Abstract
In 2002, one of the first studies to place monetary values on annoyance from aircraft movements using stated choice methods was conducted. A key feature was the comparison of valuations from a method that concealed the purpose of the valuation exercise and a more standard stated preference method where the purpose of valuing aircraft noise would be transparent. It was found that the valuations obtained from the transparent method were somewhat higher, even after controlling for time period, than those obtained from the quality of life based approach.We have repeated the data collection at Manchester Airport, in the summer of 2010. This was an exact repeat in terms of data collection method and stated preference exercises, except for the amendment of council tax levels to account for inflation. In addition, new variants of the stated choice exercises were offered to test specific hypotheses relating to incentive to bias and package effects. This paper reports the initial analysis of both data sets to provide insights into: • How valuations of aircraft noise have varied over time; we are not aware of any such repeat study in this particular context • Whether making clear the purpose of the quality of life SP exercise impacts on the valuations obtained relative to the transparent exercise • Examining whether 'package' effects are present in environmental valuation by offering some common time periods across exercises.