The Dutch government apparently still wants to force shrinkage of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Despite the societal damage that the inevitable and irreversible loss of connections will cause, both in the Netherlands and in European regions, and even though this shrinkage does nothing for the four objectives given for this drastic measure in the associated Letter to Parliament.
A previous post, ‘Falende overheid‘ (Failing Government, in Dutch only), already explained why shrinkage is irrelevant, or even has the opposite effect, when it comes to CO2 emissions, particulate matter, and nitrogen depositions.
For reducing sound annoyance, according to the Cabinet the most important motivation, shrinkage will also have no or an opposite effect. That too was mentioned in that post, with the promise to provide more details later. That promise is fulfilled with the video below, in which three questions are answered:
- The Netherlands might be full, but are the Netherlands indeed densely populated?
- Why doesn’t the very successful limitation of sound exposure result in less sound annoyance?
- What does a policy look like that could be effective for reducing sound annoyance?
For those who, after watching the video, want to know more: see the pdf ‘Sound Exposure versus Sound Annoyance‘ for more details and for sources and references.