Aircraft Noise Case Study

A study in the Netherlands found evidence that a more appropriate noise damage function would include a residual cost differential accounting for impacts not accounted for in the housing market (Van Praag and Baarsma, 2005).
Noise policies
US case law, which has placed liability for damages on airport proprietors (Falzone, 1998), has upheld the view that aircraft noise constitutes a taking of property. With property rights assigned and in the presence of minimal transaction costs, bargaining will lead to the most efficient use of resources and the maximum of net social welfare – regardless of the delineation of property rights (Coase, 1960). However, transaction costs can be real and significant. The number of parties impacted by noise near any

If some people disproportionately bear the costs of aircraft noise, it may represent a social justice concern (Sobotta et al., 2007). Thus, aviation noise presents a strong case where government regulation may be appropriate. The International Civil Aviation Organization – Committee for Environmental Protection (ICAO-CAEP) promotes a ‘‘balanced approach” to mitigating the impact of aviation noise by splitting noise regulations into reduction of noise at the source, operating restrictions, environmentally-appropriate operating procedures, and land-use planning and management (ICAO, 2004). This paper focuses on two land-use planning policy mechanisms: residential noise protection and residential land procurement. Other regulatory options are available that address land-use management. An intense form of such a policy is to move the primary airport location or to site a new airport in a remote location or on reclaimed land. For instance, the Osaka Kansai airport was constructed on an artificial island, thereby reducing the need to control near-airport land-use and reducing the

We take data from AIP grant reporting from 2000 to 2012. There are 11 airports for which grant reporting provides both the money provided by AIP and the number of people impacted by the land-use change. For five airports, only the number of households impacted is provided, and we convert the household impact to a per person impact by assuming a US average house of 2.6 people per household. Of these 16 schemes , ten implemented noise protection and soundproofing while six implemented primary land procurement. Where a project applied for grants over several years, we use the total cost of the project per person. Noise compatibility schemes are eligible for 80% federal share of costs at medium and large hub airports and 90–95% federal share of costs at other airports (FAA, 2009). We assume that the total cost of the airport project reflected full allowable cost sharing from federal funds. Costs for all schemes are converted to 2010 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Costs per person for the 16 airport noise schemes considered are shown in Fig. 1. The average cost for home protection across all noise schemes considered is $15,600 per person affected, and the average cost for property procurement across all noise schemes considered is $48,900 per person affected (2010 USD). For