CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3 Airport Noise Control
3.8 Noise Compatibility and Land Use
Set in an environment such as farming land or forests, airports present few noise problems.
It is the interaction of the noise from aircraft operations and land used for residential, commercial/industrial, and other urban uses that creates the undesirable noise impact of airports that is so familiar to airport operators and planners. Because airports are workplaces and terminal points for a mode of transport, left to themselves, they will generate urban development in their vicinities. This is likely to be in the form of residential areas for those working at the airport. Additionally, commercial and industrial development tends to be attracted to the airport because of commercial linkages with the aviation activities or convenient access to air transport. These directly associated land-use changes themselves generate secondary growth in the form of residences for the industrial and commercial workers, shops, schools, and a variety of other developments necessary for an expanding community. Because it is a large employer and consequently a generator of urban activity, without land-use control, an airport will very rapidly find that it has developments in its immediate vicinity that are incompatible with its own function (Ashford et al. 2011).
However, not all types of land use are equally incompatible with airports. Residential areas are recognized as being highly sensitive to aircraft noise and, therefore, every effort must be made to discourage the development of residential land use in the vicinity of airports. Some types of commercial and industrial uses are less sensitive; uses such as manufacturing and resource extraction, where internally generated noise levels can be very high, are usually reasonably compatible with a large, modern airport.
Recognizing the peculiar ability of airports to choke themselves environmentally, many governments around the world have developed land-use planning controls that apply specifically to airports to minimize the possibilities of incompatibility with the developing surrounding land uses. In the United States, the FAA has set out standards of airport land- use compatibility planning for use in the development of U.S. airports. Depending on its
location within the airport’s noise contour map (FAA 1977; ICAO 2008c), land surrounding airports is classified into four categories of noise exposure: minimal, moderate, significant, and severe. The locations of these classifications relative to a typical airport configuration are shown in the schematic in Figure 3.11. Each category is defined by a range of one of four noise-exposure indices: day/night average sound level (LDN), noise-exposure forecast (NEF), composite noise rating (CNR), and community noise-equivalent level (CNEL). The most commonly used metric is the LDN. Table 3.3 shows that areas within zone A are considered to be minimally affected by noise. Therefore, no special consideration of airport noise need enter into the designation of land use permitted in that zone. At the other extreme, zone D is severely affected, and land in this zone either should fall within the airport boundary or must be subject to positive compatibility controls. In the United Kingdom, the Department of the Energy in 1973 drew up a similar guideline for use originally with the NNI metric (HMSO 1973). This has been reinterpreted in terms of LEQ, and listed in Table 3.4 are the current guidelines for development around London Heathrow Airport.
FIGURE 3.11 Typical airport noise patterns. (Source: FAA.)
Source: FAA.
TABLE 3.3 Major Land-Use Guidance Zone Classifications
Source: DfEE and Spelthorne Local Council, UK.
TABLE 3.4 Recommended Criteria for the Control of Development in Areas Affected by Aircraft Noise
Many airports that originally were put down on greenfield sites have found themselves severely constrained within 20 to 30 years of operation. The airport administration therefore has a strong and legitimate interest in ensuring that future viable operation of the facility is not constrained by piecemeal development of incompatible neighboring land uses.
Adoption of standards such as those set out by the FAA in the United States and the planning authorities in the United Kingdom, if adhered to, will provide a reasonable basis for the continued compatible operation of the airport within its environment.
References
Ashford, N. J., S. Mumayiz, and P. H. Wright. 2011. Airport Engineering: Planning, Design, and Engineering of 21st Century Airports, 4th ed. New York: Wiley.
Cline, Patricia A. 1986. Airport Noise Control Strategies. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration. 1977. Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning (AC150/5050-6)., Washington, DC:
FAA, Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration. 2010. Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-Weighted Decibels (Advisory Circular AC 36-3H), April 25, 2002, updated to February 3, 2010. Washington, DC: FAA, Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration. 2012 (as updated). Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36, “Noise Standards, Aircraft Type and Air Worthiness Certification.” Washington, DC: FAA, Department of Transportation.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 1973. Department of the Environment Circular 10/73. London: HMSO.
Hooper, P., J. Maughan, I. Flindell, and K. Hume. 2009 (January). Indices to Enhance Understanding and Management of Community Responses to Aircraft Noise Exposure. Manchester, UK: Manchester Metropolitan University/University of Southampton.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2007. Guidance on the Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management, 1st ed. (Document 9884). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2008a. Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Vol. 1: Aircraft Noise, 5th ed. Montreal, Canada: ICAO.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2008b (September). Effect of PANS_OPS Noise Abatement Departure Procedures on Noise and Gaseous Emissions (Doc. Cir. 317). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2008c. Recommended Method for Computing Noise Contours around Airports, 1st ed. (Document 9911). Montreal, Canada: ICAO.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2010a. Noise Abatement Procedures: Review of Research, Development and Implementation Projects—Discussion of Survey Results, 1st ed. (Document 9888).
Montreal, Canada: ICAO.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2010b. ICAO Environmental Report 2010 (Document ENVREP).
Montreal, Canada: ICAO.
Ollerhead, J. B. 1973 (September). “Noise: How Can It Be Controlled?” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 4, Issue 4 pp.
130–138.
Ollerhead, J. B., D. P. Rhodes, and D. J. Markman. 1989 (March). Review of the Departure Noise Limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports: Effects of Takeoff Weight and Operating Procedure on Noise Displacement (R&D Report 9841). London: DORA, National Air Traffic Services.
Schultz, T. J. 1978 (August). “Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance,” Journal of Acoustical Society of America 64. pp.377–405.
Further Reading
Horonjeff, R., F. X. McKelvey, W. J. Sproule, and Seth B. Young. 2010. Planning and Design of Airports, 5th ed.
New York: McGrawHill.