Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 559–583 | Cite as

Valuing Aircraft Noise: Stated Choice Experiments Reflecting Inter-Temporal Noise Changes from Airport Relocation

  • Sotirios Thanos
  • Mark Wardman
  • Abigail L. Bristow


The relocation of Athens Airport provided a rare experimental context in which residents experienced significant changes in noise levels due to the introduction or removal of aircraft noise. This paper reports the results from surveys around both airport locations, using stated choice experiments to estimate values for aircraft noise. The respondents were offered actual inter-temporal noise change scenarios rather than hypothetical variations, which is uncommon in the literature, incorporating the presence or absence of an airport and other relevant transport attributes that also changed with the airport relocation. Whilst there is some variation in the valuation of the airport closure and opening, when these values are adjusted to reflect the actual change in decibels, there is remarkably little difference between the old and new airports. However, a significant variation in aircraft noise values is identified between different areas, with respect to education and to a lesser extent income. Our preferred estimate of the monthly household willingness to pay for terminating aircraft noise exposure is 13.12€ and for avoiding the onset of aircraft noise is 9.53€.


Aircraft noise Choice experiments Environmental valuation Stated choice Stated preference Willingness to pay Willingness to accept compensation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberola J, Flindell I, Bullmore A (2005) Variability in road traffic noise levels. Appl Acoust 66: 1180–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenio E, Bristow AL, Wardman M (2006) Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transp Res D 11(1): 15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attenborough K, Clark S (1976) Background noise levels in the United Kingdom. J Sound Vib 48(3): 359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baranzini A, Ramirez JV (2005) Paying for quietness: the impact of noise on geneva rents. Urban Stud 42(4): 633–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreiro J, Sanchez M, Viladrich-Grau M (2005) How much are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study. Appl Econ 37(11): 1233–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sudgen R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Baverstock SJ, Pocock RL, Attenborough K (1991) Development of area-based methods for predicting ambient noise. Appl Acoust 33: 303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevington PR (1969) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bierlaire M (2003) BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss transportation research conference, Ascona, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjørner TB (2004) Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transp Res D 9: 341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bristow AL (2010) Valuing Noise Nuisance. Paper presented at the 39th international congress and exposition on noise control engineering, Lisbon, 13–16 June 2010Google Scholar
  12. Bristow AL, Arsenio E, Wardman M (2009) Influences on the value of noise from transport. Paper presented at the 8th European conference on noise control, Edinburgh, 26–28 October 2009Google Scholar
  13. Bristow AL, Wardman M (2006) Valuation of aircraft noise by time of day: a comparison of two approaches. Transp Rev 26(4): 417–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bristow AL, Wardman M (2006b) What influences the value of aircraft noise? Paper presented at the European transport conference AET, strasbourg, 18–20 September 2006Google Scholar
  15. Carlsson F, Lampi E, Martinsson P (2004) Measuring marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: does the time of the day matter. Transp Res D 9: 373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Charalampakis G (1980) Kοινωνική έρευνα γύρω από το Διεθνές Aεροδρόμιο Aθηνών (A social survey around Athens International Airport). Aρχιτεκτονική Aκουστική και Πολεοδομική Hχοπροστασία 2:209–215, Volos, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  17. Dave K, Toner J, Chen H (2009) Examining the effect of attribute representation on preference uncertainty. Paper presented at the choice modelling international conference, Harrogate, 30–32 March 2009Google Scholar
  18. Day B, Bateman IJ, Lake I (2007) Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically consistent and transferable values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ Resour Econ 37(1): 211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duarte CM, Cladera JR (2008) The noise impact on residential environments in contemporary metropolises: the case of Barcelona. XII conference of the institute of urban design: the heart of the city, Krakow, PolandGoogle Scholar
  20. European Environment Agency (2010) Towards a resource-efficient transport system. TERM 2009: indicators tracking transport and environment in the European Union. EEA Report No2/2010Google Scholar
  21. European Council EC (2002) Directive 2002/30/EC on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports. Official Journal of the European Communities L 85/40Google Scholar
  22. Faburel G (2001) Le bruit des avions—Evaluation du coût social. Presses Ponts et Chaussées (in French), University of Paris 12, FranceGoogle Scholar
  23. Federal Aviation Administration (2003) Integrated Noise Model. FAA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, USA. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/inm_model/. Cited 15 August 2010
  24. Feitelson E, Hurd R, Mudge R (1996) The impact of airport noise on willingness to pay for residences. Transp Res D 1: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galilea P, Ortuzar J de D (2005) Valuing noise level reductions in a residential location context. Transp Res Part D 10: 305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia A, Faus LJ, Garcia AM (1993) The community response to aircraft noise around six Spanish airports. J Sound Vib 174(1): 45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garrod GD, Scarpa R, Willis KG (2002) Estimating benefits of traffic calming on through routes: a choice experiment approach. J Transp Econ Policy 36: 211–231Google Scholar
  28. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J Econ Surv 15: 435–462Google Scholar
  29. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2): 133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Appl choice anal. A primer. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hess S (2008) Treatment of reference alternatives in stated choice surveys for air travel choice behaviour. J Air Transp Manag 14(5): 275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hökby S, Söderqvist T (2003) Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ Resour Econ 26(3): 361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hole AR (2007) A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 16(8): 827–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 426–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69: 1595–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?. Environ Resour Econ 43(2): 137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kristrom B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environ Resour Econ 7: 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Le Masurier P, Taylor J, Roberts M, Pownell C, Flindell I, Bates J (2008) A national study of attitudes to aircraft noise and willingness to pay. Paper presented at the European transport conference (ETC), Leiden, Netherlands, 6–8 October 2008Google Scholar
  39. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miedema HME, Vos H (1999) Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 105(6): 3336–3344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30: 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. MVA (2007) Attitudes to noise from aviation sources in England. Final report for the Department for Transport (DfT), Norwich, UK http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/, http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/environmentalissues/Anase/. Cited 17 August 2010
  43. National Statistical Service of Greece (2005) Statistical data for Greece (in Greek). General secretariat of national statistical service of greece, ministry of economy and finance, Piraeus, Greece. Available via: http://www.statistics.gr/ Cited 19 April 2008
  44. Nellthorp J, Bristow AL, Day B (2007) Introducing willingness-to-pay for noise changes into transport appraisal—an application of benefit transfer. Transp Rev 27(3): 327–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson JP (2004) Meta-analysis of Airport Noise and Hedonic Property Values: Problems and Prospects. J Transp Econ Policy 38(1): 1–28Google Scholar
  46. Nicol F, Wilson M (2004) The effect of street dimensions and traffic density on the noise level and natural ventilation potential in urban canyons. Energy Build 36: 423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearce DW (1980) The social incidence of environmental costs and benefits. In: O’Riordan T, Turner RK (eds) Progress in resource management and environmental planning. Wiley, Chichester, p 66Google Scholar
  48. Pommerehne WW (1988) Measuring environmental benefits: a comparison of hedonic technique and contingent valuation. In: Bos D, Rose DM, Seidl C (eds) Welfare and efficiency in public economics. Springer, Berlin, p 363Google Scholar
  49. Sælinsminde K (1999) Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air pollution and noise. Transp Res D 4(1): 13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thanos S (2008) Valuation of aircraft noise annoyance: a comparison of approaches in the context of airport relocation. PhD thesis, Institute for Transport Studies, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  51. Thune-Larsen H (1995) Flystøyavgifter basert på betalingsvillighet, TOI report 289/1995, Institute for transport economics, Oslo (English language summary report: charges on Air traffic noise by means of conjoint analysis)Google Scholar
  52. Vainio M (2001) Comparison of hedonic prices and contingent valuation methods in an urban traffic noise context. Paper presented at the international congress and exhibition on noise control engineering 2001, HagueGoogle Scholar
  53. Wardman M (2001) Intertemporal variations in the value of time. Working paper 566, institute for transport studies, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  54. Wardman M, Bristow AL (2004) Traffic related noise and air quality valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice models. Transp Res D 9: 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wardman M, Bristow AL (2008) Valuations of aircraft noise: experiments in stated preference. Environ Resour Econ 39(4): 459–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang W, Kang J (2005) Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. Appl Acoust 66: 211–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sotirios Thanos
    • 1
  • Mark Wardman
    • 2
  • Abigail L. Bristow
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Built Environment, Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Institute for Transport Studies, University of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Transport Studies Group, Department of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations