Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ecological Economics
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n
ANALYSIS
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In densely-populated countries and in particular in large metropolitan areas, the presence of so much human
Received 30 May 2008 activity causes all sorts of negative externalities, for example trafc noise disturbance. These externalities call
Received in revised form 3 June 2009 for corrective measures by the government. Economists have developed a number of procedures that provide
Accepted 5 June 2009
reasonable estimates on the monetary value of some amenities and externalities. In this paper we develop a
Available online 14 July 2009
spatially-explicit hedonic pricing model for house prices in order to quantify the social cost of aircraft noise
disturbance in monetary terms. While focusing on aircraft noise around Amsterdam airport in the urban
Keywords:
Aircraft noise
fringe of the Amsterdam region, a key point in our analysis is that we account for background noise. We do
GIS this by taking multiple sources of trafc noise (i.e. road, railway and aircraft noise) into account
Hedonic price theory simultaneously and by setting threshold values for all three sources of noise above which sound is generally
Noise reduction experienced as nuisance. Based on our regression results we conclude that a higher noise level means ceteris
Valuation paribus a lower house price. Air trafc has the largest price impact, followed by railway trafc and road trafc.
These model outcomes can subsequently be used to estimate the marginal and total benets of aircraft noise
reduction in the studied area around Amsterdam airport. We nd a marginal benet of 1 dB noise reduction
of 1459 Euro per house, leading to a total benet of 1 dB noise reduction of 574 million Euros.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction measure for sound level expressed in decibels. As soon as people are
negatively affected by any sound charge level, this sound charge is
Sound disturbance or noise nuisance is a negative externality of called noise. Our focus is on the latter issue, therefore we will from this
transport, especially occurring near main transport arteries. People point onwards use the term transport noise or noise nuisance most of
respond differently to noise nuisance, but in general when noise levels the time instead of transport sound charge.
reach a certain threshold, they tend to be affected negatively. In this When also the costs of aircraft noise reduction are determined, the
paper we examine the effect of transport noise on house prices, using optimal size of government intervention in case of noise nuisance near
the hedonic pricing method to estimate the benets of noise reduction airports can be calculated. This is done by Lijesen et al. (forthcoming).
in a second step. More in particular, we focus on aircraft noise near The presented study is part of this broader study.
airports. A relatively new approach in this analysis is that we take We start with a literature review of hedonic price studies on the
multiple sources of transport noise into account, combining road, effect of noise nuisance in general (Section 2). This review will help us
railway and aircraft noise in one analysis. This is important since the to select the proper model specication in Section 3. Then, some
presence of trafc background noise inuences people's perception of remarks are made on the calculation of noise (Section 4). Next, the
aircraft noise (see Johnston and Haasz, 1979, for an overview of studies study area and the (spatial) data are described in Section 5.
on this issue). To our knowledge, the studies by Day et al. (2007) and Subsequently, the regression results are discussed in Section 6. The
Bateman et al. (2001) are the only hedonic pricing studies on aircraft presence of spatial dependence in the dataset is investigated in
noise that actually take more than one noise source into account. Section 7. Further, in Section 8 the results are used to calculate
Amsterdam airport is an interesting case, since it is one of Europe's marginal and total benets of noise reduction. And nally, we end
largest airports situated within the urban fringe of the Amsterdam with some conclusions in Section 9.
region, a highly urbanized area.
In this study we measure people's perception of the sound charge 2. Literature review
level of various modes of transport. Sound charge is an objective
Quite a few international studies have focused on the effect of
transport noise on house values. Most studies focus either on noise
This paper is based on the authors' contribution to Lijesen et al. (2006).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 20 5986125; fax: +31 20 5986004.
from road and/or railway transport or on aircraft noise. The bulk of the
E-mail addresses: jdekkers@feweb.vu.nl (J.E.C. Dekkers), wstraaten@feweb.vu.nl studies has been carried out in the United States and Canada and use
(J.W. van der Straaten). the hedonic pricing method (HPM). Results are often expressed in the
0921-8009/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.002
J.E.C. Dekkers, J.W. van der Straaten / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 28502858 2851
Table 1
Overview of NDI-values found in studies on transport noise.
form of a Noise Depreciation Index (NDI, also known as Noise where P is an (n 1) vector of house prices, S is an (n i) matrix of
Depreciation Sensitivity Index (NSDI)). The NDI represents the transaction-related characteristics (e.g. free of transfer tax, year of
average house value decrease caused by a 1 decibel (dB) increase in sale), L is an (n j) matrix of structural characteristics (e.g. number of
aircraft carrier noise. Table 1 gives an overview of the (meta-) analyses rooms, quality of inside maintenance), G is an (n k) matrix of spatial
on transport noise including the found NDI-values. The analyses show characteristics (e.g. accessibility, neighbourhood ethnicity, level of
that the NDI for aircraft noise varies between 0.10 and 3.57. urban facilities), ; , and are the associated parameter vectors
Very few hedonic price studies that aim at measuring the price effects and is a (n 1) vector of random error terms. For this analysis, we
of transport noise have been performed in the Netherlands. Recently, Van choose to estimate a log-linear model, since this functional form is
Praag and Baarsma (2005) have carried out a stated preference study on widely used in similar studies and, thus, allows for a straightforward
the valuation of aircraft noise around Amsterdam airport. In this study, comparison of results (Section 6). Furthermore, we tested the model
the well-being of people is dened as a function of income, family size, for the presence of spatial dependence in the dataset (Section 7).
age, the presence of sound insulation in people's homes and their Fig. 1 shows two possible relations between noise reduction and
perception of noise1. The perception of noise depends on family size, house prices. Line A shows a linear relationship between noise
monthly expenses on housing, how much of their time people spend at reduction and house prices, which means that when the noise
home during daytime hours, presence of a balcony or a garden and the reduction increases (i.e. when the absolute noise level decreases),
real noise level (expressed in Ke). The results show that the perception of house prices increase at a constant rate. Another possible relation
noise negatively inuences the general sense of well-being. The shadow (Line B) is that when the noise reduction increases, house prices
price of sound depends both on the percentage change of the noise level increase at a decreasing rate. Which relationship is more appropriate
as on the income level of a household: a household with a monthly net- in the urban fringe around Amsterdam airport remains to be seen.
income of 1500 Euro needs to receive a compensation of 2.24% (or The main strength of the hedonic price method is that values can
33.60 Euro) when the noise level increases from 20 to 30 Ke. When the be estimated based on actual choices. A limitation of the method is
noise level increases from 30 to 40 Ke, the compensation needs to be that it assumes perfect competition, fully informed actors and no
1.58%. Since we use Lden (Level dayeveningnight) as the unit for transaction costs when actors choose to relocate. This is an obvious
transport noise, representing the average sound charge during a whole simplication of reality where, for example, zoning restrictions create
year expressed in decibels (dB), it is worthwhile to mention that 20 Ke is articial submarkets. Furthermore, not all actors have the same
approximately equal to 53 Lden, 30 Ke approximately to 55 Lden and information available, causing some value-affecting characteristics to
40 Ke approximately to 58 Lden (NLR, 2005). stay unperceived. Actual house prices may thus deviate from
Next to the overview of meta-analysis studies presented in Table 1, expected, theoretical values. For a more detailed overview of
Udo (2005) has estimated the value of quietness in the villages of advantages and limitations of the hedonic pricing method, we refer
Baarn and Soest for the period 19962000. The sources of transport to King and Mazotta (2005). An in-depth summary of this specic
noise in this study are highways, busy municipal roads and a railway. technique is presented by Griliches (1971).
The results show that the decrease in house prices depends on the
chosen threshold value above which an increase in noise is assumed to
4. Calculation of noise nuisance
negatively inuence house values. An increase in noise of 1 dB at a
threshold value of 55 dB leads to a house price decrease of 1.7% (at an
We briey mentioned in Section 3 that we use Lden (Level day
average house price of 146,000 euro this is equal to 2500 Euro). When
eveningnight) as the unit for transport noise. The EMPARA-model, the
the threshold value is chosen to be 45 dB, the decrease is equal to
Environmental Model for Population Annoyance and Risk Analysis, is
1600 Euro. This result shows us that we must carefully choose the
threshold value in our analysis.
3. The model
P = + S + L + G + e 1
1
The model is also estimated in an alternative form with calculated sound charge in
Ke-units. In that estimation, the Ke-variable did not differ signicantly from 0. Fig. 1. Possible relations between house prices and noise reduction.
2852 J.E.C. Dekkers, J.W. van der Straaten / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 28502858
5. Exploratory data analysis (i.e. noise isolation versus warmth isolation). These data are provided
by the Dutch Association of Real Estate Agents (NVM) and include all
We use various (spatial) data sources in the analysis. First, we have houses sold by the NVM during this period. Of all the houses sold in
data on house transactions: price, date of sale (period 19992003) the Netherlands, 6570% are sold by NVM real estate agents.
and structural house characteristics, e.g. oor area, volume, number of Second, after having geocoded the transactions, many variables on
rooms and different types of isolation. This latter variable includes, for the housing environment are constructed and included in the analysis.
example, double glazing, roof isolation and oor isolation. Unfortu- For each neighbourhood, the following characteristics are included:
nately the data did not allow us to separate different types of isolation population density (source: CBS Statline), the normalised number of
Fig. 3. Lden in 2003 per CBS neighbourhood, Amsterdam Airport and house transactions.
2854 J.E.C. Dekkers, J.W. van der Straaten / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 28502858
retail outlets, the distance to the nearest railway station and the decibel level is below 65 dB) or one out [of] two equal noise sources
distance to the nearest highway ramp (source: Netherlands Environ- will have little effect on the level of annoyance as the other sources
mental Assessment Agency, MNP). will take over and dominate (e.g. shutting down an airport makes
Third, with regard to aircraft noise, we use the data from the people at some distance from the airport more aware of and annoyed
Netherlands Institute for Health and the Environment (RIVM). In the by nearby roads trafc noise). Therefore, action plans towards noise
RIVM-model, aircraft noise is computed by the National Aerospace must consider all noise sources (especially when the noise level is
Laboratory (NLR, 2005) using modelled ight paths. Noise in Lden is below 65 dB); at higher noise levels there is a more signicant effect of
expressed in dB and then the average is computed for houses on CBS reducing one noise source, and they may be treated source by source.
neighbourhood-level. In 2002, 2003 and 2004 the modelled area was Noise of main roads and railways is included in the analysis on six-
approximately 70 by 55 km. In 1999, 2000 and 2001 the area was digit zip code level.
approximately 55 by 55 km. The missing neighbourhood noise values Fifth, because the house transaction dataset covers a period of
for these latter years (caused by the smaller modelling area) are multiple years during which house prices increased signicantly, we
calculated using interpolation. We choose to follow this denition of use annual dummies to correct for this and other temporal effects.
the study area in our analysis. See for a detailed description MNP Sixth, also municipal dummies are included to correct for other
(2005). Analogous to what is mentioned in Section 2, the hedonic differences on municipal level that explain house price differences.
price method (HPM) measures the perception of households with Furthermore, several choices are made with regard to the type of
regard to sound charge levels. In our model we assume that the houses analyzed: Because the rental market is highly regulated in the
perception of households equals the sound charge levels as computed Netherlands, we disregard rental houses and houses that are sold by
by NLR. auction and we only include houses that are permanently occupied
Fourth, next to aircraft noise we take into account noise from main (no recreation houses).
roads and railways. Few studies on aircraft noise simultaneously Table 2 contains the summary statistics of the variables used in the
include these other transport noise sources. Navrud (2002, p.27) says: analysis. Finally, Fig. 3 displays the aircraft noise per CBS neighbourhood
In a situation where individuals are exposed to multiple sources of in 2003. The dots represent the locations of the house transactions that
noise, measures to reduce one dominating source (especially if the are analyzed. The gure also shows that our analysis does not include
Table 3
Results for hedonic pricing model.
house transactions in the urban area above the North Sea Channel, due Table 5
to the fact that we did not obtain any data for this region. Number of houses (x 1000) in the study area and number of houses (x 1000) in the
dataset classied according to aircraft noise disturbance.
Houses with a noise level lower than 35 dB act as a reference value. The outcomes of the hedonic price analysis can be used to estimate
** = signicant at 1%; * = signicant at 5%. the marginal and total benets of aircraft noise reduction in the area
2856 J.E.C. Dekkers, J.W. van der Straaten / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 28502858
Table 6 Table 8
Results of Moran's I (MI) and Lagrange multiplier (LM) tests for spatial dependence. Total and marginal benets and costs (per year) due to changes in noise level.
Test MI/DF Value Prob. Noise Marginal benets Total Noise Marginal costs Total costs
Moran's I (error) 0.154 138.1 ** decrease per year (mln Euros) benets increase per year (mln Euros)
LM (lag) 1 154.8 ** (dB) (mln Euros) (dB) (mln Euros)
Robust LM (lag) 1 21.6 ** -5 12 1732 1 49 697
LM (error) 1 13,461.4 ** -4 15 1560 2 57 1505
Robust LM (error) 1 13,328.2 ** -3 23 1339 3 67 2465
Nr. of observations 10,901 -2 31 1015 4 77 3558
-1 40 574 5 87 4798
MI denotes the Moran's I test-value, DF indicates the degrees of freedom in the Lagrange
Multiplier (LM) test. For technical details on the LM test and the model specication,
see Anselin (1988b), Bera and Yoon (1993) and Anselin et al. (1996).
** = signicant at 1%; * = signicant at 5%. house by the total tax-value of all the houses with an aircraft noise level
greater than or equal to 45 dB. It has to be noted that we aggregate all
the houses in the CBS neighbourhoods around Amsterdam airport,
around Amsterdam airport. This is done by taking the model coef- meaning both owned and rented houses, because of the fact that not
cient for aircraft noise and multiplying the related house price only home owners but also renters experience the benets. Supposing
impact by the house value of each house for which noise reduction is that in 2007 a policy will be introduced that realises an aircraft noise
accomplished. The marginal costs of noise increase can be calculated reduction in residential areas of 1 dB in 2008 (thus disregarding
in a similar way. We include these calculations in the results, but in the interest rates), the total benet amounts to 574 million Euros. When
discussion we pay more attention to the benets of noise reduction. we want to know the benets per year and we use an interest rate of
The marginal benets depend on the house value. As a conse- 7%, this means 40 million Euros per year, the assumption being that the
quence of our choice for a linear specication of the relation between amount of houses in this area remains equal.
noise and house prices, for each (absolute) noise level the marginal In case of an increase in aircraft noise, some houses that rst did
benets are equal (i.e. the marginal benet of a decrease of 1 dB is not have a noise level at or above 45 dB now have a noise level at or
equal for houses with a noise level of, for instance, 60 dB and, for above the threshold value, and thus a negative effect on their house
instance, 48 dB). These can be calculated by taking the derivative of prices. The more the noise increases, the more of the houses that were
the abbreviated regression-function with only the aircraft noise under the threshold value will now have a value equal to or higher
variable included. This function is: than the threshold. Table 8 displays the total benets and costs and
the marginal benets and costs per year for a decrease respectively
LnP = C + i Lden and its derivative is : 4 increase in noise nuisance. It shows that there are decreasing marginal
benets per dB noise reduction. The rst dB noise reduction has a
MB = i P 5 marginal benet of 574 million Euros or, at an interest rate of 7%,
40 million Euros per year. The fth dB only adds 172 million Euros to
in which P represents the average house price in the dataset, C is the the total benets, or 12 million Euros per year. Similarly, we see
constant in the model, i is the coefcient of the aircraft noise variable increasing marginal costs per dB noise increase. Fig. 4 displays the
(Lden) and MB are the marginal benets. When we take the average curve of the marginal costs and benets per year.
house value from the dataset (234,883 Euro), the marginal benet of In the report on mainport developments for the evaluation of the
1 dB noise reduction is 1872 Euro per house that has an aircraft noise Amsterdam airport policy, De Wit et al. (2006) analyzed various
level greater than or equal to 45 dB. When we take the average house external effects of an increase in aircraft noise. This also included an
value (tax-value per 1 January 1999) of all CBS neighbourhoods with analysis of the increase in noise per household. For this analysis the
an aircraft noise level greater than or equal to 45 dB, the marginal results of the stated-preference investigation carried out by Van Praag
benet of 1 dB noise reduction is 1459 Euro per house. Using an and Baarsma (2005) were used. In the report the monetary
interest rate of 7% (4% basic interest plus 3% risk compensation) this is compensation for the year 2008 and 2012 for people living around
equal to a marginal benet of 102 Euro per dB per house per year. To Amsterdam airport is calculated. Because for the latter year the
put this gure in perspective, the EU Working Group on Health and compensation is calculated using an increase in aircraft noise of 1 dB,
Socio-Economic Aspects (2003) recommends calculating with those results are compared with our model outcomes, although we
25 Euro per dB per household per year. have to remark that there are differences in methodology (stated
For the calculation of the total benets of reductions in aircraft preference versus revealed preference) and differences in the noise
noise in the Amsterdam region, we use the tax-value since this value is unit used (Ke versus Lden). De Wit et al. (2006) nd that the average
known for all neighbourhoods. We do not only observe noise compensation per household in 2012 equals 33.25 Euro per year. This
reduction alongside landing tracks and/or approach routes, we look amount is multiplied by the number of houses in the area where there
at the whole study area. In order to measure the total benets of the is an increase in aircraft noise. The total compensation then amounts
1 dB noise reduction, we multiply the marginal benets of an average to 18.5 million Euros per year. In our calculation we estimate the total
Table 7
Estimation results corrected for spatial dependence (error-models).
Variable Model Full model OLS Sub sample OLS Spatial error model
Coeff. (St. err.) Coeff. (St. err.) Coeff. (St. err.)
Noise (aircraft) N 45 dB 0.0080** (0.000) 0.0073** (0.001) 0.0077** (0.002)
Noise (railway) N 60 dB 0.0072** (0.001) 0.0071** (0.003) 0.0067** (0.002)
Noise (road) N 55 dB 0.0014** (0.000) 0.0027** (0.001) 0.0016* (0.001)
0.9327** (0.007)
Nr. of observations 66,636 10,901 10,901
R2 0.910 0.830 0.866
OLS means ordinary least-squares and signies the type of regression analysis used.
** = signicant at 1%; * = signicant at 5%.
J.E.C. Dekkers, J.W. van der Straaten / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 28502858 2857
Fig. 4. Marginal benets and costs per year of noise level changes.
costs of an increase of 1 dB in aircraft noise to be 697 million Euros, estimate the demand functions for road and rail trafc noise. As
which is 48.8 million Euros per year (interest rate 7%). This means that expected, they nd a negative effect between the price of noise on the
the total costs following our method are approximately 2.5 times demand for peace and quietness. Furthermore the results show that in
higher than the total costs according to De Wit et al. (2006). the demand equation for rail noise, the cross price effect of road noise
was also negative, which means that households are willing to pay for
9. Hedonic prices and welfare implications peace and quietness from different sources of noise pollution. This
cross-price effect however was not found in the road demand
The focus of this paper is monetizing the benets of aircraft noise equation.
reduction. From a welfare optimal point of view it is interesting to
compare the benets with the costs of aircraft noise reduction. In the 10. Conclusions
case were marginal costs are not equal to the marginal benets,
welfare improvements are possible and government intervention This paper examined the effect of transport noise on house prices
might be necessary. In another paper, the results of this study are in the highly urbanized area around Amsterdam airport. Based on the
compared with the costs of reducing noise for airlines in order to regression results, total and marginal benets of noise reduction were
determine the optimal size of government intervention in the case of calculated, indicating that a 1 dB sound charge reduction will lead to a
Amsterdam Airport. It turns out that in this case the optimal level of total house value increase of 574 million Euros, or 40 million Euros per
noise reduction is 3 dB (Lijesen et al., forthcoming). Note however that year.
in our approach we focus on the benets of aircraft noise reduction The benets as we calculate them are on the low side compared to
that is reected in an increase in house price. This means that we can other international hedonic pricing studies. A point of discussion is the
at best only measure the value that residents of the area attach to choice for a threshold value of 45 dB. This choice of up to a certain
this amenity. A decrease of noise provides also positive health impact. point is arbitrary and the chosen model is sensitive to the threshold
The value that non-residents attach to the amenity may be as relevant, value. Relatively little is known about the relation between sound
especially in areas that attract large numbers of tourists or where charge and noise experience on lower sound charge levels. Navrud
employees working close by go out for lunch. These benets are not (2002, p. 31) rightfully states that ERFs [exposureresponse func-
taken into account in this study and in the cost-benet analysis. tions], level of noise annoyance and economic values at noise levels
Another limitation of our study is the fact that the estimated below 50 Lden are very uncertain, and more empirical studies are
willingness to pay of households for aircraft noise reduction only needed to be able to set a lower cut-off point and avoid underesti-
allows us to assess the valuation of a marginal change in aircraft noise. mation [curs. by ed.] of social benets of noise reducing measures
Only if we assume that all buyers are identical, we can consider non- affecting low noise levels. What this means for our model results is
marginal changes as well. In general however, households will differ unclear at this moment. We recommend further research in this
in many ways, for instance with respect to income and preference for direction.
environmental quality. The estimation of non-marginal variations Another recommendation we would like to make is to include
requires the estimation of individual demand functions. In order to more house transactions in the model, specically on the north-side of
analyze the individual demand structure a second stage analysis is Amsterdam airport. The airport opened a fth runway on the rst of
needed. In this stage the estimated marginal WTP is used and January 2003. It would be interesting to examine whether we can nd
regressed on household characteristics, including for example income, a timing-effect of the announcement of the construction of this
the quantity of housing characteristics and the amenity. Although the runway in the data and to see what the house price impact of this fth
two-stage procedure was already proposed in 1974 by Rosen, the runway on houses north of Amsterdam airport is, in particular in areas
estimation of this second stage is hard due to identication and where people did not previously experience any serious aircraft
endogeneity problems. Debates about its solution continue until the transport noise nuisance.
present day (see for instance Palmquist, 2003; Ekeland et al., 2002). The increase in house prices in case of a noise level reduction, the
Another difculty is the fact that data of household characteristics are so-called willingness-to-pay (WTP) for noise reduction, is only one
often unavailable at the desired level-of-detail. Therefore, this second point on the demand curve of households. This means that the
phase of the HPM is usually left out of the analysis. An exception is the individual demand curve cannot be computed. Especially for the
extensive research done by Day et al. (2007) in which the major densely populated Netherlands, it would be interesting to investigate
theoretical and empirical problems are addressed. Although they how the WTP for noise reduction relates to income, other households
could not estimate the demand function for aircraft noise, they characteristics and preferences for environmental quality.
2858 J.E.C. Dekkers, J.W. van der Straaten / Ecological Economics 68 (2009) 28502858
Acknowledgements Monitoring van gezondheid en beleving rondom de luchthaven van Schiphol. In:
Houthuijs, D.J.M., van Wiechen, C.M.A.G. (Eds.), RIVM report 630100003/2006.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven.
We like to thank the Dutch Association of Real Estate Brokers Houthuijs, D.J.M., van Wiechen, C.M.A.G., Breugelmans, O.R.P., Marra, M., 2008.
(NVM) for making available their data on house transactions for this Gezondheidskundige Evaluatie Schiphol 2006 Samenvattende rapportage.
RIVM report 630100005/2008. National Institute for Public Health and the
study. Furthermore, we thank the Netherlands Institute for Health and Environment, Bilthoven.
the Environment (RIVM) and the Netherlands Environmental Assess- Johnston, G.W., Haasz, A.A., 1979. Trafc background level and signal duration effects on
ment Agency (MNP) for providing the necessary spatial data on noise aircraft noise judgment. Journal of Sound and Vibration 63 (4), 543560.
King, D.M., Mazotta, M., 2005. Ecosystem valuation, Universities of Maryland/
nuisance for our analysis. Finally, we thank the Central Bureau of University of Rhode Island. www.ecosystemvaluation.org, last visited: June 8, 2005.
Statistics (CBS) for providing their Neighbourhood Statistics. We also Lijesen, M., van der Straaten, J.W., Dekkers, J.E.C., van Elk, R., 2006. Geluidsnormen voor
thank the BSIK-programmes Ruimte voor Geo-Informatie (www.rgi. Schiphol, een welvaartseconomische benadering, CPB report no. 116. Netherlands
Bureau for Policy Analysis, Den Haag.
nl) and Habiforum (www.habiforum.nl) for partially funding this
Lijesen, M., van der Straaten, J.W., Dekkers, J.E.C., van Elk, R., Blokdijk, J., forthcoming.
contribution being composed. How much noise reduction at airports? Transportation Research Part D.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2009.07.006.
References Miedema, H.M., Oudshoorn, C.G., 2001. Annoyance from transportation noise: relation-
ships with exposure metrics DNL en DENL and their condence intervals.
Anselin, L., 1988a. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Kluwer Academic, Environmental Health Perspective 109 (4), 409416.
Boston. MNP, 2005. Het Milieu rond Schiphol 19902010, Feiten & cijfers, MNP Report
Anselin, L., 1988b. Lagrange multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and 500047001. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven.
spatial heterogeneity. Geographical Analysis 20, 117. Morrison, S.A., Winston, C., Watson, T., 1999. Fundamental aws of social regulation: the
Anselin, L., Bera, A., Florax, R.J., Yoon, M., 1996. Simple diagnostic tests for spatial case of airplane noise. Journal of Law and Economics 42, 723743.
dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics 26, 77104. Navrud, S., 2002. The state-of-the-art on economic valuation of noise. Final Report to
Bateman, I.J., Day, B., Lake, I., Lovett, A., 2001. The effect of road trafc on residential European Commission DG Environment, Department of Economics and Social
property values: a literature review and hedonic pricing study. Report (January 2001) Sciences. Agricultural University of Norway, s.
for the Scottish Executive, University of East Anglia, Economic & Social Research Nelson, J.P., 2004. Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values, problems
Council. University College, London. and prospects. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 38 (1), 128.
Bera, A., Yoon, M.J., 1993. Specication testing with misspecied alternatives. NLR, 2005. Visualisation tool. National Aerospace Laboratory, Amsterdam.
Econometric Theory 9, 649658. Palmquist, R.B. (2003). Property Value Models, in: Mler, K.G. and Vincent, J. (eds),
Dassen, A.G.M., Jabben, J., Dolmans, J.H.J., 2001. Development and use of EMPARA: a Handbook of Environmental Economics volume 2., (Amsterdam: North Holland/
model for analysing the extent and effects of local environmental problems in the Elsevier Science).
Netherlands. Proceedings of Internoise, the international congress and exhibition Passchier, W.F., Albering, H.J., Amelung, B., Anderson, H.R., Briggs, D.J., Caratti, P.,
on noise control engineering. The Hague, the Netherlands, 2730 August. Dutkiewicz, T., Guski, R., Tamborra, M., 2002. Healthy airports: a proposal for a
Day, B., Bateman, I., Lake, I., 2007. Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically comprehensive set of airport environmental health indicators. Working paper
consistent and transferable values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property Department of Health Risk Analysis and Toxicology. Universiteit Maastricht,
price model. Environmental and Resource Economics 37, 211232. Maastricht.
De Wit, J.G., Baarsma, B.E., Koopmans, C.C., 2006. Onderzoek mainportontwikkeling in Rosen, S., 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure
het kader van de evaluatie Schipholbeleid: de externe effecten. Rapport voor het competition. Journal of Political Economy 82, 3455.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Schipper, Y. (1999). Market Structure and Environmental Costs in Aviation, A Welfare
Water Management, Amsterdam. Analysis of European Air Transport Reform, PhD Dissertation, VU University
ECMT, 1998. Efcient Transport for Europe, Policies for Internalisation of External Costs. Amsterdam.
European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Brussels. Taylor, S.M., Hall, F.L., Birnie, S.E., 1987. Transportation noise annoyance: testing of a
Ekeland, I., Heckman, J.J., Nesheim, L., 2002. Identication and Estimation of Hedonic probabilistic model. Journal of Sound and Vibration 117 (1), 95113.
Models, cemmap working paper CWPO7/02. Udo, J. (2005). Valuing the amenity of quiet, a hedonic analysis, MSc Thesis, Universiteit
EU Working Group on Health and Socio-economic Aspects, 2003. Valuation of Noise; van Tilburg.
Position Paper. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from European Commission Web site: Vainio, M., Paque, G., 2002. Highlights of the Workshop on State-of-the-Art in Noise
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/valuatio_nal_12_2003.pdf. Valuation, held in Brussels on 14 December 2001, Final Report. European
Fields, J.M., Walker, J.G., 1982. Comparing the relationships between noise level and Commission DG Environment, Brussels.
annoyance in different surveys: a railway noise vs. aircraft and road trafc comparison. Van Praag, B.M.S., Baarsma, B.E., 2005. Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: the
Journal of Sound and Vibration 81 (1), 5180. case of airport noise. The Economic Journal 115, 224246.
Griliches, Z., 1971. Introduction: hedonic price indexes revisited. In: Griliches, Z. (Ed.), Vermeulen, J.P.L., Boon, B.H., van Essen, H.P., den Boer, L.C., Dings, J.M.W., Bruinsma, F.R.,
Price Indexes and Quality Changes: Studies in New Methods of Measurement, Koetse, M.J., 2004. De prijs van een reis, De maatschappelijke kosten van het
Cambridge: 3.15. verkeer, Rapport. CE Delft, Delft.
Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on the Health Impact of Large Airports,
1999. Public Health Impact of Large Airports, Publication nr. 1999/14E. Health
Council of the Netherlands, The Hague.