- Email: [email protected]
Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes
Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Acoustics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust
Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes Cherie Lu ⇑ Department of Aviation and Maritime Management, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan 71101, Taiwan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 May 2013 Received in revised form 17 March 2014 Accepted 21 March 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Aircraft noise charges Noise social cost Hedonic price method Airport noise policies
a b s t r a c t This research has developed a systematic aircraft noise charge scheme, based on noise social costs, with a view to its application in Taiwan. The paper starts with a brief review of current structures and applications of noise charges, a market-based measure, in mitigating aircraft noise worldwide. The evaluation of aircraft noise social cost is an attempt at putting noise nuisance into monetary terms. The total and average noise social cost per flight at one airport is clearly different from another, depending mainly on the size of the noise contour and the number of residents affected. This research estimates the average noise social costs at various airports, using nine Taiwanese airports as case studies. Depending on the marginal impact of a flight and the mixture of aircraft types at each airport, the noise social cost per landing and take-off is then estimated for different aircraft types. The results of this study can inform airport, airline and local administration policies for taking environmental concerns into account when setting up noise charges, revising noise insulation schemes, and developing strategies for airport expansion and airline operations. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Despite the economic downturns and the resulting unexpected drawbacks of recent years, the air transport industry is still forecast to experience a 5–6% annual growth for the next 20 years, with the Asian markets taking the lead [1,2]. This forecast growth in the aviation market leads to unavoidable negative side-effects on the environment and on human beings. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recommended a ‘‘balanced approach’’ to aircraft noise management at airports [3]. There are four main aspects to this approach:
reduction of noise at source; land use planning and management; noise abatement operational procedures; and operating restrictions.
These aspects are generally implemented through regulations or restrictions. However, ICAO has also stated the importance of applying market-based measures (MBMs) as an additional policy option for achieving the sustainable development of the industry [4–6]. MBMs include environmental charges, taxes, trading and ⇑ Tel.: +886 62785123x2259; fax: +886 62785056. E-mail address: [email protected]
offset, generally applied at the international, national or airport levels. They can be used for mitigating aircraft noise and/or engine emissions. The externalities generated by commercial flights have various impacts on air quality, climate change, noise, water quality, fuel consumption and energy, waste and the ecology. More than aircraft engine emissions, noise nuisance undoubtedly has the largest social impact on the community surrounding the airport [7]. Various regulations and MBMs are applied worldwide for internalising these external environmental costs. In the case of aircraft noise, the application of noise surcharges as part of airport user charges is the most commonly used internalisation method. There are two pre-conditions for any such method to be effective: Understanding the value of the external costs – the ‘‘noise social cost’’. – Including investigating the cost of house insulation schemes, a major means of mitigating the noise. Understanding how this cost relates to the number of aircraft movements, in order to apportion the cost. Various studies have attempted to estimate aircraft nuisance in monetary terms [8,9], or the relationship between noise charges and airline operations [10,11]. Despite the fact that the link
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015 0003-682X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
2
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
between noise social cost and charges has already been established [12], there is no discussion on establishing systematic social-costbased aircraft noise charge schemes for airport systems, for airport operators or governments that manage more than one airport in a given country. This paper aims to provide such a scheme. With the help of such a scheme, airports, airlines and local administrations may develop policies for taking environmental concerns into account when developing strategies for airport expansion and airline operations. After reviewing and analysing current noise charge schemes at airports world-wide, this paper proposes a systematic method for setting up an aircraft noise charge mechanism at airports, taking a theoretical approach and based on practical considerations. Nine Taiwanese airports are used as an example for determining average aircraft noise social costs, and a suggested potential noise charge structure is developed.
2. A brief review of noise charge schemes at airports world-wide 2.1. Noise charge principles In 1999, only 14 countries in the world had some form of noise charge; by 2007, 24 countries – 18 European, 4 Asian and 2 North American – had applied such noise-related charges [12], though the number of countries had slightly reduced to 23 by April 2013 [13]. The countries with airports at which aircraft noise charges are applied are given here. Europe (17 countries): Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom. Asia (4 countries): Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. North America (2 countries): Canada, United States. The schemes for applying these charges vary greatly from country to country, and even between airports in a given country. Based on the noise charge mechanisms chosen and the variables used in the noise charge formulas, the noise-related charges could be further classified into: percentages of surcharges/discounts based on landing fee; landing fee according to aircraft acoustic category; noise surcharges based on noise levels and aircraft weight; noise surcharges based on aircraft acoustic categories; night surcharges; etc. These aircraft noise charges are mostly imposed by the airport operators. However, the Dutch government imposes the Dutch Governmental Noise charge for the purpose of noise insulation schemes and the French Government imposes the French Noise Tax [14]. The structure and level of noise charges generally depends on aircraft noise levels (and in some cases aircraft weight as well), the time of aircraft operations and the cost of mitigation measures such as house insulation schemes etc. to be paid for. As an example of noise-charge equations used, Brussels Airport levies a charge equal to the product of the formula U⁄W⁄E⁄D, in which U is the unit rate, W is the weight of the aircraft, E is the environmental factor, D is the day/night factor. The environmental factor is a function of the year and aircraft classifications. One of the key issues in a noise charge scheme is aircraft acoustic categorisation, or the noise levels defined for different aircraft/engine combinations. Examination of the current noise
charge schemes at airports worldwide shows that charges can be based either on ‘‘relative noise levels’’ or on ‘‘absolute noise levels.’’ The typical aircraft noise classification based on relative noise levels is the ACI Aircraft Noise Rating Index [15]. Aircraft/engine combinations are classified into 8 categories based on their cumulative levels at the three ICAO measurement points. This method is appropriate for airports using the landing fee as a basis for charging. Extra percentage surcharges are applied to aircraft in a noisier category than the airport’s chosen baseline, and a reduction is applied otherwise. Examples of airports using such a scheme include Belgium (Brussels), France (Charles De Gaulle), Japan (Tokyo-Narita), Netherlands (Schiphol), South Korea (Gimpo) and Spain (Madrid). Two distinctions may be made with regard to absolute noise levels: whether measured or certified noise levels are used. Only airports in Germany and Switzerland classify aircraft/engine types based on the noise levels measured at the airport concerned. The rarity of the use of measured levels is generally due to the enormous variation encountered depending on where and how the measurements were taken, and on the weather conditions prevailing at the time. Most airports in this group use the ICAO certified noise levels as the basis of charges, therefore. Airports that charge for noise based on absolute and certified noise levels include Austria (Vienna), Hungary (Budapest), Japan (Tokyo-Haneda), Sweden (Stockholm), Taiwan (10 airports), UK (London-Heathrow) and the United States (Palm Beach). 2.2. Applications of charges According to ICAO guidelines, the revenues collected should be used to recover the costs of noise prevention or alleviation [16,17]. In addition, there is a need to further evaluate the use of charges for maximum welfare [18,19]. For most of the airports, the purpose of collecting noise surcharges is mainly to mitigate the impact of noise nuisance on the community. Even without changing the fleets or aircraft movements, the impacts of noise can be reduced by properly investing the money collected in such noise mitigation measures as house insulation schemes or compensation measures. For airports where noise charging is based on a revenue-neutral increase or decrease in landing fees, this is considered an economic incentive for helping airlines accelerate their use of quieter aircraft. Most airports have invested money on noise-related insulation schemes, specifically on residential houses, schools, hospitals and public buildings. Additionally, airports like Sydney have invested in building community centres or care centres; while Schiphol and Narita airports have used the money to acquire land around the airport to prevent further building. Tokyo Narita Airport has had a very high cumulative investment, compared with other airports, due to the densely populated area, and high cost of obtaining the land, around the airport [13]. Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport has huge noise impacts on the surrounding area for its size. There was a cumulative investment of US$104 million in house insulation in Taoyuan between 1985 and 2006 [20]. The noise charge level at airports is often determined by the cost of house insulation schemes which can be, in theoretical terms, considered as a form of prevention cost rather than a noise social costs. House insulation can alleviate some of the noise nuisance that residents suffer from aircraft noise, but the full noise social cost should be investigated in order to justify a better noise charge mechanism and to fully compensate the impact of aviation on residents. 3. Aircraft noise charge mechanism and social cost estimation The theoretical basis behind noise charges is that they should be used for internalising noise externalities [21]. The aim of
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
3
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
internalisation is to bring external effects into the market process so that the market can adjust to its efficient level. Internalisation should be based on estimating the marginal social cost of the externalities. It is vital for the government or airport authorities to promote the internalisation of negative externalities – noise, in the case of this paper – by introducing policy instruments [22]. A systematic approach to setting up a noise charge mechanism should take into account the findings of theoretical research and a review of current noise charge schemes worldwide. This section proposes a generalised noise charge formula to be applied in a region/country with more than one airport, followed by further discussion of the derivation of two important parameters in this noise charge formula – the airport coefficient and the noise index for different aircraft types. 3.1. Proposed noise charge scheme There are three main elements that influence the noise nuisance experienced by residents living near airports: the noise level produced by the actual aircraft; the operating environment (the number of flights per day, the fleet mix in use at the airport, etc.) at the airport; the time of day when flights take place (principally important for questions of sleep disturbance etc.). When proposing a new scheme, it is also important to take into account any current scheme so that a certain amount of continuity may be ensured. As noted in Section 2, there are various ways of classifying aircraft/engine combinations according to their acoustic levels. In this paper we assign aircraft into categories instead of charging them based on their individual noise levels is the resulting ease of administration. The total number of categories and the classification method should then take into account the types of aircraft operated at a given airport, as well as administrative effort available. In the light of these various aspects and in consideration of the current noise charge schemes reviewed above, the following noise charge formula is proposed:
T ij ¼ RN i Aj Sj
ð1Þ
where Tij is the noise charge applied for a landing and take-off (LTO) cycle for the ith aircraft noise category at airport j, R is the unit rate per LTO ($/LTO), depending on the historical noise charge level and the average cost of a house insulation scheme. R is the basis of the monetary value for noise charge for the entire group of airports. The level of R depends on the revenue needed to be collected in order to complete the required noise mitigation actions required, for example house insulation schemes. The reason for considering the historical noise charge level is that it gives a clear idea of how the new charge changes from the old one. Ni, Aj and Sj are all coefficients. Ni represents the noise index for the ith aircraft noise category. Aj is the airport coefficient for airport j, determined by aircraft noise social costs on the households affected, and based on airport operating conditions, Sj is a night surcharge coefficient at airport j where applicable; Sj = 1 means no night surcharge is applied. The following sections will further explain the estimation of noise social cost for an airport for the determination of Aj, and the method of estimating the marginal noise impact for Ni.
hedonic price method, prevention costs (e.g. costs of house insulation schemes), health impacts and surveys on willingness to accept etc. [23,24]. This study used the hedonic price (HP) method, one of the most commonly used methods, which determines the implicit prices of certain characteristics, such as location, attributes of the neighbourhood and local environmental quality, that govern property values [25,26]. Given that the revenue of airport noise charges often goes towards house insulation schemes, and assuming that the cost of a house insulation scheme is related to house price – the bigger the house, the more insulation it needs – the HP method is correlated to prevention costs. The suggested HP method has the advantage that it can be conducted for a number of airports simultaneously, especially when time and budget are limited; as opposed to the stated preference method which needs to be done for airports individually, as was the case in the 5A study [27]. By applying the HP method, the annual total noise social cost at airport j, Cj, could be derived by multiplying the following inputs [12]: the noise depreciation index (NDI): the percentage reduction of house price per dB(A)1 above background noise. A literature review provides an average NDI of 0.6% [8]; the level of aircraft noise above the background noise level for each zone of the noise contour; the number of residences within each zone of the noise contour; the average annual house rent in the vicinity of the airport, which could be derived from the average house value in the area. The average noise social cost per LTO at airport j, C aj , can easily be obtained by dividing Cj by the annual total number of aircraft LTOs. Theoretically, Aj, the airport coefficient, should be equal to C aj =R. However, a certain adjustment is recommended before the actual implementation, to accommodate the requirements of all stakeholders. This approach is particularly suitable when designing a general scheme for several airports in a country or a region. While R represents a unit rate, the social cost-related Aj easily represents the degree of noise nuisance at different airports. 3.3. Marginal noise impact – noise index for different aircraft types After calculating the aggregate noise social cost, it is necessary to decide how to allocate this total external cost to individual flights. This process should be based on the real impact of noise nuisance, generated dynamically from each specific flight. This study has adapted a formula used in the European Commission’s proposal for a potential harmonised noise charge system, which provides the possibility of modulating aircraft noise charges as a function of environmental impact [28,29]. The proposal, and therefore formula, was not approved, but is used by Sweden [30]. This formula is based on the three ICAO noise certification levels – the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB) for take-off, sideline and approach – for different aircraft/engine combinations. The noise index for different aircraft categories, Ni, is calculated as follows: ðLa T a Þ 10
Ni ¼ 10
ðLd T d Þ
þ 10
10
ð2Þ
3.2. Airport coefficient – using hedonic price method to estimate annual noise social costs
where La is the certificated noise level at approach; Ta is the noise threshold at arrival; Ld is the average of flyover (take-off) and lateral (sideline) measurement points; Td is the noise threshold at departure.
The techniques that have been applied in the past for evaluating the social costs of aircraft noise in monetary terms include the
1 dBA: the A-weighted decibel units, adjusted to conform to the frequency response of the human ear.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
4
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
In the initial proposal from the European Commission, each half – arrival and departure – of the formula was multiplied by a unit charge to convey the importance of arrivals and departures on the overall noise impact at an airport. In the present study, the unit charge is part of Eq. (1) – the R coefficient – and so is not included in the calculation of the noise index. The threshold values, Ta and Td, are derived from the fleet and provide lower values of the noise index. Different deviations of these threshold values from the ‘‘average’’ values for the fleet can play the same role of conveying the importance of arrivals and departures as different unit charge values in the original commission formula. With information about the composition of aircraft movements by aircraft/engine combination, the annual noise index can be aggregated and, by considering the noise index for different aircraft/engine combinations, the noise social cost per aircraft movement can be derived. 4. Empirical analysis – the current and suggested aircraft noise charges at Taiwanese airports 4.1. Aircraft noise charge and airport noise control zones in Taiwan The geographical characteristics of Taiwan have made the country heavily dependent on air transport and this, combined with the island’s high population density, has highlighted the importance of aircraft noise issues. Nine of the country’s seventeen airports are on the main island, with eight being on remote islands. Following the corporatisation of Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport in 2010, the Taiwan Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) is now in charge of sixteen airports, of which six are of joint civil-military use. Since 1997, the noise charge expressed in Eq. (3), and based on the predicted cost of the noise insulation scheme at that time, has been imposed on airlines as part of airport user charges.2
Noise charge ðNT dollar=flightÞ ¼ 17x þ 95ðy 73Þ
ð3Þ
where x is Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) in tonnes; y is takeoff noise in EPNdB, ‘‘73’’ is a threshold value based on the take-off certification level of the quietest civil aircraft in use in Taiwan at the time the formula was devised. The coefficients ‘‘17’’ and ‘‘95’’ were chosen as being those that would best provide the required revenue at the time. Currently, the same formula applies to all those airports in Taiwan that are in imposed noise control zones and have implemented aircraft noise charges. In other words, the same aircraft type flying to Taipei (Songshan) airport, which is in the city centre, or to Tainan Airport, a small domestic airport, pays the same noise charge regardless of its actual impact on residents. The noise charge collected at these airports is called ‘‘the noise control fee’’ (hereafter referred to as ‘‘revenue collected’’) and its sole purpose is for use in house insulation schemes. According to the ‘‘Regulation of Aircraft Noise Control Fee Assignation and Use’’, an airport must subsidise sound proofing installations for schools, libraries, medical institutions and dwellings in areas exposed to aircraft noise levels greater than 60 dB(A) day-night average sound level (Ldn)3 [20]. Table 1 lists the average annual revenue collected at each of the 9 airports examined in this study, the number of households within the noise control zone (so entitled to noise insulation schemes) and the numbers of aircraft movements and passengers in 2012. It is worth noting that the noise control zone is classified according to the smallest administrative area of Taiwan
(i.e. village or ward) so there are fewer households within the 60Ldn noise contour than households entitled to noise insulation schemes – all houses, school, hospitals etc. in an affected village/ward are entitled to benefit from the scheme. For the calculation of current noise social costs, the number of households actually affected within the 60Ldn noise contour at each airport has been estimated from interview and survey results [31]. 4.2. Annual noise social costs at Taiwanese airports in 2012 Table 2 lists the aircraft types most commonly in use at these airports.4 Considering the aircraft noise levels at Taiwanese airports and then applying 66 dB and 73 dB as the departure and arrival noise thresholds respectively, the noise index for different aircraft types are obtained from applying the formula in Eq. (2). With the number of households within each noise contour zone, annual house rents and the NDI value, the annual noise social costs are estimated for each airport. The results are shown in Table 3, together the actual noise revenue collected at each airport. Comparing this social cost with the revenue, Table 3 shows that some airports, such as Taipei Songshan, Tainan, Taitung and Kaohsiung airports, have a much higher noise social cost than the actual fee collected. This means that there should logically be an increase in noise charges at these airports in order to reflect their real social costs. This would enable the process of mitigating these costs (e.g. by insulating houses) to be accelerated instead of sometimes taking decades, as is the case with the current speed of insulation, and result in less noise nuisance on the community. By contrast, the revenue collected at Magong airport is more than its actual noise social cost! In this study we assume a correlation between house insulation costs and noise social costs. This assumption is based on two considerations. Firstly, this is almost the only noise mitigation investment in Taiwan and is what the noise-charge revenue is spent on. Secondly, the HP method is a measure of the discount in house prices due to noise – 0.6%/dB (see above) and if this discount is due to noise, removing the noise through insulation will remove the discount. The value of the discount can therefore be expected to be equal to the cost of the insulation. While there may be grounds for arguing that insulation does not remove all of the impact of the noise, the amount of impact left after insulation will be negligible. Given this assumption, it follows that dividing the noise social cost by the newly calculated noise charge revenue collected at a given airport provides the number of years required to complete house insulation at that airport. Fig. 1 shows an example of the noise social cost per LTO for a given aircraft type, in this case a large turbo-prop, at nine Taiwanese airports. The chart shows that Taipei Songshan airport, situated in the centre of the capital city, has the highest social cost per LTO of this type of aircraft, at just over 700 euros. The current noise charge level for a large turbo-prop is 24 euros per LTO for all airports. 4.3. Relationship between airport traffic and noise social cost Fig. 2 compares the annual noise social cost with aircraft movement figures in 2012. The number of households affected clearly bears no direct relationship to the traffic volume of the respective airport. Taipei Songshan, Tainan and Kaohsiung airports are all very much in the city centre, resulting in higher noise nuisance on the community. And despite having fewer commercial flights, Tainan has comparatively high noise impacts. However, these results are to be expected since there are many different types of
2
€1 = NT$36.86 at 1/8/2012. Day-night sound levels are a commonly used cumulative noise measurement in the formulation of airport noise contours. 3
4 These aircraft types have been anonymised to avoid distracting comparisons between different manufacturers’ products.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
5
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 1 Noise revenue collected and households entitled to noise insulation schemes. Airport
Taipei Songshan Kaohsiung Magonga Kinmen Taichunga Taitung Hualiana Tainana Chiayia
Commercial aircraft movements 2012
Passengers 2012 (000s)
58,170 45,302 34,697 27,430 19,710 11,753 5131 4094 2046
5674 4465 2107 2301 1592 447 266 231 88
Yearly average noise revenue collectedb Million NT$
euros
16.5 43.5 18.9 19.5 17.6 1.6 2.9 2.3 0.4
413,925 1,087,150 473,950 488,675 441,175 39,075 72,350 57,875 10,000
Households within noise control zone
Estimated households within 60Ldn contour
75,800 33,609 1894 1789 11,896 4845 68,642 123,051 12,265
25,267 16,805 1515 1431 9517 2423 34,321 30,763 6133
Source: compiled by the author; traffic data from Taiwan CAA, others from airport surveys. An exchange rate of NT$40/€ is used. a These are military-civil joint use airports. b The average revenue for the period of 2001–2011.
Table 2 The ICAO certified noise levels and number of seats for various aircraft types.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Aircraft ID
Propulsion
No. of engines
No. of seats
Lateral (EPNdB)
Flyover (EPNdB)
Approach (EPNdB)
Noise index
SProp LProp Bizjet Jet1 MProp Jet2 Jet3 Jet4
TP TP Jet Jet TP Jet Jet Jet
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
19 72 10 160 56 104 158 150
71.1 84.8 92 91.0 87.0 93.1 93.7 92.3
71.1 80.1 79 82.6 79.5 86.1 84.6 86.9
79.3 92.5 91 91.9 94.8 92.8 96.0 95.7
0.06 1.00 1.12 1.48 1.55 2.44 3.03 3.12
Source: compiled by the author, based on the aircraft types used by Taiwanese carriers; noise data are from [32,33] (TP = Turbo-Prop).
Table 3 The annual noise social costs and noise revenues for year 2012. Airport
Aircraft movements 2012
Noise social costs (M€) (A)
Noise revenue (€) (B)
Years for cost internalisation (A)/(B)
Taipei Kaohsiung Magong Kinmen Taichung Taitung Hualian Tainan Chiayi
58,170 45,302 34,697 27,430 19,710 11,753 5131 4094 2046
37.75 14.48 0.24 0.53 0.83 0.70 0.46 1.95 0.02
413,925 1,087,150 473,950 488,675 441,175 39,075 72,350 57,875 10,000
91.2 13.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 17.9 6.4 33.7 2.4
Note: 50 dB was used as a standard background noise level.
traffic, from quiet ATR72s to relatively loud B737s. It could be considered that the different fleet mixes at the different airports will account for a large amount of the variance. Fig. 3 shows the average noise social cost per LTO and the same per unit noise index, at the different airports, whose total aircraft movements are given for comparison. It can be seen that relating the social cost to the noise index removes a large part of the variance, with similar values being obtained for Taipei and Tainan. Introducing a noise-index-based noise charge could, therefore go some way towards levelling out the noise-social-cost playing field. This figure shows the requirement for the airport coefficients (Aj) necessary to increase the charges at those airports that have a higher social cost. This is discussed further below. While the noise social cost per LTO could be a good reference for setting up the noise charge level for different aircraft types at different airports, if an airline decides to pass on the cost to passengers, it might be worthwhile examining the social cost per seat (ignoring load factors of flights for the moment). Fig. 4 shows the noise social cost per seat at Taipei and Kaohsiung airports. The ‘‘BizJet’’ has the highest noise social cost, though this is probably
Fig. 1. Noise social cost comparison for a large turbo-prop turnaround.
quite normal since this business jet has only 10 seats on average (and probably not a very high load factor!). 4.4. Suggestion of the noise charge structure With various aspects to be considered and examined, the actual determination of the noise charge levels for different Taiwanese
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
6
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Noise social cost compared with aircraft movement.
Fig. 3. Unit noise social cost per LTO and per unit noise index for an LTO compared with aircraft movements.
airports cannot just be treated through a simple standard method. It has become a compromise between all of the regulation-related constraints applicable to the given airport on the one hand and the opinions of all parties concerned on the other. For example, the noise charges are already earmarked for house insulation schemes and the households previously affected by noise nuisance are still entitled to house insulation, even though the noise contour has shrunk due to there being fewer flights. The forecast traffic and aircraft mix at airports also play a role in the process. This leads to a long completion time and to complexity in adjusting noise charge levels. Furthermore, the adjustment of the charge levels and formulas needs to be managed in full and reasoned consultation with the airlines in order to implement the scheme smoothly. The current charge level of a large turbo prop, category 2 in Table 2, at Taiwanese airports is around 24 euros per LTO, which could be a conservative value for R in Eq. (1), i.e. one acceptable to airlines. With the noise index in Table 2 providing the Ni values, we obtain the basic fee for different categories of aircraft. The results shown in Fig. 3 could clearly be a basis for airport coefficients, Aj. If a reference value of 1 is taken for Aj, there is clearly a need to set Aj to a higher value than this for those airports with the highest values – Taipei, Tainan and Kaohsiung. On the other hand, those airports with lower unit social costs would require a lower Aj value. Finally, the Sj value should be more than 1 (such as 1.2, representing a 20% noise surcharge) for those airports that do not have night curfews. This proposed noise formula thus forms a charge matrix for airports concerned, with the same structure
and methodology, but with each airport having different fees to reflect its unique operating environment and characteristics. As an example, the airports are categorised into four groups according to their noise social cost. The airport coefficients for these groups are set to 4, 2, 1 and 0.5. The current noise charge level (i.e. €24 for a large turboprop) is used as the unit rate. The resulting noise charge structure for all nine airports during the day-time (Sj = 1) is given as in Table 4. New noise charge revenues have been calculated for these airports using the new noise charge scheme described here. These results are given in Table 5. The number of years required to internalise the noise social cost has also been calculated for comparison
Fig. 4. Noise social cost per seat by aircraft type at Taipei and Kaohsiung airports.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
7
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 4 Example of the noise charge structure. Aircraft category
SProp
LProp
BizJet
Jet1
Mprop
Jet2
Jet3
Jet4
Ni Aj
0.06 1.00 Noise charges (euros/LTO)
1.12
1.48
1.55
2.44
3.03
3.12
Airport Taipei Kaohsiung Magong Kinmen Taichung Taitung Hualian Tainan Chiayi
4.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
5.8 2.9 0.7 1.4 1.4 2.9 1.4 2.9 1.4
107.5 53.8 13.4 26.9 26.9 53.8 26.9 53.8 26.9
142.1 71.0 17.8 35.5 35.5 71.0 35.5 71.0 35.5
148.8 74.4 18.6 37.2 37.2 74.4 37.2 74.4 37.2
234.2 117.1 29.3 58.6 58.6 117.1 58.6 117.1 58.6
290.9 145.4 36.4 72.7 72.7 145.4 72.7 145.4 72.7
299.5 149.8 37.4 74.9 74.9 149.8 74.9 149.8 74.9
96.0 48.0 12.0 24.0 24.0 48.0 24.0 48.0 24.0
Table 5 Effect of new noise charge regime on completion of noise insulation schemes. Airport
Aircraft movements 2012
Noise social costs (M€) (A)
Noise revenue (M€) (B)
Years for cost internalisation (A)/(B)
New noise revenue 2012 (M€) (C)
Change in noise revenue (C)/(B) (%)
Years for cost internalisation (A)/(C)
Taipei Kaohsiung Magong Kinmen Taichung Taitung Hualian Tainan Chiayi
58,170 45,302 34,697 27,430 19,710 11,753 5131 4094 2046
37.75 14.48 0.24 0.53 0.83 0.70 0.46 1.95 0.02
0.414 1.087 0.474 0.489 0.441 0.039 0.072 0.058 0.010
91.2 13.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 17.9 6.4 33.7 2.4
5.031 2.632 0.321 0.510 0.507 0.194 0.077 0.151 0.038
1215.22 242.13 67.72 104.29 114.97 497.44 106.94 260.34 380.00
7.5 5.5 0.7 1.0 1.6 3.6 5.9 12.9 0.5
with those values shown in Table 3. It can be seen that, for those airports with a considerable gap between noise social costs and revenue, the increased charge level, has gone a long way towards compensating the nuisance experienced by residents by considerably reducing the time taken to internalise the noise social costs. 5. Conclusions More than 100 airports in the world have applied noise-related charges, either through noise surcharges or through landing fees that vary with aircraft noise levels/categories. The schemes for applying these charges, greatly diverse between airports, have been compared and examined. With different airport operating characteristics, and given the historical development of noise-related charges and other airport user charges, even with different national cultures, there is no single noise-charge scheme that suits all the airports in the world. However, the proposed systematic generic approach to setting up noise charge mechanisms and charge levels could be applied to any airport that wishes to revise their current noise charge schemes or set up a new one. The approach has combined theoretical research results with practical considerations. The social costs for different airports serve as good reference points for understanding the actual impacts of noise nuisance on the community. When setting up noise charge schemes and levels, the costs of house insulation schemes, administrative procedures and the impact on airlines have been shown to be the essential issues, or even constraints, which need to be examined thoroughly. Combining theoretical methodology with practicalities, the aim of this revision, or setting up, of systematic noise-charge schemes is to serve the welfare of all parties involved: residents, airlines, government authorities, etc. The formula proposed for calculating noise charges, and the coefficients chosen for Taiwan airports, have enabled the time taken to perform an insulation scheme to be reduced in one case from over 90 years to 7.5 years, other things being equal. While
this is an enormous improvement, 7.5 years is still a long time for a resident to have to wait for their house to be insulated. A better use of resources could perhaps be obtained by contracting a loan to pay for the scheme up front and using the noise charges to reimburse this loan. This would not be possible with a 91.2-year repayment term. Once the house insulation scheme has been completed and the loan repaid, there is obviously no further need for noise charges to pay for it. However, insulation does not hide 100% of the noise and noise charges could also be levied for other actions towards alleviating residents’ grievances. Additionally, as noise is not constant over time – aircraft become quieter, but there are generally more of them as time progresses – there should be periodic re-evaluations of noise social costs to see if more insulation and/ or other action is required. Acknowledgements The Author would like to thank the Taiwanese National Science Council for financial support and the Taiwan CAA for supplying data necessary to this work. References [1] Airbus. Global market forecast 2012–2031; 2012. [2] Boeing. Current market outlook 2012–2031; 2012. [3] International Civil Aviation Organisation. Aircraft noise. [September 2013]. [4] International Civil Aviation Organisation. A consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection. Resolution A36-22, Montreal; 2007. [5] International Civil Aviation Organisation. Aviation and sustainability. ICAO journal 66, Montreal; 2011. [6] Airports Council International. Aircraft noise and community relations. ACI position brief, Montreal; 2010. [7] World Health Organisation. Burden of disease from environmental noise – quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. Denmark: World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe; 2011. [8] Nelson JP. Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: problems and prospects. J Transport Econ Policy 2004;38(1):1–27.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
8
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
[9] Dekkers J, van der Straaten W. Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: a hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport. Ecol Econ 2009;68:2850–8. [10] Hsu C-I, Lin P-H. Performance assessment for airport noise charge policies and airline network adjustment response. Transp Res Part D 2005;10:281–304. [11] Lijesen M, van der Straaten W, Dekkers J, van Elk R, Bloldijk J. How much noise reduction at airports? Transp Res Part D 2010;15:51–9. [12] Lu C. In: Stefan Gossling, Paul Upham, editors. Climate change and aviation – 9: Aviation and economic development: the implications of environmental costs on different airline business models and flight networks. Earthscan; 2009. p. 193–220 [ISBN-10: 1844076202]. [13] Boeing. Airports with noise and emissions restrictions.
[23] European Commission. Unification of accounts and marginal costs for transport efficiency (UNITE). In: Deliverable 11 environmental marginal cost case studies, competitive and sustainable growth programme; January 2003. [24] Schipper Y. Environmental costs in European aviation. Transp Policy 2004;11(2):141–54. [25] Pearce B. Pearce D. Setting Environmental Taxes for Aircraft: a case study of the UK. CSERGE working paper. GEC 2000-26; 2000. [26] Lu C, Morrell P. Determination and applications of environmental costs at different sized airports – aircraft noise and engine emissions. Transportation 2006;33(1):45–61. [27] Bristow A, Wardman M, et al. Attitudes towards and values of aircraft annoyance and noise nuisance. Attitudes to aircraft annoyance around airports (5A) – survey. Report EEC/SEE/2003/002; 2003. [28] European Commission. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purpose of calculating noise charges. COM (2002), 683 final – amended. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels; 2002. [29] ANCAT. Transport aircraft noise classification and noise charges. ANCAT/ 45(Inf.)-WP/3. In: The abatement of nuisance caused by air transport, European civil aviation conference, Brussels; 1998. [30] Luftfatsverket (LFV). Current tariff regulations AIC Sweden. Swedish Civil Aviation Administration; 11 March 2010. [31] Lu C. The current and future development of aircraft noise management measures in Taiwan. In: Presented at the acoustics 2012 conference, Hong Kong, China; 2012. [32] European Aviation Safety Agency. EASA Noise Type Certificates.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Acoustics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust
Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes Cherie Lu ⇑ Department of Aviation and Maritime Management, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan 71101, Taiwan
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 10 May 2013 Received in revised form 17 March 2014 Accepted 21 March 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Aircraft noise charges Noise social cost Hedonic price method Airport noise policies
a b s t r a c t This research has developed a systematic aircraft noise charge scheme, based on noise social costs, with a view to its application in Taiwan. The paper starts with a brief review of current structures and applications of noise charges, a market-based measure, in mitigating aircraft noise worldwide. The evaluation of aircraft noise social cost is an attempt at putting noise nuisance into monetary terms. The total and average noise social cost per flight at one airport is clearly different from another, depending mainly on the size of the noise contour and the number of residents affected. This research estimates the average noise social costs at various airports, using nine Taiwanese airports as case studies. Depending on the marginal impact of a flight and the mixture of aircraft types at each airport, the noise social cost per landing and take-off is then estimated for different aircraft types. The results of this study can inform airport, airline and local administration policies for taking environmental concerns into account when setting up noise charges, revising noise insulation schemes, and developing strategies for airport expansion and airline operations. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Despite the economic downturns and the resulting unexpected drawbacks of recent years, the air transport industry is still forecast to experience a 5–6% annual growth for the next 20 years, with the Asian markets taking the lead [1,2]. This forecast growth in the aviation market leads to unavoidable negative side-effects on the environment and on human beings. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recommended a ‘‘balanced approach’’ to aircraft noise management at airports [3]. There are four main aspects to this approach:
reduction of noise at source; land use planning and management; noise abatement operational procedures; and operating restrictions.
These aspects are generally implemented through regulations or restrictions. However, ICAO has also stated the importance of applying market-based measures (MBMs) as an additional policy option for achieving the sustainable development of the industry [4–6]. MBMs include environmental charges, taxes, trading and ⇑ Tel.: +886 62785123x2259; fax: +886 62785056. E-mail address: [email protected]
offset, generally applied at the international, national or airport levels. They can be used for mitigating aircraft noise and/or engine emissions. The externalities generated by commercial flights have various impacts on air quality, climate change, noise, water quality, fuel consumption and energy, waste and the ecology. More than aircraft engine emissions, noise nuisance undoubtedly has the largest social impact on the community surrounding the airport [7]. Various regulations and MBMs are applied worldwide for internalising these external environmental costs. In the case of aircraft noise, the application of noise surcharges as part of airport user charges is the most commonly used internalisation method. There are two pre-conditions for any such method to be effective: Understanding the value of the external costs – the ‘‘noise social cost’’. – Including investigating the cost of house insulation schemes, a major means of mitigating the noise. Understanding how this cost relates to the number of aircraft movements, in order to apportion the cost. Various studies have attempted to estimate aircraft nuisance in monetary terms [8,9], or the relationship between noise charges and airline operations [10,11]. Despite the fact that the link
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015 0003-682X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
2
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
between noise social cost and charges has already been established [12], there is no discussion on establishing systematic social-costbased aircraft noise charge schemes for airport systems, for airport operators or governments that manage more than one airport in a given country. This paper aims to provide such a scheme. With the help of such a scheme, airports, airlines and local administrations may develop policies for taking environmental concerns into account when developing strategies for airport expansion and airline operations. After reviewing and analysing current noise charge schemes at airports world-wide, this paper proposes a systematic method for setting up an aircraft noise charge mechanism at airports, taking a theoretical approach and based on practical considerations. Nine Taiwanese airports are used as an example for determining average aircraft noise social costs, and a suggested potential noise charge structure is developed.
2. A brief review of noise charge schemes at airports world-wide 2.1. Noise charge principles In 1999, only 14 countries in the world had some form of noise charge; by 2007, 24 countries – 18 European, 4 Asian and 2 North American – had applied such noise-related charges [12], though the number of countries had slightly reduced to 23 by April 2013 [13]. The countries with airports at which aircraft noise charges are applied are given here. Europe (17 countries): Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom. Asia (4 countries): Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. North America (2 countries): Canada, United States. The schemes for applying these charges vary greatly from country to country, and even between airports in a given country. Based on the noise charge mechanisms chosen and the variables used in the noise charge formulas, the noise-related charges could be further classified into: percentages of surcharges/discounts based on landing fee; landing fee according to aircraft acoustic category; noise surcharges based on noise levels and aircraft weight; noise surcharges based on aircraft acoustic categories; night surcharges; etc. These aircraft noise charges are mostly imposed by the airport operators. However, the Dutch government imposes the Dutch Governmental Noise charge for the purpose of noise insulation schemes and the French Government imposes the French Noise Tax [14]. The structure and level of noise charges generally depends on aircraft noise levels (and in some cases aircraft weight as well), the time of aircraft operations and the cost of mitigation measures such as house insulation schemes etc. to be paid for. As an example of noise-charge equations used, Brussels Airport levies a charge equal to the product of the formula U⁄W⁄E⁄D, in which U is the unit rate, W is the weight of the aircraft, E is the environmental factor, D is the day/night factor. The environmental factor is a function of the year and aircraft classifications. One of the key issues in a noise charge scheme is aircraft acoustic categorisation, or the noise levels defined for different aircraft/engine combinations. Examination of the current noise
charge schemes at airports worldwide shows that charges can be based either on ‘‘relative noise levels’’ or on ‘‘absolute noise levels.’’ The typical aircraft noise classification based on relative noise levels is the ACI Aircraft Noise Rating Index [15]. Aircraft/engine combinations are classified into 8 categories based on their cumulative levels at the three ICAO measurement points. This method is appropriate for airports using the landing fee as a basis for charging. Extra percentage surcharges are applied to aircraft in a noisier category than the airport’s chosen baseline, and a reduction is applied otherwise. Examples of airports using such a scheme include Belgium (Brussels), France (Charles De Gaulle), Japan (Tokyo-Narita), Netherlands (Schiphol), South Korea (Gimpo) and Spain (Madrid). Two distinctions may be made with regard to absolute noise levels: whether measured or certified noise levels are used. Only airports in Germany and Switzerland classify aircraft/engine types based on the noise levels measured at the airport concerned. The rarity of the use of measured levels is generally due to the enormous variation encountered depending on where and how the measurements were taken, and on the weather conditions prevailing at the time. Most airports in this group use the ICAO certified noise levels as the basis of charges, therefore. Airports that charge for noise based on absolute and certified noise levels include Austria (Vienna), Hungary (Budapest), Japan (Tokyo-Haneda), Sweden (Stockholm), Taiwan (10 airports), UK (London-Heathrow) and the United States (Palm Beach). 2.2. Applications of charges According to ICAO guidelines, the revenues collected should be used to recover the costs of noise prevention or alleviation [16,17]. In addition, there is a need to further evaluate the use of charges for maximum welfare [18,19]. For most of the airports, the purpose of collecting noise surcharges is mainly to mitigate the impact of noise nuisance on the community. Even without changing the fleets or aircraft movements, the impacts of noise can be reduced by properly investing the money collected in such noise mitigation measures as house insulation schemes or compensation measures. For airports where noise charging is based on a revenue-neutral increase or decrease in landing fees, this is considered an economic incentive for helping airlines accelerate their use of quieter aircraft. Most airports have invested money on noise-related insulation schemes, specifically on residential houses, schools, hospitals and public buildings. Additionally, airports like Sydney have invested in building community centres or care centres; while Schiphol and Narita airports have used the money to acquire land around the airport to prevent further building. Tokyo Narita Airport has had a very high cumulative investment, compared with other airports, due to the densely populated area, and high cost of obtaining the land, around the airport [13]. Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport has huge noise impacts on the surrounding area for its size. There was a cumulative investment of US$104 million in house insulation in Taoyuan between 1985 and 2006 [20]. The noise charge level at airports is often determined by the cost of house insulation schemes which can be, in theoretical terms, considered as a form of prevention cost rather than a noise social costs. House insulation can alleviate some of the noise nuisance that residents suffer from aircraft noise, but the full noise social cost should be investigated in order to justify a better noise charge mechanism and to fully compensate the impact of aviation on residents. 3. Aircraft noise charge mechanism and social cost estimation The theoretical basis behind noise charges is that they should be used for internalising noise externalities [21]. The aim of
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
3
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
internalisation is to bring external effects into the market process so that the market can adjust to its efficient level. Internalisation should be based on estimating the marginal social cost of the externalities. It is vital for the government or airport authorities to promote the internalisation of negative externalities – noise, in the case of this paper – by introducing policy instruments [22]. A systematic approach to setting up a noise charge mechanism should take into account the findings of theoretical research and a review of current noise charge schemes worldwide. This section proposes a generalised noise charge formula to be applied in a region/country with more than one airport, followed by further discussion of the derivation of two important parameters in this noise charge formula – the airport coefficient and the noise index for different aircraft types. 3.1. Proposed noise charge scheme There are three main elements that influence the noise nuisance experienced by residents living near airports: the noise level produced by the actual aircraft; the operating environment (the number of flights per day, the fleet mix in use at the airport, etc.) at the airport; the time of day when flights take place (principally important for questions of sleep disturbance etc.). When proposing a new scheme, it is also important to take into account any current scheme so that a certain amount of continuity may be ensured. As noted in Section 2, there are various ways of classifying aircraft/engine combinations according to their acoustic levels. In this paper we assign aircraft into categories instead of charging them based on their individual noise levels is the resulting ease of administration. The total number of categories and the classification method should then take into account the types of aircraft operated at a given airport, as well as administrative effort available. In the light of these various aspects and in consideration of the current noise charge schemes reviewed above, the following noise charge formula is proposed:
T ij ¼ RN i Aj Sj
ð1Þ
where Tij is the noise charge applied for a landing and take-off (LTO) cycle for the ith aircraft noise category at airport j, R is the unit rate per LTO ($/LTO), depending on the historical noise charge level and the average cost of a house insulation scheme. R is the basis of the monetary value for noise charge for the entire group of airports. The level of R depends on the revenue needed to be collected in order to complete the required noise mitigation actions required, for example house insulation schemes. The reason for considering the historical noise charge level is that it gives a clear idea of how the new charge changes from the old one. Ni, Aj and Sj are all coefficients. Ni represents the noise index for the ith aircraft noise category. Aj is the airport coefficient for airport j, determined by aircraft noise social costs on the households affected, and based on airport operating conditions, Sj is a night surcharge coefficient at airport j where applicable; Sj = 1 means no night surcharge is applied. The following sections will further explain the estimation of noise social cost for an airport for the determination of Aj, and the method of estimating the marginal noise impact for Ni.
hedonic price method, prevention costs (e.g. costs of house insulation schemes), health impacts and surveys on willingness to accept etc. [23,24]. This study used the hedonic price (HP) method, one of the most commonly used methods, which determines the implicit prices of certain characteristics, such as location, attributes of the neighbourhood and local environmental quality, that govern property values [25,26]. Given that the revenue of airport noise charges often goes towards house insulation schemes, and assuming that the cost of a house insulation scheme is related to house price – the bigger the house, the more insulation it needs – the HP method is correlated to prevention costs. The suggested HP method has the advantage that it can be conducted for a number of airports simultaneously, especially when time and budget are limited; as opposed to the stated preference method which needs to be done for airports individually, as was the case in the 5A study [27]. By applying the HP method, the annual total noise social cost at airport j, Cj, could be derived by multiplying the following inputs [12]: the noise depreciation index (NDI): the percentage reduction of house price per dB(A)1 above background noise. A literature review provides an average NDI of 0.6% [8]; the level of aircraft noise above the background noise level for each zone of the noise contour; the number of residences within each zone of the noise contour; the average annual house rent in the vicinity of the airport, which could be derived from the average house value in the area. The average noise social cost per LTO at airport j, C aj , can easily be obtained by dividing Cj by the annual total number of aircraft LTOs. Theoretically, Aj, the airport coefficient, should be equal to C aj =R. However, a certain adjustment is recommended before the actual implementation, to accommodate the requirements of all stakeholders. This approach is particularly suitable when designing a general scheme for several airports in a country or a region. While R represents a unit rate, the social cost-related Aj easily represents the degree of noise nuisance at different airports. 3.3. Marginal noise impact – noise index for different aircraft types After calculating the aggregate noise social cost, it is necessary to decide how to allocate this total external cost to individual flights. This process should be based on the real impact of noise nuisance, generated dynamically from each specific flight. This study has adapted a formula used in the European Commission’s proposal for a potential harmonised noise charge system, which provides the possibility of modulating aircraft noise charges as a function of environmental impact [28,29]. The proposal, and therefore formula, was not approved, but is used by Sweden [30]. This formula is based on the three ICAO noise certification levels – the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNdB) for take-off, sideline and approach – for different aircraft/engine combinations. The noise index for different aircraft categories, Ni, is calculated as follows: ðLa T a Þ 10
Ni ¼ 10
ðLd T d Þ
þ 10
10
ð2Þ
3.2. Airport coefficient – using hedonic price method to estimate annual noise social costs
where La is the certificated noise level at approach; Ta is the noise threshold at arrival; Ld is the average of flyover (take-off) and lateral (sideline) measurement points; Td is the noise threshold at departure.
The techniques that have been applied in the past for evaluating the social costs of aircraft noise in monetary terms include the
1 dBA: the A-weighted decibel units, adjusted to conform to the frequency response of the human ear.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
4
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
In the initial proposal from the European Commission, each half – arrival and departure – of the formula was multiplied by a unit charge to convey the importance of arrivals and departures on the overall noise impact at an airport. In the present study, the unit charge is part of Eq. (1) – the R coefficient – and so is not included in the calculation of the noise index. The threshold values, Ta and Td, are derived from the fleet and provide lower values of the noise index. Different deviations of these threshold values from the ‘‘average’’ values for the fleet can play the same role of conveying the importance of arrivals and departures as different unit charge values in the original commission formula. With information about the composition of aircraft movements by aircraft/engine combination, the annual noise index can be aggregated and, by considering the noise index for different aircraft/engine combinations, the noise social cost per aircraft movement can be derived. 4. Empirical analysis – the current and suggested aircraft noise charges at Taiwanese airports 4.1. Aircraft noise charge and airport noise control zones in Taiwan The geographical characteristics of Taiwan have made the country heavily dependent on air transport and this, combined with the island’s high population density, has highlighted the importance of aircraft noise issues. Nine of the country’s seventeen airports are on the main island, with eight being on remote islands. Following the corporatisation of Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport in 2010, the Taiwan Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) is now in charge of sixteen airports, of which six are of joint civil-military use. Since 1997, the noise charge expressed in Eq. (3), and based on the predicted cost of the noise insulation scheme at that time, has been imposed on airlines as part of airport user charges.2
Noise charge ðNT dollar=flightÞ ¼ 17x þ 95ðy 73Þ
ð3Þ
where x is Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW) in tonnes; y is takeoff noise in EPNdB, ‘‘73’’ is a threshold value based on the take-off certification level of the quietest civil aircraft in use in Taiwan at the time the formula was devised. The coefficients ‘‘17’’ and ‘‘95’’ were chosen as being those that would best provide the required revenue at the time. Currently, the same formula applies to all those airports in Taiwan that are in imposed noise control zones and have implemented aircraft noise charges. In other words, the same aircraft type flying to Taipei (Songshan) airport, which is in the city centre, or to Tainan Airport, a small domestic airport, pays the same noise charge regardless of its actual impact on residents. The noise charge collected at these airports is called ‘‘the noise control fee’’ (hereafter referred to as ‘‘revenue collected’’) and its sole purpose is for use in house insulation schemes. According to the ‘‘Regulation of Aircraft Noise Control Fee Assignation and Use’’, an airport must subsidise sound proofing installations for schools, libraries, medical institutions and dwellings in areas exposed to aircraft noise levels greater than 60 dB(A) day-night average sound level (Ldn)3 [20]. Table 1 lists the average annual revenue collected at each of the 9 airports examined in this study, the number of households within the noise control zone (so entitled to noise insulation schemes) and the numbers of aircraft movements and passengers in 2012. It is worth noting that the noise control zone is classified according to the smallest administrative area of Taiwan
(i.e. village or ward) so there are fewer households within the 60Ldn noise contour than households entitled to noise insulation schemes – all houses, school, hospitals etc. in an affected village/ward are entitled to benefit from the scheme. For the calculation of current noise social costs, the number of households actually affected within the 60Ldn noise contour at each airport has been estimated from interview and survey results [31]. 4.2. Annual noise social costs at Taiwanese airports in 2012 Table 2 lists the aircraft types most commonly in use at these airports.4 Considering the aircraft noise levels at Taiwanese airports and then applying 66 dB and 73 dB as the departure and arrival noise thresholds respectively, the noise index for different aircraft types are obtained from applying the formula in Eq. (2). With the number of households within each noise contour zone, annual house rents and the NDI value, the annual noise social costs are estimated for each airport. The results are shown in Table 3, together the actual noise revenue collected at each airport. Comparing this social cost with the revenue, Table 3 shows that some airports, such as Taipei Songshan, Tainan, Taitung and Kaohsiung airports, have a much higher noise social cost than the actual fee collected. This means that there should logically be an increase in noise charges at these airports in order to reflect their real social costs. This would enable the process of mitigating these costs (e.g. by insulating houses) to be accelerated instead of sometimes taking decades, as is the case with the current speed of insulation, and result in less noise nuisance on the community. By contrast, the revenue collected at Magong airport is more than its actual noise social cost! In this study we assume a correlation between house insulation costs and noise social costs. This assumption is based on two considerations. Firstly, this is almost the only noise mitigation investment in Taiwan and is what the noise-charge revenue is spent on. Secondly, the HP method is a measure of the discount in house prices due to noise – 0.6%/dB (see above) and if this discount is due to noise, removing the noise through insulation will remove the discount. The value of the discount can therefore be expected to be equal to the cost of the insulation. While there may be grounds for arguing that insulation does not remove all of the impact of the noise, the amount of impact left after insulation will be negligible. Given this assumption, it follows that dividing the noise social cost by the newly calculated noise charge revenue collected at a given airport provides the number of years required to complete house insulation at that airport. Fig. 1 shows an example of the noise social cost per LTO for a given aircraft type, in this case a large turbo-prop, at nine Taiwanese airports. The chart shows that Taipei Songshan airport, situated in the centre of the capital city, has the highest social cost per LTO of this type of aircraft, at just over 700 euros. The current noise charge level for a large turbo-prop is 24 euros per LTO for all airports. 4.3. Relationship between airport traffic and noise social cost Fig. 2 compares the annual noise social cost with aircraft movement figures in 2012. The number of households affected clearly bears no direct relationship to the traffic volume of the respective airport. Taipei Songshan, Tainan and Kaohsiung airports are all very much in the city centre, resulting in higher noise nuisance on the community. And despite having fewer commercial flights, Tainan has comparatively high noise impacts. However, these results are to be expected since there are many different types of
2
€1 = NT$36.86 at 1/8/2012. Day-night sound levels are a commonly used cumulative noise measurement in the formulation of airport noise contours. 3
4 These aircraft types have been anonymised to avoid distracting comparisons between different manufacturers’ products.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
5
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 1 Noise revenue collected and households entitled to noise insulation schemes. Airport
Taipei Songshan Kaohsiung Magonga Kinmen Taichunga Taitung Hualiana Tainana Chiayia
Commercial aircraft movements 2012
Passengers 2012 (000s)
58,170 45,302 34,697 27,430 19,710 11,753 5131 4094 2046
5674 4465 2107 2301 1592 447 266 231 88
Yearly average noise revenue collectedb Million NT$
euros
16.5 43.5 18.9 19.5 17.6 1.6 2.9 2.3 0.4
413,925 1,087,150 473,950 488,675 441,175 39,075 72,350 57,875 10,000
Households within noise control zone
Estimated households within 60Ldn contour
75,800 33,609 1894 1789 11,896 4845 68,642 123,051 12,265
25,267 16,805 1515 1431 9517 2423 34,321 30,763 6133
Source: compiled by the author; traffic data from Taiwan CAA, others from airport surveys. An exchange rate of NT$40/€ is used. a These are military-civil joint use airports. b The average revenue for the period of 2001–2011.
Table 2 The ICAO certified noise levels and number of seats for various aircraft types.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Aircraft ID
Propulsion
No. of engines
No. of seats
Lateral (EPNdB)
Flyover (EPNdB)
Approach (EPNdB)
Noise index
SProp LProp Bizjet Jet1 MProp Jet2 Jet3 Jet4
TP TP Jet Jet TP Jet Jet Jet
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
19 72 10 160 56 104 158 150
71.1 84.8 92 91.0 87.0 93.1 93.7 92.3
71.1 80.1 79 82.6 79.5 86.1 84.6 86.9
79.3 92.5 91 91.9 94.8 92.8 96.0 95.7
0.06 1.00 1.12 1.48 1.55 2.44 3.03 3.12
Source: compiled by the author, based on the aircraft types used by Taiwanese carriers; noise data are from [32,33] (TP = Turbo-Prop).
Table 3 The annual noise social costs and noise revenues for year 2012. Airport
Aircraft movements 2012
Noise social costs (M€) (A)
Noise revenue (€) (B)
Years for cost internalisation (A)/(B)
Taipei Kaohsiung Magong Kinmen Taichung Taitung Hualian Tainan Chiayi
58,170 45,302 34,697 27,430 19,710 11,753 5131 4094 2046
37.75 14.48 0.24 0.53 0.83 0.70 0.46 1.95 0.02
413,925 1,087,150 473,950 488,675 441,175 39,075 72,350 57,875 10,000
91.2 13.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 17.9 6.4 33.7 2.4
Note: 50 dB was used as a standard background noise level.
traffic, from quiet ATR72s to relatively loud B737s. It could be considered that the different fleet mixes at the different airports will account for a large amount of the variance. Fig. 3 shows the average noise social cost per LTO and the same per unit noise index, at the different airports, whose total aircraft movements are given for comparison. It can be seen that relating the social cost to the noise index removes a large part of the variance, with similar values being obtained for Taipei and Tainan. Introducing a noise-index-based noise charge could, therefore go some way towards levelling out the noise-social-cost playing field. This figure shows the requirement for the airport coefficients (Aj) necessary to increase the charges at those airports that have a higher social cost. This is discussed further below. While the noise social cost per LTO could be a good reference for setting up the noise charge level for different aircraft types at different airports, if an airline decides to pass on the cost to passengers, it might be worthwhile examining the social cost per seat (ignoring load factors of flights for the moment). Fig. 4 shows the noise social cost per seat at Taipei and Kaohsiung airports. The ‘‘BizJet’’ has the highest noise social cost, though this is probably
Fig. 1. Noise social cost comparison for a large turbo-prop turnaround.
quite normal since this business jet has only 10 seats on average (and probably not a very high load factor!). 4.4. Suggestion of the noise charge structure With various aspects to be considered and examined, the actual determination of the noise charge levels for different Taiwanese
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
6
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Noise social cost compared with aircraft movement.
Fig. 3. Unit noise social cost per LTO and per unit noise index for an LTO compared with aircraft movements.
airports cannot just be treated through a simple standard method. It has become a compromise between all of the regulation-related constraints applicable to the given airport on the one hand and the opinions of all parties concerned on the other. For example, the noise charges are already earmarked for house insulation schemes and the households previously affected by noise nuisance are still entitled to house insulation, even though the noise contour has shrunk due to there being fewer flights. The forecast traffic and aircraft mix at airports also play a role in the process. This leads to a long completion time and to complexity in adjusting noise charge levels. Furthermore, the adjustment of the charge levels and formulas needs to be managed in full and reasoned consultation with the airlines in order to implement the scheme smoothly. The current charge level of a large turbo prop, category 2 in Table 2, at Taiwanese airports is around 24 euros per LTO, which could be a conservative value for R in Eq. (1), i.e. one acceptable to airlines. With the noise index in Table 2 providing the Ni values, we obtain the basic fee for different categories of aircraft. The results shown in Fig. 3 could clearly be a basis for airport coefficients, Aj. If a reference value of 1 is taken for Aj, there is clearly a need to set Aj to a higher value than this for those airports with the highest values – Taipei, Tainan and Kaohsiung. On the other hand, those airports with lower unit social costs would require a lower Aj value. Finally, the Sj value should be more than 1 (such as 1.2, representing a 20% noise surcharge) for those airports that do not have night curfews. This proposed noise formula thus forms a charge matrix for airports concerned, with the same structure
and methodology, but with each airport having different fees to reflect its unique operating environment and characteristics. As an example, the airports are categorised into four groups according to their noise social cost. The airport coefficients for these groups are set to 4, 2, 1 and 0.5. The current noise charge level (i.e. €24 for a large turboprop) is used as the unit rate. The resulting noise charge structure for all nine airports during the day-time (Sj = 1) is given as in Table 4. New noise charge revenues have been calculated for these airports using the new noise charge scheme described here. These results are given in Table 5. The number of years required to internalise the noise social cost has also been calculated for comparison
Fig. 4. Noise social cost per seat by aircraft type at Taipei and Kaohsiung airports.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
7
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx Table 4 Example of the noise charge structure. Aircraft category
SProp
LProp
BizJet
Jet1
Mprop
Jet2
Jet3
Jet4
Ni Aj
0.06 1.00 Noise charges (euros/LTO)
1.12
1.48
1.55
2.44
3.03
3.12
Airport Taipei Kaohsiung Magong Kinmen Taichung Taitung Hualian Tainan Chiayi
4.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
5.8 2.9 0.7 1.4 1.4 2.9 1.4 2.9 1.4
107.5 53.8 13.4 26.9 26.9 53.8 26.9 53.8 26.9
142.1 71.0 17.8 35.5 35.5 71.0 35.5 71.0 35.5
148.8 74.4 18.6 37.2 37.2 74.4 37.2 74.4 37.2
234.2 117.1 29.3 58.6 58.6 117.1 58.6 117.1 58.6
290.9 145.4 36.4 72.7 72.7 145.4 72.7 145.4 72.7
299.5 149.8 37.4 74.9 74.9 149.8 74.9 149.8 74.9
96.0 48.0 12.0 24.0 24.0 48.0 24.0 48.0 24.0
Table 5 Effect of new noise charge regime on completion of noise insulation schemes. Airport
Aircraft movements 2012
Noise social costs (M€) (A)
Noise revenue (M€) (B)
Years for cost internalisation (A)/(B)
New noise revenue 2012 (M€) (C)
Change in noise revenue (C)/(B) (%)
Years for cost internalisation (A)/(C)
Taipei Kaohsiung Magong Kinmen Taichung Taitung Hualian Tainan Chiayi
58,170 45,302 34,697 27,430 19,710 11,753 5131 4094 2046
37.75 14.48 0.24 0.53 0.83 0.70 0.46 1.95 0.02
0.414 1.087 0.474 0.489 0.441 0.039 0.072 0.058 0.010
91.2 13.3 0.5 1.1 1.9 17.9 6.4 33.7 2.4
5.031 2.632 0.321 0.510 0.507 0.194 0.077 0.151 0.038
1215.22 242.13 67.72 104.29 114.97 497.44 106.94 260.34 380.00
7.5 5.5 0.7 1.0 1.6 3.6 5.9 12.9 0.5
with those values shown in Table 3. It can be seen that, for those airports with a considerable gap between noise social costs and revenue, the increased charge level, has gone a long way towards compensating the nuisance experienced by residents by considerably reducing the time taken to internalise the noise social costs. 5. Conclusions More than 100 airports in the world have applied noise-related charges, either through noise surcharges or through landing fees that vary with aircraft noise levels/categories. The schemes for applying these charges, greatly diverse between airports, have been compared and examined. With different airport operating characteristics, and given the historical development of noise-related charges and other airport user charges, even with different national cultures, there is no single noise-charge scheme that suits all the airports in the world. However, the proposed systematic generic approach to setting up noise charge mechanisms and charge levels could be applied to any airport that wishes to revise their current noise charge schemes or set up a new one. The approach has combined theoretical research results with practical considerations. The social costs for different airports serve as good reference points for understanding the actual impacts of noise nuisance on the community. When setting up noise charge schemes and levels, the costs of house insulation schemes, administrative procedures and the impact on airlines have been shown to be the essential issues, or even constraints, which need to be examined thoroughly. Combining theoretical methodology with practicalities, the aim of this revision, or setting up, of systematic noise-charge schemes is to serve the welfare of all parties involved: residents, airlines, government authorities, etc. The formula proposed for calculating noise charges, and the coefficients chosen for Taiwan airports, have enabled the time taken to perform an insulation scheme to be reduced in one case from over 90 years to 7.5 years, other things being equal. While
this is an enormous improvement, 7.5 years is still a long time for a resident to have to wait for their house to be insulated. A better use of resources could perhaps be obtained by contracting a loan to pay for the scheme up front and using the noise charges to reimburse this loan. This would not be possible with a 91.2-year repayment term. Once the house insulation scheme has been completed and the loan repaid, there is obviously no further need for noise charges to pay for it. However, insulation does not hide 100% of the noise and noise charges could also be levied for other actions towards alleviating residents’ grievances. Additionally, as noise is not constant over time – aircraft become quieter, but there are generally more of them as time progresses – there should be periodic re-evaluations of noise social costs to see if more insulation and/ or other action is required. Acknowledgements The Author would like to thank the Taiwanese National Science Council for financial support and the Taiwan CAA for supplying data necessary to this work. References [1] Airbus. Global market forecast 2012–2031; 2012. [2] Boeing. Current market outlook 2012–2031; 2012. [3] International Civil Aviation Organisation. Aircraft noise.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015
8
C. Lu / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
[9] Dekkers J, van der Straaten W. Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: a hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport. Ecol Econ 2009;68:2850–8. [10] Hsu C-I, Lin P-H. Performance assessment for airport noise charge policies and airline network adjustment response. Transp Res Part D 2005;10:281–304. [11] Lijesen M, van der Straaten W, Dekkers J, van Elk R, Bloldijk J. How much noise reduction at airports? Transp Res Part D 2010;15:51–9. [12] Lu C. In: Stefan Gossling, Paul Upham, editors. Climate change and aviation – 9: Aviation and economic development: the implications of environmental costs on different airline business models and flight networks. Earthscan; 2009. p. 193–220 [ISBN-10: 1844076202]. [13] Boeing. Airports with noise and emissions restrictions.
[23] European Commission. Unification of accounts and marginal costs for transport efficiency (UNITE). In: Deliverable 11 environmental marginal cost case studies, competitive and sustainable growth programme; January 2003. [24] Schipper Y. Environmental costs in European aviation. Transp Policy 2004;11(2):141–54. [25] Pearce B. Pearce D. Setting Environmental Taxes for Aircraft: a case study of the UK. CSERGE working paper. GEC 2000-26; 2000. [26] Lu C, Morrell P. Determination and applications of environmental costs at different sized airports – aircraft noise and engine emissions. Transportation 2006;33(1):45–61. [27] Bristow A, Wardman M, et al. Attitudes towards and values of aircraft annoyance and noise nuisance. Attitudes to aircraft annoyance around airports (5A) – survey. Report EEC/SEE/2003/002; 2003. [28] European Commission. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purpose of calculating noise charges. COM (2002), 683 final – amended. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels; 2002. [29] ANCAT. Transport aircraft noise classification and noise charges. ANCAT/ 45(Inf.)-WP/3. In: The abatement of nuisance caused by air transport, European civil aviation conference, Brussels; 1998. [30] Luftfatsverket (LFV). Current tariff regulations AIC Sweden. Swedish Civil Aviation Administration; 11 March 2010. [31] Lu C. The current and future development of aircraft noise management measures in Taiwan. In: Presented at the acoustics 2012 conference, Hong Kong, China; 2012. [32] European Aviation Safety Agency. EASA Noise Type Certificates.
Please cite this article in press as: Lu C. Combining a theoretical approach and practical considerations for establishing aircraft noise charge schemes. Appl Acoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.015