Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
enable noise-sensitive airports to apply to take action to exclude the noisiest Chap-
ter 3 aircraft, since no phase-out is proposed by ICAO for Chapter 3 aircraft;
establish a framework within which European airports would implement com-
mon noise-related charging regimes designed to encourage the use of quieter
aircraft and discourage operations by noisier types;
establish a European framework within which operational restrictions would be
applied to different aircraft; and
select appropriate mitigation measures available, with the goal of achieving the
maximum environmental benefit most cost effectively.
The EU has, therefore, established a regional regulatory framework that is designed
to facilitate aviation growth and acknowledge the needs of different parts of the EU
and different airports and communities, while at the same time seeking to facilitate a
longer-term objective of reducing the number of people exposed to noise. This EU
regulatory framework is incorporated into national law and enforced by member
states within the European Community.
Impact upon airport communities
While stringent measures to reduce and contain the negative effects of aircraft noise
are being sought on a Europe-wide basis, wide disparities still exist within individual
states' regulatory frameworks. These wide variations in regulating aircraft noise and
vibration differentially affect the health and quality of life of people living in close
proximity to airports (Koppert, 1993). Thus, the Europe-wide regulation of noise
seems set to remain high on the agenda of policy-makers.
In all parts of the world, regulatory policy tends to target improvements in technol-
ogy or to limit exposure to aircraft noise through land-use planning (Gillen, 2000).
Positive examples of spatial planning and control of land use in the vicinity of air-
ports can be seen - for example, at Paris Charles de Gaulle and at Amsterdam Schiphol
airports. However, overall, policies have had a limited effect on reducing noise nui-
sance. Differing planning regulations in each country, together with nationally prescrip-
tive procedures for managing land use, have made standardization of noise exposure
controls extremely difficult in Europe. Moreover, each airport possesses its own spe-
cific social, economic and political context, as well as history and physical geography
(Janic, 1999). These factors should not be overlooked. Indeed, it is these factors and
the way in which airports take account of them that will determine levels of com-
munity opposition to noise.
The growth of the aviation sector in recent years has created something of a
dilemma for airport managers. While, on the one hand, aviation brings economic
benefits to regions and to some communities surrounding airports, on the other
hand, the negative social and environmental impacts of airport expansion are borne
exclusively by local communities and have led to increasing levels of opposition to
airport expansion plans.
In the UK, for example, the lengthy London Heathrow Terminal 5 public inquiry
highlighted growing public disquiet at the negative social and environmental exter-
nalities that have become a feature of life for communities residing close to major
airports. While it is widely recognized that airports have made significant progress in
Search WWH ::




Custom Search