Transcript Wespac - Cogito Foundation

Community Response to Aircraft Noise
Exposure over Time
Katja Wirth
Kumamoto University, Japan
Mark Brink & Christoph Schierz
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
1
Content
1. Introduction
2. Political background
3. Methodology of the surveys
4. Results
5. Conclusion
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
2
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?
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
3
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 -> never ending
negotiations
• High uncertainty about future aircraft noise
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
4
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
●
●
WESPAC ’06
at steady state circumstances
and at a step change in noise exposure
K. Wirth
5
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
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
6
3. Methodology of the Surveys
Germany
France
Zurich
Airport
Austria
Bern
Italy
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
7
3. Methodology of the Surveys
Benken
6
L1
Rheinau
Klein-
Marthalen
Rafz
Wasterkingen
Hüntwangen
Andelfingen
Rüdlingen (SH)
Hohentengen (D)
Eglisau
Kaiserstuhl (AG)
Buchberg
(SH)
Humlikon
Dorf
Henggart
Dägerlen
Seuzach
Pfungen
4
2/3
Embrach
Winterthur
L28
Oberembrach
Winkel
S1
S16
F
Lufingen
6E
Brütten
14
16
Schlatt
32
Niederhasli
Rümlang
Kloten
Nürensdorf
Kyburg
28
10
S28
Buchs
Dänikon
Hüttikon
Neftenbach
Dättlikon
Bachenbülach
Oberglatt
Regens- DielsBoppel- berg
dorf
sen
Hettlingen
Rorbas Teufen
S3
Ober-
Neerach
weNiederHöri
nin- Schöfflisweningen
Niederglatt
gen dorf Steinmaur
Schleinikon
Buch a. I.
Bülach
felden
S32
/34N
Thalheim
Volken
Berg a. I.
Freienstein-
Hoch-
Stadel
Bachs
Otelfingen
Adlikon
S32/34O
Dinhard
Glattfelden
Würenlos (AG)
Flaach
Weiach
Fisibach (AG)
Wettingen (AG)
Ossingen
Wil
4
L1
Since October 2001:
Landing aircrafts early in the
morning and late in the
evening: step change in
noise exposure.
andelfingen
34
Zell
Lindau
Regensdorf
Bassersdorf
Dällikon
S1
6
DietliOetwil a.d.L.
Opfikon
Ge- Weininkon
S28L
S28I
SpreitenroldsWallisellen
WangenZürich 11
gen
bach (AG)
wil
Brüttisellen
Unt.- Ob.Engstringen
RemetschZürich 12
wil (AG)
Zürich 10
Dietikon
Schlieren
Bellikon (AG)
Zürich 6
Dübendorf
BergdietiSchwerzenkon (AG)
Urdorf
bach
S28K
Weisslingen
Killwangen (AG)
Uitikon
Fällanden
Zürich 7
Zürich
Wild-
Illnau-Effretikon
berg
Russikon
Volketswil
Greifensee
Fehraltorf
Pfäffikon
Hittnau
L32
Uster
Birmensdorf
SeeZollikon
20
k
Wettswil
a. A.
Aesch
Zumikon
Wetzikon
m
Kilchberg
Bonstetten
kon
K. Wirth
Küsnacht
StalliAdliswil
Mönchaltorf
Rüschlikon
Erlenbach
Hedingen
WESPAC ’06
gräben
Maur
Thalwil
Langnau
a. A.
L34
Meilen
Oberrieden
Gossau
Egg
Herrliberg
Uetikon
a. S.
Oetwil
a. S.
Grüningen
8
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?
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
9
4. Results
4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady State Condition
10
Survey
9
2001
2003
No significant
change in noise
annoyance!
average annoyance
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
40
45
50
55
60
Leq 24 h in dB(A)
65
10
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?
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
11
4. Results
4.2 Comparison with the 1971 survey
40
35
30
%HA
25
20
15
10
5
0
1971
2001
1971
NNI < 40
WESPAC ’06
2001
NNI >= 40
K. Wirth
12
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?
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
13
4. Results
4.3 Comparison with the 1991 survey
40
35
30
%HA
25
%HA 1991
20
%HA 2001
15
10
5
0
50
53
56
59
62
65
Leq day 6 am - 10 pm in dB(A)
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
14
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?
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
15
4. Results
4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure
Overreaction
e.g. opening of a
new runway
Overreaction
Higher annoyance than suspected
Annoyance
Noise level
Annoyance
Overreaction
Less annoyance than suspected
e.g. installation of
noise insulation
windows
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
16
4. Results
Noise
exposure
10
9
Significant effect
of the noise
exposure
situation on
annoyance!
8
average annoyance
4.4 Effect of a step
increase in
noise exposure
steady
state
condition
step
change
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
40
45
50
55
60
Leq 24 h in dB(A)
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
17
4. Results
4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure
Correlation coefficients noise exposure - annoyance
WESPAC ’06
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
K. Wirth
18
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)
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
19
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
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
20
Thank you for
your attention!
WESPAC ’06
K. Wirth
21