In the construction of ports it is usual for an
environmental impact assessment to be undertaken
followed by consultation with affected parties or
interest groups. The displacement of natural habitat
and wildlife are thus considered in balance with the
gains to be made to the local economy to produce a
cost-benefit analysis report. Such public consultation
can take years and cost millions for the end result
to maintain the status quo. One example is that of
the proposed £600-million greenfield container port
project at Dibden Bay, Southampton in the United
Kingdom. On the one hand the economic argument
was (a) a national need for more container handling
capacity, (b) job creation both during construction and
for general operation, (c) increased efficiency leading
to lower costs to consumers, and (d) local economic
stimulus. The environmental argument against the
project was that there was (a) a threat to designated
environmental areas, (b) risk of oil spills, (c) habitat loss,
and (d) visual impact on the landscape. In the end, the
debate about whether to build a deep-water container
terminal lasted 4–5 years, cost Associated British
Ports £50 million, and failed (Southern Daily Echo,
2009). Several years later a new container port, DP
World’s London Gateway was built when a brownfield
site approximately 100 miles to the northeast on the
River Thames became available for reuse.