Aircraft noise annoyance at three joint air carrier and general aviation airports

Fidell, Sanford; Horonjeff, Richard D.; Mills, John F.; Baldwin, Edward R.; Teffeteller, Sherri; Pearsons, Karl S.

doi:10.1121/1.392223

Cited by 26 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been hypothesized ͑Fidell et al., 1985;Van Kempen and Van Kamp, 2005͒ that public awareness or the expectancy of an upcoming change alone may be enough to evoke an advanced over-reaction so that higher-thanpredicted annoyance would be reported by respondents even before an exposure change actually takes place. Although the upcoming changes in the flight regime were announced in the media for more than a year in advance, we found no evidence that the eastern residents prematurely "reacted" to the future noise situation.…”

Section: Influence Of An Exposure Change On Annoyancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such parameters change, they usually elicit a step change in exposure. There is evidence that a step change of noise exposure generally goes along with a so called "over-reaction" of the residents: With an increase of the exposure level, people are more annoyed than would be predicted by steady-state exposure-effect curves, whereas with a decrease of the level, they are less annoyed than would be predicted by the same curves ͑Fidell et al., 1985;Fidell et al, 2002;Griffiths and Raw, 1989͒. Although some models and tentative explanations have previously been published ͑Job, 1988b; Job and Hatfield, 2003͒, the mechanism of how residents judge their level of annoyance in response to the exposure change is not understood in detail.…”

Section: A Influence Of a Step Change In Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This shows that the percentage highly annoyed at a given exposure level in Zurich is actually higher than would be predicted by the Miedema and Oudshoorn curves. Fidell et al ͑1985͒ hypothesized that public awareness of a ͑upcoming͒ step change may be enough to evoke higherthan-predicted annoyance. After the necessity of installing new flight routes over in part densely populated areas has been announced by the airport authorities in the year before the first survey 2001 took place, the aircraft noise issue in Zurich received considerable attention by the media.…”

Section: B Exposure-effect Relationships In the Years 2001 And 2003mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Annoyance responses to stable and changing aircraft noise exposure

Brink

Wirth

Schierz

et al. 2008

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports the two extensive aircraft noise annoyance surveys subsequently carried out among residents in the vicinity of Zurich Airport in 2001 and 2003 in order to update and validate existing exposure-effect relationships for aircraft noise and annoyance in Switzerland. Logistic and polynomial approximations of the exposure-annoyance relationships for both the years 2001 and 2003 are presented for the Ldn, Lden, and LA,eq24 noise metrics. The results confirm other recently published international research and provide further evidence that community annoyance due to aircraft noise has increased over the past decades. Between the two survey years, a considerable amount of early morning and late evening flight operations have been relocated to use an other runway than before; thus both the effects of a recent step decrease and recent step increase on the exposure-annoyance relationship could be investigated. Residents that experienced a step increase elicited a quite pronounced over-reaction of annoyance which correlated with the magnitude of the change. Two logistic regression models are provided to forecast the effects of changes in exposure during shoulder hours in the early morning and the late evening. The results confirm other recently published international research and provide further evidence that community annoyance due to aircraft noise has increased over the past decades. Between the two survey years, a considerable amount of early morning and late evening flight operations have been relocated to use an other runway than before; thus both the effects of a recent step decrease and recent step increase on the exposure-annoyance relationship could be investigated. Residents that experienced a step increase elicited a quite pronounced over-reaction of annoyance which correlated with the magnitude of the change. Two logistic regression models are provided to forecast the effects of changes in exposure during shoulder hours in the early morning and the late evening. Annoyance responses to stable and changing aircraft noise exposure

show abstract

Section: Influence Of An Exposure Change On Annoyancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Influence Of a Step Change In Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Exposure-effect Relationships In the Years 2001 And 2003mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Annoyance responses to stable and changing aircraft noise exposure

Brink

Wirth

Schierz

et al. 2008

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the distribution of #yover noise levels in some areas near small airports can be highly bimodal. It is also possible that for the same aircraft¸" , values, residents of neighbourhoods near the small airport might simply hear more over#ights than residents of neighbourhoods near the large airport [32]. In this study, there were weaker associations between noise map information and the self-report of noise exposure for road tra$c noise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Self-Report of Transportation Noise Exposure, Annoyance and Noise Sensitivity in Relation to Noise Map Information

Heinonen-Guzejev

Vuorinen

Kaprio

et al. 2000

Journal of Sound and Vibration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Langdon and Griffiths ͑1982͒ noted such a possibility for residents' perception of the public policy of authorities and that this possibility was first suggested by Scholes ͑1977͒. Fidell et al ͑1985͒ suggested that heightened community awareness might plausibly be sufficient to account for a greater prevalence of self-reported annoyance.…”

Section: Attitudes Toward the Source/authorities Changementioning

confidence: 98%

Response to a change in transport noise exposure: Competing explanations of change effects

Brown

Kamp

2009

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Annoyance response to a change in noise exposure appears to demonstrate an excess response relative to those predicted from exposure-response curves obtained under steady-state conditions. This change effect also appears to persist well after the change. Numerous explanations have been postulated for this phenomenon. This paper catalogs the different explanations and reviews the evidence for each. The evidence is of limited and variable quality but, while inadequate to endorse any one explanation, is sufficient to reject some notions and to identify a residual set of plausible explanations. These include two explanations based on modifiers of exposure-response relationships that potentially change between before and after conditions, an explanation based on differential response criteria of respondents chronically exposed to different steady-state levels of noise, and an explanation based on retention of coping strategies. All have ramifications for the assessment of human response (annoyance) where noise exposure changes, and some have wider implications for the interpretation of generalized exposure-response curves obtained in the steady state.

show abstract

Aircraft noise annoyance at three joint air carrier and general aviation airports

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Annoyance responses to stable and changing aircraft noise exposure

Annoyance responses to stable and changing aircraft noise exposure

Self-Report of Transportation Noise Exposure, Annoyance and Noise Sensitivity in Relation to Noise Map Information

Response to a change in transport noise exposure: Competing explanations of change effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About