Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Sample Clauses

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Internationally gained knowledge played a role in the noise abatement policy for AAS only in two instances and has, so far, not resulted in any significant policy change. The debate on noise around AAS is, and has been for decades, a hot item in the Netherlands, which resulted in a well-considered but complex noise policy for AAS (Bro¨ er, 2006). As common in the Dutch policy culture of negotiation and con- sensus, policy-making took place in a relatively closed network comprising an array of actors from state, market and society: NGOs such as the Dutch Friends of the Earth and the Netherlands Society for Nature and Environment; private actors, such as Royal Dutch Airlines Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij (KLM), Schiphol and the Netherlands ATS; as well as governmental actors, including the central but also local and regional governments. Those who were ‘in’ had a significant influence on the policy; those who were ‘out’ did not. Already in the 1960s, the so-called noise contour cap was introduced. It was meant to keep noise exposure, and therefore annoyance, within the physical limits of the immediate vicinity of the airport. These physical limits were drawn on a map, and this geographical ‘red line’ should not be crossed. Ever since that moment, there has been a discussion about how such a cap could be put into prac- xxxx, at that time mainly between scientists and policy-makers (Bro¨ er, 2006), in fact only in 1996, the physical noise contour cap was formally established (Xxxxxxx et al., 2010). The cap led to an extreme emphasis on noise contours (Bro¨ er, 2006). Policy measures were strongly focused on keeping noise within the limits of the contour cap. Those measures that were not considered to contribute to this were given minor attention. The elaboration of the noise contour cap took place in an enlightened type of knowledge use. Its application in practice was a highly technical matter, dominated by experts. As a consequence, when noise limits were exceeded, XXX’s explanation tended to be highly technical too. This created a lot of con- fusion and dissatisfaction about the policy, not only among the people living around the airport, but also for many participants in the policy-making process. Not only did less and less actors, including policy-makers, understand the discus- sion, also societal trust in the practical elaboration of the policy and in the good intentions of AAS decreased. It has repeatedly been said that a ‘technical fog’ was creat...