Community Response to Aircraft Noise Exposure over Time

1
Community Response to Aircraft Noise Exposure
over Time
Katja Wirth Kumamoto University, Japan Mark
Brink Christoph Schierz ETH Zurich, Switzerland
2
Content

• Introduction
• Political background
• Methodology of the surveys
• Results
• Conclusion

3
1. Introduction

• This presentation deals with 2 aircraft noise
  surveys, carried out in 2001 and 2003 around
  Zurich Airport.
• 3 questions
• Changes in prevalence of annoyance between 2001
  and 2003?
• Changes in prevalence of annoyance between 1971
  and 2001 / 1991 and 2001?
• In areas with a step increase of noise exposure
  overreactions?

4
2. Political Background

• Aircraft noise is a big political issue in the
  greater Zurich area
• Everyday subject in the media
• Several incidents in the past few years
• Most important are the problems with nearby
  Germany Germany cancelled the treaty ruling the
  flights from and to Zurich airport over German
  territory -gt never ending negotiations
• High uncertainty about future aircraft noise

5
2. Political Background

• Germanys implemented regulation about
  overflights over German territory forced Zurich
  Airport to a new take-off and landing regime
• Thus residential areas with few aircraft noise
  were newly affected by aircraft noise
• This scenario allowed us to assess the changes in
  noise annoyance
• at steady state circumstances
• and at a step change in noise exposure

6
3. Methodology of the Surveys

• Surveys carried out in August 2001 and August
  2003
• Random samples out of 57 communities around the
  airport Zurich
• 2001
• Questionnaire
• Response rate 52 1826 valid questionnaires
• 2003
• Questionnaire and telephone interviews
• If possible, addresses from 2001 were used again
• Response rate 35 1721 datasets
• Noise measures calculated for the home of every
  subject

7
3. Methodology of the Surveys
8
3. Methodology of the Surveys
9
4. Results
4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady State
Condition
Is there any change of the prevalence of
annoyance between 2001 and 2003?
10
4. Results 4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady
State Condition
No significant change in noise annoyance!
11
4. Results 4.2 Comparison with the 1971 survey
Compared with a former noise survey carried out
around Zurich Airport in 1971, was there any
change in aircraft noise-induced annoyance at
same sound levels?
12
4. Results 4.2 Comparison with the 1971 survey
13
4. Results 4.3 Comparison with the 1991 survey
Compared with a former noise survey carried out
around Zurich Airport in 1991, was there any
change in aircraft noise-induced annoyance at
same sound levels?
14
4. Results 4.3 Comparison with the 1991 survey
15
4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in
noise exposure
16
4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise
exposure
Overreaction
Overreaction Higher annoyance than suspected
Annoyance
Noise level
Overreaction Less annoyance than suspected
Annoyance
17
4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in
noise exposure
Significant effect of the noise exposure
situation on annoyance!
18
4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in
noise exposure
Correlation coefficients noise exposure -
annoyance
19
5. Discussion (1)

• No change of dose response relationship between
  2001 and 2003 if steady state noise condition
• This is in agreement with a Dutch Study (2004)
• Overreaction in areas with a step increase of
  noise exposure
• Extent and persistence (almost 2 years) of these
  reactions is noteworthy, and in agreement with a
  study of Fidell et al. (2002)

20
5. Discussion (2)

• No relationship between noise exposure and
  annoyance for subjects affected with step change
  of noise exposure
• In contrast, relationship between increase of
  noise exposure and annoyance
• It seems that the concerned residents refer not
  to the actual sound level, but to the change of
  sound level when asked about their noise annoyance

21
Thank you for your attention!