AN EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL LOSS IN WEST VALLEY HOME VALUES
FROM LOCATING F-35 AT LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
Timothy D. Hogan, Ph.D.
Luke Air Force Base has been a major pilot-training base for almost 70 years. When it
began operations in 1941, the lands surrounding the base and/or under its flight paths
were undeveloped desert or scantly-populated agricultural land far from populated
areas. But with the rapid growth of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area in the post-World War
II era, development has expanded into areas surrounding the base threatening the
viability of its operations.
Since Luke AFB is perceived as a major contributor to the economies of the state of
Arizona and the Phoenix area,1 the state and the West Valley communities around Luke
AFB have taken steps to regulate land use in the vicinity of the air base and its flight
paths to minimize the safety and noise issues associated with its operations.
State laws and planning/zoning actions by local jurisdictions have preserved the viability
of Luke AFB’s current mission as the largest F-16 training base, and thereby allowed
the continued flow of economic benefits from base operations. It should be recognized,
however, that these land use restrictions also have negative economic effects that are
concentrated on property owners, the business sector, and the local governments in the
surrounding communities. More generally, these negative effects also impact the wider
economy and partially offset the positive benefits of Luke AFB operations.
The U.S. Air Force is planning to begin replacing the F-16 with the new F-35 within the
next few years and to phase out the F-16 over the next decade. Luke AFB is being
considered as a site for an F-35 training base. If it becomes a training base for F-35
pilots, it is anticipated that the scale of training operations would largely remain the
same. However, results of testing by both the Air Force and independent experts
indicate that the noise levels of the F-35 are much higher than the F-16.
1
If aircraft noise associated with F-35 training operations is significantly higher than
current noise levels in areas surrounding the base and its flight paths, the adverse
effects resulting from base operations would also escalate. Focusing only on the
economic effects, the higher noise levels would have negative effects on property
values in the affected areas, and the existing land use plans would need to be modified
to reflect the higher noise levels. Both of these would result in losses in property values
and have adverse effects on the economies of the surrounding communities.
Measurements of Aircraft Noise Levels
Aside from safety issues associated with aircraft crashes and other types of accidents,
noise is the largest burden placed on surrounding areas by the military operations at
Luke AFB. Loud noises can be very annoying and, if at a high enough level and/or
sufficient frequency, can cause health problems. But while most agree that excessive
noise is bothersome, it is a subjective issue. Noises from different sources vary by
intensity, duration, frequency, and time of day at which the noise occurs. How different
people evaluate the level of annoyance and/or the disruption associated with particular
types of noises can be affected by all these and many other factors. In an effort to take
at least some of these factors into account, a number of alternative measures of noise
level have been developed.
The decibel or dB is the most fundamental measure of noise level. It measures only the
intensity or “loudness” of noise. It has largely been supplanted by the “A weighted”
decibel or dBA, which accounts for the fact that humans do not hear high or low
frequencies as well as middle frequency sounds. The “sound exposure level” or SEL is
a noise measurement that accounts for both the intensity and the duration of a single
noise event. In some instances, as for example comparisons of the relative noise levels
of an F-16 versus an F-35, the noise levels are typically reported in terms of either dBAs
or SELs.
2
Aircraft noise as it relates the noise levels around airports is usually defined in terms of
a more complex measure, the day/night average sound level - denoted either as DNL or
Ldn. This is a measure of total aircraft-generated noise averaged over a 24-hour period,
with a penalty for nighttime noise. DNL measures are typically calculated from data
collected from alternative locations surrounding an airport over a period of time. The
latest published DNL data for Luke AFB was calculated by the Air Force from data
collected in 2001.2
Conventionally these calculated DNL measures are represented in terms of DNL noise
contours that show the areas surrounding an airport in which the DNL is equal to or
higher than a particular value. Figure 1 shows a set of such contours for the area
surrounding Luke AFB.3
The Federal Aviation Administration identifies a DNL level of 65 as the upper limit of
acceptable aircraft-generated noise levels. The Environmental Protection Agency on the
other hand defines the threshold level at 55+.
There are ongoing debates on the relative strengths/weaknesses of the alternate
measures. But it is important to remember that all these metrics are alternative
approaches to measuring the level of noise. They do not directly measure the level of
annoyance caused by the noise. In particular, since noise levels around airports are
usually described in terms of DNL noise contours, it should be noted that the DNL
measure has been criticized for understating the practical effects of noise and its
annoyance (FAA WebPages 1999).
Noise Levels and Current Land Use Restrictions
In Arizona, noise-based constraints on land use are regulated by state law and local
zoning ordinances. State law requires disclosure to property owners/buyers that
property is in the vicinity of a military airport with the potential for accidents and high
noise levels. All political subdivisions in the vicinity of a military airport are required to
3
4
Figure 1: JLUS and AICUZ Noise Contours
adopt land use plans and enforce zoning regulations that assure development
compatible with the high noise and accident potential associated with military airport
operations. Land use compatibility requirements related to noise levels defined in terms
of DNL-based noise contours are specified by state law. These land use constraints are
based on the noise contours from the 1988 Joint Land Use Study (JLUS).
Residential – DNL less than 654
Schools – DNL less than 65
Commercial/retail trade – most less than DNL 805
Industrial – DNL less than 855
Government – DNL less than 805
Medical/cultural/non-profit organizations (inc. churches) – DNL less than 755
Parks/playgrounds/spectator sports – DNL less than 75
Golf courses/water sports/riding stables – DNL less than 805
The development potential of approximately 33,000 acres in the West Valley
communities surrounding Luke AFB has been constrained by these regulations (Luke
Forward Campaign 2009). Some incompatible development occurred before these
restrictions took effect. A 2002 study compared existing land uses against the
compatibility criteria established by state law. The majority of inconsistent uses were
residential uses totaling 182 acres (Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project
2003).
The Impact of Aircraft Noise on Property Values
The negative effect of airport/aircraft noise on property values is a wellresearched/documented issue. There are dozens of published studies on the topic, all
of which come to the conclusion that property under or nearby the flight corridors of
airports experiences diminution in market value.
5
One of the most important studies was conducted for the Federal Aviation
Administration in 1994. The results indicated a consistent negative impact of aircraft
noise on residential property values. For the area surrounding the Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX), in the case of moderately-priced homes, it found a 1.1
percent loss in market values per dBA above a “quiet threshold.” For the John F.
Kennedy Airport (JFK) in New York, the loss in market value for moderately-priced
homes was estimated at 0.5 percent per dBA. (Bell 2001).
Studies of the environs of LAX, Ontario, and John Wayne airports in southern California
estimated the negative impact of values of single-family residences ranging from 15 to
43 percent – averaging a 27 percent loss in market value. The studies also included
analysis of the impact on non-residential property and found significant negative effects
on commercial space.6
A 2004 study that synthesized the results from 33 studies of airports in Canada and the
United States over the 1969-1997 period estimated a range for the loss in residential
property values of 0.5 to 0.7 percent per dB for levels up to 75 dB. The study indicated
that the noise discount would be substantially higher for areas that are affected by noise
levels higher than 75 dB (Nelson 2004). These statistics imply that the value of a
moderately-priced home located within the 65 DNL noise contour would be about 9
percent lower than an equivalent home located in a neighborhood not affected by
aircraft noise.
The analyses of the Southern California airports found more severe effects of aircraft
noise on property values. The 1.1 percent loss in value per dB estimate from the LAX
study would imply that the loss in value of a home within the 65 DNL contour would be
almost twice as large at about 17 percent.7
6
Negative Economic Effects of Existing Noise Levels
Impact on Property Values
A substantial portion of land zoned for residential use in El Mirage, and some areas
zoned for residential use in Surprise and Buckeye are located within the JLUS 65 DNL.
The values of existing homes in these areas are substantially lower than they would
otherwise because of their location in the vicinity of Luke AFB and subject to high levels
of aircraft noise. Based upon the results of the studies cited above, estimates of the
magnitude of lost value would range from 9 – 17 percent. In dollar terms, this would
mean that the value of a home located within the 65 DNL noise contour otherwise
valued at $150,000 would be worth $14,000 to $26,000 less than an equivalent home
without aircraft noise.
Impact on Potential Development
Most of the land area of the City of El Mirage lies within the JLUS 65 DNL land contour
and is thus subject to these noise-based land use restrictions. The southwest corner of
the city lies within the JLUS 75 DNL contour and is therefore subject to noiseattenuation requirements and additional constraints on some non-residential land uses.
Similarly, most of the northwestern portion of Goodyear and some of the southeast
portion of Surprise and the northeast portion of Buckeye lie within the JLUS 65 DNL
land contour.
The noise-based land use restrictions limit the development potential of the property in
these areas. If these restrictions were not in place, it is possible that these properties
would have been developed for higher-valued uses – increasing the wealth of the
property owners, the level of economic activity in the area, and government revenues.
Even if the properties are not yet developed, potential for their development in the future
(which does not now exist) would tend to increase their market value and property tax
7
revenues due to higher assessed values. Thus, the existence of these land use
constraints depresses the market value of properties subject to the regulations.
Higher Noise Levels Associated with the F-35
Testing by both the Air Force and independent experts shows that the F-35 is much
louder than the F-16 that currently flies out of Luke AFB.
Tests at Eglin AFB in Florida (the first base picked as a training site for F-35 pilots)
compared the F-35 to the F-15, which it would replace at that base. Other testing shows
that the level of noise produced by the F-15 is slightly louder than the F-16. The test
results indicated that the noise level of an F-35 on take-off was 9 dB (SEL) louder –
about twice as loud - compared with the F-15. The comparison is even worse on
landings. During approach, noise from an F-35 was 19 dB higher – about 4 times as
loud - than an F-15 (U.S. Air Force 2008).
Other tests reported in the Eglin AFB Environmental Impact Statement provide direct
comparisons between the F-35 and the F-16 in terms of noise levels under the flight
path at various altitudes. For example, at 1,000 ft. (an altitude typical for flight paths
over El Mirage) the noise level of the F-35 was 21 dB higher than that of the F-16 –
about four times louder (U.S. Air Force 2008). Independent tests conducted at Eglin
AFB in 2009 found noise levels on landing/approach for the F-35 to be 15-16 dB louder
than the F-16 (U.S. Air Force 2008).
The size of the area surrounding Eglin AFB subject to high noise levels from the F-35 is
also much larger than that associated with the F-15. Although the pattern of settlement
around Eglin AFB is much different than Luke AFB, the test results for Eglin AFB
indicated that the number of people exposed to sound levels of 75 dB or more would
rise dramatically – from 142 to 2,174 (Rolfsen 2008). DNL noise contours plotted for the
area surrounding Eglin AFB also expand drastically based upon the noise levels of the
F-35 compared to those based on the mix of existing aircraft without the F-35. The
8
distance from the runway to the 65 DNL contour along the typical flight path grows from
4.8 miles to 8.4 miles and distances to the sides of the flight paths also greatly expand
(U.S. Air Force 2008).
Impact of the F-35 on Luke AFB Noise Contours
As part of the 2003 Luke AFB Air Installation Compatible Use Study, an updated set of
noise contours was prepared using 2001 flight data based upon changes in flight
operations - the most important being a change in the predominant direction of
departure so that 70 to 94 percent of departures would be to the southwest (U.S. Air
Force 2003). These updated AICUZ noise contours generally are smaller than the 1988
JLUS contours and more accurately reflect noise levels produced by current F-16
operations. To the north and northeast of Luke AFB, the 65 DNL contour extends into
four residential areas in El Mirage. A recreational vehicle community is also within the
contour. Churches and public schools lie within the 65 DNL contour. To the west, some
small areas of residential development are located within the noise contours. To the
south, the 65 DLN contour extends to the intersection of W McDowell Rd and N
Perryville Rd. Impacted land areas are generally used for agricultural purposes, but
some residential and commercial properties, plus part of the state correctional facility lie
within the contour.
Because the 1988 JLUS noise are not based on the noise levels associated with current
flight operations at Luke AFB, at the present time some areas where the actual noise
levels from current operations are below the 65 DNL threshold are still within the JLUS
65 DNL noise contour. This may lead to an incorrect impression about the true intensity
of noise levels measured at 65 DNL. This will no longer be the case with the F-35.
An official set of noise contours for the vicinity of Luke AFB based on F-35 noise levels
has not been developed. However, an estimated 65 DNL noise contour map for F-35
operations has been prepared by Dr. Wayne Lundberg, an aircraft noise expert, and
presented at the 2009 National Defense Industrial Association Conference. It shows
9
clearly that the area adversely affected by F-35 noise will be much larger than that
based on existing noise levels. The 65 DNL contour for F-35 operations covers all of El
Mirage and Youngtown, a large swath through the middle of Sun City, eastern portions
of Surprise, a corner of Litchfield Park, and large portions of Goodyear, Buckeye, and
some unincorporated areas of the County (Lundberg 2009). A copy of Lundberg’s map
is presented as Figure 2.
Negative Economic Effects of the F-35’s Higher Noise Levels
Impacts on Property Values
Evidence from testing indicates that the noise levels associated with the F-35 compared
with the F-16 are anywhere from about 10 to 20+ dB higher. Using the lower bound of
an increase of 10 dB would imply a loss in value in the 6 - 11 percent range for homes
in the areas affected by the higher noise levels, while a 20 dB increase would imply
losses in value in the 12 - 22 percent range. Losses of these magnitudes would be
equivalent to dollar losses of $9,000 to $33,000 for a $150,000 home.
Because of the higher noise levels associated with the F-35, the area significantly
impacted by aircraft noise will be much larger than was the case with the F-16, and
more residential areas with many more homes will be affected. As described in the
previous section, virtually all of El Mirage, Youngtown and substantial areas in Sun City,
Surprise, Litchfield Park, Goodyear, Buckeye, and unincorporated Maricopa County will
become subject to aircraft noise levels high enough to affect property values.
Thus, the higher noise levels would result in declines in the market value of residential
properties of hundreds of millions of dollars in these West Valley communities. The case
of El Mirage offers the clearest example, since virtually all of its residential areas would
be covered by the F-35’s 65 DNL noise contour. Residential property owners in that city
alone could suffer overall losses in the $200 million range, based on the mid-point of the
percentage losses in market values cited above.8
10
11
Red: F-35 / Green: Current Operations
Figure 2: Lundberg 65 DNL Noise Contour Map
Impact on Potential Development
The current noise-based land use restrictions are based on the 1988 JLUS noise
contours. The results from Eglin AFB imply that DNL noise contours for the vicinity of
Luke AFB based on F-35 operations could well be larger than the JLUS contours. If this
is the case, more areas will become subject to land use restrictions, and the
development constraints on some properties may be strengthened.
These noise-based land use restrictions will limit the development potential of property
in previously unaffected areas. If larger areas of the environs of Luke AFB become
subject to noise-based land use restrictions, the negative impacts of these constraints
on the wealth of area property owners, the economic vitality of the region, and
government revenues will be even larger than the current situation.
END NOTES
1. The latest economic analysis of the economic impact of the base estimated that its
operations contribute $2.17 billion in overall economic activity and support 22,000 jobs
in the Arizona economy (The Maquire Company 2008). While $2.17 billion is an
impressively large number, it should be noted that it represents less than 0.5% of total
state economic activity.
2. The DNL measure does not provide a good indication of “single event” noise. For
example, 50 noise events with a sound intensity of 98 dBA over a 24-hour period is
equivalent to a 65 DNL. For this reason, how to interpret DNL values is controversial,
and the measure is criticized for understating the effects of noise (Bell 2001).
3. The map depicts both the JLUS 65 contour on which the current land use constraints
are based, and the updated AICUZ contours based on current F-16 operations.
4. Some very low density agriculture-related/rural residential is allowed in areas subject
to DNL up to 79-84.
12
5. Indoor noise-reduction measures required in area subject to noise levels above 69
DNL.
6. From studies conducted by Randall Bell as cited in Bales (2002).
7. The estimate of a 9 percent loss in value is based upon the results from Nelson
(2004) taking the mid-point of his estimated range of 0.5-0.7 percent loss per dB and
assuming an increase in noise level of 15 dB. This figure is based on the difference
between 50 and 65 dB. The LAX study found the noise level in neighborhood not
subject to airport noise was about 50 dB.
(0.6 percent loss in value per dB) X (15 dB louder noise level) = 9 percent loss
Similarly, the estimate of a 17 percent loss in value was calculated using the 1.1 percent
loss per dB figure from the LAX study and assumed the same 15 dB difference in noise
level.
8. According to 2009 property tax records (Maricopa County Assessor 2009), full cash
value of residential property (including both owner-occupied and rental properties) in El
Mirage totaled more than $1.4 billion. The mid-point of the estimated loss in market
value from the studies cited would be 14 percent (the range was 6 to 22 percent), which
would imply a decline in the total value of residential property of about $200 million.
13
REFERENCES
Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project, Western Maricopa County/Luke Air
Force Base Regional Compatibility Plan, March 2003.
Bales, L. County of Orange: Loss of Property Value and Property Tax Revenue
Attributable to El Toro Airport Noise, January 2002.
Bell, R. “The Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Real Estate,” The Appraisal Journal,
July 2001, pp. 312-321.
FAA WebPages, “Aircraft Noise: How We Measure It and Assess Its Impact,” www.
faa.gov/region/area/noise/tindxbrkdwn.htm, April 1999.
Luke Forward Campaign, http://lukeforward.com/fact-sheets, 2009.
Lundberg, W. “Consideration of Operational Noise Impacts on Land Use as a part of the
Weapons Systems Engineering Process,” National Defense Industrial Association
Conference, (http://e2s2.ndia.org/pastmeetings/2009/tracks/Documents/8168.pdf),
2009.
Maricopa County Assessor, Copy of 2009 State Abstract August Final Revised,
www.maricopa.gov/assessor/ReportsLibrary.aspx/2009StateAbstractAugFinalRevised.xls,
2009.
Nelson, J. P. “Meta-Analysis of Airport Noise and Hedonic Property Values: Problems
and Prospects,” Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, January, 2004.
Rolfsen, B. “F-35 Twice as Loud as F-15,” Air Force Times, October 27, 2008.
14
The Maquire Company, Economic Impact of Arizona’s Principal Military Operations,
2008.
U. S. Air Force, Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study: Luke AFB,
November 2003.
U. S. Air Force, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Eglin AFB, Florida, October
2008.
15