Immediate Stigma Reduction .................................................................................................................... 84
Longer-term Stigma Elimination .............................................................................................................. 85

Population Growth ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.11.1
E.11.2
E.11.3
E.11.4

E.12

Final Report

Direct Gross and Net Spending ................................................................................................................. 98
Indirect and Induced Impacts .................................................................................................................... 98
Total Gross and Net Spending .................................................................................................................. 98

Federal Government.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.16.1
E.16.2
E.16.3
E.16.4
E.16.5

Discussion Points ...................................................................................................................................... 98
Total Expenses .......................................................................................................................................... 99
Unemployment Insurance Savings ............................................................................................................ 99
Direct Revenues ........................................................................................................................................ 99
Indirect Revenues...................................................................................................................................... 99

69

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

E.16.6
E.16.7

E.17

PAHs in Intake Waters ............................................................................................................................ 104
Sediment Liability Costs ......................................................................................................................... 104
Increased Steel Sales ............................................................................................................................... 105
Accumulated Total Benefit ..................................................................................................................... 105

Local Business Benefits ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.22.1
E.22.2

E.23

PAHs in Intake Waters ............................................................................................................................ 103
Sediment Liability Costs ......................................................................................................................... 103
Increased Steel Sales ............................................................................................................................... 104
Accumulated Total Benefit ..................................................................................................................... 104

Dofasco.................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.21.1
E.21.2
E.21.3
E.21.4

E.22

Discussion Points .................................................................................................................................... 102
Increased Capacity Utilisation ................................................................................................................ 102

Stelco ....................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.20.1
E.20.2
E.20.3
E.20.4

E.21

Discussion Points .................................................................................................................................... 101
Total Expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 101
Municipal Savings .................................................................................................................................. 101
Indirect Revenues.................................................................................................................................... 102
Gross Return ........................................................................................................................................... 102
Net Return ............................................................................................................................................... 102

Hamilton Port Authority....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.19.1
E.19.2

E.20

Discussion Points .................................................................................................................................... 100
Total Expenses ........................................................................................................................................ 100
Healthcare Savings.................................................................................................................................. 100
Direct Revenues ...................................................................................................................................... 100
Indirect Revenues.................................................................................................................................... 100
Gross Return ........................................................................................................................................... 100
Net Return ............................................................................................................................................... 100

Municipal Government ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.18.1
E.18.2
E.18.3
E.18.4
E.18.5
E.18.6

E.19

Gross Return ............................................................................................................................................. 99
Net Return ................................................................................................................................................. 99

Provincial Government ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.17.1
E.17.2
E.17.3
E.17.4
E.17.5
E.17.6
E.17.7

E.18

Final Report

Discussion Points .................................................................................................................................... 105
Revenues of Local Businesses ................................................................................................................ 105

Employment Impacts ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

E.23.1
E.23.2
E.23.3
E.23.4
E.23.5

Discussion Points .................................................................................................................................... 106
Direct Revenues ...................................................................................................................................... 106
Indirect Revenues.................................................................................................................................... 106
Income Gap ............................................................................................................................................. 106
Total Benefits to Unemployed ................................................................................................................ 107

70

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.1 Overview
This appendix is based on a document that was prepared originally as background for the expert
review of BENSIM. Following the expert review, various refinements were made to BENSIM.
The original background document has been updated to reflect these refinements. That is the
version of the document contained in this appendix. The specifications in this appendix provide an
accurate account of the contents of the version of BENSIM concurrent with the submission date of
this report.
The format for this appendix is as follows. Each sector in BENSIM is addressed under a separate
heading. Within each of these sections, the key functions and assumptions are described. The
descriptions in the original document reflected the structure of BENSIM at that time. This
appendix reflects the current version of BENSIM. The changes made to the original version of
BENSIM are not shown.
A series of discussion points were developed to help focus the expert review. These discussion
points are included for information only.
A number of changes and actions were suggested by the experts that were deferred and not
addressed as part of this study. These actions are included in this appendix for information only.
In other cases, no action is indicated. In these cases, the experts either agreed with this component
of BENSIM or the suggested action has already been taken.

E.2 High-level Issues
E.2.1 Time Horizon
Issue: What is the appropriate time horizon for different projects and benefits? Should key
parameters be treated as constants over a time frame of 45-50 years? How should different
operational lifetimes for different projects (e.g., approximately 200 years for RR project and 50
years for wastewater treatment plants, assuming regular 15 year upgrades) be addressed?
Discussion: It was suggested that any residual value of capital works be accounted for as a
residual benefit at the end of a scenario time horizon. If the life expectancy of a capital work is
exceeded within the specified scenario time horizon, the initial capital investment should be reinvested as a lump sum at the end of the projects’ life expectancy. Users should be given the option
to specify the desired time horizon for a scenario.
Action: This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints. In the interim, this
adjustment can be done manually by post-processing BENSIM results.

71

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.2.2 High-level BENSIM Diagram
Issue: Stella offers a built-in high-level sector map that displays all of the BENSIM sectors and
their interconnections. This utility is somewhat inflexible and the resulting diagrams are difficult
for the average person to decipher.
Discussion: It was suggested that a high level of structure diagram is created outside of Stella, and
then imported as a picture into BENSIM.
Action: A high-level diagram is included in the latest version of BENSIM. This feature could be
significantly enhanced by adding automatic navigation buttons that would guide users to the
specific sectors in BENSIM which correspond to those on the high-level diagram.

E.2.3 User Interface
Issue: Stella offers a “dashboard” feature that consolidates key user controlled functions in a
central display. Having a “dashboard” increases the ease with which new users can grasp and
intelligently operate BENSIM.
Discussion: It was suggested that a dashboard be added to BENSIM.
Action: The BENSIM dashboard has been refined somewhat. Further refinements are
recommended to improve user understanding and ease of operation.

E.2.4 Key BENSIM Functions
Issue: BENSIM comprises a complex array of functions that affect model behaviour. Typically
with models of this nature, a subset of these functions dominates system behaviour.
Discussion: It was suggested that the functions in BENSIM are thoroughly explored and those
functions playing the greatest role in determining key outputs be identified at the user interface
level.
Action: This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints. Extensive sensitivity
analysis is recommended to improve understanding of the significance of BENSIM parameters and
to assist with prioritizing future research.

E.3 Expert Advisors General Comments
This section summarises the concluding comments provided by each of the experts at the end of
the workshop.

E.3.1 Professor Philippe Crabbe
•

The BENSIM documentation should clearly indicate that BENSIM is not an ecosystem model
and that the major driving forces are:
o public perceptions and how these are tied to remediation efforts,
o changes in economic value (e.g., property values) and
72

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•
•

•

Final Report

o the local impact of expenditures.
BENSIM is a simulation model with infinite set of solutions. It can be used strictly as an
exploratory tool or it can be used as a policy analysis tool to examine the consequences of
specific proposed actions or decisions.
Many of the BENSIM parameters are difficult to estimate quantitatively using rigorous
empirical methods. For this reason, the charette process used to generate the initial parameter
estimates needs to be employed for two purposes, namely:
o to re-evaluate the initial parameter values in light of the overall system behaviour, and
o to define a discrete number of scenarios from which the user can choose
BENSIM provides a detailed breakdown of the distribution of benefits. This is helpful but also
raises issues relating to the ethical principles (ability to pay, past responsibility, etc.) which
may guide decisions affecting the fair distribution of costs. This issue should be identified in
the documentation.

E.3.2 Professor Gail Krantzberg
•
•

•

BENSIM involves an unusual mix of benefit measures some of which are conventional
benefits and others are impacts or re-distribution effects. The BENSIM documentation needs
to identify this unusual feature and caution how the results of BENSIM should be interpreted.
BENSIM does not include all benefits and in particular:
- Value of a healthy ecological system;
- Value of a healthy community
These omitted benefits should be noted in the BENSIM documentation.
The BENSIM system has general applicability for other Great Lakes programs and issues.

E.3.3 Professor Matthias Ruth
•
•

One of BENSIM’s biggest strengths is that it captures different perspectives. BENSIM
provides a platform for dialog among stakeholders. By including the benefit perspectives of
major stakeholders, informed discussion is facilitated.
BENSIM involves a complex set of functions and parameters. Systematic sensitivity analysis
for key model parameters is required to identify the dominant components. These results will
strengthen its value in stakeholder discussions and will increase overall confidence in the
model

E.4 Common Parameters
E.4.1 Discussion Points
1. The default social discount rate is 0%.
• What would be an appropriate SDR for discounting future benefits of the projects?
• How sensitive are total benefits of different beneficiaries to the choice of SDR?
2. The default ratio of income to labour is based on general assumptions.
• How significant is this parameter?
• Is it worthwhile developing a more specific estimate for the Hamilton Harbour area?
3. The default multiplier value is based on general assumptions.
73

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•
•
•
•

Final Report

How significant is this parameter?
Is it worthwhile developing a more specific estimate for the Hamilton Harbour area?
Should the multiplier be applied to direct gross or net spending?
What range in multipliers is likely?

E.4.2 Social Discount Factor
Assumption: Future benefits are discounted at the social discount rate. The default social discount
rate is 0%.
• Social_discount_factor = 1/((1+social_discount_rate)^(TIME-STARTTIME))
• Social_discount_rate = 0
Action: Different discount rates should be offered for different stakeholders. For example, Stelco
and Dofasco may wish to use long-term market rate of interest rather than a social discount rate.
This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.

E.4.3 Tax Rates
Assumption: Average rate for federal and provincial income and sales taxes is 15%.
Average rate for provincial income and sales taxes is 15 %.
(Source: Canada Revenue Agency)
• Fed_tax_rate = 0.15
• Prov_tax_rate = 0.15

E.4.4 Labour Ratio
Assumption: Labour’s share of income is 70 percent. The remaining 30 percent is accounted for by
capital. This is a standard macro-economic assumption, which has not been derived specifically
for BENSIM.
• ratio_income_to_labour = 0.7
Action: The labour ratio parameter may vary from project to project. With variables of this
nature, sensitivity analysis is helpful to gauge how significant they are in terms of the forecast
benefits. Where the sensitivity is high, further investigation and refinement may be warranted.
This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.

E.4.5 Macroeconomic Multiplier
Assumption: The default value of the multiplier is 0.45 (i.e., for each one dollar spent 45 cents stay
in the local economy) (Source: Project team best estimate).
• multiplier = 0.45

74

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.5 Sediment Contamination Reduction
E.5.1 Discussion Points
Sediment clean-up relates only to one pollutant, namely PAHs.
• Will containment of PAH contaminated sediments remove all other contaminants at the
same time?
• Would inclusion of more contaminants affect significantly benefit forecasts?

E.5.2 Randle Reef
Assumption: Completion of RR Project will reduce overall PAH sediment contamination by
90% (Source: John Shaw, personal communication).
• Proportion_PAH_Randle_Reef_PC = 0.90
Assumption: PAH sediment contamination will be incrementally reduced as RR Project is
completed.
• PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC =
PAH_reduced_level_RR_part_PC*Proportion_PAH_Randle_Reef_PC+PAH_reduced_lev
el_Other_part_PC*(1-Proportion_PAH_Randle_Reef_PC)
Assumption: PAH sediment contamination will be incrementally reduced by RR Project
according to the prescribed schedule (Source: Project team best estimate).
• Randle_Reef__reduction_schedule = GRAPH((TIMERandle_Reef_year_begin)/Randle_Reef_years_to_complete)
(0.00, 0.00), (0.1, 0.00), (0.2, 0.00), (0.3, 0.01), (0.4, 0.05), (0.5, 0.085), (0.6, 0.155), (0.7,
0.24), (0.8, 0.365), (0.9, 0.61), (1, 1.00)

E.5.3 Other Sediment Clean-up Projects
Assumption: Completion of Other Sediment Clean-up Projects will reduce overall PAH
sediment contamination by 10%. In other words, between the Randle Reef and other sediment
clean-up projects, 100% of the PAH sediment contamination is captured (Source: John Shaw,
personal communication).
Assumption: PAH sediment contamination will be incrementally reduced as OS Projects are
completed.
• PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC =
PAH_reduced_level_RR_part_PC*Proportion_PAH_Randle_Reef_PC+PAH_reduced_lev
el_Other_part_PC*(1-Proportion_PAH_Randle_Reef_PC)
Assumption: PAH sediment contamination will be incrementally reduced by OS Projects
according to the prescribed schedule (Source: Project team best estimate).
• Other_sed_reduction_schedule = GRAPH((TIMEOther_sediments_year_begin)/Other_seds_years_to_complete)

75

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

(0.00, 0.00), (0.1, 0.00), (0.2, 0.00), (0.3, 0.015), (0.4, 0.03), (0.5, 0.085), (0.6, 0.135), (0.7,
0.205), (0.8, 0.365), (0.9, 0.715), (1, 1.00)

E.6 Sediment Clean-up Costs
E.6.1 Discussion Points
1. Capital costs are distributed equally over the construction period.
• Would using a forecast expenditure schedule affect significantly benefit forecasts?
2. Operating costs for all sediment contamination reduction projects are set to $0 per year.
• Are operating costs likely to be significant for the projects included in BENSIM?

E.6.2 Randle Reef Capital Cost
Assumption: Randle Reef Project will cost $90 million (Source: John Shaw, personal
communication). This value can be changed by the user.
• Randle_Reef_base_capital_cost_$ = 90,000,000
Assumption: Randle Reef Project will take eight (8) years to complete. The start and end years can
be changed by the user and affect the annual stream of benefits (Source: John Shaw, personal
communication).
• Randle_Reef_base__years_to_complete = 8

E.6.3 Randle Reef Operating Cost
Assumption: When the Randle Reef Project is finished, there will be ongoing operating costs (e.g.,
maintenance of the containment structure, managing of runoff and leachate). The operating costs
are assumed to be constant over time.
• RR_operating_spending = if
(TIME>=(Randle_Reef_year_begin+Randle_Reef_years_to_complete)) then
Randle_Reef_ON*Randle_Reef_operating_cost_$per_Year else 0
Assumption: The operating costs are currently set at $0 per year (Hickling 1993: p. 99).
• Randle_Reef_operating_cost_$per_Year = 0

E.6.4 Other Sediment Projects Capital Cost
Assumption: Other Sediment Projects will cost $5 million (Source: John Shaw, personal
communication). This value can be changed by the user.
• Other_sediments_base_capital_cost_$ = 5000000
Assumption: Other Sediment Projects will take eight (8) years to complete (Source: Project team
best estimate). The start and end years can be changed by the user and affect the annual stream of
benefits.
• Other_sed_base_years_to_complete = 8

76

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.6.5 Other Sediment Projects Operating Cost
Assumption: When the Other Sediment Projects is finished, there will be ongoing operating costs
(e.g., maintenance of the containment structure, managing of runoff and leachate). The operating
costs are assumed to be constant over time.
• other_seds_operating_spending = if
(TIME>=(Other_sediments_year_begin+Other_seds_years_to_complete)) then
Other_Sediments_ON*Other_sediments_operating_cost_$per_Year else 0
Assumption: The operating costs are assumed to be $0 per year (Hickling 1993: p. 99).
• Other_sediments_operating_cost_$per_Year = 0

E.6.6 Federal Government Proportion
Assumption: Federal government pays for a proportion of the capital and operating expenses. The
default proportion is 33%.
• fed_capital_PAH_funding_pc = Fed_Cap_PAH/100
• Fed_Cap_PAH = 1/3*100
• fed_operating_PAH_funding_pc = Fed_Op_PAH/100
• Fed_Op_PAH = 1/3*100
• Fed_PAH_spending =
fed_capital_PAH_funding_pc*PAH_reduction_capital_spending+fed_operating_PAH_fun
ding_pc*PAH_reduction_operating_spending

E.6.7 Provincial Government Proportion
Assumption: Provincial government pays for a proportion of the capital and operating expenses.
The default proportion is 33%.
• prov_capital_PAH_funding_pc = Prov_Cap_PAH/100
• Prov_Cap_PAH = 1/3*100
• prov_operating_PAH_funding_pc = Prov_Op_PAH/100
• Prov_Op_PAH = 1/3*100
• prov_PAH_spending =
PAH_reduction_capital_spending*prov_capital_PAH_funding_pc+PAH_reduction_operati
ng_spending*prov_operating_PAH_funding_pc

E.6.8 Municipal Government Proportion
Assumption: Local municipal governments pay for a proportion of the capital and operating
expenses. The default proportion is 33%.
• munic_capital_PAH_funding_pc = Mun_Cap_PAH/100
• Mun_Cap_PAH = 1/3*100
• munic_operating_PAH_funding_pc = Mun_Op_PAH/100
• Mun_Op_PAH = 1/3*100

77

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

munic_PAH_spending =
munic_capital_PAH_funding_pc*PAH_reduction_capital_spending+munic_operating_PA
H_funding_pc*PAH_reduction_operating_spending

E.6.9 Other Funding Sources Proportion
Assumption: Local businesses and developers will pay for a proportion of the capital and operating
expenses. These other funders will make up any shortfall not covered by different levels of
government. The default proportion is 1% since 33% of the costs are allocated to each of three
levels of government.
• Other_capital_PAH_funding_pc = Other_Cap_PAH/100
• Other_Cap_PAH = 1
• Other_operating_PAH_funding_pc = Other_Op_PAH/100
• Other_Op_PAH = 1
• other_PAH_spending =
PAH_reduction_capital_spending*Other_capital_PAH_funding_pc+PAH_reduction_opera
ting_spending*Other_operating_PAH_funding_pc

E.7 Wastewater Improvement
E.7.1 Discussion Points
1. Wastewater treatment improvements are measured in terms of BOD.
• Is this the best indicator of treated wastewater quality for the benefit categories
included in BENSIM?
2. Implementing the wastewater improvement projects is an “all or nothing” proposition.
• Is this reasonable?
• Might improvements in wastewater quality occur in stages?
• Do the wastewater improvement projects included in BENSIM capture all practical
measures?

E.7.2 Wastewater Improvement Effectiveness
Assumption: BOD contamination will be reduced to meet a BOD reduction target. Currently
BENSIM allows the target to be 0% or 100%. Having a more flexible BOD reduction target may
be added in the future.
• BOD_percent__reduction_goal_PC = Wastewater_ON
• Wastewater_ON = 0 (or 1)
Assumption: BOD contamination will be incrementally reduced by the Wastewater Improvement
Project according to the prescribed schedule (Source: Project team best estimate).
• BOD_reduction_schedule = GRAPH((TIMEWastewater_year_begin)/Wastewater_years_to_complete)
(0.00, 0.00), (0.1, 0.00), (0.2, 0.03), (0.3, 0.17), (0.4, 0.365), (0.5, 0.45), (0.6, 0.535), (0.7,
0.605), (0.8, 0.695), (0.9, 0.925), (1, 1.00)
78

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.7.3 Wastewater Improvement Capital Cost
Assumption: The Wastewater Improvement Project will cost $480 million (RAP 2002, Stage 2
update). This value can be changed by the user.
• Wastewater_reduction_base_capital_cost_$ = 480,000,000
Assumption: Wastewater Improvement Project will take eight (8) years to complete (Source:
Project team best estimate). The start and end years can be changed by the user and affect the
annual stream of benefits.
• Wastewater_reduction_base_years = 8

E.7.4 Wastewater Improvement Operating Cost
Assumption: When the Wastewater Improvement Project is finished, there will be ongoing
operating costs (e.g., operation of the wastewater treatment facilities). The operating costs are
assumed to be constant over time.
• Wastewater_reduction_operating_spending = if TIME
>=Wastewater_year_begin+Wastewater_years_to_complete then
Wastewater_reduction_operating_costs_$_per_year*Wastewater_ON else 0
Assumption: The operating costs are assumed to be 10 percent of the capital costs. (Estimates are
based on data from Hickling 1993: pp.96-98 and the EPA’s “Design for the Environment
Publications”
URL: http: www.epa.gov/dfe/pwb/tech_rep/p2_report/p2_sec8.htm)
• Wastewater_reduction_operating_costs_$_per_year =
0.1*Wastewater_reduction_base_capital_cost_$

E.7.5 Federal Government Proportion
Assumption: Federal government pays for a proportion of the capital and operating expenses. The
default proportion is 33%.
• fed_capital_BOD_funding_pc = Fed_Cap_WW/100
• Fed_Cap_WW = 1/3*100
• fed_operating_BOD_funding_pc = Fed_Op_WW/100
• Fed_Op_WW = 1/3*100
• Fed_waste_water__spending =
WW_reduction_capital_spending*fed_capital_BOD_funding_pc+Wastewater_reduction_o
perating_spending*fed_operating_BOD_funding_pc

E.7.6 Provincial Government Proportion
Assumption: Provincial government pays for a proportion of the capital and operating expenses.
The default proportion is 33%.
• prov_capital_BOD_funding_pc = Prov_Cap_WW/100
• Prov_Cap_WW = 1/3*100
• prov_operating_BOD_funding_pc = Prov_Op_WW/100
79

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•
•

Final Report

Prov_Op_WW = 1/3*100
prov_WW_spending =
WW_reduction_capital_spending*prov_capital_BOD_funding_pc+Wastewater_reduction_
operating_spending*prov_operating_BOD_funding_pc

E.7.7 Municipal Government Proportion
Assumption: Local municipal governments pay for a proportion of the capital and operating
expenses. The default proportion is 33%.
• munic_capital_BOD_funding_pc = Mun_Cap_WW/100
• Mun_Cap_WW = 1/3*100
• munic_operating_BOD_funding_pc = Mun_Op_WW/100
• Mun_Op_WW = 1/3*100
• munic_BOD_spending =
WW_reduction_capital_spending*munic_capital_BOD_funding_pc+Wastewater_reductio
n_operating_spending*munic_operating_BOD_funding_pc

E.7.8 Other Funding Sources Proportion
Assumption: Local businesses and developers will pay for a proportion of the capital and operating
expenses of new wastewater treatment facilities. These other funders will make up any shortfall
not covered by different levels of government. The default proportion is 1% since 33% of the costs
are allocated to each of three levels of government.
• other_capital_BOD_funding_PC = Other_Cap_WW/100
• Other_Cap_WW = 1
• other_operating_BOD_funding = Other_Op_WW/100
• Other_Op_WW = 1
• other_BOD_spending =
WW_reduction_capital_spending*other_capital_BOD_funding_PC+Wastewater_reduction
_operating_spending*other_operating_BOD_funding

E.8 Habitat Improvements
E.8.1 Discussion Points
1. Implementing the habitat improvement projects is an “all or nothing” proposition.
• Is this reasonable?
• Might habitat improvements occur in stages?
• Would this affect significantly benefit forecasts?
2. The habitat improvement projects are forecast to improve angling quality. The connection
between the projects and angling quality is captured in one parameter.
• What technical basis is available to derive this value?
• Are all habitat improvement projects of equal effectiveness in improving angling
quality?

80

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.8.2 Habitat Improvement Effectiveness
Assumption: Habitat improvement is an “all or nothing” proposition. When habitat improvements
are selected, the full scope of improvements is assumed to be effected. Having a more flexible
range of habitat improvement projects may be added in the future.
• Habitat_Project_ON = 0 (or 1)
Assumption: Habitat will be incrementally improved by the Habitat Improvement Project
according to the prescribed schedule (Project team best estimate).
• Habitat_schedule = GRAPH((TIME-Habitat_year_begin)/Habitat_years_to_complete)
(0.00, 0.00), (0.1, 0.00), (0.2, 0.03), (0.3, 0.17), (0.4, 0.365), (0.5, 0.45), (0.6, 0.535), (0.7,
0.605), (0.8, 0.695), (0.9, 0.925), (1, 1.00)

E.8.3 Habitat Improvement Capital Cost
Assumption: The Habitat Improvement Project will cost over $12 million (Hickling 1993: p.99).
This value can be changed by the user.
• Habitat_base_capital_cost_$ = 12,000,000
Action: The current default capital costs in BENSIM include the entire habitat improvement costs.
It was suggested that the actual future costs could be much lower since many of these investments
have already been made. It was also suggested that a more detailed breakdown of activities
included in habitat restoration (e.g., habitat restoration & revitalization activities, improved public
access, etc.) be used. This refinement was deferred due to a delay in receiving the required
information.
Assumption: Habitat Improvement Project will take eight (8) years to complete (Project team best
estimate). The start and end years can be changed by the user and affect the annual stream of
benefits.
• Habitat_base_years_to_complete = 8

E.8.4 Habitat Improvement Operating Cost
Assumption: When the Habitat Improvement Project is finished, there will be ongoing operating
costs (e.g., operation of the Habitat treatment facilities). The operating costs are assumed to be
constant over time.
• Habitat_operating_spending = if
(TIME>(Habitat_year_begin+Habitat_years_to_complete)) then
Habitat_Project_ON*Habitat_operating_costs_$_per_year else 0
Assumption: The operating costs are currently set at $30,000 per year (Project team best estimate).
• Habitat_operating_costs_$_per_year = 30,000

E.8.5 Federal Government Proportion
Assumption: Federal government pays for a proportion of the capital and operating expenses. The
default proportion is 33%.
81

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•
•
•
•
•

Final Report

FED_habitat_capital_funding_pc = Fed_Cap_Hab/100
Fed_Cap_Hab = 1/3*100
fed_habitat_op_funding_pc = Fed_Op_Hab/100
Fed_Op_Hab = 1/3*100
Fed_habitat_spending =
FED_habitat_capital_funding_pc*Habitat_capital_spending+fed_habitat_op_funding_pc*
Habitat_operating_spending

E.8.6 Provincial Government Proportion
Assumption: Provincial government pays for a proportion of the capital and operating expenses.
The default proportion is 33%.
• Prov_habitat_cap__funding_pc = Prov_Cap_Hab/100
• Prov_Cap_Hab = 1/3*100
• prov_habitat_operating_funding_pc = Prov_Op_Hab/100
• Prov_Op_Hab = 1/3*100
• prov_habitat_spending =
Habitat_capital_spending*Prov_habitat_cap__funding_pc+Habitat_operating_spending*pr
ov_habitat_operating_funding_pc

E.8.7 Municipal Government Proportion
Assumption: Local municipal governments pay for a proportion of the capital and operating
expenses. The default proportion is 33%.
• Munic_habitat_cap_funding_pc = Mun_Cap_Hab/100
• Mun_Cap_Hab = 1/3*100
• munic_habitat_operating_funding_pc = Mun_Op_Hab/100
• Mun_Op_Hab = 1/3*100
• munic_habitat_spending =
Munic_habitat_cap_funding_pc*Habitat_capital_spending+munic_habitat_operating_fundi
ng_pc*Habitat_operating_spending

E.8.8 Other Funding Sources Proportion
Assumption: Local businesses and developers will pay for a proportion of the capital and operating
expenses of habitat improvement facilities. These other funders will make up any shortfall not
covered by different levels of government. The default proportion is 1% since 33% of the costs are
allocated to each of three levels of government.
• Other_Cap_Hab = 1
• Other_habitat_op_funding_pc = Other_Op_Hab/100
• Other_Op_Hab = 1
• Other__habitat_cap_funding_pc = Other_Cap_Hab/100
• other_habitat_spending =
Habitat_capital_spending*Other__habitat_cap_funding_pc+Habitat_operating_spending*o
ther_habitat_op_funding_pc
82

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.9 Delisting
E.9.1 Discussion Points
1.

The completion of all four remediation projects is considered as a sufficient condition for
the official delisting of the Harbour
• Is this reasonable? Will completion of the four projects guarantee that pollution levels
will be adequately reduced to achieve delisting?
• Are all RAP objectives that need to be satisfied for the Harbour to be delisted captured
in BENSIM?

E.9.2 Necessary Conditions for Delisting
Assumption: Official delisting of the Harbour is assumed when all four projects are completed.
• Passes_delisting = if Randle__Reef_project_complete_BL=1 AND
Other_Sediments_complete_BL=1 AND Wastewater_complete_BL=1 AND
Habitat_complete_BL=1 then 1 else 0
Action: Even with all four remediation projects complete, there is a possibility that the harbour
will not be de-listed. The necessary conditions for de-listing are restoration of beneficial uses to
meet RAP criteria. The following 14 beneficial use impairments and the corresponding delisting
objectives have been identified in the Hamilton Harbour RAP (RAP 2002, Stage 2 Update: 161169):
• Restriction on fish and wildlife consumption;
• Tainting of fish and wildlife flavour;
• Degraded fish and wildlife populations;
• Fish tumours or other deformities;
• Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems;
• Restriction on dredging activities;
• Degradation of benthos;
• Eutrophication or undesirable algae;
• Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odour problems;
• Beach closings;
• Degradation of aesthetics;
• Added cost to agriculture or industry;
• Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations;
• Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Completion of all remediation projects will likely result in restoration of some or most of the
beneficial uses. However, there is no guarantee of de-listing even when all remediation projects are
fully implemented.

83

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.9.3 Delisting Time Delay
Assumption: Delisting does not happen immediately after completion of all remediation projects.
Certain environmental parameters (e.g., BOD and PAH levels) must be monitored and maintained
below the prescribed level for a number of years before the Harbour is delisted. The default time
period is 5 years (Project team estimate).
• Delisted = if years_passes_delisting >= yrs_to_pass_for_delisting then 1 else 0
yrs_to_pass_for_delisting = 5

E.10 Reduction in Stigma.
Action: Some of the Hamilton stigma is tied to factors not affected by remediation activities. As a
result the harbour remediation projects could be completely successful and yet significant stigma
may continue to persist.

E.10.1 Discussion Points
1.

BENSIM allows for stigma to be reduced over the time.
• Is the decay function period reasonable?
• Will stigma decay at a constant proportional rate over time?
2. Stigma reduction is a function of reduced PAHs level in sediments and improved
wastewater treatment (BOD reduction), improved habitat and the harbour delisting.
• What other factors might be included in the future?

E.10.2 Immediate Stigma Reduction
Assumption: Each of the four Harbour remediation projects individually contributes positively to
stigma reduction. Their overall impact is the sum of the impact of each individual project. The
combined impact of full implementation of the four projects may be less than 100% (see section
E.10.3
“Longer-term Stigma Elimination”).
• Reduction_contaminated_stigma_PC =
(Delisted*Delilsting_Official+Habitat_Projects*Habitat_improvement_PC*Habitat_percie
ved_improvement_PC+Wastewater_Projects*WW_perceived_improvement_PC*Wastewa
ter_reduction_completion_level_PC+PAH_reduced_level_RR_part_PC*Randle_Reef_Proj
ect*RR_perceived_improvement_PC+PAH_reduced_level_Other_part_PC*Other_Sedime
nt_Projects*Other_Sed_perceived_improvement_PC)/100
Assumption: Each of the components contributes differentially to the reduction of stigma. The
default relative contribution of each project is based on stakeholders’ responses. These values can
be changed by the user.
• Delilsting_Official = 20
• Habitat_Projects = 7 (suggestion give more weight to habitat projects)
• Other_Sediment_Projects = 5
• Randle_Reef_Project = 28
• WW=27
Action: The stigma reduction routine in BENSIM should be modified so that:
84

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

•
•

Different stigma reduction functions are available for different beneficiaries, and
At the interface level, users should be able to specify key parameters for each type of
stigma.
Two primary stigmas are proposed, one for local residents (“local”), and one for people outside the
AOC (“non-local” or “provincial”).
With the local stigma, this is a composite of stigmas related to specific groups (e.g., anglers,
boaters, swimmers, passive users, local residents). A set of sliders defining the contribution of
each project and de-listing to local stigma reduction for each category of beneficiaries should be
added at the interface level. This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints. If
the recommended monitoring program is implemented, this refinement should be made to
BENSIM before the monitoring begins.
An additional parameter (i.e., “Area in Recovery”) should be added that affects the reduction of
local stigma. Declaring the harbour as an area in recovery after all four projects are completed will
likely have even bigger impact on the reduction of local stigma than the official de-listing. The
suggested impact of these two events on local stigma reduction is:
• Area of recovery = 12 %
• Delisting Official = 8 %.
Action: This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.
Assumption: Public perception of incremental benefits as the projects are under construction
differs for each project. Sediment remediation projects are assumed to generate low benefits until
completion, reflecting a view that stigma is more a function of whether sediment contamination
exists rather than the amount. Wastewater and habitat improvement projects are assumed to
generate benefits as a linear function of project completion.
• Habitat_percieved_improvement_PC = GRAPH(Habitat_improvement_PC)
• Other_Sed_perceived_improvement_PC = GRAPH(PAH_reduced_level_Other_part_PC)
• RR_perceived_improvement_PC = GRAPH(PAH_reduced_level_RR_part_PC)
• WW_perceived_improvement_PC =
GRAPH(Wastewater_reduction_completion_level_PC)

E.10.3 Longer-term Stigma Elimination
Assumption: Some residual stigma is assumed to remain after delisting the Harbour. The BENSIM
decay function reduces stigma by half 20 years after delisting (Project team best estimate).
• INIT Stigma_after_delisting = Stigma_at_the_point_of_delisting
• Red_in_stigma_after_delisting =
Stigma_after_delisting*Reduction_in_stigma_pc*Delisted
• Reduction_in_stigma_pc = GRAPH(time)
(2020, 0.00), (2024, 0.05), (2029, 0.09), (2033, 0.15), (2038, 0.22), (2042, 0.325), (2047,
0.525), (2051, 0.785), (2056, 0.9), (2060, 1.00)

85

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.11 Population Growth
E.11.1 Discussion Points
1.

Stigma reduction increases users of the Harbour by causing an increase in the numbers of
visitors and causing some visitors to re-locate to Hamilton.
• Should increases in local population that may occur independent of Harbour clean-up be
included?
• Visitors and people re-locating to Hamilton are assumed to use the Harbour equally (see
Recreation Benefits section). Is this reasonable? Should a distinction be maintained
between these two groups of users?

E.11.2 Increased Visitors
Assumption: If the stigma attached to the Harbour contamination is removed, the Harbour’s
reputation will be improved and more people will visit Hamilton. A maximum increase of 50,000
additional tourists would visit Hamilton each year with elimination of the stigma (Project team
best estimate).
•
Potential_new_visitors = 50,000
Assumption: The increase in number of visitors is linearly proportional to the reduction of stigma
from contaminants.
•
inc_visitors = potential_new_visitors*Total_reduction_stigma_PC.

E.11.3 Increased Residents
Assumption: When people visit Hamilton as a result of reduced stigma, 0.5 percent per year of
these visitors will choose to re-locate to Hamilton (Project team best estimate). There is a one-year
delay between the time people decide to move and the time they actually re-locate.
• Visitors_moving_to_Hamilton = Delay(inc_visitors*visitors_deciding__to_stay_PC,1)
• visitors_deciding__to_stay_PC = 0.005
Assumption: The increased number of residents is cumulative from one year to the next.
• total_new_residents(t) = total_new_residents(t - dt) + (visitors_moving_to_Hamilton) * dt

E.11.4 Increased Population
Assumption: The number of people using the Harbour will increase over time as stigma is reduced.
The impact of stigma reduction is the sum of the number of new tourists visiting the area and the
number of new people who have relocated to Hamilton.
• inc_number_local_people = total_new_residents+inc_visitors
Action: As stigma is reduced due to harbour remediation, positive feedback may occur due to the
increase in number of residents and residential development. This feedback would affect
population growth rate. Users should be able to control directly the strength of the population
feedback loop in BENSIM. This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.
86

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.12 Recreation Benefits
Action: The new proposed parameter (i.e., “Area in Recovery”) should be dynamically tied to all
of the recreational behaviour routines. This may be done most efficiently through the existing
stigma reduction functions for these recreational activities. This refinement was deferred due to
time and budget constraints.

E.12.1 Discussion Points
1. Angling, boating and swimming benefits are a function of one or more of the three types of
improvement projects.
• Are these proportions reasonable?
• What independent technical options are available to derive these parameters?
• How significant are recreational benefits relative to the total forecast benefits?
1. The habitat improvement projects are forecast to improve angling quality. The connection
between the projects and angling quality is captured in one parameter.
• What technical basis is available to derive this parameter?
• Are all habitat improvement projects of equal effectiveness in improving angling
quality?
• Are these differences of material significance in terms of total benefits?
2. A common average daily expenditure rate is used for angling, boating and swimming.
• How much are daily expenditures likely to vary among these activities?
• Are these expenditures significant enough to treat separately in BENSIM?

E.12.2 Angling Benefits
Assumption: The size of the existing angler population is proportional to the total local population.
• Anglers_existing = base_people_in_study_area*anglers_prop_base
Assumption: Existing anglers comprise 7% of the total local population (Source: Diane P. Dupont
and Steven Renzetti "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Quality Improvement in Hamilton Harbour,
Canada", 1999).
• anglers_prop_base = 0.07
Assumption: The maximum proportion of the local population that would fish locally if the
environmental condition of the Harbour was improved is slightly over 35% (Source: Diane P.
Dupont and Steven Renzetti "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Quality Improvement in Hamilton
Harbour, Canada",1999).
• anglers_prop_max = 0.07*5.03
Assumption: The number of anglers is directly proportional to the reduction in angling impairment.
It is assumed existing anglers continue to fish irrespective of Harbour clean-up and new anglers
become active as clean-up progresses.
• anlgers_prop_current = anglers_prop_base+((anglers_prop_maxanglers_prop_base)*reduction_in_angling_impairment_PC)
87

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Assumption: The reduction in angling impairment is proportional to three Harbour clean-up
projects (i.e., removal of contaminated sediments, improvement in wastewater treatment and
habitat improvement) and impending or actual delisting. The relative contribution of each to
reducing angling impairment varies.
• reduction_in_angling_impairment_PC =
(Wastewater_reduction_completion_level_PC*angling_improvement_WW_share+Habitat
_improvement_PC*angling_improvement_Habitat_share+PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC*an
gling_improvement_Sediments_share+Delisted*angling_improvement_Delisting_share)/
100
Assumption: The contribution to reduction in angling impairment varies for each of the three
projects and actual delisting (based on the experts’ comments).
• angling_improvement_WW_share = 20
• angling_improve_Habitat_share = 40
• angling_improve_sediments_share = 20
• angling_improvement_Delisting_share = 20
Assumption: The benefits of Harbour clean-up are a function of the incremental increase in angling
activity. The increase in angling is a function of 1) increases in the proportion of the local
population angling and 2) increases in the local population due partly to reduced stigma.
• inc_number_angling_days = ((anlgers_prop_current*base_people_in_study_area)Anglers_existing)+(inc_number_local_people*anlgers_prop_current)
Assumption: The corresponding economic value of increased angling is the product of the
increased number of angling days and the value of an angler day.
• value_increased_angling = inc_number_angling_days*value_per_additional_angling_day
Assumption: The value of an angler day is tied partly to the level of stigma present. This
relationship is directly proportional to the reduction in angling impairment.
• value_per_additional_angling_day =
reduction_in_angling_impairment_PC*value_stigmafree_angling_day
Assumption: The value of a stigma-free angler day after adjustment for inflation is about $35
(Hickling, 1993: p.87).
• value_stigmafree_angling_day = 27*(1.017)^14

E.12.3 Boating Benefits
Assumption: The size of the existing boater population is proportional to the total local population.
• boaters_existing = base_people_in_study_area*boaters_prop_base
Assumption: Existing boaters comprise 13% of the total local population (Hickling, 1993: p. 87).
• boaters_prop_base = 0.13

88

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Assumption: The maximum proportion of the local population that would boat locally if the
environmental condition of the Harbour was improved is slightly over 40% (Source: Diane P.
Dupont and Steven Renzetti "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Quality Improvement in Hamilton
Harbour, Canada", 1999).
• boaters_prop_max = .13*3.12
Action: Define maximum proportion of boaters using weighted stigma instead of using exogenous
shares. This will allow linking participation rates and boaters’ benefit values directly to the
reduction in boating impairment. This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.
Assumption: The number of boaters is directly proportional to the reduction in boating impairment.
It is assumed existing boaters continue to boat irrespective of Harbour clean-up and new boaters
become active as clean-up progresses.
• boaters_prop_current = boaters_prop_base+((boaters_prop_maxboaters_prop_base)*reduction_in_boating_impairment_PC)
Assumption: The reduction in boating impairment is proportional to the three Harbour clean-up
projects (i.e., removal of contaminated sediments, improvement in wastewater treatment and
habitat improvement) and impending or actual delisting. The relative contribution of each to
reducing boating impairment varies.
• reduction_in_boating_impairment_PC =
(Wastewater_reduction_completion_level_PC*boating_improvement_WW_share+Habitat
_improvement_PC*boating_improve_Habitat_share+PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC*
boating_improve_sediments_share)/100
Assumption: The reduction in boating impairment is affected by all three projects plus de-listing.
Suggested weights are:
• boating_improvement_WW_share = 30
• boating_improvement_habitat_share = 40
• boating_improvement_sediments_share = 10
• boating_improvement_delisting_share = 20
Assumption: The benefits of Harbour clean-up are a function of the incremental increase in boating
activity. The increase in boating is a function of 1) increases in the proportion of the local
population boating and 2) increases in the local population due partly to reduced stigma.
• inc_number_boating_days = ((boaters_prop_current*base_people_in_study_area)boaters_existing)+(inc_number_local_people*boaters_prop_current)
Assumption: The corresponding economic value of increased boating is the product of the
increased number of boating days and the value of a boating day.
• value_increased_boating = inc_number_boating_days*value_per_additional_boating_day
Assumption: The value of a boating day is tied partly to the level of stigma present. This
relationship is directly proportional to the reduction in boating impairment.
89

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

value_per_additional_boating_day =
reduction_in_boating_impairment_PC*value_stigmafree_boating_day

Assumption: The value of a stigma-free boating day after adjustment for inflation is about $35
(Hickling, 1993: p.87).
• value_stigmafree_boating_day = 27*(1.017)^14

E.12.4 Swimming Benefits
Assumption: The size of the existing swimmer population is proportional to the total local
population.
• Swimmers_existing = base_people_in_study_area*swimmers_prop_base
Assumption: Existing swimmers comprise about 4% of the total local population (Source: Diane P.
Dupont and Steven Renzetti "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Quality Improvement in Hamilton
Harbour, Canada", 1999).
• swimmers_prop_base = 0.038
Assumption: The maximum proportion of the local population that would swim locally if the
environmental condition of the Harbour was improved is slightly over 55% (Source: Diane P.
Dupont and Steven Renzetti "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water Quality Improvement in Hamilton
Harbour, Canada", 1999).
• swimmers_prop_max = 0.038*13
Action: Define maximum proportion of swimmers using weighted stigma instead of using
exogenous shares. This will allow linking participation rates and swimmers’ benefit values
directly to the reduction in swimming impairment. This refinement was deferred due to time and
budget constraints.
Assumption: The number of swimmers is directly proportional to the reduction in swimming
impairment. It is assumed existing swimmers continue to swim irrespective of Harbour clean-up
and new swimmers become active as clean-up progresses.
• swimmers_prop_current = swimmers_prop_base+((swimmers_prop_maxswimmers_prop_base)*reduction_swimming_impairment_PC)
Assumption: The reduction in swimming impairment is proportional to the three Harbour clean-up
projects (i.e., removal of contaminated sediments, improvement in wastewater treatment and
habitat improvement) and impending or actual delisting. The relative contribution of each to
reducing swimming impairment varies.
• reduction_swimming_impairment_PC =
(PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC*swimming_improv_sediment_share+Wastewater_reduction_
completion_level_PC*swimming_improv_WW_share+Habitat_improvement_PC*swimmi
ng_improv_habitat_share+Delisted*swimming_improv_delisting_share)/100
Assumption: The reduction in boating impairment is affected by all three projects plus de-listing.
• swimming_improv_WW_share = 70
90

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•
•
•

Final Report

swimming_improv_habitat_share = 5
swimming_improv_sediment_share = 5
swimming_improv_delisting_share = 20

Assumption: The benefits of Harbour clean-up are a function of the incremental increase in
swimming activity. The increase in swimming is a function of 1) increases in the proportion of the
local population swimming and 2) increases in the local population due partly to reduced stigma.
• inc_number_swimming_days = ((swimmers_prop_current*base_people_in_study_area)Swimmers_existing)+(inc_number_local_people*swimmers_prop_current)
Assumption: The corresponding economic value of increased swimming is the product of the
increased number of swimming days and the value of a swimming day.
• value_increased_swimming =
inc_number_swimming_days*value_per_additional_swimming_day
Assumption: The value of a swimming day is tied partly to the level of stigma present. This
relationship is directly proportional to the reduction in swimming impairment.
• value_per_additional_swimming_day =
reduction_swimming_impairment_PC*value_stigmafree_swimming_activity_day
Assumption: The value of a stigma-free swimming day after adjustment for inflation is about $28
(Hickling, 1993: p.87).
• value_stigmafree_swimming_activity_day = 22*(1.017)^14

E.12.5 Passive Users Benefits
Note: this sector was added to BENSIM after the expert review. Thee key parameters in the sector
are based on the project team beast estimates.
Assumption: The size of the existing passive user population is proportional to the total local
population.
• Passive_users_existing = Base_people_in_study_area*Passive_users_prop_base
Assumption: Existing passive users comprise about 90% of the total harbour users (Source: John
hall, personal communication).
• Passive_users_prop_base =
(anglers_prop_base+boaters_prop_base+swimmers_prop_base)*Ratio_of_passive_to_activ
e_users
• Ratio_of_passive_to_active_users = 9
Assumption: The number of passive users will double if the environmental condition of the
Harbour are improved (Project team best estimate).
• Passive_users_prop_max = Passive_users_prop_base*2

91

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Assumption: The number of passive users is directly proportional to the reduction in recreational
impairment. It is assumed existing passive users will continue their recreational activities (e.g.,
walking or bird watching) irrespective of Harbour clean-up and new passive users will become
active as clean-up progresses.
• Passive_users_prop_current = Passive_users_prop_base+(Passive_users_prop_maxPassive_users_prop_base)*Reduction_in_passive_users_impairment_PC
Assumption: The reduction in passive use impairment is proportional to the three Harbour cleanup projects (i.e., removal of contaminated sediments, improvement in wastewater treatment and
habitat improvement) and impending or actual delisting. The relative contribution of each to
reducing passive use impairment varies.
• Reduction_in_passive_users_impairment_PC =
(PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC*Passive_user_improv_Sediments_share+Wastewater_reducti
on_completion_level_PC*Passive_user_improv_WW_share+Habitat_improvement_PC*P
assive_user_improv_Habitat_share+Delisted*Passive_user_improv_Delisting_share)/100
Assumption: The reduction in passive use impairment is affected by all three projects plus delisting.
• Passive_user_improv_Habitat_share = 60
• Passive_user_improv_Sediments_share = 5
• Passive_user_improv_WW_share = 20
• Passive_user_improv_Delisting_share = 15
Assumption: The benefits of Harbour clean-up are a function of the incremental increase in passive
use activities. The increase in passive use is a function of 1) increases in the proportion of the
local passive users; and 2) increases in the local population due partly to reduced stigma.
• inc_number_passive_user_days =
((Passive_users_prop_current*Base_people_in_study_area)Passive_users_existing)+(inc_number_local_people*Passive_users_prop_current)
Assumption: The corresponding economic value of increased passive use is the product of the
increased number of passive use days and the value of a passive user day.
• Value_increased_passive_use =
inc_number_passive_user_days*Value_per_additional_passive_user_day
Assumption: The value of a passive user day is tied partly to the level of stigma present. This
relationship is directly proportional to the reduction in use impairment for a passive user.
• Value_per_additional_passive_user_day =
Value_stigmafree_passive_user_day*Reduction_in_passive_users_impairment_PC
Assumption: The value of a stigma-free passive user day after adjustment for inflation is about $28
(Hickling, 1993: p.87).
• Value_stigmafree_passive_user_day = 22*(1.017)^14
92

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.12.6 Increased Recreational Expenditures
Assumption: The increase in recreational expenditures resulting from Harbour clean-up is equal to
the increase in total number of recreational days times the daily recreational expenditures per
person.
• Rec_inc_use_expenditures = avg_use_expend_per_day*new_active_user_days
• New_active_user_days_all_recreation =
inc_number_angling_days+inc_number_boating_days+inc_number_swimming_days+inc_
number_passive_user_days
Assumption: The average daily recreational expenditures per person after adjustment for inflation
are $4.08 (Source: Hickling 1993: p. 87).
• avg_use_expend_per_day = 4.08

E.13 Health Benefits
E.13.1 Discussion Points
1. Health benefits are realized only by anglers and swimmers.
• Are these the primary exposure pathways for the contaminants of concern?
• What epidemiological basis is available for deriving the risk factors?
• Are the illness risks primarily related to relatively minor cases of morbidity as opposed
to mortality?
• Are the risk reductions reasonable?
• How significant are health benefits relative to the total forecast benefits?

E.13.2 Exposure to Contaminants
Assumption: The primary contaminant exposure pathways are 1) via fish consumption and 2)
through ingestion of water. Therefore, anglers who eat their catch are at-risk. Likewise those
currently using the Harbour for swimming are at risk.
• Population_at_risk =
ANGLERS_prop_eat_fish_PC*Anglers_existing+Swimmers_existing
Assumption: Out of the total angler population, 30% consume the fish they catch. These are the
anglers at risk of contamination (Source: Source: "Down by the bay: a profile of fishing and fish
consumption in the Hamilton Harbour Area", Fish and Wildlife Nutrition Project funded by Health
Canada, 2000).
• ANGLERS_prop_eat_fish_PC = 0.3
Assumption: The numbers of existing anglers and swimmers are estimated as part of the
recreational use sector (see Section E.12).

93

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.13.3 Health Care Costs
Assumption: The health benefits of Harbour clean-up are reflected by avoided health effects. In
other words, cleaning up the Harbour will reduce the number of health problems related to
contaminants in the Harbour. One type of avoided cost is reduced demand on the provincial health
care system. This demand will result from fewer cases needing treatment.
• avoided_health_sys_cost_illness =
Avoided_sickness_incidents*base_health_sys_cost_illness_incident
Assumption: The number of avoided health problems related to contaminants in the Harbour is a
function of the number of people at risk and the reduction in risk due to clean-up.
• Avoided_sickness_incidents = Population_at_risk*reduction_risk_illness_PC
Assumption: The reduction in risk of illness is a function only of wastewater treatment
improvements. Removal of PAHs will not have any health benefits. Furthermore, the reduction in
risk is directly proportional to the completion level of improved wastewater treatment facilities.
• reduction_risk_illness_PC =
Base_risk_illness_PC*Wastewater_reduction_completion_level_PC
Action: While PAHs are not accumulated in fish, other contaminants found in the Harbour are.
Sediment clean-up will reduce exposure to these contaminants and will yield health benefits. Lead
was suggested as a potential candidate indicator to use to estimate these health benefits. The
feasibility of including stronger exposure-response functions in particular for sediment clean-up
should be investigated. This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.
Assumption: The health risk from exposure to contaminant is 3 out of 100. In other words, if 100
people are exposed to the current levels of contamination, three people will require health care
system treatment for illness (Source: WHO. Note: This is a general number not specifically
developed for the Hamilton Harbour).
• Base_risk_illness_PC = 0.03
Assumption: The average health care system cost for treating a case of illness is $50 (Source:
ICAP, 2005).
• base_health_sys_cost_illness_incident = 50

E.13.4 Pain and Suffering Costs
Assumption: The health benefits of Harbour clean-up are reflected by avoided health effects. One
type of avoided cost is reduced pain and suffering by those afflicted with an illness caused by
exposure to contaminants.
• avoided_pain_and_suffering_from_illness =
base_pain_suffering_illness_incident*Avoided_sickness_incidents
Assumption: The number of avoided sickness incidents related to contaminants in the Harbour is a
function of the number of people at risk and the reduction in risk due to clean-up.
• Avoided_sickness_incidents = Population_at_risk*reduction_risk_illness_PC
94

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Assumption: The reduction in risk of illness is a function only of wastewater treatment
improvements.
• reduction_risk_illness_PC =
Base_risk_illness_PC*Wastewater_reduction_completion_level_PC
Assumption: The health risk from exposure to contaminant is 3 out of 100.
• Base_risk_illness_PC = 0.03
Assumption: The average pain and suffering cost for sicknesses related to exposure to
contaminants is $25 (Source: ICAP, 2005).
• base_pain_suffering_illness_incident = 25

E.13.5 Lost Productivity
Assumption: The productivity benefits of Harbour clean-up are reflected by avoided lost time at
work due to illness.
• avoided_lost_work_time_from_illness =
base_lost_work_time_illness_incident*Avoided_sickness_incidents
Assumption: The number of avoided sickness incidents related to contaminants in the Harbour is a
function of the number of people at risk and the reduction in risk due to clean-up.
• Avoided_sickness_incidents = Population_at_risk*reduction_risk_illness_PC
Assumption: The reduction in risk of illness is a function only of wastewater treatment
improvements.
• reduction_risk_illness_PC =
Base_risk_illness_PC*Wastewater_reduction_completion_level_PC
Assumption: The health risk from exposure to contaminant is 3 out of 100.
• Base_risk_illness_PC = 0.03
Assumption: The average wage rate reflects the value of the lost productivity due to illness. The
wage rate is averaged between women and men based on each being equally represented in the
labour force (StatCan and Eric Miller, personal communication).
• average_wage_rate = 0.5*20+0.5*15
Assumption: The average lost time due to illness is 3.5 hours (ICAP, 2005).
• base_lost_work_time_illness_incident = 3.5

E.14 Residential Property and Land Development Impacts
E.14.1 Discussion points
1.

Increase in property value is linearly proportional to the reduction in stigma as a result of
undertaking the sediment clean-up projects and de-listing Hamilton Harbour.
95

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

• Is this approach reasonable?
• Are there other factors that should be included to forecast property value appreciation
due to Harbour clean-up?

E.14.2 Property Value Appreciation
Assumption: The price of the existing stock of property is depressed due to the stigma associated
with having a contaminated Harbour. Reducing this stigma will cause property values to increase.
In total, this negative impact is assumed to comprise one hundred million dollars (Project team
best estimate).
• Initial_prop_val_gap_from_contaminants = 100000000
Action: The estimate of this property value gap is quite approximate. The “Benefits of Hazardous
Waste Cleanup” study should be examined to refine this estimate. This refinement was deferred
due to time and budget constraints.
Assumption: Property values will increase (i.e., appreciate) in proportion to stigma reduction.
This appreciation however, is not immediate and will be delayed following incremental gains in
stigma reduction (Project team best estimate).
• Begin_property_appreciation=
(Rate_property_appreciation)*Oustanding_prop_val_gap_from_contaminants
• Rate_property_appreciation = GRAPH(Total_reduction_stigma_PC) (0.00, 0.00), (0.1,
0.05), (0.2, 0.15), (0.3, 0.22), (0.4, 0.35), (0.5, 0.45), (0.6, 0.55), (0.7, 0.62), (0.8, 0.75),
(0.9, 0.8), (1, 1.00)
Assumption: The default delay in property value appreciation is three years (Project team best
esimate).
• Property_appreciation_final = CONVEYOR OUTFLOW; TRANSIT TIME =
yrs_delay_property_appreciation
• Yrs_delay_property_appreciation = 3

E.14.3 New Land Development
Assumption: Harbour clean-up will affect the rate and value of new land development projects.
The economic impact is estimated as the sum of spending on building new homes, sanitary sewage
systems and land development.
• Begin_inc_property_devt_spending =
Residential_building_costs+Res_land_dev_costs+Res_san_sewer_costs
Assumption: Residential building costs are a function of new residential space multiplied by the
cost per unit of new space.
• Residential_building_costs = Res_building_costs_per_m2*Inc_new_res_space
Assumption: The cost per square meter of new residential development space is $800 (Source:
Hickling, 1993: p.90). This unit cost has been adjusted to account for inflation. An annual
average inflation rate of 1.7% has been used.
96

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

Res_building_costs_per_m2 = 800*(1.017)^14 (Source: Hickling, 1993: p.90)

Assumption: Residential land development costs are a function of the demand for new residential
land and the unit cost of urban land development.
• Res_land_dev_costs =
Prop_infill_res_need_land_dev_PC*Inc_new_res_space*Urban_land_dev_costs
Assumption: Urban land development costs per square meter of new residential development are
$75 (Source: Hickling, 1993: p.90). This unit cost has been adjusted to account for inflation. An
annual average inflation rate of 1.7% has been used.
• Urban_land_dev_costs = 75*(1.017)^14
Assumption: Residential sanitary sewer development costs are a function of the demand for new
sanitary sewer services and the unit cost of new sanitary sewer development.
• Res_san_sewer_costs =
Prop_res_need_new_san_sewer_PC*Res_sanitary_sewer_system_costs_$per_m2*Inc_ne
w_res_space
Assumption: New sanitary sewer development costs expressed per square meter of new
residential development are $185 (Source: Hickling, 1993: p.90). This unit cost has been adjusted
to account for inflation. An annual average inflation rate of 1.7% has been used.
• Res_sanitary_sewer_system_costs_$per_m2 = 185*((1.017)^14)
Assumption: New residential space requirements depend on the number of new residents who need
homes, the residential space requirements per individual and on the number of existing units that
can accommodate the increase in demand. If excess residential space exists, these existing spaces
are filled before new space is added to the inventory.
• Inc_new_res_space =
Inc_new_residents_needing_new_homes*Res_space_requirements_per_res_m2
• Inc_new_residents_needing_new_homes = If (Base_excess_res_capacity=0) then
Inc_new_residents else 0
• Base_excess_res_units =
Base_people_in_study_area/People_per_unit*Res_surplus_vacancy_PC
Assumption: It is assumed that 250,000 people live in the area of the concern. The RAP Stage 2
Update 2002 (page 10 and 11) include a population for Hamilton of approximately 550,000 by
2011 and a population for Burlington of 180,000 by 2016. It is assumed that approximately one
third of the population of Hamilton and Burlington live in the affected area (i.e., are in close
proximity to Hamilton Harbour)
• Base_people_in_study_area = 200000
Assumption: It is assumed that number of residents per household is 2.63 people (source: based on
the Stat Canada data).
97

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

People_per_unit = 2.63

Assumption: It is assumed that the vacancy rate is 1% higher than the vacancy rate in the general
vicinity (source: FCM data).
• Res_surplus_vacancy_PC = .01

E.15 Local Economic Impacts
E.15.1 Direct Gross and Net Spending
Assumption: Direct gross spending is the sum of the restoration costs of all four clean-up projects,
total recreational expenditures by all recreational users and residential development spending.
• Inc_gross_spending = (projects_total_spending + Rec_inc_use_expenditures +
Begin_inc_property_devt_spending)
Assumption: Direct net spending equals gross spending minus federal and provincial taxes and
minus the amount that the federal government saves by avoiding unemployment insurance
payments to people who would otherwise be unemployed without the projects.
• Inc_NET_spending = (1-fed_tax_rate-prov_tax_rate)*Inc_gross_spending-EI_savings

E.15.2 Indirect and Induced Impacts
Assumption: Indirect and induced impacts are captured via a multiplier. This additional spending
is calculated by applying the multiplier to incremental net spending. The result is the portion of
the primary incremental spending that stays in the local economy as additional income. This
additional spending includes indirect effects due to increased local incomes and due to increased
business revenues and jobs and induced impacts due to increased local consumer spending.
• Inc_additional_spend_multipl_activity = inc_NET_spending*multiplier*multiplier_on

E.15.3 Total Gross and Net Spending
Assumption: Total gross spending is equal to gross spending plus additional indirect and induced
spending.
• Inc_total_gross_spending = Inc_gross_spending+inc_additional_spend_multipl_activity
Assumption: Total net spending is equal to net spending plus additional indirect and induced
spending.
• Inc_total_net_spending = Inc_NET_spending+inc_additional_spend_multipl_activity

E.16 Federal Government
E.16.1 Discussion Points
1. The federal government realizes savings through reduced employment insurance payments.
• Are there other significant federal government savings that should be included?

98

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.16.2 Total Expenses
Assumption: Total federal government expenses are the sum of the government spending on the
four remediation projects (note: the two sediment PAH clean-up projects are combined in one
variable in this equation).
• Fed_expenses_DS =
Social_discount_factor*(Fed_waste_water__spending+Fed_PAH_spending+Fed_habitat_s
pending)

E.16.3 Unemployment Insurance Savings
Assumption: The federal government saves by avoiding unemployment insurance payments to
people who would otherwise be unemployed without the projects (see “Employment Impacts”
section). It is assumed that the government is saving 20 cents for each $1 of additional income
earned from spin-off economic activities by the previously unemployed (source: Project team best
estimate)
• Fed_savings_DS =
Social_discount_factor*EI_replacement_rate__PC*(Inc_indirect_income_unempl+Inc_dir
ect_income_unempl)
• EI_replacement_rate__PC = 0.2

E.16.4 Direct Revenues
Assumption: The federal government receives returns in the form of direct revenues from increased
tax collections. Direct revenues include federal income and sales taxes collected from all
remediation spending.
• Fed_direct_revenues_DS = Social_discount_factor*projects_total_spending*fed_tax_rate

E.16.5 Indirect Revenues
Assumption: The federal government receives returns in the form of indirect revenues from
increased tax collections. Indirect revenues include federal income and sales taxes collected from
increased spending generated by spin-off activities that generate income.
• Fed_indirect_rev_DS = Social_discount_factor*fed_tax_rate*(inc_total_gross_spendingprojects_total_spending)

E.16.6 Gross Return
Assumption: Gross return to the federal government is the sum of cost savings, direct revenues and
indirect revenues.
• FED_total_benefits = Fed_direct_revenues_DS+Fed_indirect_rev_DS+Fed_savings_DS

E.16.7 Net Return
Assumption: Net return to the federal government is the gross return minus total expenses.
• FED__net_balance = FED_total_benefits-FED_total_expenses

99

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.17 Provincial Government
E.17.1 Discussion Points
1. The provincial government realizes savings through reduced healthcare costs.
• Are there other significant provincial government savings that should be included?

E.17.2 Total Expenses
Assumption: Total provincial expenses are the sum of the government spending on all four
remediation projects (note: the two sediment PAH clean-up projects are combined in one variable
in this equation).
• Prov_expenses_DS =
Social_discount_factor*(prov_WW_spending+prov_PAH_spending+prov_habitat_spendin
g)

E.17.3 Healthcare Savings
Assumption: The provincial government saves by avoiding healthcare system costs that otherwise
would have been incurred if the Harbour had not been cleaned up (see “Health Benefits” section).
• Prov_savings_DS = Social_discount_factor*avoided_health_sys_cost_illness

E.17.4 Direct Revenues
Assumption: The provincial government receives returns in the form of direct revenues from
increased tax collections. Direct revenues include provincial income and sales taxes collected from
all remediation spending.
• Prov_direct_revenues_DS =
Social_discount_factor*projects_total_spending*prov_tax_rate

E.17.5 Indirect Revenues
Assumption: The provincial government receives returns in the form of indirect revenues from
increased tax collections. Indirect revenues include provincial income and sales taxes collected
from increased spending generated by spin-off activities that generate income.
• prov_rev_DS = Social_discount_factor*prov_tax_rate*(inc_total_gross_spendingprojects_total_spending)

E.17.6 Gross Return
Assumption: Gross return to the provincial government is the sum of cost savings, direct revenues
and indirect revenues.
• PROV_total_benefits = Prov_direct_revenues_DS+prov_rev_DS+Prov_savings_DS

E.17.7 Net Return
Assumption: Net return to the provincial government is the gross return minus total expenses.
• PROV_net_balance = PROV_total_benefits-PROV_total_expenses

100

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.18 Municipal Government
E.18.1 Discussion Points
1. Municipal savings are based on the assumption that excess capacity is available in the
municipal infrastructure.
• Is this a reasonable benefit to include?
• Should similar savings be included for other municipal services?
• While the addition of new residents who move into existing developments and who use
residual municipal service capacity may provide some savings, some increase in
operating costs will be incurred. Do these costs need to be included?
• Are there other significant municipal government savings that should be included?

E.18.2 Total Expenses
Assumption: Total municipal expenses are the sum of the government spending on all four
remediation projects (note: the two sediment PAH clean-up projects are combined in one variable
in this equation).
• Munic_expenses_DS =
Social_discount_factor*(munic_BOD_spending+munic_PAH_spending+munic_habitat_sp
ending)

E.18.3 Municipal Savings
Assumption: New residents re-locating to Hamilton area are assumed to move into existing
buildings or into residential areas that already have municipal services (e.g., water, sewage, roads)
in place (source: Hickling 1993: Appendix B). Municipal government will, therefore, experience
increased revenues without incurring capital and operating costs for new or expanded services.
The benefit to the municipality is the infrastructure costs that are avoided compared to if new land
development had occurred on undeveloped land in the suburban periphery to accommodate these
new residents. BENSIM only includes cost savings associated with wastewater treatment services.
• Capital_costsav_res_san_sewer = (1-Prop_res_need_new_san_sewer_PC) *
Res_sanitary_sewer_system_costs_$per_m2*Inc_new_res_space+New_res_occupying_exi
sting_units*Res_space_requirements_per_res_m2*Res_sanitary_sewer_system_costs_$per
_m2
Assumption: The default proportion of new residents re-locating to Hamilton area that move into
existing buildings or into residential areas that already have municipal services (i.e., sewage
services) in place is 100% (source: Hickling 1993: Appendix B).
• Prop_res_need_new_san_sewer_PC = 0
Action: There is no incremental cost to the municipality if new residents’ requirements do not
exceed maximum available capacity. This assumption needs to be clearly stated in the BENSIM
documentation. If the new residents cause the existing service capacity to be exceeded, these
increased expenditures should be netted out of the increased revenues that the municipalities are
expected to realize. Further research is required to determine the existing capacity utilization of
local municipal services. This refinement was deferred due to time and budget constraints.
101

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.18.4 Indirect Revenues
Assumption: Municipal governments receive revenues from increased tax collections. Indirect
revenues include municipal property tax collected on improved property values plus land
development tax collected on new properties plus municipal taxes collected on the new docking
HPA’s facilities.
• Munic_indirect_rev_DS =
Social_discount_factor*(property_tax_rate*Res_total_property_improvement +
Begin_inc_property_devt_spending*prop_devt_tax+Mun_tax_rev_HPA_property)
• Municipal property and land development tax rates are 1 % and 10% respectively (Source:
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton)

E.18.5 Gross Return
Assumption: Gross return to the municipal governments is the sum of cost savings and indirect
revenues.
• Munic_total_benefits = Munic_indirect_rev_DS+Munic_savings_DS

E.18.6 Net Return
Assumption: Net return to the municipal governments is the gross return minus total expenses.
• Munic_net_balance = Munic_total_benefits - Munic_expenses_DS

E.19 Hamilton Port Authority
All parameter values for the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) sector in BENSIM are derived from
HPA responses during in-person interviews and to the survey circulated to key stakeholders.

E.19.1 Discussion Points
1. The increased property value of Randle Reef clean-up and delisting the Harbour are
currently included as an annualized value.
• Would it be better to use a capitalized value (single amount) as an initial value?
• How should capital benefits be distributed over time?
• Can potential double counting of improved shipping revenues be avoided (i.e., expected
increased shipping revenues likely partly account for the appreciated value of HPA
property)?
Note: In the current model, the capital value of the additional docking area is not included as a
benefit for the HPA to avoid double counting of improved revenues.

E.19.2 Increased Capacity Utilisation
Assumption: HPA will realise additional revenues as a result of increased tonnages being shipped
through both Pier 15 and the new RR facility. This increase in utilisation is determined by the total
capacity available or total demand for this capacity (whichever is less) net out of taxes on the new
property paid to the municipality.

102

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

Inc_rev_tonnage_DS =
Social_discount_factor*(val_per_tonne_dollars*min(Gross_new_capacity,Increased_tonna
ge_demanded)-Mun_tax_rev_HPA_property)

Assumption: It is assumed that HPA will receive $0.75 in revenues for every tonne shipped.
• val_per_tonne_dollars = 0.75
Assumption: Increased gross tonnage capacity is equal to the sum of HPA existing excess capacity
(1,500,000 tonnes) and HPA expansion both at the existing Pier 15 property (1,000,000 tonnes)
and new Randle Reef facility (375,000 tonnes).
• gross_new_capacity = base_available_capacity+inc_port_capacity_from_containment_unit
• base_available_capacity = 1500000
• inc_port_capacity_from_containment_unit =
Randle__Reef_project_complete_BL*(inc_HPA_capacity_from_Randle_Reef_containmen
t+inc_HPA_capacity_existing_pier_15_property)
• inc_HPA_capacity_existing_pier_15_property = 1000000
• inc_HPA_capacity_from_Randle_Reef_containment = 375000
Assumption: An increase in demand for new shipping capacity will occur when the Randle Reef
project is completed. The increase in demand will be equal to or greater than the increased gross
capacity. No change in demand will occur prior to this point.

E.20 Stelco
E.20.1 PAHs in Intake Waters
Assumption: Stelco incurs incremental operating costs from PAHs in intake waters due to both
damages from intake of PAH (e.g., additional filtering required) and discharge of PAH (fines). The
default value is based on interviews with Stelco representatives.
• Stelco_base_cost_of__PAH_uptake_$ = 800000
Assumption: Any reduced operating costs from PAHs in intake waters is linearly proportional to
the reduction in PAHs from sediment clean-up projects.
• Stelco_cost_savings_of_reduced_PAH_uptake =
Stelco_base_cost_of__PAH_uptake_$*Stelco_reduced_PAH_uptake_PC
Assumption: The reduction in PAHs in intake waters is directly proportional to the reduction in
PAHs from the Randle reef sediment clean-up project.
• Stelco_reduced_PAH_uptake_PC = PAH_reduced_level_RR_part_PC

E.20.2 Sediment Liability Costs
Assumption: The initial sediment liability of Stelco is $0. The default value is not based on any
concrete analysis and is strictly a placeholder at this time.
• Stelco_base_sediment_liability_$ = 0
103

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

Assumption: As the PAHs in the sediments are reduced, Stelco will realize a proportional reduction
in liability. The reduction however, will be delayed one year following sediment clean-up.
• Stelco_reduced_liability_DS = Social_discount_factor*(PAH_tot_reduced_level_PCDELAY(PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC,1))*Stelco_base_sediment_liability_$

E.20.3 Increased Steel Sales
Assumption: Stelco will realize an incremental increase in local steel sales from increased
construction in the Hamilton area as stigma is reduced. The increase in sales will be proportional
to Stelco’s local market share.
• Inc_revenue_Stelco_res_construction =
Market_share_Stelco_res_construction_PC*Residential_building_costs*Steel_in_residenti
al_construction_PC
Assumption: Stelco’s local market share is 40% of the total local steel sales. This includes any
product having steel components (Source: Project team best estimate).
• Market_share_Stelco_res_construction_PC = 0.40

E.20.4 Accumulated Total Benefit
Assumption: The total benefit for Stelco of the Harbour remediation and de-listing is the sum of
reduced operating costs, reduced liability and increased sales.
• STELCO_acc_total_benefits =
STLECO_acc_cost_savings+STELCO_acc_reduced_exposure+STELCO_acc_indirect_rev
enues

E.21 Dofasco
E.21.1 PAHs in Intake Waters
Assumption: Dofasco does not incur any incremental operating costs from PAHs in intake waters.
The default value is based on response from Dofasco representatives.
• Dofasco_base_cost_of_PAH_uptake_$ = 0
Assumption: Any reduced operating costs from PAHs in intake waters is linearly proportional to
the reduction in PAHs from sediment clean-up projects.
• Dofasco_cost_savings_of_reduced_PAH_uptake =
Dofasco_base_cost_of_PAH_uptake_$*Dofasco_reduced_PAH_uptake_PC
Assumption: The reduction in PAHs in intake waters is directly proportional to the reduction in
PAHs from sediment clean-up projects.
• Dofasco_reduced_PAH_uptake_PC = PAH_reduced_level_Other_part_PC

E.21.2 Sediment Liability Costs
Assumption: The initial sediment liability of Dofasco is $0. The default value is not based on any
concrete analysis and is strictly a placeholder at this time.
104

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•

Final Report

Dofasco_base_sediment_liability_$ = 0

Assumption: As the PAHs in the sediments are reduced, Dofasco will realize a proportional
reduction in liability. The reduction however, will be delayed one year following sediment cleanup.
• dofasco_reduced_liability_DS = Social_discount_factor*(PAH_tot_reduced_level_PCDELAY(PAH_tot_reduced_level_PC,1))*Dofasco_base_sediment_liability_$

E.21.3 Increased Steel Sales
Assumption: Dofasco will realize an incremental increase in local steel sales from increased
construction in the Hamilton area as stigma is reduced. The increase in sales will be proportional
to Dofasco’s local market share.
• inc_revenue_dofasco_res_construction =
Market_share_Dofasco_residential_construction_PC*Residential_building_costs*Steel_in
_residential_construction_PC
Assumption: Dofasco’s local market share is 40% of the total local steel sales. This includes any
product having steel components (Source: project team best estimate).
• Market_share_Dofasco_residential_construction_PC = 0.40

E.21.4 Accumulated Total Benefit
Assumption: The total benefit for Dofasco of the Harbour remediation and de-listing is the sum of
reduced operating costs, reduced liability and increased sales.
• DOFASCO_acc_total_benefits =
DOFASCO_acc_cost_savings+DOFASCO_acc_red_exposure+DOFASCO_acc_indirect_r
evenues

E.22 Local Business Benefits
E.22.1 Discussion Points
1. Local businesses benefit directly from expenditures on the clean-up projects and indirectly
through the indirect and induced impacts of the projects.
• How significant is this parameter?
• Is it worthwhile developing a more specific estimate for the Hamilton Harbour area?

E.22.2 Revenues of Local Businesses
Assumption: Revenues of local businesses are defined as a portion of total net spending based on
their share of income. It is assumed that 40 percent goes to the local businesses as income (Source:
Project team best estimate). The default value can be changed by the user.
• Rev_local_businesses =
Social_discount_factor*local_business_share_of_income*Inc_total_net_spending
• local_business_share_of_income = 0.4
105

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

Final Report

E.23 Employment Impacts
E.23.1 Discussion Points
1. The values for basic parameters (unemployment rate, participation rate and average yearly
income are average national numbers reported by Statistics Canada.
• How well do these numbers reflect the unemployment situation in Hamilton and
Burlington?
• Is it possible to find local statistics?

E.23.2 Direct Revenues
Assumption: Unemployed local people will earn income from employment on the clean-up
projects. It is assumed that 5 percent of income from employment on the clean-up projects goes to
previously unemployed (based on the experts’ recommendation). This assumption can be changed
by the user.
• proportion_new_income_to__unemployed_direct = 0.05
• Inc_direct_income_unempl = ((1-fed_tax_rateprov_tax_rate)*projects_total_spending)*ratio_income_to_labour*proportion_new_income
_to__unemployed_direct

E.23.3 Indirect Revenues
Assumption: Unemployed local people will earn income from other spin-off economic activities.
It is assumed that 30 percent of income generated by spin-off economic activities due to the
harbour clean-up goes to previously unemployed (based on the experts’ recommendation).
• proportion_new_income__to_unemployed_indirect = 0.3
• Inc_indirect_income_unempl = ((1-fed_tax_rateprov_tax_rate)*projects_total_spending*ratio_income_to_labour*proportion_new_income
__to_unemployed_indirect)-Inc_direct_income_unempl

E.23.4 Income Gap
Assumption: Income gap for unemployed shows the average amount of money that unemployed
local people would receive if they were employed full-time as opposed to receiving EI payments.
BENSIM allows for the reduction in income gap as a result of accumulated direct and indirect
income earned by people who were unemployed. If the income gap is zero, no unemployment
benefits are realized.
The values for basic parameters (unemployment rate, participation rate and average yearly income)
are average national numbers reported by Statistics Canada.
• Income_gap_unempl(t) = Income_gap_unempl(t - dt) + (- Inc_indirect_income_unempl Inc_direct_income_unempl) * dt
• INIT Income_gap_unempl =
initial_unemployment_rate*Base_people_in_study_area*participation_rate*average_yearly
_income
• initial_unemployment_rate = .08
106

26/02/2009

 Randle Reef Sediment Remediation: Benefits Assessment

•
•

Final Report

participation_rate = 0.65
average_yearly_income = 39000

E.23.5 Total Benefits to Unemployed
Assumption: Total benefits to unemployed persons are the sum of direct and indirect revenues.
• UNEMPL_total_benefits =
UNEMPL_acc_direct_income+UNEMPL_acc_indirect_income
Action: An alternate or complementary basis for estimating health would be to tie health benefits
to expected increases in wealth of local people (in terms of increased income for unemployed) that
is expected from the remediation projects (see Section E.13, “Health Benefits”). This function
would be the logical connection between increased wealth and health benefits. This refinement
was deferred due to time and budget constraints.

107

26/02/2009