The pan-European review was driven by the use of data capture forms completed by work package partners and their networks. These were supplemented by local documentation from each nation. The aim was to identify different approaches to noise impact mitigation in the EU Member States and different implementation patterns. This process was followed by a series of stakeholder interviews conducted by a researcher from Manchester Metropolitan University to understand how and why the patterns identified through the template forms have developed. When coupled with the Impacts and Balanced Approach Expert Committee, this research approach represented an in-depth review with input from experts and industry stakeholders alike to give a clear picture of the current state-of-the-art airport noise management in the EU.

The research found that whilst the transposition of the Environmental Noise Directive and the ICAO Balanced Approach into national legislation had been largely successful, several challenges and future research priorities remain. These include:

• There is no “one size fits all” solution to aviation noise: each airport requires its own solutions based on its specific characteristics. In other words, the Balanced Approach implementation needs to be tailored to the requirements of individual airports;
   
• Although there is a comprehensive noise policy framework at the European level and associated policy at the national level, there are remaining gaps in the implementation of noise mitigation measures;
   
• There are significant issues regarding land-use planning around airports rooted in competing priorities for local authorities and airport operators, and a lack of clear and robust legislation to protect airports from encroachment by incompatible land uses;
   
• Many stakeholders have the potential to mitigate aviation noise. Collaboration amongst all stakeholders (including airport communities) seems essential in mitigating noise exposure and impact effectively;
   
• Multiple areas require further research that can inform best practice, not least regarding issues such as quality of life of airport communities; the efficacy of different balanced approach interventions in reducing noise exposure and annoyance; how communities can be effectively engaged with aviation noise; and, more detailed understanding of the factors influencing expressed noise annoyance.

The Impacts and Balanced Approach Expert Committee (IBAEC) exists to gain input from airport end-users and important stakeholders on airport noise, to validate the findings of the ANIMA project, to help guide the recommendations as to how best to reduce noise exposure and associated impacts in the aviation sector, and thereby inform the ANIMA research agenda. The committee is regularly meeting throughout ANIMA with workshops in different locations across Europe and online.

ANIMA researchers from Manchester Metropolitan University organised a workshop at London Heathrow Airport on 18 May 2018, where the key findings of this research were presented to members of the Impacts and Balanced Approach Expert Committee (IBAEC). The presentation was followed by a round table discussion concerning the research and its findings.

Core messages from this workshop include:

• The ICAO Balanced Approach is a sound base for action to reduce noise exposure, but guidance is required on the appropriate use and efficacy of different elements;
   
• Given that it is never possible to reduce noise exposure to zero, it is necessary to engage with affected communities and to consider the issue in the context of the costs and benefits that accrue to them from living near the airport and of aviation in general;
   
• Such engagement must be a two-way process of dissemination from the airport to communities, and listening by the airport about community concerns, insight and priorities;
   
• All airports of any size need to consider aircraft noise and anticipate the consequences of growth. The 50,000-movement figure for the application of the European Noise Directive is too simplistic and needs to be reconsidered, for instance, by having a pre-qualification criterion that requires airports to begin the process of building noise management capacity and engagement with stakeholders, particularly on the issue of land-use planning;
   
• Management of noise impacts needs to be informed by quality data. Existing reliance upon noise modelling outputs or complaints analysis to inform Balanced Approach implementation can lead to sub-optimal outcomes. Appropriate engagement and dialogue between airports and their surrounding communities is an important prerequisite to assessing the nature and extent of noise problems and appropriate responses. Further policy and good practice guidance would help to facilitate this;
   
• It is clear that the industry is committed to reducing noise impact, but doing so requires collaboration across the board, between aviation stakeholders, and between different airports to exchange best practice;
   
• There needs to be greater attention paid to the evaluation of the impact of Balanced Approach interventions and how much they are communicated to the public. Another set of activities by ANIMA will help to provide insight into this issue;

Land-use planning is also a critical element of the Balanced Approach. It could help reduce noise impact experienced by residents (i.e. through insulation) and help stop the development of noise-sensitive buildings near airports.

The regulation of aviation noise is complex; the ICAO approach for its management is ambitious and affects many different organisations and authorities in each country. To present a global vision of the regulation, other regulatory areas must be considered as well. 

It is not enough to exclusively regulate the noise emitted by an aircraft according to ICAO Annex 16 Volume 1 – the most common regulation in air transport departments and sometimes the only existing regulation on aircraft noise. It is necessary to regulate the noise management of many aircraft operating in the same space, such as airports, and causing damage to the environment and health.

The way to control and manage the airport noise is defined by the Regulation (EU) 598/2014. Nevertheless, more guidance is required on the appropriate use and efficacy of different elements and how to assess the cost/efficacy of interventions.

The Environmental Noise Directive defines a common approach to avoiding, preventing or reducing the harmful effects of noise exposure. In addition to transposing the Directive, some countries have set noise limits around airports – noise exposure at ground level in addition to the limits of noise emitted by aircraft that can cause damage to the environment and health. Environmental and health noise legislation depends on countries’ regulations.

Proper regulation of land-use is essential to comply with such kinds of noise limits around airports and mostly to share the responsibility with the local and regional authorities with competence in those areas. Local decision makers consider strategic noise mapping and noise action plans’ assessment as an effective tool for protection from aircraft noise. The expansion of several airports will need a new land-use management scheme, consultation with local decision makers, planners, local communities and other parties affected by noise.

Finally, it is essential to assess the environmental impact (including noise impact) of new infrastructures, flight paths and activities and the impact of potential modifications derived from some kinds of intervention for noise airport management.

Therefore, the management of noise in airports is affected by the regulation of five key areas:

• Air Transport;
• Environmental noise;
• Health;
• Land-use planning;
• Environmental impact assessment.

Moreover, it is essential to consider the range of the authorities involved in the regulation of each area (national, local, European, etc.)

The aviation sector is heavily regulated at the international level, so finding standard global policies to reduce aircraft emissions is relatively easy since there are adequate forums for its debate globally. On the other hand, land-use planning is developed at the local and regional levels, so regulating aspects related to aviation noise at a global level does not make sense. It should be guided at the international or European level by general recommendations for its possible adaptation at the local and regional level.

To summarise, the regulation involved in aviation noise management could be presented as a matrix, and each case will be different and needs to be examined under a global regulation overview.