Name
Institutional Affiliation
 
 
Executive summary
Aviation noise is one of the most pressing environmental issues that has received wide attention from communities living near airports. Engines, aerodynamics, and aircraft systems are the three primary sources of aircraft noises. Aircraft noise is attributed to various adverse socioeconomic effects. For instance, people who are exposed to the noise made by aircraft for more extended periods may develop cardiovascular diseases which means that they will have to spend more on healthcare costs. Air transportation also changes people’s sleep, makes them unproductive and above all, it devalues property. One of the main goals of ICAO’s noise abatement strategy is to determine where the source comes from in an airfield and reduce it. Some of the mitigation strategies for airport noise pollution is moving the airports, local legalization, and control of land use and modify airplanes.
 
 
 
Table of Contents

  1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………… 4
  2. Types of airport noise……………………………………………………………………… 5

3.1 Engine and other mechanical noise………………………………………………………  5
3.2 Noise from aircraft systems………………………………………………………………  5

  1. Socioeconomic impacts of airport noise…………………………………………………… 5

4.1 Health effects……………………………………………………………………………   5
4.2 Work disruption…………………………………………………………………………   6
4.3 Lowers property value……………………………………………………………………   7

  1. The role of ICAO’s Noise Abatement Strategy…………………………………………… 7
  2. Mitigation strategies for airport noise and their socioeconomic benefits and limitations 8

6.1 Noise reduction technology………………………………………………………………8
6.2 Control of land use……………………………………………………………………… 10
6.3 local legalization…………………………………………………………………………  11
6.4 Moving the airport……………………………………………………………………………….  11

  1. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………… 12
  2. References…………………………………………………………………………………… 13

 
 
Socioeconomic Impacts of Noise Nuisance around Airports

  1. Introduction

Aircraft noise or rather noise connected with aviation operations has become one of the main environmental impacts of air transportation, making it a major concern in the public area that requires policy attention (Brunelle-Yeung et al., 2014). Even though other issues such as air pollution and the fear of a plane crash are big, noise nuisance from airports has been the most worrying issue in the communities that live near the airports. Over the years, noise nuisance has been provoked from a major problem to a disaster for a significant number of people living around airports (Ashford, Coutu & Beasley, 2013). The main reason behind the increasing aviation noise is that air transportation has rapidly expanded in the recent past. This has in turn increased flight frequencies for the past few decades.  Aircraft noise is generated by a plane or its components while parked, on the runway, when taking off or while flying, and when landing. Engines and aircraft systems are the two main sources of aircraft noises. Aviation noise has been associated with a wide range of adverse effects on the health of individuals living near airports such as cardiovascular problems. This is a concern as the work performance of people drastically reduces when they are ill and this directly affects the economy. It also causes sleep disturbances, damages property value (Daley, 2016). This is a problem as it negatively affects the economy. Given the severity of the consequences of airport noise pollution on the society and economy, it is important to develop ways to reduce airfield noise nuisance. Noise reduction technology, local legalization, control of land use, and moving the airport are some of the solutions to aircraft noise issue. The main aim of this paper is to discuss mitigation measures noise nuisance and their socioeconomic effects.
 

  1. Types of Airport Noise

3.1 Engine and other mechanical noise
A great part of the commotion in propeller airplane comes similarly from the propellers and streamlined features. Helicopter commotion is efficiently a provoked demand from the important tail rotors and mechanically incited commotion from the principle gearbox and different transmission chains. The mechanical sources deliver restricted band high force crests identifying with the rotational speed and development of the moving parts. In PC demonstrating terms commotion from a moving airplane can be treated as a line source. Airplane gas turbine engines (jet motors) are in charge of a significant part of the flying machine noise within departure and climb, for example, the buzz-saw clamor produced when the tips of the fan cutting edges achieve supersonic velocities (Schäfer & Waitz, 2014). Most of the motor commotion is because of stream clamor-albeit high detour proportion turbofans which have impressive fan commotion.
3.2 Noise from aircraft systems
Cockpit, molding, and lodge pressurization frameworks are frequently a noteworthy patron inside cabins of both nonmilitary and military planes. Nevertheless, a standout among the most noteworthy sources of lodge noise from business aircraft, other than the motors, is the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), an onboard generator utilized in aircrafts to begin the primary motors, as a rule with pressurized air, and to give electrical power while the flying machine is on the ground. Other inner airplane frameworks can likewise contribute, for example, specific electronic gear in some military aircraft (Brandt, & Maennig, 2011).

  1. Socioeconomic Impacts of Airport Noise

4.1 Health effects
People who are exposed to aircraft noise can easily develop cardiovascular complications such as hypertension, stroke and heart attack. In a nutshell, expanded pressure related with noise exposure may cause physiological pressure responses in a person, which therefore can prompt increments in built-up cardiovascular ailment chance factors, for example, circulatory strain, blood glucose fixations, and blood lipids. This calls for attention as cardiovascular diseases are expensive to manage. What is more, they can negatively affect the economy as it can lead to deaths of highly skilled and productive workers. In addition, airport noise causes sleep disturbance which has been identified by WHO as the most serious non-auditory effect of noise exposure. Sounds made by aircraft interfere with sleep in numerous ways including the inability to sleep, awakenings, and short nights (Brunelle-Yeung et al., 2014). The harmful effects of aviation noise on an individual’s health impact the economy as it increases healthcare costs.
For instance, people spend a lot of money to manage cardiovascular diseases which are the leading cause of death.
4.2 Work Disruption
Aviation noise disrupts work. Individuals who work at the airport and the surrounding areas may not communicate effectively as a result of the noises made by the planes. Also, work practices that require high levels of concentration may not be possible as focusing requires a quiet place most of the time (Sanchez, Berry & Knowles, 2014). Disruption caused by aircrafts can cause confusion on accountants who deal with organizations’ finances. As a result, the accountants may end up sending money to the wrong entity or giving more money to undeserved persons. In the process, a company may experience losses and the accountant may be laid off. Besides, workers may feel irritated and stressed by the noise made by aircraft. Consequently, this may lower the employees’ motivation and performance which negatively impacts the business (Wolfe et al., 2014). Corporations may also lose some of their highly qualified personnel who might quit due to the unbearable noises made by airplanes (Thanos, Wardman, & Bristow, 2011).
4.3 Lowers Property Value
Airplane noise can also cause to the devaluation of property that is close to the airports. Land, for instance, may be leased or sold at a significantly lower price compared to other areas with a quiet environment (Dekkers, & van der Straaten, 2009). People seek to buy land or rent houses in places where the environment is suitable. As such, being close to the airport may be considered a disadvantage due to the noise made by planes, making few people not wanting to live there or demanding to buy property at lower values than the normal rates (Li, & Saphores, 2012).

  1. The role of ICAO’s Noise Abatement Strategy

Reduction of noise at source
One of the main goals of ICAO’s noise abatement strategy is to determine where the source comes from in a particular airfield and reduce it. In the Balanced Approach, “reduction of noise at source” clearly indicates to the airplane noise reduction measures contained in ICAO Annex 16 Environmental Technical Protection Vol.1. It is the component of the Balanced Approach over which ICAO has a standard-setting specialist. This component supports the complete methodology via plane producers to create quieter flying machines (Ganic, Dobrota & Babic, 2016). Even though a noise standards apply to new types of aircraft confirmed after the relevance date, practically speaking, makers will generally change airplane types that do not consent or take them out of generation if another, calmer plane sort exists to supplant it in the market. Existing that do not go along can keep working under specific conditions tested in the Annex (Rich, & Nielsen, 2004).
Land-use planning and management
ICAO’s noise abatement strategy also engages in land-use planning and management. Land use planning (LUP) is the procedure whereby noise vulnerable regions, for example, living arrangements, emergency clinics, and schools, are maintained at strategic distance from as much as conceivable by present and future following airplane noise. LUP is a powerful way to guarantee that the operations carried out in airplane terminals are perfect with flight. Its primary objective is to limit the public disturbed by aviation noise by presenting land-use zoning around airplane terminals. Good LUP is likewise an essential instrument in guaranteeing that the additions accomplished by the decreased commotion of the most recent age of airplane are not counterbalanced by further private improvements around air terminals (Ganic, Dobrota & Babic, 2016). Nearby or civil governments usually oversee land zoning. In high clamor regions, new exercises inconsistent with airplane clamor ought not to be allowed. In moderate clamor territories, a few experts allow such new advancement related to sound protection and ventilation necessities.

  1. Mitigation Strategies for Airport Noise and their Socioeconomic Benefits and Limitations

6.1 Noise reduction technology
The most straightforward arrangement as far as least disturbance of existing methods for getting things done is to make the aircrafts calm in one way or another by reducing the noise caused by their flying engines. This would imply that aircraft still be fabricated that would work with calm engines and airship currently being used which would be retrofitted by acoustic treatment of the engine nacelles or by nacelle overhaul. The essential deterrents to retrofitting at present are the overwhelming expense of retrofitting existing planes and the uncertainty communicated by a few specialists concerning whether a palatable commotion level can be achieved at all through retrofitting (Leylekian, Lebrun, & Lempereur, 2014). With regards to the effectiveness of retrofitting existing aircrafts, the main thing settled upon is by all accounts that modern airship will never be made “calm” however that they can be made “less uproarious.” The greatest desire appears to be that retrofitting will lessen noise by around ten PNdb from the present normal of around 118 or 120 PNdb. This decrease of ten PNdb can result in a 50.0 percent decrease in commotion. This would be of important help and still would leave the airplane genuinely uproarious however maybe bearable. The commotion decrease attained will differ as among arrivals and departures.
One of the main advantages of retrofitting plane with less noisy engines is that it would result in some level of noise reduction at the airports. Consequently, people living or working nearby will find it friendly and feel comfortable to carry out their day-to-day activities. More specifically the population living near airports might drastically increase, and this will boost the economy of the people in those regions (Bentes, Heleno, & Slama, 2013). Most importantly, if the retrofitting technology becomes effective, increased costs will be cut down, and this will boost the economy in various ways. For instance, people will not be at risk of developing cardiovascular diseases which are expensive to manage.
However, the limitation retro-filling real airplanes is that it is expensive as the transformation may cost up to $2 billion. Consequently, travelers would be required to pay more money to cater for the changes and also the high maintenance costs. Moreover, retrofitted planes consume more fuel which means that an increase in air pollution as a result of burning more fuel will not be evaded (Leylekian, Lebrun, & Lempereur, 2014). Consequently, the government will be required to spend more money to manage environmental pollution. For example, if Abu Dhabi International Airport were to install quiet engines in all its planes, the travel chargers for individuals coming from the U.K would rise.
6.2 Control of land use
An answer to the aviation noise issue is to move the general population far from the air terminal, what’s more, the commotion. For existing air terminals this implies either zoning of unused land regions to forestall private and other clamor delicate uses or buy of land effectively involved by commotion touchy clients and turning the land over to non-delicate use (Leylekian, Lebrun, & Lempereur, 2014). Because of most existing real air terminals, it is past the point where it is possible to zone the majority of the nearby arrive territory since it is as of now being used, and zoning cannot be made retroactive. However, where some vacant land does exist it tends to be assumed control by the airplane terminal itself or can be zoned by the nearby government to counteract delicate clamor use. Tragically, the nearby government has not appeared much enthusiasm for this sort of zoning in the past (Schäfer & Waitz, 2014).). Although most significant airplane terminals were initially situated in daintily populated outskirts of metropolitan regions, the absence of arrive use control, the geographical development of urban areas, the development to suburbia, the propensity of airplane terminals to pull inland designers, and the development of the size of the airplane terminals, have brought more and more occupants into territories abutting air terminals.
Moving people away from the airport and the noise through zoning is a useful measure to mitigate nuisances caused by aircraft (Leylekian, Lebrun, & Lempereur, 2014). People will conduct their activities undisturbed, therefore increasing their productivity. For instance, an individual who relocates to a quiet place will be able to sleep well which is necessary for the body’s well-being. Nevertheless, a significant drawback associated with this move is that people who own property near the airfields might be compelled to sell them at a lower price or even render them unusable.
6.3 local legalization
A few networks have endeavored to manage the flying machine commotion issue by passing laws that limit or stop flights over a given territory or limit or deny flights underneath a specific height over a given zone. Here and there most extreme clamor levels allowed have been built up. Courts have found such nearby laws to be unenforceable, be that as it may, on the ground that the portion of air space is inside the ward of the government, not the nearby government (Graham, 2013). If their legitimateness were maintained, such acting would genuinely disturb air traffic. Also be of substantial financial and social con grouping to the network included. This would prompt incredible hesitance to authorize them indeed.
6.4 Moving the airport
One arrangement offered in urgency by hostile to commotion bunches is to shut down the airport and additionally move the aircraft traffic to a new area. This should be possible and has been done now and again. Nonetheless, the interest in most significant airplane terminals is so incredible that it is considered not savvy to shut down entirely or to bar carrier traffic if commotion is the main issue (Wolfe et al., 2016). If the air terminal is out of date as well as unnecessarily stopped, however, at that point, the commotion issue can include an incentive to move to another area and can, in certainty, help widely in getting such a choice made (Graham, 2013). Sadly, development of another significant airplane terminal expects seven to ten years so that, regardless of whether a choice to move is made, demand alleviation is not quick. In any occasion, the demand issue has become vital in choices concerning whether existing airplane terminals ought to be additionally created or shut down and furthermore where new air terminals ought to be manufactured.

  1. Conclusion

Overall, aviation noise is one of the most pressing environmental issues that has received wide attention from communities living near airports. Engines, aerodynamics, and aircraft systems are the three primary sources of aircraft noises. Aircraft noise is attributed to various adverse socioeconomic effects. For instance, people who are exposed to the noise made by aircraft for more extended periods may develop cardiovascular diseases which means that they will have to spend more on healthcare costs (Andersson, Jonsson, & Ögren, 2010). Air transportation also alters people’s sleep, makes them unproductive and above all, it devalues property. One of the main goals of ICAO’s noise abatement strategy is to determine where the source comes from in an airfield and reduce it. Some of the mitigation strategies for airport noise pollution is moving the airports, local legalization, and control of land use and retrofitting airplanes.
 
 
References
Andersson, H., Jonsson, L., & Ögren, M. (2010). Property prices and exposure to multiple noise sources: Hedonic regression with road and railway noise. Environmental and resource economics45(1), 73-89.
Ashford, N., Coutu, P., & Beasley, J. (2013). Airport operations.
Bentes, F. M., Heleno, T. A., & Slama, J. G. (2013). Analysis of airport noise exposure around Viracopos International Airport using geographic information systems. Journal of Air Transport Management31, 15-17.
Brandt, S., & Maennig, W. (2011). Road noise exposure and residential property prices: Evidence from Hamburg. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment16(1), 23-30.
Brunelle-Yeung, E., Masek, T., Rojo, J. J., Levy, J. I., Arunachalam, S., Miller, S. M., … & Waitz, I. A. (2014). Assessing the impact of aviation environmental policies on public health. Transport Policy34, 21-28.
Bureau, B., & Glachant, M. (2010). Évaluation de l’impact des politiques. Economie & prévision, (1), 27-44.
Daley, B. (2016). Air transport and the environment. Routledge.
Dekkers, J. E., & van der Straaten, J. W. (2009). Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: A hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport. Ecological Economics68(11), 2850-2858.
Ganic, E., Dobrota, M., & Babic, O. (2016). Noise abatement measures at airports: Contributing factors and mutual dependence. Applied Acoustics112, 32-40.
Graham, A. (2013). Managing Airports 4th edition: An international perspective. Routledge.
Leylekian, L., Lebrun, M., & Lempereur, P. (2014). An overview of aircraft noise reduction technologies. aerospace lab, (6), p-1.
Li, W., & Saphores, J. D. (2012). Assessing impacts of freeway truck traffic on residential property values: Southern California Case Study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2288), 48-56.
Lijesen, M., van der Straaten, W., Dekkers, J., van Elk, R., & Blokdijk, J. (2010). How much noise reduction at airports?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment15(1), 51-59.
Lu, C., & Morrell, P. (2006). Determination and applications of environmental costs at different sized airports–aircraft noise and engine emissions. Transportation33(1), 45-61.
Navrud, S., & Strand, J. (2011). Using hedonic pricing for estimating compensation payments for noise and other externalities from new roads. The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation, Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 14-36.
Rich, J. H., & Nielsen, O. A. (2004). Assessment of traffic noise impacts. International Journal of environmental studies61(1), 19-29.
Sanchez, D., Berry, B., & Knowles, A. (2014, October). The economic value of aircraft noise effects: a UK perspective. In INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings (Vol. 249, No. 4, pp. 3926-3937). Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Schäfer, A. W., & Waitz, I. A. (2014). Air transportation and the environment. Transport Policy34, 1-4.
Salvi, M. (2008). Spatial estimation of the impact of airport noise on residential housing prices. Swiss journal of economics and statistics144(4), 577-606.
Seo, K., Golub, A., & Kuby, M. (2014). Combined impacts of highways and light rail transit on residential property values: A spatial hedonic price model for Phoenix, Arizona. Journal of Transport Geography41, 53-62.
Thanos, S., Wardman, M., & Bristow, A. L. (2011). Valuing aircraft noise: Stated Choice experiments reflecting inter-temporal noise changes from airport relocation. Environmental and resource economics50(4), 559-583.
Van Praag, B. M., & Baarsma, B. E. (2005). Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: The case of airport noise. The Economic Journal115(500), 224-246.
Wolfe, P. J., Malina, R., Barrett, S. R., & Waitz, I. A. (2016). Costs and benefits of us aviation noise land-use policies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment44, 147-156.
Wolfe, P. J., Yim, S. H., Lee, G., Ashok, A., Barrett, S. R., & Waitz, I. A. (2014). Near-airport distribution of the environmental costs of aviation. Transport Policy34, 102-108.