Airports and Economy
Aviation: Negative Environmental Impacts
Airports often play an important role in the economy by acting as gateways for travel, trade, and tourism. But that is just one side of the story. Airports always bring a mix of positive and negative impacts, which can vary depending on factors such as the size of the airport, its location, and the level of connectivity it provides. Usually, the first step implemented by those advocating to build new airports (or expand existing ones) is to produce documents that underline to economic benefits that will derive from such actions.
These documents include tables listing mitigating steps, no action alternatives, monetary gains, jobs that will be created and multiplier effects. What you never see are the negative externalities that come along with all of that. More often than not there is a small paragraph dedicated to those. So, in order to understand better, let us start the journey and go through some of those documents, starting from the consequences impacting the environment, hence the so-called Environmental Reviews.
Enters NEPA
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a landmark environmental statute, signed into law under Nixon in 1970. This law requires analysis of potential impacts to the environment and when there are, considering alternatives and mitigation before approving federal actions. It was enacted in response to federal decision-making that did not adequately consider environmental impacts.
NEPA, requires environmental impact analyses of proposed airport actions that are subject to FAA decision. The environmental review process must be completed before a project commences. Most airport environmental documents are prepared by airport sponsors. However, depending on the funding arrangement and level of impact, states that receive block grants for airport development or the FAA may prepare some documentation.
In other words, the NEPA process is triggered when a federal agency, such as the FAA, decides to take an action. Here is the breakdown of the steps required when that happens:
If you are interested in delving into the details of each step, you can refer to this document produced by the FAA. It's crucial to recognize that each step comes with strict timeframes, often just a few weeks long. This tight schedule has, in the past - particularly during NextGen implementations - resulted in states, cities, and local communities missing the opportunity to challenge FAA decisions. The first issue to highlight in this process is the significant financial and organizational resources required to mount a challenge against most FAA decision-making efforts. This is a major barrier that needs to be addressed, either by removing it or by significantly extending the timeframes.
Now let's go back to the image above. You can see three there are three possibilities at the top: Categorical Exclusion (CE or also CatEx) Environmental Assessment (EA), and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Let's explain each one of them in detail.
- Categorical Exclusion: an action taken by a federal agency that is routine and does not have a significant effect on the environment. Each federal agency establishes a list of CATEXs, and must document its decision not to prepare an EA or an EIS on the basis of one or more CATEXs. CATEXs, however, are applicable only if the proposed action that is a listed exemption would not otherwise cause a significant impact on the environment. It is a very broad topic. For instance, Congress included provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to expedite environmental review of certain air traffic procedures implemented as part of NextGen: in practice, PBN and RNAV procedures (both active parts of NextGen) were both given a CATEX. The use of a categorical exclusion for Phoenix PBN implementation, one of the first of its kind, resulted in a significant adverse public response.
- Environmental Assessment: The purpose of an EA is to determine if FAA's proposed action has the potential to result in significant environmental effects. If there are no significant impacts, then the proposed action may proceed under a categorical exclusion if one applies, or, following the completion of an environmental assessment, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA process allows the public to comment on the Proposed Action. The EA helps the public understand what the FAA is proposing and the potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed action. The NEPA process requires the FAA to disclose to the public actions that may have environmental effects. Public comments periods are 60 days. If you miss the deadline, you are out of luck. We invite anyone interested in researching EAs produced by the FAA and check for yourselves the degree of approximation they have. In practice, an EA briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS. If you are interested in seeing one example, you can read this one recently signed by the FAA, regarding the runway extension and terminal expansion at Tweed Airport New Haven, CT. To demonstrate how such reports are contentious and facetious, that EA has been appealed by the town of East Haven and Save The Sound advocacy group, and we are waiting to see the results of such appeal.
- Environmental Impact Statement: a detailed document required for major federal actions that requires an evaluation and review of environmental impacts from the proposed action. Provides a clear basis for choice by the decision maker with input from the public and other agencies. Few projects require an EIS from the start: if EA shows significant impacts that can not be mitigated below significance thresholds (???), then an EIS is required.
Costs of Ineffective Assessments
Many communities have sued the FAA over the years, arguing that the agency failed to adequately consider the environmental and noise impacts of new flight paths. Many of the lawsuits challenge the FAA's environmental assessments, alleging that the agency failed to fully consider the noise and environmental impacts of the new flight paths. Plaintiffs often argue that the FAA's reviews under NEPA were rushed or incomplete.
The economic costs of ineffective environmental assessments conducted by the FAA can be substantial and multifaceted, affecting various stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, and the aviation industry. Ineffective assessments can lead to unintended consequences, such as environmental degradation, legal challenges, and delays in infrastructure projects, all of which carry significant financial implications.
Legal Costs
Ineffective environmental assessments often result in lawsuits from affected communities, environmental groups, or local governments. These legal battles can be lengthy and costly for both the FAA and the aviation industry.
- Litigation Expenses
Legal fees, court costs, and the expenses of defending against multiple lawsuits can add up quickly.
- Settlements and Fines
In cases where the FAA or airport operators lose or settle the lawsuits, they may be required to pay significant fines or settlements to the plaintiffs.
- Delays in Projects
Legal challenges can delay airport expansions or the implementation of new flight paths, leading to increased project costs and lost revenue opportunities.
Environmental Remediation Costs
If an environmental assessment fails to identify or mitigate significant impacts, the resulting environmental damage can be costly to address.
- Cleanup and Restoration
Remediating environmental damage, such as pollution or habitat destruction, can require substantial investment in cleanup efforts, restoration projects, and ongoing monitoring.
- Public Health Costs
Ineffective assessments may overlook air and noise pollution, leading to public health issues such as respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, and stress-related illnesses. The economic burden of treating these health issues often falls on public health systems and taxpayers.
- Loss of Ecosystem Services
Environmental degradation can lead to a loss of ecosystem services, such as water purification, flood control, and carbon sequestration. Replacing or compensating for these services can be expensive and, in some cases, impossible.
Economic Impact on Local Communities
Communities affected by noise pollution, air quality degradation, or other negative environmental impacts may experience economic costs in several ways.
- Property Value Decline
Increased noise levels or pollution can lower property values in affected areas, leading to financial losses for homeowners and reduced tax revenues for local governments
- Quality of Life Costs
Diminished quality of life due to environmental impacts can lead to increased healthcare costs, reduced productivity, and higher rates of absenteeism from work or school.
- Tourism and Local Business Impact
In areas where tourism or local businesses rely on environmental quality, such as near national parks or scenic areas, environmental degradation can lead to a decline in visitors and economic losses for businesses.
- Jobs and Wage Squeeze
In the UK, the number of jobs supported by air transport on a per-passenger basis has been declining steadily over time, falling from 695 jobs per million passengers in 2000 to 459 jobs in 2019. Office for National Statistics (ONS) data suggests that as of 2015 this meant the air transport sector ranked among the least productive sectors in the economy when it came to generating jobs: 108th out of 129 sectors.The job creation potential of air transport fell significantly between 2015 and 2019 and as such its ranking may well have fallen further since the ONS's last round of analysis (source).
In some schools of economic thought, high and/or increasing revenue per job might be described as an economic benefit, reflecting a high productivity sector. Higher productivity may imply lower job numbers and even redundancies, but the cost to society might be offset if this productivity leads to higher wages. This has not been the case in air transport. While air transport has historically paid higher wages than the whole economy average, ONS data from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) suggests that the air transport sector and supporting activities have seen significant real-wage declines over the past two decades. After adjusting for inflation, average (mean) gross weekly pay across the two groups was down 14% on 2006 levels in 2022, while median pay was down 21% over the same period, On both metrics, the air transport sector performs significantly worse than the wider economy, which saw a mean change of -7% and a median change of -4% over the same period of the ASHE survey.
Reputational Damage and Loss of Trust
Ineffective environmental assessments can damage the reputation of the FAA and the aviation industry, leading to broader economic consequences.
- Public Opposition
Loss of public trust can result in stronger opposition to future projects, making it more difficult and costly to implement necessary infrastructure improvements or expansions.
- Investor Confidence
Perceived environmental risks or ongoing legal disputes can reduce investor confidence in airport projects or related developments, potentially leading to higher borrowing costs or difficulty securing funding.
Opportunity Costs
Delays or modifications to projects due to inadequate environmental assessments can lead to significant opportunity costs.
- Delayed Benefits
Airport expansions or new flight paths intended to improve efficiency and capacity may be delayed, resulting in lost economic benefits, such as job creation, increased trade, and tourism growth.
- Increased Costs of Delayed Projects
Construction costs can escalate over time, and the longer a project is delayed due to legal or environmental challenges, the more expensive it becomes.
Regulatory and Compliance Costs
If ineffective environmental assessments lead to regulatory scrutiny or the need to comply with additional requirements, the FAA and aviation stakeholders may incur extra costs.
- Revised Assessments and Studies
The FAA may be required to conduct new or revised environmental assessments, which can be time-consuming and costly.
- Compliance with New Regulations
In response to legal challenges or public pressure, new regulations may be introduced, requiring further investment in compliance measures, such as noise mitigation technologies or environmental monitoring systems.
Lawsuits for Ineffective Assessments
Across the United States, a wave of lawsuits has been filed against the FAA in response to contentious environmental assessments linked to the agency's NextGen program and airport expansion projects. Communities from coast to coast have challenged the FAA's evaluations, arguing that they inadequately accounted for the noise pollution, air quality issues, and overall environmental impact on densely populated neighborhoods. These legal actions have been driven by concerns that the FAA's assessments often downplay the significant disruptions to residents' quality of life and fail to engage meaningfully with the public during the decision-making process. The lawsuits reflect widespread dissatisfaction with the perceived disregard for environmental and public health considerations, leading to protracted legal battles aimed at forcing the FAA to conduct more thorough and transparent environmental reviews.
Las Vegas, 2001
In 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved a plan to expand Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, which included the construction of a new terminal and additional runways to accommodate increased air traffic. The expansion was part of a broader effort to manage the growing number of flights to and from Las Vegas, a major tourist destination. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), along with other environmental groups, filed a lawsuit against the FAA in 2006. They contended that the FAA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the airport expansion was insufficient. They argued that the FAA failed to properly analyze the cumulative noise and pollution impacts that increased air traffic would have on the surrounding national parks, which are protected areas with sensitive ecosystems. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the NPCA, finding that the FAA had not sufficiently addressed the environmental concerns raised by the airport expansion. The court held that the FAA's EIS did not adequately evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project, particularly in relation to the national parks.
Phoenix, 2014
One of the most prominent lawsuits was filed by the City of Phoenix after the FAA implemented new flight paths at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in 2014. Residents experienced a dramatic increase in noise levels, leading to widespread complaints. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in favor of Phoenix, finding that the FAA had failed to adequately engage with the city and its residents before implementing the changes. The court ordered the FAA to review and revise the flight paths, marking a significant victory for the city and affected communities. As a result of the ruling, the FAA entered into negotiations with the city to redesign the flight paths, and some routes were modified to reduce the noise impact.
San Francisco Area, 2015
In the San Francisco Bay Area, cities such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Portola Valley have filed lawsuits against the FAA over changes to flight paths at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Residents argued that the FAA did not properly assess the noise and environmental impacts and failed to adequately engage with local communities. These lawsuits have had mixed results, with some cases being dismissed and others leading to ongoing negotiations between the FAA and local governments to explore noise reduction strategies.
Newport Beach, 2016
Newport Beach filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the accuracy and efficacy of the FAA' environmental assessment of a proposal to reroute flights at John Wayne and 20 other Southern California airports. They opposed the FAA plan on the grounds that the environmental assessment appeared to have been lifted from one prepared for East Coast cities, without taking Southern California's specific air pollution and noise issues into account. A settlement was reached shortly after. Under the terms of the agreement, the departure paths continued to be located between existing noise monitors while the FAA developed a curved departure procedure that would avoid residential areas to the greatest extent possible. In a statement, City Attorney Aaron Harp said that the settlement was a better outcome that the city could have expected had the case gone to trial, which would have been limited to the adequacy of the environmental assessment.
Laguna Beach, 2016
In the same week Newport Beach sued the Federal Aviation Administration, the city of Laguna Beach filed its own lawsuit also challenging the agency's plan to change jet arrival and departure patterns at several Southern California airports. In their complaint, Laguna officials allege that FAA's environmental assessment for its Metroplex project lacks enough explanation and quantifiable information to conclude that Metroplex will result in no significant environmental impacts.
Burien WA, 2017-2019
In 2017, the City of Burien, along with community groups, filed a lawsuit against the FAA. The lawsuit contended that the FAA had made the flight path changes without proper environmental review and public consultation, which they argued was a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies to conduct thorough environmental impact assessments and engage with the public before making decisions that could significantly affect the environment. The plaintiffs argued that the FAA had failed to consider the environmental and noise impacts of the new flight paths on the community and had not adequately informed or involved the public in the decision-making process. In 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the City of Burien. The court found that the FAA had indeed failed to comply with NEPA's requirements. Specifically, the court determined that the FAA had improperly categorized the flight path changes as a "categorical exclusion" from NEPA review, which is reserved for actions that do not have a significant environmental impact. The court ruled that the FAA should have conducted a more comprehensive environmental review, including public consultations, before implementing the new flight paths.
State of Maryland, 2019
State of Maryland files a lawsuit against FAA And NextGen In The US Court Of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit. The DC Court Of Appeals dismisses the State of Maryland vs. FAA stating that the State of Maryland failed to file its petition after the 60-day filing deadline set forth in the statute. Despite the dismissal, the Court stated that the FAA displays a "pattern" of "serial promises" that the agency is considering community noise concerns. The Court also recognized the FAA's lack of environmental analyses. The Court said the FAA appears to have "given short shrift to the required environmental analyses" but only the City of Phoenix filed a "timely" petition. Additionally, the Court recognized that the 60-day window is short "especially for local governments and citizens groups" and cautioned the FAA that "the short review period is a shield, not a sword" and "does not authorize the FAA to lull potential petitioners into believing that its actions remain non-final in order to ward off a timely challenge." The Court refused to hear the case on the merits.
Southern California, 2020
In Southern California, several cities, including Los Angeles and Culver City, sued the FAA over new flight paths at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) that were implemented under NextGen. The plaintiffs argued that the FAA's environmental assessment was flawed and that the agency had not adequately addressed the noise impacts on local communities. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the FAA, stating that the agency had followed proper procedures under NEPA. However, the court also acknowledged the significant noise issues raised by the communities. While the FAA won the case, ongoing public pressure has led to continued discussions between the FAA and local governments to address noise concerns and explore possible adjustments to flight paths.
Flushing NY, 2021
In 2021, Flushing and other affected communities in Queens filed a lawsuit against the FAA. The lawsuit centered on several key issues: The plaintiffs argued that the FAA had failed to conduct a thorough environmental review as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They contended that the FAA had not fully considered the cumulative environmental impacts of the new flight paths, including noise pollution and air quality degradation. The communities claimed that the FAA had implemented the flight path changes without adequate public consultation. They argued that the FAA did not properly inform or involve the local residents and stakeholders in the decision-making process, which they believed was a violation of NEPA and other federal regulations. The case is currently ongoing.
City of Dallas and North Texas Communities, 2022
The plaintiffs contended that the FAA failed to conduct a comprehensive environmental impact assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They argued that the FAA's environmental review did not adequately consider the cumulative effects of the new flight paths, particularly regarding noise pollution and its impact on residents' health and well-being. The case is similar to the one filed in Flushing. This case is also ongoing.
Burbank CA, 2023
In 2023 the City of Los Angles had challenged the FAA's decision approving the new terminal complex, parking structure, fire station, and maintenance and cargo buildings on two grounds. First, the City challenged the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on fundamental flaws in the study. The second argument was that the FAA did not consider all reasonable alternatives such that the outcome was predetermined. The court rejected the second argument but found in favor of the City in the first argument. Accordingly, the court remanded the case back to the FAA panel since the plan failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court determined that the FAA had a fundamental flaw in the EIS because it failed to consider the reasonable possibility that equipment running simultaneously would have increased noise levels beyond the acceptable thresholds.
City of Queens NY, 2023
The case was brought before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The plaintiffs sought a court order requiring the FAA to conduct a more thorough environmental review of the flight path changes and to engage in proper public consultations with the affected communities. Additionally, they aimed to have the FAA explore alternative flight paths or implement noise mitigation measures to alleviate the impact on Queens' neighborhoods. This case is also ongoing.
Aviation Sponsored Reports
When seeking objective information about the economic and environmental impacts of airports, aviation-sponsored reports should be approached with caution and, in many cases, discarded. These reports are often produced by entities with vested interests in promoting the growth and expansion of the aviation industry, leading to biased analyses that emphasize the positive aspects of airports while downplaying or ignoring negative consequences. The selective presentation of data, overestimation of benefits, and lack of transparency in methodology contribute to a skewed portrayal of airports' true impacts. For a balanced and accurate understanding, it is essential to rely on independent assessments that critically evaluate both the advantages and disadvantages of aviation-related developmentsHere an example of an independent economic viability report, based on Cleveland Burke Airport. Note how it is mentioned that, despite previous positive forecasts, the airport operates annually at a loss. Here are some other examples of why those biased reports are not an objective source of information:
- Selective Data Presentation
Aviation-sponsored reports tend to emphasize the direct economic benefits of airports. These reports often highlight the most favorable data while downplaying or omitting less positive outcomes like environmental costs, community disruption, and long-term economic sustainability. By focusing only on positive data, these reports can present a skewed view of an airport's overall impact, making it appear more beneficial than it may actually be when considering all factors.
- Overemphasis on Direct Economic Impact
Reports frequently stress the number of jobs created by airports and the revenue generated through airport operations, airlines, and related industries. However, they may neglect the indirect and induced economic impacts, which can include negative effects such as increased traffic congestion or the displacement of other industries. The overemphasis on direct economic contributions can lead to an inflated perception of an airport's value, ignoring the broader economic context in which these benefits are realized.
- Ignoring or Downplaying Negative Externalities
Airports can contribute to noise pollution, air pollution, and environmental degradation. Additionally, they can disrupt local communities and lead to a loss of local character and quality of life. Aviation-sponsored reports often minimize these negative externalities or fail to quantify their economic costs. By downplaying these costs, reports may present an overly optimistic view of an airport's net economic impact, not accounting for the potential long-term harm to the environment and local communities.
- Overestimation of Future Benefits
These reports often include projections of future economic benefits based on optimistic assumptions about passenger growth, tourism increases, or regional economic development. However, these projections may not account for economic downturns, changes in travel behavior, or unforeseen events like pandemics. Overestimating future benefits can lead to inflated expectations and justify expansions or investments that may not deliver the promised returns.
- Influence of Funding Sources
Aviation-sponsored reports are typically funded by entities that have a vested interest in the expansion and success of airports, such as airlines, airport authorities, and aviation industry groups. This financial backing can create a conflict of interest, leading to biased analysis and conclusions. The need to satisfy sponsors can result in reports that emphasize benefits and downplay or ignore costs, leading to conclusions that are more favorable to the aviation industry than an independent assessment might suggest.
- Limited Scope of Analysis
These reports often have a narrow scope, concentrating on the economic impacts within a specific region or sector and ignoring broader national or global impacts. For example, they may not consider the economic effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions or the loss of biodiversity due to airport expansion. A limited scope of analysis can lead to incomplete conclusions, where the true economic costs and benefits are not fully explored or understood.
- Lack of Transparency in Methodology
Some aviation-sponsored reports lack transparency in how data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Without clear methodologies, it is difficult to assess the validity of the claims made in these reports. A lack of transparency can prevent stakeholders from critically evaluating the findings, leading to unquestioned acceptance of potentially biased conclusions.
Environmental Costs
Over the past 50 years, the environmental impacts of aviation—particularly noise, air quality, and climate change—have become increasingly significant. Aircraft noise can cause both physical and financial harm, including annoyance, sleep disturbances, and property damage. Emissions from aircraft, including primary and secondary aerosols, contribute to higher rates of premature mortality and morbidity. Aviation also affects the climate through both long- and short-lived emissions, such as CO2, soot, and NOx, as well as by altering cloud cover.
Decisions regarding aviation technology or operations often involve trade-offs between these environmental concerns and economic efficiency. However, cost-benefit analyses often fail to clearly identify who bears the costs or reaps the benefits of a particular policy. This issue is particularly pronounced in aviation, where the effects of noise are concentrated in specific areas, while the impacts of climate change are dispersed across space and time.
Moreover, the economic costs of environmental mitigation resulting from improper aviation assessments can be substantial, often involving significant financial outlays for both public and private entities. When environmental assessments are inadequate or fail to accurately predict the impact of aviation activities, the need for costly mitigation measures can arise. These costs can stem from addressing noise pollution, air quality issues, habitat destruction, and other environmental consequences. Here are a few examples:
Example 1: Soundproofing and Insulation Programs
Improper assessments of noise pollution from airport expansions or new flight paths can lead to unexpectedly high levels of noise in surrounding communities. To address this, airports may need to fund extensive soundproofing and insulation programs for homes, schools, and businesses in affected areas. For instance, Chicago O'Hare International Airport has had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on sound insulation for thousands of homes as a result of noise from expanded operations, a cost that could have been better managed with more accurate initial assessments. These programs are costly and often require ongoing investment, diverting funds from other airport improvements or public services.
Example 2: Installation of Air Quality Monitoring Stations
If an environmental assessment underestimates the impact of emissions from increased aircraft activity, airports and local governments may need to invest in air quality monitoring stations and implement stricter controls on airport operations to reduce pollution levels. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) has faced scrutiny for its air quality impacts, leading to expensive monitoring and mitigation efforts, including community health studies and the implementation of air filtration systems in nearby schools and homes. The installation and maintenance of monitoring equipment, combined with potential fines or penalties for non-compliance with air quality standards, represent significant expenses.
Example 3: Wetland Restoration Projects
In cases where aviation assessments fail to fully account for the destruction of natural habitats, such as wetlands, expensive restoration projects may be required. During the expansion of MIA, particularly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a significant amount of wetland area was either destroyed or severely degraded. This was mainly due to the construction of new runways, taxiways, and other infrastructure to accommodate increasing air traffic. To comply with environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Miami-Dade County and the airport authorities were required to undertake extensive wetland mitigation efforts. This often involved restoring, enhancing, or creating new wetlands to replace those that were lost. One of the key strategies employed was the creation of new wetland areas either on-site or in nearby locations. These new wetlands had to replicate the ecological functions of the original wetlands, providing similar habitats for wildlife and offering the same water management benefits. The financial costs of these mitigation efforts were substantial. Creating new wetlands is an expensive process that involves land acquisition, soil excavation, planting native vegetation, and long-term monitoring to ensure that the new wetlands function properly. In some cases, the costs of mitigation can exceed the initial costs of development, especially when the ecological value of the original wetlands is high. This was the case at MIA, where the proximity to the Everglades made the environmental stakes particularly significant.
Example 4: Litigation and Settlement Costs
Improper environmental assessments often lead to lawsuits from environmental groups or affected communities, as seen in the case of the expansion of Heathrow Airport in London, which faced legal challenges due to inadequate consideration of environmental impacts. While not in the US, similar situations occur domestically, where the FAA and airports may face legal battles that result in costly settlements or mandates for additional mitigation measures. Legal fees, settlements, and the costs of implementing court-ordered environmental mitigation can be substantial, sometimes exceeding the original cost of the project.
Example 5: Increased Public Health Expenditures
Inadequate assessments of the health impacts of aviation noise and emissions can lead to increased public health costs. Airports near residential areas, like Boston MA and LaGuardia NY, have been linked to elevated rates of asthma and cardiovascular issues due to poor air quality. Addressing these health issues can strain public health systems and lead to increased healthcare spending. The long-term healthcare costs for treating conditions linked to poor environmental assessments can be significant, placing a financial burden on public health systems and reducing overall economic productivity.
Deicing Costs
Aircraft deicing is a critical procedure for ensuring flight safety in cold weather, as it removes ice and prevents its accumulation on aircraft surfaces. However, this process can have several negative environmental impacts, primarily due to the chemicals used in deicing fluids and the way these chemicals are managed.
- Chemical Contamination
The most commonly used deicing fluids contain ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, which are effective at lowering the freezing point of water. However, when these fluids are applied to aircraft, they can run off onto airport surfaces and into nearby water bodies. Glycol runoff can lead to the contamination of soil and water. When deicing chemicals enter waterways, they can deplete oxygen levels, harming aquatic life. The chemicals can also lead to the growth of harmful algae blooms, further disrupting local ecosystems.
- Impact on Water Quality
When deicing fluids enter rivers, lakes, or groundwater, the decomposition of these chemicals by bacteria consumes large amounts of oxygen, leading to hypoxic conditions, or "dead zones," where aquatic life cannot survive. This oxygen depletion can have severe consequences for fish and other aquatic organisms, leading to reduced biodiversity and the disruption of food chains. It also impacts the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem, which can have broader implications for the environment.
- Soil Contamination
Deicing chemicals that accumulate in the soil can alter the soil's composition and pH levels, making it less fertile and less capable of supporting plant life. This can result in barren land around airports and negatively impact local agriculture. Contaminated soil may require expensive remediation efforts to restore its health and prevent further environmental damage. In agricultural areas, soil contamination can reduce crop yields and impact local food production, with economic repercussions for farmers.
Herbicides
Herbicides are commonly used to manage vegetation on airport grounds to maintain clear sightlines for pilots, prevent wildlife from inhabiting certain areas, and reduce fire hazards. While effective for controlling unwanted plants, the use of herbicides can have several negative environmental and health effects.
- Soil Contamination
When herbicides are applied to airport grounds, they can persist in the soil for extended periods. Some herbicides are not easily broken down by natural processes, leading to the accumulation of toxic chemicals in the soil. Contaminated soil can negatively impact plant life, making it difficult for desirable vegetation to grow. This disruption in plant growth can lead to soil erosion, as the roots of healthy plants play a crucial role in stabilizing the soil. Over time, soil degradation can result in barren landscapes, further necessitating additional herbicide applications, creating a negative feedback loop.
- Impact on Non-Target Species
Herbicides are designed to kill or inhibit the growth of specific plants, but they can also affect non-target species, including beneficial plants, insects, and animals that inhabit airport grounds. The loss of beneficial plants can reduce biodiversity, leading to a less resilient ecosystem. For example, herbicides that kill flowering plants can reduce food sources for pollinators such as bees and butterflies. The decline of these pollinators can have broader ecological implications, including the disruption of local plant reproduction and food chains.
- Ecosystem Imbalance
The use of herbicides can disrupt the balance of predator-prey relationships within the ecosystem. For example, the reduction of plant cover can lead to a decrease in the populations of insects that serve as food for birds and other animals. Disrupting these relationships can lead to population declines in certain species, which can have cascading effects throughout the ecosystem. For example, a decrease in insect populations can affect bird species that rely on insects as a primary food source, leading to a reduction in bird diversity on airport grounds.
Birds and Wildlife Culling
Aviation poses significant risks to birds and wildlife, leading to various strategies aimed at reducing the chances of collisions between aircraft and animals. These strategies, while essential for ensuring flight safety, often result in the harm or death of wildlife. Here's how aviation impacts birds and wildlife:
- Bird Strikes and Culling
Bird strikes frequently result in the death of the bird involved. Large birds, like geese, seagulls, and raptors, are particularly vulnerable because their size and flight patterns bring them into conflict with aircraft. In many cases, these birds die instantly upon impact. To prevent bird strikes, airports implement various measures such as habitat modification (removing trees or water sources that attract birds) or lethal control, where birds are culled to reduce the risk of strikes.
- Habitat Destruction
The expansion of airports often leads to the destruction or alteration of natural habitats. Wetlands, forests, and grasslands, which are home to various species of birds and wildlife, are often cleared to make way for runways, terminals, and other airport infrastructure. The destruction of these habitats forces wildlife to relocate, which can lead to increased competition for resources in other areas, displacement, or even death. Additionally, the loss of habitat can reduce the biodiversity of the region, as some species may not survive the transition or adapt to new environments.
Infrastructure Maintenance and Strain
When aviation infrastructure, such as airports and associated transportation networks, is not properly evaluated for current and future demands, it can result in unforeseen expenses due to overuse, premature wear, and inadequate capacity. Here are a few examples highlighting these economic impacts:
Example 1: Overused Runways at JFK International Airport
John F Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York is one of the busiest airports in the United States. When assessments fail to accurately predict the volume of air traffic, runways and taxiways can experience accelerated wear and tear. This was the case at JFK, where unexpected surges in traffic, particularly from larger, heavier aircraft, led to more frequent repairs and maintenance than originally anticipated. The cost of resurfacing runways, reinforcing taxiways, and making other repairs can run into millions of dollars. Inadequate initial assessments often mean that these costs were not planned for, leading to budget overruns and the need for emergency funding.
Example 2: Congestion at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
LAX has faced significant congestion on its access roads and parking facilities, partly due to underestimations in aviation assessments regarding passenger growth. The result has been frequent traffic jams, increased pollution from idling vehicles, and excessive wear on the surrounding road network. The strain on local infrastructure necessitates costly upgrades, such as expanding roadways, increasing public transportation capacity, or constructing new parking structures. These improvements are expensive and require significant public investment, often involving taxpayer money.
Example 3: Water and Power Systems at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), the busiest airport in the world by passenger numbers, has experienced significant strain on its utility systems, including water supply and electrical grids. This was partly due to improper assessments that did not fully account for the airport's rapid expansion and the increased demand for utilities. Upgrading water and power infrastructure to meet unexpected demands involves extensive financial outlays. For example, reinforcing electrical grids, expanding water treatment facilities, and ensuring sufficient backup power generation are all costly endeavors that become necessary when initial assessments fall short.
Example 4: Drainage and Erosion Control at Miami International Airport
At Miami International Airport (MIA), improper environmental assessments related to water drainage and erosion control led to significant infrastructure strain. The airport had to invest heavily in upgrading its drainage systems to handle unexpected runoff and prevent erosion, which threatened both the airport's infrastructure and the surrounding environment. The cost of implementing or upgrading drainage systems and erosion control measures can be substantial. These costs include not only the construction and engineering expenses but also the long-term maintenance required to ensure these systems function effectively.
Public Health Costs
When assessments fall short, the consequences can include increased healthcare costs, loss of productivity, and the need for costly mitigation measures. Below are a few examples highlighting these economic impacts:
Example 1: Elevated Asthma Rates Near LaGuardia Airport
LaGuardia Airport in has been associated with higher levels of air pollution, particularly in the form of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are known to exacerbate respiratory conditions like asthma. Improper assessments that fail to accurately predict the impact of increased flight operations can lead to higher rates of respiratory illnesses in surrounding communities. The costs associated with treating chronic conditions like asthma include direct medical expenses such as hospital visits, medications, and long-term care, as well as indirect costs like lost productivity due to missed work or school days. In communities near LaGuardia, these costs can add up to millions of dollars annually, burdening both individuals and public health systems.
Example 2: Noise Pollution
Although not in the US, the situation at Heathrow Airport in London illustrates a common issue: the significant cardiovascular health impacts linked to noise pollution from airports. Studies have shown that exposure to high levels of aircraft noise, particularly at night, can lead to increased rates of hypertension, heart disease, and stroke. The economic costs of these cardiovascular conditions are considerable. They include the direct costs of medical treatment and the long-term care required for individuals with chronic heart conditions. Additionally, there are indirect costs, such as loss of productivity, disability payments, and the broader economic impact of a population with reduced health and life expectancy.
Example 3: Increased Anxiety and Stress
Chronic exposure to aircraft noise, as seen around Los Angeles International Airport, can lead to significant mental health issues, including increased levels of stress, anxiety, and sleep disturbances. Improper assessments that fail to account for the psychological impacts of aviation noise can leave communities vulnerable to these effects. Mental health conditions related to noise pollution contribute to higher healthcare costs, including the need for therapy, medication, and other mental health services. Furthermore, mental health issues can lead to decreased workplace productivity, higher rates of absenteeism, and a reduced quality of life, all of which carry economic consequences for both individuals and the broader economy.
Example 4: Decreased Property Values Near All Four Major New Zealand Airports
Properties near four key urban areas within New Zealand proximal to an international airport (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown) have experienced decreased values due to the high levels of noise and air pollution associated with airport operations, revealing a consistent negative effect on property prices. Improper assessments that underestimate the impact of airport expansion or increased flight operations on surrounding neighborhoods can contribute to significant losses in property value. The decline in property values leads to economic losses for homeowners and reduced property tax revenues for local governments. Additionally, affected homeowners may seek compensation through legal action, further increasing the financial burden on airport authorities and taxpayers.
Shift in Economic Focus
Shifting a region's economic focus due to improper aviation assessments can be a complex and costly endeavor. When aviation assessments fail to accurately predict or account for the long-term impacts of airport development, flight path changes, or other aviation-related activities, regions may need to pivot their economic strategies. This shift can lead to significant financial costs, including lost investments, job displacement, and the need for new infrastructure or industry development. Below are a few examples highlighting these economic impacts:
Example 1: Impact on Tourism in Hawaii
Hawaii's economy is heavily dependent on tourism, with a significant portion of visitors arriving by air. However, if improper aviation assessments lead to increased noise pollution, environmental degradation, or inadequate airport capacity, it could deter tourists, who might choose quieter or less congested destinations. This can force the state to shift its economic focus from tourism to other sectors. The cost of such a shift includes lost revenue from tourism, investments in marketing new economic sectors, and the retraining of workers. Additionally, the state might need to invest in new infrastructure to support the growth of alternative industries, further straining public finances.
Example 2: Agricultural Regions Near Expanding Airports
In regions where agriculture is a primary economic activity, improper aviation assessments that lead to airport expansion can encroach on farmland, disrupt agricultural practices, or cause environmental harm through pollution. This may force the region to shift its economic focus from agriculture to industrial or commercial activities. The loss of agricultural land can lead to decreased food production and increased food prices. The costs of transitioning to a new economic focus include investments in new industries, the potential for increased unemployment among displaced agricultural workers, and the need for new infrastructure to support non-agricultural activities.
Example 3: Impact on Conservation Efforts in National Parks
Regions with a focus on conservation and ecotourism, such as those near national parks, can be severely impacted by improper aviation assessments. If flight paths are established that increase noise pollution or disrupt wildlife, it can harm the region's conservation efforts and reduce its appeal as an ecotourism destination. This may necessitate a shift toward more industrial or urban economic activities. The costs associated with this shift include the loss of revenue from ecotourism, the need to develop new industries, and potential environmental cleanup or restoration efforts. Additionally, there may be costs associated with legal challenges and compensation for affected communities or businesses. The upcoming Western Sydney Airport is a perfect example, as its impacts on the beautiful Blue Mountains landscape and communities will be brutal.
Example 4: Urban Development in Expanding Airport Zones
As airports expand, improper assessments can lead to the encroachment of urban development into previously residential or rural areas. This can disrupt local housing markets and force a shift in the region's economic focus from residential to commercial or industrial activities. The costs of such a shift include the displacement of residents, decreased property values, and the need for new housing developments in less impacted areas. Additionally, local governments may need to invest in new infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and utilities, to support the shift in economic focus.
Community Erosion
Shifting a region's economic focus due to improper aviation assessments can be a complex and costly endeavor. When aviation assessments fail to accurately predict or account for the long-term impacts of airport development, flight path changes, or other aviation-related activities, regions may need to pivot their economic strategies. This shift can lead to significant financial costs, including lost investments, job displacement, and the need for new infrastructure or industry development. Below are a few examples highlighting these economic impacts:
Example 1: Communities Near Los Angeles International Airport
The constant noise from frequent takeoffs and landings, particularly during night hours, has significantly impacted nearby neighborhoods such as Westchester and El Segundo. Residents report that the pervasive noise makes it difficult to sleep, hold conversations, or enjoy outdoor activities, leading to stress and a diminished quality of life. The continuous noise pollution has led to a decline in community engagement. Residents are less likely to participate in neighborhood events or socialize outdoors, which weakens the bonds between neighbors and erodes the overall sense of community. The disruption of daily life also leads to a higher turnover rate, as long-time residents move away in search of quieter, more peaceful environments.
Example 2: Communities Near Chicago O'Hare International Airport
Chicago O'Hare International Airport is surrounded by several densely populated communities, including Bensenville and Schiller Park. The expansion of the airport has led to increased air pollution, with elevated levels of particulate matter and other pollutants contributing to respiratory issues and other health concerns among residents. As health concerns rise, trust in local governance and airport authorities diminishes. Residents may feel that their well-being is being sacrificed for economic gains, leading to a sense of injustice and disillusionment. This can reduce civic engagement, as people become less inclined to participate in community activities or support local initiatives, further eroding the community fabric.
Example 3: Impact on Smaller Communities Near London Gatwick Airport
London Gatwick Airport, while not as large as Heathrow, is still a significant hub that has seen substantial growth over the years. The expansion of the airport has encroached on nearby rural communities like Horley and Charlwood, transforming once quiet, countryside areas into bustling, noisy regions. The influx of airport-related businesses and the increase in traffic and noise can strip these rural areas of their character and charm. Long-time residents may feel that their way of life is under threat, leading to a loss of community identity. The pressure to develop and commercialize these areas can lead to conflicts between those who want to preserve the rural nature of the community and those who see economic opportunities in airport expansion.
Example 4: Social Changes in Communities Near Regional Airports
Smaller regional airports, such as the Portland International Jetport in Maine, can also have profound impacts on nearby communities as they grow. The increased air traffic can lead to noise and environmental pollution that disrupts the social fabric of small, tight-knit communities. The influx of new businesses and the changing landscape can lead to a divide between long-time residents and newcomers who are attracted by the economic opportunities. This social fragmentation can create tensions and reduce the sense of solidarity and mutual support that once defined the community. As a result, the sense of belonging and communal pride diminishes, leading to an erosion of the overall sense of community.
Do Airports Always Benefit Tourism?
Local tourism may benefit from aviation growth, but it is not always guaranteed. The relationship between aviation growth and local tourism is complex, with both positive and negative impacts depending on various factors such as the type of tourism, the capacity of local infrastructure, environmental considerations, and the balance between economic development and community well-being. Here are some example of negative impacts on tourism following aviation expansions:
Example 1: Overtourism
Aviation growth can lead to overtourism, where the number of visitors overwhelms a destination's capacity to accommodate them. This can strain local infrastructure, degrade natural and cultural resources, and reduce the quality of life for residents. In turn, overtourism can diminish the appeal of the destination, leading to a decline in tourism over time.
Example 2: Environmental Degradation
Increased air traffic leads to higher levels of pollution, noise, and carbon emissions, which can harm the environment and deter eco-conscious travelers. Popular tourist spots near airports might suffer from environmental degradation, making them less attractive to visitors who prioritize sustainability.
Example 3: Seasonal and Economic Dependency
Regions that become heavily reliant on tourism due to aviation growth may face economic challenges during off-peak seasons or in the event of a downturn in travel demand (eg, due to global crises or changes in travel behavior). This dependency can lead to economic instability and make it difficult for the local economy to diversify.
Example 4: Gateways vs Hubs
Certain airports, especially those in regions that serve primarily as gateways rather than destinations, can negatively impact their local communities when they facilitate travel to more popular tourist destinations. This phenomenon often occurs when an airport is strategically located to serve as a hub or transit point but lacks attractions that encourage travelers to spend time and money in the surrounding area. Here's how this can negatively affect the local community:
- Economic Leakage
Airports located near major tourist hubs, such as Naples International Airport in Italy, often see tourists arriving only to quickly transfer to more famous destinations like the Amalfi Coast or Capri. As a result, the local community around the airport may miss out on the economic benefits that tourism brings, such as spending on hotels, restaurants, and local attractions. Instead, most of the economic activity flows to the final destination, leaving the origin community with little to no direct tourism revenue. Local businesses that rely on tourism, such as hotels, restaurants, and shops, may struggle to thrive or even survive. The lack of tourist spending can lead to economic stagnation, unemployment, and a lack of investment in the local community.
In the UK these airports are known as "bucket and spade" airports, because they are used by British holiday goers to get to beach side locations across Europe. Leeds Bradford Airport, for example, mainly serves as a gateway for people to leave Yorkshire for holidays, where they spend their money elsewhere. While no one is insisting that everyone should vacation exclusively in the UK, doing so more often would certainly benefit the domestic tourism industry. It is clear, however, that Leeds Bradford Airport profits by facilitating travel and the associated spending abroad.
As this report suggests, two decades of evidence now confirms that air transport growth runs counter to the interests of the UK's domestic tourism industry. While the pandemic triggered a reprieve, before lockdown, domestic tourism expenditure had stagnated and instead, flows of cash were headed overseas as household spending patterns shifted towards foreign holidays. The net national effect is a large travel spending deficit which contributes to the UK's overall current account deficit. While there is an argument that some of the cash which leaves the UK via outbound tourism may return in forms such as foreign direct investment (FDI) and lending, the trends described are unlikely to be positive for the health of the UK economy and its currency.
- Tourism Deficit: Marginal Impacts vs Sector Footprint
In a 2022 speech promoting the government's Jet Zero Strategy, then UK Minister for Transport Grant Shapps stated: "Pre-pandemic, aviation contributed at least £22 billion to our economy and 230,000 direct jobs across the country. We must support the rapid development of technologies that can maintain the benefits of air travel."
This £22bn figure has been widely used, also cited by the government in its Aviation 2050 consultation paper in 2018, and describes some elements of air transport's direct and supply chain footprints. The foreword to the Jet Zero Strategy reveals that this figure includes both the air transport and aerospace sectors.
While air transport undoubtedly employs many people in the UK, figures on the footprint of air transport in the economy do a poor job of describing the net impact of air transport on the economy. More than half (£12.5bn or 57%) of the £22bn figure cited by the government represents spending on flight tickets by UK residents leaving the country on holiday. In 2019 those air travelers subsequently spent some £61bn outside the UK. In the same year, air transport facilitated spending of inbound foreign visitors in the UK worth £28bn. This facilitated spending, with a total value of £89bn in 2019, is not factored into the description of air transport's footprint, but is clearly of great relevance to understanding the sector's impact on the UK economy. Zhang and Graham (2020) in their comprehensive review of the linkages between air transport and the economy state: "An anatomy of aviation's economic benefits should involve decomposition of the underlying inbound and outbound monetary flows. However, the imbalance rarely features in discussions about the value of aviation to the economy" (source).
While it is true that air transport has a large presence in the UK economy, supporting a large number of jobs and economic activity, there is a counter-argument that, given the imbalance in flows in and out of the UK economy, air transport's net impact is a drain on UK economic activity. This example highlights the importance of assessing the net marginal impact at the system scale, rather than simply reporting a sector's footprint. Making such an assessment requires more nuance and examination of a variety of different impact routes. The overall case that economic benefits derive from air transport growth is not established. As Pot and Koster (2022) recently put it, "Airports are often portrayed as drivers of economic growth, even though the empirical evidence on this relationship is inconclusive still".
- Infrastructure Strain Without Benefits
In developing areas, airports are often built with the hope of spurring economic development. However, if the airport primarily serves as a transit point to more popular nearby destinations, the local community may bear the burden of infrastructure costs without seeing the benefits. Increased traffic, pollution, and the need for expanded services (like roads, public transport, and waste management) strain local resources, but the economic benefits are realized elsewhere. The community may face rising costs for public services and infrastructure maintenance, which can lead to higher taxes and reduced public spending on essential services. Additionally, residents might experience decreased quality of life due to increased noise and air pollution without seeing corresponding economic gains.
- Erosion of Local Identity
In regions with a strong local identity or historical significance, an airport that primarily serves as a gateway to more popular destinations can erode the area's cultural uniqueness. For example, an airport in a small historical town might see tourists pass through en route to a nearby metropolis, without engaging with or appreciating the local culture and heritage. The lack of engagement with the local community can lead to a loss of cultural pride and identity. Over time, the local population may feel undervalued and neglected, leading to social and cultural erosion. The local economy may also become increasingly dependent on the neighboring tourist hotspot, making it vulnerable to shifts in tourism trends.
- Missed Opportunities for Local Development
Airports with untapped potential to develop their own tourist attractions, such as natural parks, historical sites, or cultural events, may miss out on opportunities for local development. For instance, if an airport is near a beautiful but lesser-known natural area, yet all the tourism marketing and infrastructure development focus on a distant, more popular site, the local community misses out on the chance to develop its own tourism industry. Missed opportunities for local development can result in long-term economic underperformance. The community may remain underdeveloped, with limited job creation, poor infrastructure, and low investment levels. This can lead to a cycle of economic decline, where young people move away in search of better opportunities, further weakening the local economy.
- Social Disparities and Inequality
Airports that primarily serve as transit points to wealthier or more exclusive destinations may contribute to social disparities and inequality within the local community. For instance, an airport might cater primarily to affluent travelers heading to luxury resorts, while the surrounding community remains economically disadvantaged and disconnected from the tourism wealth flowing through the airport. The disparity between the wealth of travelers and the poverty of the local community can exacerbate social tensions and feelings of exclusion. The local population may feel marginalized and excluded from the economic benefits of tourism, leading to social unrest and a lack of cohesion.
Alternative Investments
Money invested in expanding airports could be redirected towards more sustainable projects that offer long-term environmental, social, and economic benefits. While airport expansions often aim to accommodate increased air traffic and stimulate economic growth, they come with significant environmental costs, such as increased carbon emissions, noise pollution, and habitat destruction. By contrast, investing in sustainable projects could help mitigate these impacts and contribute to a more resilient future. Here's how such investments could be better allocated:
Renewable Energy Infrastructure
Instead of expanding airports, funds could be directed towards developing renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, or geothermal power. These investments could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, combat climate change, and create green jobs. For example, investing in large-scale solar farms or offshore wind projects could help transition energy grids away from fossil fuels, leading to long-term environmental and economic benefits. Example: Denmark has heavily invested in wind energy, making it one of the leading countries in wind power generation. This shift has not only reduced the country's carbon footprint but has also created a new industry with thousands of jobs.
Public Transportation Systems
Instead of expanding airport capacity, funds could be invested in enhancing public transportation systems, such as high-speed rail networks, bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, and electric vehicle infrastructure. Efficient public transport reduces the need for short-haul flights, which are particularly carbon-intensive, and can alleviate traffic congestion and air pollution in urban areas. Example: In Europe, countries like France and Spain have developed extensive high-speed rail networks that connect major cities, reducing the need for domestic flights. This has led to a decrease in carbon emissions and has made travel more accessible and sustainable for residents and tourists alike. In this report you can find a great example from Oakland CA: they analyze the proposed airport expansion and juxtapose it with existing low emission modes of transportation. The results clearly highlight how unnecessary the expansion is.
In another report, produced to assess the different means of transportation in the UK, the author concluded that if you're booking a trip from London to Edinburgh in advance, there is no cost advantage to taking the climate-friendly train compared to the plane. If you are booking last minute, it is actually much more expensive to fly.
Sustainable Urban Development
Investment in sustainable urban development projects, such as green buildings, energy-efficient housing, and smart cities, could foster economic growth while minimizing environmental impact. These projects prioritize the efficient use of resources, reduce energy consumption, and promote healthier living environments. Example: The city of Freiburg, Germany, is a leading example of sustainable urban development. With a focus on renewable energy, public transportation, and green building practices, Freiburg has become a model for other cities aiming to balance growth with environmental stewardship.
Conservation and Reforestation Programs
Instead of spending on airport expansions, funds could be used to support conservation and reforestation efforts. Protecting natural habitats and restoring degraded ecosystems can help combat climate change, preserve biodiversity, and provide communities with ecosystem services such as clean air and water. Example: Costa Rica's reforestation programs have successfully restored large areas of rainforest, leading to a resurgence in biodiversity and providing economic benefits through eco-tourism. This approach not only protects the environment but also creates sustainable livelihoods for local communities.
Climate Resilience and Adaptation Projects
Redirecting funds towards climate resilience and adaptation projects can help communities better withstand the impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and temperature fluctuations. These projects can include building flood defenses, developing drought-resistant agriculture, and implementing water management systems. Example: The Netherlands has invested heavily in climate adaptation projects, such as the Delta Works, a series of flood protection structures designed to protect the country from rising sea levels. These investments have safeguarded communities and allowed for continued economic development in vulnerable areas.
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems
Investment in sustainable agriculture and local food systems can reduce the carbon footprint associated with food production and transportation while promoting food security and supporting local economies. This could include funding for organic farming, urban agriculture, and local food distribution networks. Example: The city of Belo Horizonte in Brazil has implemented a successful food security program that supports local farmers, reduces food waste, and ensures access to affordable, healthy food for all residents. This approach has improved public health and reduced the city's environmental impact.
Education and Green Workforce Development
Funds could be invested in education and training programs that prepare workers for jobs in the green economy. This includes training in renewable energy technologies, sustainable construction, and environmental management. Developing a skilled workforce for the green economy can drive innovation and ensure long-term economic growth. Example: Germany's investment in vocational training for the renewable energy sector has helped the country become a leader in green technology, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and positioning itself at the forefront of the global energy transition.
Small and Regional Airports Financial Viability
Small regional airports face unique challenges in sustaining themselves economically, given their typically lower passenger volumes and limited access to revenue streams compared to larger hubs. However, many regional airports employ a combination of strategies to remain viable and contribute to their local economies. Unfortunately, most of these strategies have been shown to impact local communities in concerning ways. This report from the UK, although from 2009, is still very actual and sheds some light on the negative outcomes that regional airports have on local economies and communities.
Diversification of Revenue Streams
While passenger flights may be the primary source of revenue, many regional airports diversify by offering various aviation-related services. These come with steep environmental and community costs, if left unchecked. They can include cargo handling, aircraft maintenance, pilot training schools, and private jet services. By catering to a broader range of aviation needs, regional airports can supplement their income. Example: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport in Colorado generates significant revenue from private jet operations and aircraft maintenance services, in addition to its commercial passenger flights.
Public Funding and Subsidies
Small regional airports often receive financial support from local, regional, or national governments. This support can come in the form of subsidies, grants, or direct funding. While these grants provide essential financial support, they also create a dependency that can lead to several challenges and concerns for both the airports and the communities they serve. The allocation of grant money is often influenced by political considerations, which can lead to inequitable distribution of funds. Airports that rely on grant money are often required to demonstrate the economic and social benefits they provide to justify continued funding. This can include meeting specific performance metrics, such as passenger numbers, economic impact, or service quality. The pressure to meet these benchmarks can lead to short-term decision-making, where airports focus on immediate goals to secure funding rather than pursuing long-term strategies for sustainable growth. Additionally, if an airport fails to meet these criteria, it risks losing its funding, which can lead to financial instability.
Partnerships with Low-Cost Airlines or Private Investors
Regional airports often partner with low-cost carriers, which are drawn to these airports due to lower operating costs, such as landing fees and ground handling charges. While they can stimulate economic growth and increase accessibility, their involvement can also lead to several negative impacts on the local environment, economy, and community life.
- Environmental Degradation
Budget airlines typically operate on a high-frequency, low-cost model, which can lead to a significant increase in air traffic at smaller airports. This increase in flights can contribute to higher levels of noise pollution, air pollution, and carbon emissions, negatively affecting the quality of life for nearby residents. Issue: Residents living near smaller airports may experience more frequent disruptions due to the noise from takeoffs and landings, as well as deteriorating air quality. This can lead to health issues such as stress, sleep disturbances, and respiratory problems.
- Economic Strain on Infrastructure
The influx of passengers brought by budget airlines can put a strain on local infrastructure, including roads, public transportation, and utilities. Smaller airports and the surrounding communities may not be equipped to handle the sudden surge in traffic, leading to congestion and overuse of facilities. Issue: The increased demand on infrastructure can lead to higher maintenance costs for local governments, which may need to invest in upgrades or expansions. These costs are often borne by taxpayers, who may not see a proportional benefit from the increased airport activity.
- Economic Volatility
Private investors often seek quick returns on their investments, which can lead to a focus on short-term profitability over long-term sustainability. This may result in aggressive cost-cutting measures, such as reduced staffing, lower wages, or outsourcing, which can harm the local economy. Issue: The emphasis on short-term gains can create economic volatility for smaller airports and their surrounding communities. If the financial performance of the airport declines or if the investors decide to pull out, the community could face sudden job losses and economic downturns.
- Impact on Local Businesses
Budget airlines often bring a high volume of tourists to the area, but they typically encourage passengers to spend money at the airport or on pre-packaged travel deals rather than in the local community. This can limit the economic benefits that local businesses receive from increased tourism. Issue: Local restaurants, shops, and service providers may struggle to compete with the convenience and low prices offered by airport businesses or online travel packages. As a result, they may see a decline in revenue, which can hurt the local economy and reduce job opportunities.
- Dependency on Budget Airlines
Smaller airports that rely heavily on one or two budget airlines can become economically dependent on these carriers. If the airline decides to cut routes, shift operations, or goes out of business, the airport and the surrounding community could face significant economic hardship. Issue: The sudden withdrawal of a budget airline could lead to a sharp decline in passenger numbers, loss of revenue, and potential job losses. This dependency makes the local economy vulnerable to the business decisions of a few companies, which may not always align with the community's long-term interests.
Uncapped Flight Training Operations
Increased flight training operations at smaller airports can lead to significant noise and lead pollution, which negatively impacts the surrounding communities and environment. These issues often arise as smaller airports become hubs for flight schools and training activities, drawing more aircraft and intensifying operations.
- Noise Pollution
Flight training operations typically involve repeated takeoffs, landings, and aerial maneuvers. These activities can result in a high frequency of flights, often concentrated within a limited geographic area. Unlike commercial flights, which tend to have a set number of arrivals and departures, flight training can occur continuously throughout the day. Issue: The constant noise from aircraft engines, especially during low-altitude operations, can cause significant disturbances to local residents. This noise pollution can lead to a range of health issues, including stress, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and hearing loss. Over time, the persistent noise can degrade the quality of life for those living near the airport, leading to social tensions and declining property values (Check our dedicated section to find academic studies that assessed decline of property values, because of the vicinity of an airport).
- Lead Pollution
Many smaller aircraft used in flight training run on avgas (aviation gasoline), which contains lead. Although leaded gasoline for cars was phased out decades ago, leaded avgas is still widely used in piston-engine aircraft. When these aircraft operate, they emit lead particles into the air, which can settle on the ground and enter water sources. Issue: Lead is a potent neurotoxin, and exposure to even small amounts can cause serious health problems, particularly in children. Prolonged exposure to lead can lead to developmental delays, cognitive impairment, and other long-term health issues. Communities near smaller airports with heavy flight training activities are at higher risk of lead contamination, which can affect both air quality and soil health.
- Impact on Local Communities
The combination of noise and lead pollution can pose significant health risks to local communities. Children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions are particularly vulnerable to the effects of these pollutants. The constant exposure to noise can exacerbate cardiovascular issues and mental health problems, while lead exposure can have devastating effects on neurological development. Issue: These health risks can lead to increased healthcare costs for affected communities, as well as a general decline in public health. The burden of dealing with these health impacts often falls on local healthcare systems, which may not have the resources to address the long-term consequences of pollution from flight training operations.
- Environmental Impact
Lead particles emitted from aircraft can contaminate the soil and water in the surrounding area, leading to environmental degradation. Plants and animals in the vicinity of smaller airports may also be affected by the noise and chemical pollution, which can disrupt local ecosystems and biodiversity. Issue: Contaminated soil and water can have far-reaching consequences, affecting agricultural productivity and the health of local wildlife. The degradation of natural habitats due to pollution can reduce the ecological value of the area, leading to a loss of biodiversity and the disruption of food chains.
- Economic Consequences
The persistent noise and pollution associated with increased flight training operations can lead to a decline in property values in the surrounding areas. Potential buyers may be deterred by the noise levels and health risks, leading to a decrease in demand for real estate near the airport. Issue: Lower property values can have a cascading effect on the local economy, reducing the tax base and limiting funds available for public services. This can lead to a decline in the overall quality of life in the community, as essential services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure maintenance may suffer from budget shortfalls.
- Regulatory and Community Response
Smaller airports often operate with fewer regulatory constraints compared to larger commercial airports, which can result in less oversight of noise and pollution levels. This lack of regulation can make it difficult for communities to address the environmental and health impacts of increased flight training operations. Issue: Without strict regulations, smaller airports may continue to expand their training activities without considering the long-term consequences for local residents. This can lead to growing community opposition, legal battles, and demands for stricter environmental oversight.