Assessing the effect of airport operations on air quality and noise in nearby communities

Expected outcomes

• Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO4), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “As such, air quality and noise issues in the vicinity of airports need to be investigated, quantified and addressed.”
• “Similarly, attention must be given to other possible airport-related environmental impacts associated with noise, water quality, and local ecology in the vicinity of airports.”
• “In order to address these issues, the following R&I actions should be undertaken:.”
• “The sources of emissions should be differentiated, and the pollutants identified.”
• “Operations should include ground operations, landing and take-off (including emissions from tyres and brakes) and assessing exhaust emission during cruising, including impact of changes in flight altitude on engine performance parameters (stationary engine tests).”
• “The calibration of the measurement systems and the reproducibility of the results should be demonstrated.”
• “Proposals are expected to select specific airports that are in vicinity of urban/rural communities and close to water streams/bodies, to examine and quantify the effect of airport emissions on air quality, noise and water bodies.”
• “The analysis should be supported by gender disaggregated data collection and intersectional analysis.”
• “Proposals should consider the results from previously EU funded projects such as AVIATOR, nPETS, TUBE, ANIMA, NEEDED or any other similar projects.”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 5–6 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding as a beneficiary with zero funding, or as an associated partner. The JRC will not participate in the preparation and submission of the proposal - see General Annex B.”

Impact pathway and traps

• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Policy or regulation is in scope. Name the policy owners you will reach and what you will give them.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.