Statement of Rebuttal Evidence of Keith Petrie on behalf of Meridian Energy Limited

Transcription

1 In the Environment Court Christchurch Registry ENV-2011-CHC-090 Under the Resource Management Act 1991 and in the matter of direct referral of an application for resource consents by Meridian Energy Limited in respect of the Project Hurunui wind farm proposal under section 87G of the Resource Management Act 1991 Between Meridian Energy Limited, and Hurunui District Council, and Canterbury Regional Council, and Others Statement of Rebuttal Evidence of Keith Petrie on behalf of Meridian Energy Limited 22 June 2012

2 Introduction 1. My primary appointment is as a Professor of Health Psychology at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland. 2. I have academic qualifications in Psychology and Clinical Psychology (BA, Massey University; MA California State University; PhD, Postgraduate Diploma in Clinical Psychology Massey University). I worked as a clinical psychologist at Waikato Hospital for six years prior to taking up a position at Auckland University Medical School in My main areas of expertise are individuals perceptions of their health and illness as well as peoples concerns about new technologies affecting their health and well being. I am responsible for developing the term and research area known as modern health worries which is the perceived risk to personal health from technological change and features of modern life. 4. I have published widely in the area of modern health worries and illness perceptions, as well as other areas of health psychology. This has included over 150 peer reviewed scientific papers and two scientific books. I am currently Associate Editor of the American Psychological Association Journal Health Psychology, which is the leading journal in the health psychology field. I am also on the editorial board of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, Social and Personality Compass: Health Editorial Board, International Journal of Behavioural Medicine and Health Psychology Review. I was awarded a personal chair in 2004 by the University of Auckland, in recognition of my research work. I have also recently been awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by the International Association of Applied Psychology, a Fulbright Senior Fellowship to Harvard University and the Peter Gluckman medal for distinguished research contribution in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences. Code of Conduct 5. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC

3 omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express. Scope of Evidence 6. I have reviewed the evidence of both the expert and lay witnesses that raise health concerns, and respond to the points raised in this statement. 7. The expert witnesses whose statements I have reviewed are: (a) (b) Dr Daniel Shepherd; Dr David McBride; and 8. The lay witnesses whose statements I have reviewed are: (a) Diana Heslop (at paragraph 5); (b) Ellie Messervy (at paragraph 2); (c) Mark Archbold (at paragraphs 6 and 9); (d) Lynda Barrington (at paragraph 6); (e) Mary Foster (at pages 2-3); (f) Belinda Meares (at paragraph 46); (g) Lynette Meares (at paragraph 11); (h) Graeme Higginson on behalf of Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines Inc. (at paragraph 11); (i) Heather Pankhurst (at page 2); (j) David Meares (at paragraphs ); and (k) Vivienne Meares (at paragraphs 10-19) _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 2

4 Responses to Issues in the Expert Evidence of Dr Shepherd and Dr McBride 9. As Dr Shepherd s and Dr McBride s evidence has considerable overlap in terms of the issues raised, I have responded to each of the main points of Dr Shepherd and Dr McBride in the same section. The current body of evidence on health effects and the operation of wind turbines 10. Dr Shepherd states in his evidence that: 1 The important point to note is that case studies (e.g., Harry, 2007; Pierpont, 2009) and correlational studies (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2007; van den berg, 2008; Shepherd et al., 2011) have already emerged in relation to the health effects of wind turbine noise, and so the possibility of detrimental health effects due to wind turbine noise must be taken with utmost seriousness. 11. He later comments that: 2 Currently there is not a single credible research paper in the peer-reviewed literature stating that chronic wind turbine noise is harmless to health. Contra to the assertion that wind turbines have no health-related effects, there is an emerging body of evidence informing us that under certain circumstances wind turbine noise can have substantial physiological and psychological impacts on individuals. 12. However, contrary to Dr Shepherd s statement, to date there have been 17 major reviews of the research evidence concerning adverse health effects and the operation of wind turbines (Simonetti & Chapman, 2012). These studies have been conducted by experts including public health doctors, professors of medicine, sleep experts, audiologists, acousticians, 1 Paragraph 1.09, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Executive Summary, paragraph (e), Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 3

5 engineers, epidemiologists and related specialists (e.g. Ellenbogen et al., 2012). 13. The universal findings from these reviews are that the scientific evidence does not support a direct causal link between people living in the vicinity of modern wind turbines, the sound they produce, and adverse physiological effects (e.g. Knopper & Ollson, 2011). 14. It is also critical to note that the overall conclusion that there is a lack of evidence for direct physiological health effects from wind turbine noise stands, notwithstanding that the studies to which Dr Shepherd cites in support of his position, were also included and analysed within these reviews. Flaws in the evidence 15. As regards the case studies Dr Shepherd has cited, 3 serious deficiencies and methodological flaws in the research undertaken by Harry (2007) and Pierpont (2009) have been identified. This research has not been subject to peer review and is not published in a peer reviewed journal. Findings of Pierpont (2009) set out in her self-published book have been roundly and justifiably criticised: (a) for selection bias error, in that she advertised specifically for people that attributed their health problems to wind farms; (b) (c) (d) for a lack of control group; for the failure to assess prior medical histories of people responding to her advertisement; and because she gathered her evidence by phone interview in relation to 23 of her total 38 subjects and did not speak to, or gather direct evidence from, the remaining 15 subjects, but instead gathered her evidence anecdotally from other study participants. 3 Paragraphs 1.9, 7.4, 8.15, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 4

6 16. Further, Dr Shepherd s statement concerning correlational studies 4 is misleading. Crucially, the most recent analysis of field research undertaken by Pedersen and van den Berg (e.g Bakker, Pedersen, van den Berg, Stewart, Lok,& Boma, 2012; Pedersen, 2011) indicates that there are no direct effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance or health and health related conditions, such as chronic disease, diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, high blood pressure and diabetes. Further, whilst Dr Shepherd refers to his own research (Shepherd et al., 2011), it must be emphasised that his own study showed no difference in either self-rated health or current illness between individuals residing in the proximity of a wind farm and those living in an area without exposure to wind farm noise. Misinformation 17. What the evidence does suggests is that there has been a frenzy of misreporting of the health effects of wind farms and the dissemination of misinformation which has whipped up fear and anxiety in some areas where wind farms are proposed or operating (Chapman, 2011). Research indicates that media warnings and misinformation about potential harm from environmental factors may create health concerns which prompt symptom reporting, even in the absence of objective risk (Winters et al., 2003). Field research has shown that where people are worried about the health effects of an environmental agent they are more likely to misattribute their current symptomatic experience to that environmental agent (Petrie et al., 2005). It should be noted that symptoms attributed to wind farms, such as tinnitus, sleep problems, and headaches, are commonly experienced by healthy individuals (McAteer, Elliott, & Hannaford, 2011; Shargorodosky, Curhan, & Farwell, 2010). 18. Misinformation about the health effects of wind turbines is also likely to influence attitudes about wind farms which have been found to be associated with noise annoyance. The evidence shows that wind turbine noise annoyance is more strongly related to negative attitudes about wind turbines than to sound level (Pedersen et al., 2009). Further, concern about the negative health effects of noise is also associated with noise 4 Paragraph 1.9, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 5

7 annoyance (Kroesen, Molin, & van Wee, 2008). Although there is no direct relationship between wind farm noise and symptom reporting, associations have been found between noise annoyance, on the one hand, and distress and symptom reporting on the other (Bakker et al., 2012). Evidence suggests people may misinterpret symptoms of stress and anxiety as a sign of ill health, particularly if symptoms experienced are consistent with concerns about health status (Moss-Morris & Petrie, 1999). Mechanisms by which wind turbine exposure can degrade health and wellbeing 19. Dr Shepherd asserts in his evidence that: 5 Feasible mechanisms exist by which wind turbine exposure can degrade health and wellbeing. In this scheme turbine noise can lead directly to annoyance and sleep disturbance (i.e., direct health effects), or can induce annoyance by degrading amenity (an indirect health effect). 20. The evidence does not support direct health effects from exposure to wind turbine sound in compliance with wind farm noise standard NZS 6808:2010. In particular, a direct impact of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance is not indicated by the evidence (Bakker et al., 2012). Further, wind turbine noise annoyance is more strongly related to psychosocial factors such as negative attitudes to the visual impact of wind turbines and perceptions of justice, than to A-weighted sound pressure levels (Pedersen et al., 2009). In particular, field research shows personal attitudes about the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape are a stronger predictor of noise annoyance, than the actual level of wind turbine noise (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2004; Pedersen et al., 2009). 21. Evidence indicates that residents are much less likely to be annoyed by noise from wind turbines if the turbines are unable to be seen, even if the sound heard is at a relatively high level (Pedersen et al., 2009). Field studies have further shown that the perception that wind turbines have a spoiling effect on the rural landscape is highly correlated with noise annoyance (e.g. Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2007). In accordance with 5 Paragraph 1.12, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 6

8 evidence indicating that negative attitudes to a noise source are associated with noise annoyance (e.g. Weinsten, 1980), research also indicates individuals holding negative attitudes to wind turbines, in general, are more likely to be annoyed by noise emitted by wind turbines (e.g. Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2004). In addition, field studies suggest that individuals rating themselves as noise sensitive are more annoyed by wind turbine noise (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2008; Shepherd, McBride, Welch, Dirks, & Hill, 2011). 22. Wind turbine noise annoyance is therefore associated with a number of subjective factors, such as attitude to the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape, attitude to wind turbines in general, satisfaction with the living environment, and perceived noise sensitivity. 23. Interestingly, perceived distributive injustice, where outcomes such as compensation are seen as not having been distributed equally, has been shown to negatively influence how wind farms are viewed by those who have received no compensation (Gross, 2007). Importantly, evidence suggests people who derive economic benefit from wind turbines have a reduced risk of noise annoyance (Pedersen et al., 2009). A field study conducted in The Netherlands indicated that respondents who benefited economically from wind turbines, by either full or partial turbine ownership or by receipt of other economic benefits, such as a yearly income, were less annoyed by wind turbine noise than other respondents despite exposure to higher sound levels (Pedersen et al., 2009). 24. Notably, there were no differences in either likelihood to notice sound, or subjective noise sensitivity between those who did or did not derive economic benefit. However, there were attitudinal differences. Respondents who benefited economically were less negative both about wind turbines in general, and about the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape. 25. Thus the evidence does not support feasible mechanisms by which wind turbine noise exposure will directly degrade health and well being. Wind turbines within two kilometres of dwellings _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 7

9 26. Dr Shepherd asserts in his evidence that the presence of wind turbines within two kilometres of dwellings are of concern from a public health perspective. 6 Dr Shepherd then goes on to say that: 7 Because of probable discrepancies between predicted and actual noise levels it would be prudent to rely on evidence coming from individuals at established wind turbine installations than mathematical models heavily constrained by assumptions. Current epidemiological data suggests a two kilometre buffer zone is a superior guardian of public health. 27. There is no credible epidemiological evidence or public health concern that supports a two kilometre buffer zone (Simonetti & Chapman, 2012). The reviews of the scientific evidence do not support a direct causal link between people living in the vicinity of modern wind turbines, the sound they produce, and adverse physiological effects (e.g. Knopper & Ollson, 2011). Adverse health effects of sufficient severity to force residents from the area 28. Dr Shepherd has predicts that at least 10 to 15% of residents exposed to noise from the proposed Project Hurunui will be forced to move away because of adverse health effects It is to be reiterated that commercial wind farms have been operating for over twenty years and there are estimated to be over 150,000 turbines operating around the world. There is no evidence to support Dr Shepherd s prediction. Noise sensitivity 30. Dr Shepherd and Dr McBride each reference an individual s noise sensitivity as bearing on his or her health reaction to windfarm noise. Dr Shepherd refers to noise sensitivity as a major risk factor, with 6 Executive Summary, paragraph (a), Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Executive Summary, paragraph (j), Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Executive Summary, paragraph (b), Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 8

10 annoyance and sleep disturbance the likely mediators between noise sensitivity and health (Shepherd et al., 2010). 9 Dr McBride considers that noise sensitivity means that some individuals are more likely to attend to sound, to evaluate that sound negatively, and have stronger emotional reactions to noise and react with a stress response There are a number of important points to clarify about noise sensitivity. Dr Shepherd has correctly noted in his evidence that individuals who rate themselves as noise sensitive pay more attention to sound and evaluate it negatively. 11 However, the negative reaction is not only to sources of loud noise, but also noise in quiet situations, such as the rustling of confectionary packets at the movies or people talking while watching television (Job, 1999). 32. It is also important to bear in mind that noise sensitivity is measured by subjective assessment. For example, Dr Shepherd indicates that in research he conducted he used a three point assessment: his research participants were asked if they were not noise sensitive, moderately noise sensitive, or very noise sensitive (Shepherd, 2011). 33. Critically, it does not appear that subjective ratings of noise sensitivity predict annoyance, if people living within the vicinity of wind farms have derived economic benefit (Pedersen et al., 2009). It appears that where people have been compensated they are likely to have a more positive general view of wind turbines and be less concerned about their visual impact on the landscape, and this reduces the risk of noise annoyance, notwithstanding noise sensitivity. Thus the findings are not consistent with the hypothesis that noise sensitivity leads to noise annoyance, which in turn influences health. In fact, evidence indicates that, where people form a positive view of wind turbines, annoyance will be mitigated and an association between perceived noise sensitivity and annoyance is unlikely to be found. 9 Paragraph 1.12, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Paragraph 3.4, S87F Report to the Hurunui District Council; Assessment of the Effects of the Environment, Project Hurunui Wind, Appendix Paragraph 4.2, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 9

11 34. Further, although some individuals report sensitivity to noise, it is important to be aware such sensitivity is likely to be a correlate of trait negative affect, a dispositional tendency to negatively evaluate situations and the self (Smith, 2003). Individuals high in negative affectivity experience consistently higher levels of distress and dissatisfaction over time and across different situations. They are also particularly likely to report negative features of their environment and tend to be particularly sensitive to negative aspects of situations. For example, people who label themselves as noise sensitive are also claim sensitivity to other sensory stimuli such as smell and scent, bright lights and pain (Stansfeld, Clark, Jenkins and Tarnopolsky, 1985). 35. Further, the relationship between noise sensitivity and negative affect means that noise sensitive people are likely to report higher distress, across a variety of situations and to report more subjective symptoms. People higher in negative affect have been demonstrated to exhibit higher levels of internal self-focus (Sloan, 2005). Watson & Pennebaker (1989) suggest this introspection results in a tendency to notice bodily sensations which, given the underlying negativistic orientation of people high in trait negative affect, are prone to be evaluated negatively. 36. The important point here is that questionnaires that are highly correlated with negative affectivity, such as noise sensitivity, are likely to be highly correlated with virtually all measures of symptom reporting (Watson and Pennebaker, 1989). However, evidence indicates such symptoms are unrelated to objective markers of ill health, such as illness or death (Pennebaker, 1994). This is reflected in wind farm research indicating that there is no association between reported wind turbine noise annoyance and sensitivity, and health outcomes such as current illness or chronic disease, diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, and high blood pressure (Pedersen, 2011; Shepherd et al., 2011). Thus, noise sensitivity is likely to reflect a tendency to evaluate noise negatively and to report symptoms, but not a vulnerability to actual disease or illness. 37. Further, other studies do not support a relationship between noise sensitivity and physiological reactivity in response to noise. Noise sensitivity has not been found to be related to actual auditory thresholds, heart rate, blood pressure changes or galvantic skin response in response to noise (Stansfeld, Clark, Turpin, Jenkins & Tarnopolsky, 1985) Noise _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 10

12 sensitivity has also not been found to be associated with cardiovascular changes produced by aircraft noise (Smith & Rich, 2002). 38. Dr Shepherd classifies those people with low spindle rates as being noise sensitive. 12 However, there is no published research that links perceived noise sensitivity to spindle rate during sleep. The recent study by Dang- Vu and colleagues (2010) cited by Dr Shepherd 13 does not actually measure nor examine noise sensitivity. The experimental study showed poorer sleep to be associated with spindle rate in 12 individuals. Sleep disturbance 39. Both Dr Shepherd and Dr McBride have discussed the potential for sleep disturbance from the operation of the wind turbines. Dr McBride considers that sleep disturbance could lead to fatigue and psychological stress in the short term, and other adverse health effects, such as hypertension, in the long term. He therefore concludes that complaints of sleep disturbance should be investigated using suitable survey methods No relationship between living in the vicinity of wind farms and health effects, such as hypertension, has been found (Pedersen, 2011). Further, recent evaluation of data from the largest wind farm study to date has found no direct effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance or psychological stress (Bakker et al., 2012). Sleep disturbance attributed to wind turbines was reported by 4.7% of respondents, but this was predicted by annoyance not by wind turbine noise. Respondents were considerably less likely to be disturbed by wind turbines than other environmental sounds (disturbance by traffic noise or other mechanical sound was reported by 15.2% of the respondents and disturbance by the sound of people and of animals was reported by 13.4% of the respondents). It was not clear from the study if there was a primary source causing sleep disturbance and how respondents attributed being 12 Executive Summary, paragraph (c), and paragraph 4.8, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Paragraph 4.8, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Paragraph 3.7, S87F Report to the Hurunui District Council; Assessment of the Effects of the Environment, Project Hurunui Wind, Appendix _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 11

13 awakened by different environmental sound sources. It was speculated that being annoyed might contribute to a person s sensibility for any environmental sound, and the reaction might be caused by the combination of all sounds present. It might also be the case that people annoyed by wind turbine noise attribute their experience of sleep disturbance to wind turbine noise, even if that was not the source of their awakening. This is an inherent difficulty with surveys assessing selfreported sleep quality and disturbance; people may not be able to reliably attribute the source of their sleep disturbance. 41. In his evidence, Dr Shepherd discusses the deleterious effects of noise on sleep, drawing on several studies to conclude that turbine noise is more of an annoyance at night, and that turbine-induced sleep disruption can lead to annoyance Dr Shepherd s statement that the findings of Bakker et al., (2012) can be taken as evidence that turbine-induced sleep disruption can lead to annoyance is erroneous. 16 As discussed above, the authors of this study (Bakker, Pedersen, van den Berg et al., 2012) stipulate that it is a major conclusion of the study that no direct effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance or psychological stress has been demonstrated. 43. It is also critical to clarify that the Project Windfarmperception study (van den Berg, 2008), to which Dr Shepherd refers, was most recently analysed and presented in the Bakker et al. (2012) paper. They are not independent projects, but, rather, involve the same study data. As such, conclusions made by Bakker et al., (2012) apply to the largest wind study to date (van den Berg, 2008). It is also important to note that the Project Windfarmperception study was one of the three studies examined in the Pederson meta-analysis, so findings by Bakker et al., (2012) also shed light on issues raised in this paper. 44. In relation to the Project Windfarmperception study, sleep disturbance was assessed by a question dealing with the frequency of sleep disturbance by environmental sound ( how often are you disturbed by 15 Paragraph 6.1, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Ibid _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 12

14 sound? ). Answers were given on an ordinal scale with the items (almost) never, at least once a year, at least once a month, at least once a week, and (almost) daily. A minimal reported frequency of at least once a month was considered to constitute sleep disturbance. Two thirds of all respondents reported not being disturbed by any sound at all. Disturbance by traffic noise or other mechanical sound was reported by 15.2% of the respondents. Disturbance by the sound of people and of animals was reported by 13.4% of the respondents. Relevantly, disturbance by the sound of wind turbines was reported by only 4.7% of the respondent (6% in areas deemed to be quiet and 4% in areas deemed to be noisy). 45. Bakker and colleagues (2012) note that it was not clear from the study if there was a primary source causing sleep disturbance and how respondents attributed being awakened by different environmental sound sources. What was clear was that wind turbines were less frequently reported as a sleep disturbing sound source than other environmental sounds, irrespective of the area type (quiet versus noisy). Analysis showed that, among respondents who could hear wind turbine sound, annoyance was the only factor that predicted sleep disturbance. That was the case for all area types, i.e. quiet, noise and total (both combined). The authors speculate that being annoyed might contribute to a person s sensibility for any environmental sound, and the reaction might be caused by the combination of all sounds present. It might also be the case that people annoyed by wind turbine noise attribute their experience of sleep disturbance to wind turbine noise, even if that was not the source of their awakening. 46. Findings indicated that noise annoyance mediated the relationship between noise exposure and self-reported sleep disturbance. Contra to the suggestion made by Dr Shepherd, 17 analysis did not indicate sleep disturbance mediated any relationship between noise and noise annoyance. Importantly, there were no direct effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance or psychological stress. 17 Paragraph 1.17, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 13

15 Noise annoyance and concern about the health consequences of noise exposure 47. Dr Shepherd proceeded, in his brief to state that: 18 : Pedersen & Persson (2007), studying the effects of wind turbine noise on sleep, showed that 36% of respondents who were annoyed at wind turbine noise also reported that they suffered disturbed sleep (compare 9% for those not annoyed). Closer to home, a study undertaken in the Makara Valley (Shepherd et al., 2011), indicated that, compared to matched-control areas, satisfaction with sleep is significantly less in turbine areas than non-turbine areas. 48. It is important to understand the practical implications of the most recent findings that it is noise annoyance that mediates the relationship between exposure to wind farm sound and sleep disturbance. 49. There is a relationship between noise annoyance and concern about the health consequences of noise exposure (Kroesen et al., 2008). In short, people annoyed by noise are more likely to evaluate the effects of noise negatively and have concerns about noise related health issues, such as the possibility of sleep disturbance. 50. Where people are concerned about the health effects of an environmental agent they are inclined to monitor their physiological state and attribute their ordinary experience of symptoms to that environmental agent (Petrie et al., 2005). Epidemiological studies consistently indicate that sleep disturbance and fatigue is commonly experienced in the community (e.g. McAteer, Elliot, & Hannaford, 2011). For instance, evidence has shown 27% of New Zealand adults aged 20 to 59 years have a current sleep problem (Paine et al., 2005). Therefore, people concerned about noise induced sleep disturbance may begin to monitor their sleep patterns and erroneously attribute their normal sleep experience, which involves a level of disturbance, to noise emitted by wind turbines. 18 Paragraph 6.2, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 14

16 51. Further, concern itself can have an effect on objective and subjective sleep quality. In a double blind experimental field study, participants from ten villages in various parts of Germany were exposed to sham signals and electromagnetic field signals from an experimental base station, whilst their sleep was monitored in their home environment over 12 nights (Danker-Hopfe et al., 2010). There was no evidence for direct short-term physiological effects of electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phone base stations on sleep quality. However, results indicated a negative impact on objective and subjective sleep quality in subjects who were concerned that proximity to mobile phone base stations might negatively affect health. 52. This study has particular relevance for research conducted in the Makara Valley (Shepherd et al., 2011), which is discussed below. Adverse publicity about the Makara Valley wind farm aired on free to air television specifically dealt with concern about expected sleep disturbance from wind turbine noise (TV3, Campbell Live: 9 August 2009). Such publicity created a negative impression of the Makara wind farm which was bound to create concern and tension within the community. Further, it gave an idea of what to expect as a result of living in the vicinity of wind farms e.g. sleep disturbance. Media reporting about health effects is very strongly related to corresponding symptom reporting, even when the information disseminated is erroneous (Faasse, Cundy, & Petrie, 2010). 53. Such information appears to create specific health concerns, which has a priming effect, whereby people notice physical symptoms aligning with the information given (Winters et al., 2003). In addition, such concern may, in itself, interfere with sleep patterns, given a relationship between anxiety and insomnia (Jansson-Forjmark & Lindblom, 2008). Thus, there are a number of pathways by which people may attribute sleep disturbance to wind farm noise, without there being a direct relationship between noise exposure and sleep disturbance. 54. It is also very important to be aware that objective and subjective measures of sleep disturbance are only modestly correlated (O Donoghue, Fox, Heneghan, & Hurley, 2009). Relevantly, research indicates that people high in negative affect are likely to over-report sleep difficulties and underestimate sleep efficiency (Jackowska, Dockray, Hendrickx, & Steptoe, 2011). This is particularly pertinent given the _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 15

17 relationship between noise sensitivity and negative affectivity (Smith, 2003). Therefore, assessing sleep disturbance by survey methods, as has been suggested by Dr McBride, 19 is unlikely to give an accurate picture of actual sleep disturbance. Noise annoyance and the unique characteristics of turbine noise 55. Dr Shepherd has reported in his evidence that people judge wind turbine noise to be of greater annoyance than aircraft, road traffic, or railway noise, probably because of the unique characteristics of turbine noise As Dr Shepherd has emphasised elsewhere, there is only a marginal relationship found between noise annoyance and noise level (Shepherd, Welch, Dirks, & Mathews, 2010). Cross-sectional studies have shown that only a small minority of people living in the vicinity of wind farms report noise annoyance (e.g. Pedersen & Persson-Waye, 2007). The exact proportion of those living within a wind farm community who are noise annoyed is difficult to establish, given that people answering environmental noise annoyance surveys are more inclined to be dissatisfied in some way with their living environment, which is likely to inflate annoyance figures. 57. Noise annoyance is a subjective reaction related to a number of individual and situational variables, beyond the purely acoustic characteristics of the noise source (Fields, 1993). Studies do indicate that noise from wind turbines may be rated as more annoying than equivalent levels of other environmental noise sources, such as traffic noise (Janssen et al. 2011). However, this subjective reaction is related to situational factors that do not exist in other environmental noise contexts. 58. Of particular relevance is the association between negative attitudes about wind turbines and the experience of noise annoyance (Pedersen and Persson Waye 2004). Importantly, personal attitudes about the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape, have been shown to have a much stronger relationship to noise annoyance than the level of wind 19 Paragraph 3.7, S87F Report to the Hurunui District Council; Assessment of the Effects of the Environment, Project Hurunui Wind, Appendix Paragraph 5.2, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 16

18 turbine noise (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2004; Pedersen et al. 2009). Evidence indicates that individuals are much less likely to be annoyed by wind turbine noise if they are unable to see wind turbines from their dwelling, even at relatively high sound levels (Pedersen et al., 2009). Where individuals are annoyed or concerned about the presence of wind turbines, the visibility of wind turbines from their residence is likely to be a concrete reminder of their concern, thereby perpetuating annoyance reactions. 59. As discussed above, noise annoyance reactions are also associated with concerns about health effects of the noise source (Kroesen et al., 2008). Concerns about the health effects of wind turbines are often central to discussion at community public consultation meetings, formed as part of resource consent and environmental assessment processes (Knopper & Ollson, 2011). Speculation about health risks and the characteristics of symptoms that might be expected to be experienced by those living close to wind farms are also disseminated through media reports (e.g. St Philip, 2008), advertising and internet sites which have been established for this purpose (e.g. This is bound to raise concerns in people living close to wind farms in a way not previously seen in relation to the location of other sources of environmental noise such as living in the vicinity of a motorway. This is likely to exacerbate annoyance reactions in some people. 60. The findings that people who receive economic benefits are much less or not at all annoyed, despite the likelihood of living closer to wind farms and being exposed to higher sound levels, has been associated with a more positive view of turbines in this group (Pedersen et al., 2009; van den Berg et al., 2008). Whilst attitudes to wind farms were measured in this study, feelings about control were not. Van den Berg (2008) does suggest that the low prevalence of annoyance amongst respondents receiving economic benefit may bear some relationship to feelings of control, but this is yet to be tested. It is the association between more positive attitudes to wind turbines and low or non-existent noise annoyance that is directly supported by the evidence. Individual and contextual influences of annoyance reactions _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 17

19 61. Dr Shepherd has further commented in his statement that: 21 In a 2007 paper, this time reporting data collected from 754 individuals, Pederson further explores these individual and contextual influences. They noted that those living in rural areas are more likely to be annoyed than those from suburban areas, and that those living in complex terrain (e.g., hills or rocky terrain) were more likely to be annoyed than those living on flat ground. The study found a strong association between annoyance and both lowered sleep quality and negative emotions. 62. It is true that a range of interpersonal factors have been shown to influence noise annoyance. However, the answer when attempting to assuage noise annoyance experienced by a small number of people is not to avoid any and all reasonable noise, but to be cognisant of the influence of specific psychosocial factors on noise annoyance. 63. In this particular study, which was conducted in seven diverse areas of Sweden, selected on the basis of differences in landscape, terrain and degree of urbanisation, 723 (96%) of the 754 respondents were not annoyed by wind turbine noise (Pedersen & Persson Waye, 2007). Thus, only 4% of the sample (thirty one respondents) reported noise annoyance. Having renovated one s dwelling was associated with noise annoyance, as was having gathered information about wind power and discussing wind power with people around me. 64. Of the 31 noise-annoyed respondents, 11 reported sleep disturbance. It is noted by the authors that reported sleep difficulties and feelings of uneasiness associated with noise annoyance in this small group could just as easily be a result of people with sleep difficulties appraising noise as annoying, rather than an effect of annoyance itself. Although respondents in this study were more likely to be annoyed by wind turbine noise if they lived in rural areas, it is important to be aware than in a later study conducted in the Netherlands (Pedersen et al., 2009) annoyance was higher in built up residential areas. In keeping with other studies, negative attitudes to wind turbines in general, or to their visual impact on the landscape, were positively associated with noise annoyance. This paper 21 Paragraph 5.4, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 18

20 provides further confirmation of the importance of psychosocial influences on reported noise annoyance, such as attitudes to wind turbines and community discussion. 65. Dr Shepherd then went on to state that: 22 Pedersen and Waye, 2008 reanalysed pre-existing turbine noise and annoyance data from 1822 individuals and concluded that turbine noise can impede health, especially for susceptible individuals. The paper also discussed the dangers of using noise level as a sole predictor of annoyance, and the strength of noise sensitivity measures in predicting annoyance. 66. This study is directed to looking at whether the experience of noise annoyance with low level noise sources, in this case wind turbine noise, could reduce the restoration needed to recover from daily stress. The authors do not conclude that turbine noise can impede health through impeded restoration but the suggestion is made that further research into the effect of low level stressors and the restoration experience is warranted. The authors state there are many questions still to be answered before conclusions can be drawn. The authors also note that noise annoyance was related to a general sensitivity index, and as such noise sensitivity could be a measure of vulnerability to sensory stimuli and a measure of risk of being annoyed by any stimuli. 67. This supports the idea that noise sensitivity being tapped into is actually trait negative affectivity, a tendency to negatively evaluate the environment as well as the self (Watson & Clark, 1984). The Makara case study 68. Dr Shepherd and Dr McBride both rely on the study undertaken at Makara near Wellington (Shepherd, 2011). Dr Shepherd comments in his evidence that: Paragraph 5.4, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Executive Summary, Paragraph (f), Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 19

21 New Zealand data links exposure to wind turbines to degraded health-related quality of life and sleep disruption, a finding that is consistent with models described in the literature. The Project Hurunui wind farm proposal is in many ways similar to the Makara proposal, and so it can be supposed that the erecting of turbines will likewise degrade the Health related quality of life of nearby residents in this area. 69. He then goes on to comment on the effect of the Makara windfarm on perceived amenity: 24 In the same survey we presented two questions relating to amenity: 1) I am satisfied with my neighbourhood / living environment, and 2) My neighbourhood / living environment makes it difficult for me to relax at home. When compared statistically to the turbine-free area, the Makara sample were less satisfied with their living environment and reported that their living environment made it more difficult for them to relax at home than those in the control sample (see Shepherd et al., 2011). The open-ended responses displayed in Appendix C suggest that these differences may be explained by the presence or absence of wind turbines. 70. It is important to properly understand the findings made by Dr Shepherd, in relation to direct health consequences of living in the vicinity of wind farms. 71. The study was cross sectional and used a non-equivalent comparison group. The wind farm sample was drawn from 56 houses and the control group from 250 houses. The researchers do not identify how many participants per household were recruited, however the final sample was made up of only 39 people in the wind farm group and 158 in the control group. The study seems very underpowered. The most critical finding for the purposes of direct health outcomes was that there were no differences found between the groups in relation to either self-reported illness or selfrated health, even though there were differences detected between the groups in relation to satisfaction with the living environment. 24 Paragraph 3.6, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 20

22 72. Further, To interpret the results of this study it is important to be aware of the contextual background against which this study was set. The 2010 survey was conducted soon after the wind farm at Makara began operating, when there had been a certain level of adverse publicity and community discussion about the negative impacts of the wind farm on the living environment. This is exemplified by a segment on a popular national television where a small number of people discussed their apprehension, with particular reference to concern about the impact of the wind farm on sleep (TV3 Campbell Live, August 2009). 73. Dissemination through the media of information about expected health effects has been shown to trigger corresponding symptom reporting, even when the information itself is inaccurate (Faasse, Cundy, & Petrie, 2010). Such information seems to generate health concerns, priming people to notice physical symptoms matching the information given (Winters et al., 2003). Media reporting about the adverse impact of environmental factors has also been shown to create or exacerbate concern within ostensibly affected communities, even when concerns themselves are unwarranted (Jauchem, 1992; Page, Petrie, & Wessely, 2006). 74. People s ability to objectively report on sleep disturbance has been shown to be quite poor, such that objective and subjective measures of sleep disturbance are only modestly correlated (O Donoghue, Fox, Heneghan, & Hurley (2009). Given adverse publicity and community discussion about the effect of the wind farm at Makara on sleep quality, people living in the environs of the Makara wind farm are more likely to expect sleep disturbance and are correspondingly more likely to over-report sleep difficulties. Given that, when the 2010 survey was distributed, the wind farm was a relatively new feature of the landscape, and that there had been adverse publicity about the effects of the wind farm on the living environment, the finding that the 39 people who responded to the survey were less satisfied with their living environment than the control group, is understandable. Subjects within the control group were unlikely to have experienced recent comparable change to their living environment, nor any related publicity affecting perceptions of their home environment. This publicity is also likely to negatively impact on attitudes to wind farms, associated with annoyance _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 21

23 75. It is reiterated that negative attitudes to wind turbines have been shown to have a much stronger relationship to noise annoyance than the level of wind turbine noise (Pedersen and Persson Waye 2004; Pedersen et al. 2009). There is also evidence that if attitudes to wind turbines become more positive, noise annoyance will correspondingly abate (Pedersen et al., 2009). Fortunately, field studies suggest that attitudes held by people living in the vicinity of wind farms become more positive over time (e.g. Warren et al., 2005). Thus, evidence supports the position that, as time elapses, and adverse publicity diminishes, perceptions of the Makara wind farm should become more positive, noise annoyance should subside, and satisfaction with the living environment should increase. It is also to be remembered that only a small number of people answered the survey and it is likely that people satisfied with their living environment were less inclined to participate. 76. Given that the wind farm was a relatively new feature of the landscape, and that there had been adverse publicity about the effects of the wind farm on the living environment, it is unsurprising that, overall, the 39 people who responded to the survey were less satisfied with their living environment than the control group. Subjects within the control group were unlikely to have experienced recent comparable change to their living environment, nor any related publicity affecting perceptions of their home environment. 77. People higher in negative affect have been demonstrated to exhibit higher levels of internal self-focus (Sloan, 2005). Watson & Pennebaker (1989) suggest this introspection results in a tendency to notice bodily sensations which, given the underlying negativistic orientation of people high in trait negative affect, are prone to be evaluated negatively. Secondary health effects 78. Dr Shepherd and Dr McBride both attribute secondary health effects to wind turbines. Dr Shepherd states in his evidence that it would be expected that quality of life will be affected immediately, while stressrelated disease emerges from chronic annoyance and sleep disturbance over time. 25 Dr McBride has asserted in his evidence that secondary 25 Paragraph 1.12, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 22

24 health effects result from annoyance, including reductions in well-being, mental and stress-related disease Commercial wind farms have existed for over twenty years, and the evidence does not support the supposition that people living within the vicinity of wind farms are more at risk for stress-related diseases (Chapman, 2011). Nor has it detected any relationship between wind farm noise annoyance and stress-related disease, such as hypertension (Pedersen, 2011). Community setting 80. Dr Shepherd comments in his evidence that: 27 It is evident in the literature that community setting is emerging as a powerful predictor of annoyance reactions, and the perceived industrialisation of the landscape following the installation of wind turbines reduces the attractiveness and restorative characteristics of the hosting environment. 81. In response to this, I would note that it is also important to be aware that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has taken the approach of omitting annoyance as a health outcome in and of itself, as it is not a formally defined health outcome in its own right (Concha-Barrientos, Campbell- Lendrum& Steenland, 2004; Ellenbogen et al., 2012). Further, no association between wind turbine noise annoyance and health outcomes such as chronic disease, diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, high blood pressure and diabetes have been shown (Pedersen, 2011). The defeat reaction 82. Dr Shepherd draws heavily on the so-called defeat reaction in his brief, stating that: Paragraph 4.4, S87F Report to the Hurunui District Council; Assessment of the Effects of the Environment, Project Hurunui Wind, Appendix Paragraph 3.1, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April Paragraph 3.4, Statement of Evidence in Chief of Daniel Shepherd on behalf of Glenmark Community Turbines, Inc, dated 30 April _1 Keith Petrie Final Rebuttal.DOC 23