1. Living under air traffic flight paths has a negative effect on people's overall and momentary wellbeing, equivalent to around half the effect of being a smoker for some wellbeing measures.
2. The presence of daytime aviation noise consistently negatively impacts on five subjective wellbeing measures, with a marginal negative association with every additional decibel of aircraft noise.
3. There is no significant association between wellbeing and living within night-time noise contours or living in close airport proximity.
The article "Living with aircraft noise: Airport proximity, aviation noise and subjective wellbeing in England" provides a novel study on the effects of airports on multiple subjective wellbeing metrics. The study merges geolocated national population statistics with airport noise measurement maps to analyze the relationships between airports and subjective wellbeing measures. The presence of daytime aviation noise was found to consistently negatively impact on five subjective wellbeing measures, with a marginal negative association with every additional decibel of aircraft noise.
The article provides a comprehensive literature review on the impacts of airport proximity or noise on SWB, highlighting previous studies that have been confined to one measure of SWB or focused on only one airport. However, the article fails to provide a balanced view by not exploring counterarguments or presenting both sides equally. For instance, while the study finds no significant association between wellbeing and living within night-time noise contours or living in close airport proximity, it does not explore potential benefits such as increased economic activity and job creation associated with airport expansion.
The article also lacks evidence for some claims made, such as the statement that living under air traffic flight paths has a negative effect on peoples’ overall and momentary wellbeing equivalent to around half the effect of being a smoker for some wellbeing measures. While this claim may be supported by the study's findings, it is not clear how this comparison was made or what evidence supports it.
Additionally, the article does not provide insights into potential biases and their sources. For instance, while the study merges household-level data from the Annual Population Survey (APS) – a national UK survey providing information on education, employment, ethnicity, and health and wellbeing – it is unclear how these factors were controlled for in the analysis. This lack of transparency raises questions about potential biases in the study's findings.
Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into the relationship between airports and subjective wellbeing measures in England, its lack of balance and transparency limits its usefulness for policymakers and researchers.