Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review (sf08359)

Section F — Appendices A, B, C, D, E & F

Appendix D New Maryland Tower Site Investigation

Interviews and Newspaper Content Analysis: The New Maryland Tower Site Investigation

Executive Summary Report

Submitted by:

E. Stephen Grant, PhD^{Footnote 1}

June 2003

---

Table of Contents

• Introduction
  • Context
  • Background
  • Methodology
• Detailed Findings
  • Content Analysis
  • Interviews
• Data Quality
• Implications
• References
• Appendix A - Interview Questions
• Appendix B - Consent Form
• Appendix C - Web-site Survey Questions

---

Introduction

This report provides findings of an exploratory study designed to discover the sentiment, the experiences, the information needs, and suggestions for improvement to the antenna siting process as heard by residents of New Maryland, N.B. The methods utilized to arrive at the reported findings include interviews, and a content analysis of articles and letters published in The Daily Gleaner. The specifics of these methods are described.

Context

The Village of New Maryland is located five miles south of Fredericton, New Brunswick, adjacent to the southwest boundary of the City of Fredericton, along Route 101. The region, of which New Maryland is part, is made up of rural and forest lands, giving the Village a distinctly rural character. The population of New Maryland is approximately 4,500 people.^{Reference 1}

Early in 2002, public consultations were conducted in New Maryland to discuss a tower siting proposal by Rogers Communications, Inc. Villager's expressed views about the proposal that ranged from extreme opposition to strong support. The tower and antenna were subsequently constructed on the site proposed by Rogers. It is located about 1.2 kilometres from the nearest school and about 600 metres from the closest residence. The tower is 100 metres tall.

No modifications were made to alter the antenna or the tower structure as a result to public concerns. However, in response to some residents' concern about human exposure to RF radiation, Rogers offered to co-site the Village's fire communications equipment to aid in the reduction of radiation being emitted at ground level via the antenna that had been located on top of a single story building. Rogers installed this equipment on its support structure without cost to the Village.^{Reference 2}

Background

To aid in the development of a national web-based e-Consultation designed to capture the national sentiment associated with radio antenna siting and approval, it was determined that a focus group should be conducted with New Maryland residents. Residents of New Maryland recently experienced the site approval process for antenna tower in their neighbourhood. A secondary outcome of the focus group data would be enlightenment with respect to recommendations to be made to Industry Canada concerning antenna siting and approval in Canada.

After consultation with the Village of New Maryland and a potential focus group participant, it was determined that face-to-face interviews rather than the focus group method would be appropriate. This determination was based on participant scheduling concerns that could not be resolved and the discovery of extreme opposite positions held by potential participants. This discovery rendered a single focus group less viable because of the likelihood that persons of opposing positions would use the group forum as an opportunity to argue their position, debate the validity of alternative points of view, and/or dominate discussion on specific issues.

Methodology

This study began with phone conversations with a resident of New Maryland known to the principal researcher and the Village Clerk for New Maryland. These conversations provided the tower site location, background information concerning the consultation process, and insights into how best to recruit interview participants. Subsequent to these conversations, the principal researcher visited the area of the antenna site location and initiated a participant recruitment strategy.

The recruitment strategy involved three steps. The first step was a search for relevant articles published in The Daily Gleaner. The articles found were reviewed to capture the sentiment and experiences of New Maryland residents. This review also revealed the names of residents who were either in opposition or in favour of the proposed tower site. All of these individuals were contacted and asked to participate in an interview. This process resulted in two (2) completed interviews.

The second step of the recruitment strategy involved an email being sent by the Village Clerk, as approved by New Maryland Council, to twenty New Maryland residents known to have expressed a position on the antenna siting issue (10 opponents and 10 proponents were sent the email). This email informed recipients of the study, and asked those willing to participate in an interview, to contact the principal researcher. All residents who contacted the researcher were responded to by the principal researcher. This process resulted in four (4) completed interviews.

The final participant recruitment step involved a snowball sampling procedure, i.e., the researchers asked respondents and others known to be potential respondents if they knew of anyone who could be approached with an interview request. All leads were followed-up. This process resulted in two (2) completed interviews.

Face-to-face interviewing (also referred to as informant interviewing) was deemed appropriate because this method provides "an inside view." In this case, an inside view is defined as New Maryland residents' experiences with antenna site approval in their neighbourhood. The questions asked of all interview respondents are provided in Appendix A. Appendix B provides the consent form that was signed by all respondents. Prior to implementation, this study received the approval of UNB's Research Ethics Board (REB File # 2003-058). Signed consent forms and interview transcripts have been filed for safekeeping and are available upon request to the principal researcher.

Although not a planned methodology, a content analysis of the above mentioned newspaper documents was undertaken because the content of these documents was deemed of value to the purpose of this investigation. Availability of the newspaper data provides insights into the same issue via an alternative data set, thus providing the potential benefit of triangulation, i.e., the researcher can infer validity if agreement between the data-sets is discovered.

Subsequent sections of this report detail study findings and discuss relevant implications.

Detailed Findings

Content Analysis

Three articles, one editorial, and one opinion letter were discovered by way of a literature review of The Daily Gleaner. Select quotations from these published documents are provided here with source names deleted. Quotations are organized under topic headings:

Health Risk:

Safety (of structure):

Property Value:

Consultation Process and Information:

Interviews

In this section a brief summary of question responses is provided using a question-by-question format. A copy of the interview form is provided in Appendix A. Care was taken to select comments to reflect the full-range of respondents' opinions and experiences.

When you hear the words 'antenna towers' what comes to mind?

What are you hearing people in your community say about the siting of the new antenna tower?

Think back to the recent opposition to the installation of an antenna tower in New Maryland. Would you describe your position at the time as: opposed, neutral or in favour?

What were your concerns?

What prompted those concerns?

Do you continue to have these concerns?

Of all the concerns you mentioned (summarize . . .), which do you feel is the most important to address?

What information do you need to know about the siting of a new antenna tower in order to accept it?

How should this information be provided?

Who should provide this information?

When should this information be provided?

What kinds of information should be gathered to make good decisions about the siting of antenna towers?

Can you give me any examples of your experiences with Industry Canada in terms of the local consultation process?

How can the local consultation process regarding tower site locations be improved?

If you were the government official in charge of tower site approvals, what would you do differently?

In an ideal situation, how should decisions regarding the site of antenna towers be made? Who should make them? When should they be made?

In cases of local concerns regarding tower site locations, what are reasonable time limits: For resolving disputes? For final approval?

Is there anything that you feel we should have talked about but didn't?

Data Quality

Although the number of willing respondents proved disappointing, there are two factors that indicate this study has successfully captured the sentiment, the experiences, the information needs and suggestions for improvement by concerned citizens. First, the sampling methodologies successfully captured a full range of citizen positions and experiences with the siting issue. For example, an opponent to the New Maryland tower reported being one of the principal organizers of the public opposition. Likewise, a proponent reported being a key spokesperson for those in favour of the tower site. Another indicator of the range of positions and experiences captured is the inclusion of a respondent who reported being a member of the village council. This respondent spoke openly about his/her experiences with the political process.

The second factor that provides an indication of data quality is the consistency between the above cited interview comments and data provided from the literature review. Although same source comments have not been parcelled out, the clear inference drawn from the consistency in this data suggests the sentiments, experiences, information needs, and suggestions of New Maryland residents have been fully captured via this exploratory investigation.

Implications

One of the most insightful findings of this study may be the difficulty experienced in securing willing interview participants. Given that the New Maryland situation reached resolution after council extended the decision making process, it appears likely that many potential respondents felt this to be an historical issue (a done deal), thus they did not wish to invest time answering questions. If this is a valid conclusion, it can be expected that response to the national e-consultation opportunity will vary significantly as a function of the degree of active, on-going public debate about specific sites.

This study has provided evidence to indicate that the proposed web-site survey should be amended to ad one additional antenna tower site issue. This issue is safety at the site. Both the literature review and interviews captured comments concerning the need for, and difficulty of, policing antenna sites when they are secluded. To amend and remain consistent, this change will require three additional questions (i.e., one question needs to follow questions 10, 13, and 18).See Appendix C.

This study provides a notable implication concerning the e-consultation web-site information component. A consistent theme echoed by multiple respondents, who identified themselves as opponents, was the need for information (with an emphasis on health effects) that could be easily understood and perceived as objective. Industry-supplied and/or -sponsored research information is not perceived as valid, i.e., it lacks objectivity because of the perceived self-interest of industry. Therefore, an effort should be made to supply information from sources that a reasonable person would deem as objective. With respect to presenting objective information in an easily understood way, multiple respondents used either the phrase "pros and cons" or "cost-benefit" to describe their information needs. This suggests a possible presentation format for objective information statements to be posted on the national e-consultation web-site.

Finally, this study provides the following insights into residents' needs and desires concerning antenna siting and approval: 

There needs to be a consultation process that is perceived as a real process that will impact the site approval decision. Residents close to the site want to have their opinions heard and deemed relevant.

The following comments provided by opponents illustrate their perspective of the New Maryland consultation experience:

This comment illustrates a proponent's perspective on public consultations concerning this issue: 

The consultation process needs to be standardized in such away that time-lines are known to the public and voting procedures are deemed fair.

The New Maryland experience seemed prolonged and opponents questioned the appropriateness of the approval process followed by village council. Council voted on the approval issue, then at a later date, decided to return to the issue in order to hear the voice of proponents. The following opponent responses indicate frustration with this process:

Reasonable time limits need to be established for resolving disputes.

Respondents varied greatly with respect to their estimates regarding the amount of time needed to resolve disputes and arrive at final site approval. It is clear from the data that proponents perceive a need for an expedited process, whereas opponents perceive a need for a more prolonged consultation. The following responses that were cited earlier illustrate the extremes:

Information needs to be perceived as objective, it must be easily understood, and it needs to be readily available to the public.

This respondent's comment notes the need for quality information at the community level:

Siting approval should force alternative site identification to enable site approval authorities to err on the side of caution if there are valid concerns with site proposals.

A consistent theme identified from both methodologies used in this study is that information available to the public concerning the relevant issues, such as potential health concerns and property value, is mixed and perceived by the public to be open to interpretation. The following respondents' comments reflect concerns with a single site decision and extreme interpretations of available information, respectfully:

These insights are based on responses from a small sample of residents and are site specific, therefore, it is not appropriate to generalize these findings to other communities; however, these insights that can be confirmed via the national e-consultation.

---

References

1. ^{back to reference 1} Facts and figures about New Maryland found at:http://www.vonm.ca/.
2. ^{back to reference 2} Information about Rogers Communications, Inc.'s New Maryland tower provided by Rachel Cassidy, Roger's Geographic Team Leader for New Site Development.

---

Footnotes

---

Footnotes

1. ^{back to footnote reference 1} The author, hereafter referred to as the principal researcher, acknowledges that research assistance was provided by Shirley Von Sychowski. Shirley conducted a literature search, played a significant role in research instrument design, and conducted the majority of the interviews for this study.