WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 1 Community Response to Aircraft Noise Exposure over Time Katja Wirth Kumamoto University, Japan Mark Brink & Christoph Schierz ETH

K. Wirth 1WESPAC ’06

Community Response to Aircraft Noise Exposure over Time

Katja WirthKumamoto University, Japan

Mark Brink & Christoph SchierzETH Zurich, Switzerland


1. Introduction

2. Political background

3. Methodology of the surveys

4. Results

5. Conclusion

Content


1. Introduction

This presentation deals with 2 aircraft noise surveys, carried out in 2001 and 2003 around Zurich Airport.

3 questions:

1. Changes in prevalence of annoyance between 2001 and 2003?

2. Changes in prevalence of annoyance between 1971 and 2001 / 1991 and 2001?

3. In areas with a step increase of noise exposure: overreactions?


• 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 -> never ending negotiations

• High uncertainty about future aircraft noise

2. Political Background


● Germany’s 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

2. Political Background


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


3. Methodology of the Surveys

Bern

Zurich Airport

Germany

France

Italy

Austria


Hohentengen (D) Rüdlin-gen (SH)

Buch-berg(SH)

Kaiserstuhl (AG)

Wettingen (AG)

Bellikon (AG)

Würen-los (AG)

Killwangen (AG)

kon (AG)Bergdieti-

Remetsch-wil (AG)

bach (AG)Spreiten-

Fisibach (AG)

MarthalenRheinau Klein-

andelfingen

Flaach

Volken

DorfHumlikon

Heng-gart

Rafz

Wil

Hünt-wangen

Waster-kingen

Eglisau

Weiach

Glattfelden

Nieder-wenin-gen

Schlei-nikon

Ober-

we-

nin-

gen

Schöfflis-

dorf

Bachs

Steinmaur

Neerach

Otelfingen

Boppel-sen

Regens-berg

Buchs

dorf

Diels-

Niederhasli

Niederglatt

Höri

Hüttikon Dällikon

Ge-rolds-wil

Weinin-gen

EngstringenOb.-Unt.-

Schlieren

Regensdorf

Rümlang

Oberglatt

Winkel

Kloten

Opfikon

Lufingen

Bachen-

bülach

Embrach

Stadel Hoch-

feldenBülach

Rorbas

Freienstein-

Teufen

Berg a. I.

Buch a. I.

Ossingen

Andelfingen

Thalheim

Dägerlen

Dinhard

SeuzachNeftenbach

Hettlingen

Schlatt

Kyburg

WeisslingenWild-

berg

Hittnau

Russikon

Illnau-Effretikon

Fehraltorf

Pfäffikon

Uster

See-

Volketswil

gräben

Greifen-

see

Schwerzen-

bach

Fällanden

Dübendorf

Wallisellen

Dietli-

kon

Bassersdorf

Nürensdorf

Brütten

Oberembrach

Pfungen

Lindau

Wangen-

Brüttisellen

Urdorf

Uitikon

Birmensdorf

Aesch

Wettswil

a. A.

Bonstetten

Hedingen

Stalli-

kon Adliswil

Kilchberg

Rüschlikon

Langnau

a. A.

Thalwil

Oberrieden

Zürich

Winterthur

Zollikon

Zumikon

Küsnacht

Maur

ErlenbachHerrliberg Egg

Meilen

Mönch-altorf

Gossau

GrüningenOetwila. S.Uetikon

a. S.

Wetzikon

Adlikon

Däni-kon

Dietikon

Dättli-kon

Zürich 10

Zürich 11

Zürich 12

Zürich 6

Zürich 7

Oetwil a.d.L.

Benken

Zell

S28L

S28K

L28

L32

L34

Since October 2001: Landing aircrafts early in the morning and late in the evening: step change in noise exposure.

3. Methodology of the Surveys


4. Results

Is there any change of the prevalence of annoyance between 2001 and 2003?

4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady State Condition


4. Results

4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady State Condition

40 45 50 55 60 65Leq 24 h in dB(A)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

aver

age

ann

oya

nce

Survey2001

2003

No significant change in noise annoyance!


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?


4. Results


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1971 2001 1971 2001

NNI < 40 NNI >= 40

%H

A


4. Results


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?


4. Results


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50 53 56 59 62 65

Leq day 6 am - 10 pm in dB(A)

%H

A %HA 1991

%HA 2001


4. Results

4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure

In the data set of 2003 is there any effect of the step increase of noise exposure on annoyance detectable?


Overreaction

e.g. opening of a new runway

e.g. installation of noise insulation

windows

OverreactionHigher annoyance than suspected

Noise level

OverreactionLess annoyance than suspected

Annoyance

Annoyance

4. Results4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure


4. Results


40 45 50 55 60

Leq 24 h in dB(A)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

aver

age

ann

oya

nce

Noise exposure

steady state condition

step change

Significant effect of the noise exposure situation on annoyance!


Noise exposure measure

2001 2003

Steady state

2003

Step change

Leq 6-22 .26 * .26 * .01

Leq 0-24 .28 * .28 * .02

Ldn .31 * .31 * .04

Lden .31 * .33 * .04

Correlation coefficients noise exposure - annoyance

4. Results



• 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)

5. Discussion (1)


• 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

5. Discussion (2)


Thank you for your attention!

Documents

WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 1 Community Response to Aircraft Noise Exposure over Time Katja Wirth Kumamoto University, Japan Mark Brink & Christoph Schierz ETH