±¬ÁÏÍõ

Major changes to flight paths are underway across Australia’s three largest cities.

Brisbane’s new runway has already shifted aircraft noise onto suburbs that .

Western Sydney Airport’s finalised routes will bring flight paths to  from 2026. Sydney’s Mascot Airport has also released a draft , signalling further changes to flight patterns and noise exposure as flight numbers grow. It forecasts a 75% increase in annual passengers.

²Ñ±ð±ô²ú´Ç³Ü°ù²Ô±ð’sÌý would alter noise patterns across the city’s west for decades.

In each case, thousands of residents who did not buy or rent under a flight path may soon be exposed to regular aircraft noise. For many, the expected noise levels are significant.

Decades of international research show well-documented and consistent links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and harms to health and wellbeing – as well as hits to property values.

This raises questions for any community affected by new or redesigned flight paths. What exactly are these wellbeing and financial impacts, and how should they be recognised or offset? How do other countries address them?

Research from many countries shows long-term aircraft noise has clear and measurable effects on , including ,Ìý,ÌýÌý²¹²Ô»åÌý, and .

These effects appear consistently across different .

Long-term exposure to aircraft noise is linked with higher risks of ,Ìý.

These effects tend to be strongest where . The mechanism may entail noise activating the body’s , placing strain on the .

Even moderate levels of night-time aircraft noise can increase insomnia across all age groups, but .

One of the clearest findings in the entire aircraft-noise literature is its impact on .

When schools are located under busy flight paths, students make slower progress in reading, in particular. These effects add up to . These impacts accumulate over time, rather than children adapting to the noise.

A small rise in noise — even just a few decibels — is also associated with measurable increases in .

´¡¾±°ù±è´Ç°ù³Ù²õÌý and can even raise property values regionally, through better connectivity, jobs and investment.

But these broader regional benefits do not erase the local, often uneven costs borne by households directly under flight paths. This is particularly the case for those far enough from the new airport to miss out on the economic uplift, yet close enough to experience frequent low-altitude flights. For these homes, the net effect on price is often negative.

Recent analysis of thousands of individual house sales in Melbourne found that homes further from the airport runway — but otherwise similar in standing — sell for  than those closer in.

International evidence shows the same pattern. Across multiple studies, house prices  for every 1 decibel of aircraft noise.

Airports generate jobs, investment and economic activity — but the costs are partly carried by the households that live under the flight paths. The core policy problem is whether those costs are recognised and offset.

Unlike other countries, Australia has done little to address those impacts on households.

Curfews at a few airports reduce night-time operations, but they do nothing for daytime noise. Many major airports — including Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and the new Western Sydney Airport — have no curfew at all.

Sydney Airport’s  in the 1990s insulated more than 4,000 homes and acquired over 160 properties at a cost of about A$300 million — the last time Australia implemented noise mitigation on a large scale.

A planned  will help. However,Ìý found that although the modelling predicted thousands of homes would be affected, only a small fraction would be eligible for insulation.

For other major airports — such as Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne — insulation requirements apply only to new residential developments. So, long-standing residents recently exposed to new or intensified flight paths receive no support.

Many countries treat noise mitigation as a core part of airport expansion, with schemes that support existing communities affected by changing flight paths.

• In the United States, airports receive  to insulate homes, schools and community buildings under established flight paths.
• Airports such as Chicago O’Hare have  through these programs. When flight paths or operations change, airports update federally approved noise maps, which can expand eligibility.
• In Maryland, some counties offer a  for owner-occupied homes in  around major airports.
• In the United Kingdom, Heathrow has offered noise-insulation funding to about 20,000  within defined noise-exposure bands.

Australia’s current mitigation measures, at least in relation to some airports, fall short of offsetting the full impact on affected residents.

When airport expansions generate substantial economic benefits, a portion of that value could be used to directly support the communities that absorb the noise burden.

The most immediate and practical steps could be:

• offering much broader insulation support for homes, schools and childcare centres that are newly exposed to high aircraft noise, rather than narrow and time-limited schemes
• introducing land-tax or council rates relief for households inside defined noise-exposure zones.

A fairer mitigation approach would ensure the benefits of aviation expansion are not built on uncompensated losses for the people living under the flight paths.

Republished from The Conversation under licence. Authored by Milad Haghani (University of Melbourne), Abbas Rajabifard (University of Melbourne), Gavin Lambert (Swinburne University of Technology), RIco Merkert (±¬ÁÏÍõ) and Taha Hossein Rashidi (University of New South Wales).