Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
I I I b
NASA C H - 1 3 2 6 7 8
SPECIAL ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY ANNOYANCE WITH AIRCRAFT N O I S E REPORTED BY RESIDENTS
I N THE V I C I N I T Y OF J F K AIRPORT - 1 9 7 2
by P a u l N . B o r s k y
(NASA-CR-132678) SFECIAL A N A L Y S I S OF N76-16788 C O I I U N I T Y A N N O Y A N C E WITH AIRCRAFT NOISE REPORTED B Y RESIDENTS IN THE V I C I N I T Y O F JFK AXRFORT, 1972 (Columbia Univ.) 85 p EC Unclas 65.00 CSCL 05E 63/53 136C8
P r e p a r e d u n d e r C o n t r a c t N A S 1 - 1 3 6 6 3 by COLUMBIA U N I V E R S I T Y N o i b e R e s e a r c h U n i t F r a l l k l i n S q u a r e , NY
f o r
NATIONAL AERONAUT1 CS AND SPACE l D M I N I STRATION
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19760009700 2020-01-23T05:23:13+00:00Z
Abstract
Jhr ing the auntner of 1972, about 1500 r e s iden t s were interviewed twice i n 11 cannuunities near JFIC Airport. Detailed a i r c r a f t operat ions r epo r t s were a l s o col- l ec ted for t h i s period, and an e f f o r t has been made t o analyze recorded human re- sponse data i n r e l a t i o n t o a number of pt..j*sicol exposure parameters. A s e r i e s of exposure indexes, baaed an an a r i thmet ic i n t eg ra t ion af a i r c r a f t operat ions, were correlated with lsrmrmated a i r c r a f t noise annoyance responses. None of these cor re t - a t i ons were a s ~ o o d aa the CNR lndex which assmnes a logt i thmetic i n t eg ra t ion of numbers of a i r c r a f t exposures and Includes a day-night d i f f e r e n t i a l weighting of 1 0 1 Answers t o d i r e c t questions on the intcrvtcw about day-night annoyance d i f - ferences c a s t doubt on t t c 10:l day-night penalty. The interview da ta suggest t h a t each night time f l i g h t h t s an equi-alcnt weight of or.ly two daytime operations. There were subs t an t i a l va r i a t i ons ir l cverage annoyance responses among communities with s!,mil.ar CNR exposures, substantiatin:: prcvious f indings t h a t a t t i t u d i n a l and other personal var iab les a l s o play an ir.+rtant r o l c i n detenninf ng annoyance d i f - ferenccs. Annoyanre responses t o s ing le summary quest ions were r e l a t ed to an 11 item sumsated aianoyance hie::, but explained l e s s than ha l f of the variance of the more comprehensive measure of annoyance. In general, other emotional responses such as feel ings t h a t it; was ucsafe to walk a t night o r t h a t there were many nega- t i v e aspects i n tile clmmunity, had n?uch lower co r r e l a t ions with a i r c r a f t annoyance than spec i f i c emotions about a i rp lanes , such a s f ea r of crashes o r misfeasance by a i r c r a f t authori-t ies. Spec i f ic bchavioral recponscs, st:ch a s des i r e t o complain, a c t u a l cmplaincfl and desl.re t o move were a l l hj.g$llJ corre la ted with i n t e n s i t y of annoyance. Personal ch i l tac te r i s t ics such a s education, incomc, age, length of r e s - idence o r general noise s e n s i t i v i t y were not highly o r s ign i f i can t ly cor re la ted t o e i t h e r a i r c r a f t noise annayancc o r f e ~ x of a i r c r a f t crashes.
PREFACE
Thie report presents a greater in-depth analysis o f community noise annoyance. Thelma Weiner was i n charge of the f i e l d interviewing and coding operations. Dr. Philip Cheifetz and Joseph Carlino advised on the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses and Paula Tito performed much o f the s t a t i s t i c a l computations. Dr. William T . Shepherd was the NASA Technical Officer.
TABLE OF OONTENTS
Abstract Preface L i s t o f Tables I. In t roduc t ion 11. Survey Design
A. Sampling Design B. Community Quest ionnaire
111. Findings A. A i r c r a f t Operat ions
1. Mix o f A i r c r a f t 2. Number of A i r c r a f t Operat ions 3. Hours of O v e r f l i g h t
R. Liker t Sunnnated S c a l e s used i n Analyses 1. A i r c r a f t Noise Annoyance 2. Noise Exposure 3. Fear 4. Misfeasance 5. Heal th A t t i t u d e s 6. Importance of A i r c r a f t
C. Comparison of L i k e r t Sumated Annoyance responses wi th A i r c r a f t Noise wi th s i n g l e summary ques t ion responses
D. Re la t ionsh ip o f Summated A i r c r a f t Annoyance and o t h e r Emotional Responses
1. Dangerous e ra f f i c cond i t ions 2. Unsafe t o walk a t n i g h t 3. S t a r t l e d o r f r igh tened by c a r s , t r u c k s o r
motorcycle n o i s e ' 4. General no i se s e n s i t i v i t y 5. Overa l l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h community 6. Fear o f a i r c r a f t
E. Rela t ionsh ips between Annoyance w i t h A i r c r a f t Noisc and o t h e r Behavioral React ions
1. Heal th e f f e c t s 2. Complaint a c t i v i t i e s 3. Res iden t ' s noise r a t i n g o f a r e a 4. Time exposed t o n o i s e 5. Desire t o move o r s e l l house 6. Importance o f a v i a t i o n 7. Be l i e f t h a t persons i n some ways respons ib le
f o r o p e r a t i o n s o f a i r c r a f t a r e mis feasan t 8. Use o f a i r c o n d i t i o n e r s
F. Socio-Economic end o t h e r Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Residents
G. Comparison o f Mean Annoyance Responses f o r June- J u l y and August-Sept. 1972
H. Comparison o f Annoyance repor ted f o r d i f f e r e n t time pe r iods
Page i
iii
I. Coospariron of Reported Annoyanct by Sleep 1n te r ference with Annoyance of Other Day Time A c t i v i t i e r 4 5
J . Evaluution of Perronal Charac ter fs t ics of Reeidentr by In t ens i ty of Fear of A i rc ra f t Crasheu 46
K. Reported Annoyance with Ai rc ra f t Noise by Conmunit l e a 54
L. Correlation Analyses of A i rc ra f t Operations and Selected Human Rerponre Variables 56
M. Correlat ions of A i rc ra f t Sound Description System (ASDS) and Summated Annoyance and Other Related Human Responses 6 9
Bibliography 77
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Physical locat ions o f the 11 primary sample a reas Table 2 - Ut i l i za t ion Table: Operation percentages by path
and time period used fo r ca lcu la t ions Table 3 - Aircraf t Operations by Ai rc ra f t Type, time period
and f l i g h t path - June-July 1972 Table 4 - Aircraf t Operations by Ai rc ra f t Type, time period
and f l i g h t path - August-September 1972 Table 5 - Number of Daily Operations by time period and f l i g h t
paths - June-July 1972 Table 6 - Frequency of Total Daily Operations by f l i g h t paths,
by months Table 7 - Frequency of Tota l Weekly Operations by f l i g h t paths ,
by months Table 8 - Total Daily Hours of Overf l ight by f l i g h t path and
month Table 9 - Total Hours of Overflight by time period and f l i g h t
path Table 10- Reported Number Respondents by f ea r and dis tance
of Residence Table 11- Annoyance Scale Scores by fear and dis tance of
Re8 idence Table 12- Comparison of Summated Annoyance and Annoyance
Reported f o r d i f f e r e n t time periods Table 13- Comparison of Annoyance Reported fo r Different
time periods fo r Respondents usual ly home a l l the time
Table 14- Comparison of Evening and Night time annoyance by r e s iden t s a t home o r not a t home during the day
Table 15- Comparison of Number of average hourly a i r c r a f t operat ions and reported average annoyance for d i f f e r e n t time periods i n June-July 1972
Table 16- Comparfson of Annoyance with Sleep Interference and Annoyance w i t h other a c t i v i t i e s
Table 17- Correlation Coeff icients between summated Sleep Interference and o ther var iable8
Table 18- In t ens i ty of Fear of A i rc ra f t Crashes by Personal Charac ter i s t ics of r e s iden t s
Table 19- In t ens i ty of Fear of A i rc ra f t Crashes by Personal Charac ter i s t ics and Location of r e s iden t s
Table 20- "t" Test Scores fo r comparisons of mean annoyance of d i f f e r en t a reas
Table 21- Number of f l i g h t operat ions Table 22- Correlat ion of June-July operat ions and se lec ted
human responsc Table 23- Correlat ion cf Augus t-September operat ions and
se lec ted human response Table 24- Correlat ion of number of a r r i v a l s and departures by
Plane Type Table 25- Number of Operations by time period and a r r i v a l s
and departures , Table 26- Correlat ion of number of operat ions by time period
Page 2
LIST OF TABLE5 (Cont . ) Table 27 - Correlation of June-July operations by time period
and principal types of a i r c r a f t Tabie 28 - Correlation of August-September operations by time
period and principal types of a i r c r a f t Table 29 - Correlation of Operations by type of operation and
type of plane Table 30 - Comparison of Annoyance Responses for take-off and
lending operations Table 31 - Correlation of peak dBA levels weighted by number
of operations for selected a i r c r a f t Table 32 - Correlation of peak dBA levels weighted by number
of operations for selected a i r c r a f t a t selected comwr;~i t i e s
Table 33 - ASDS Durations by type of operation and cormunit): Table 34 - Correlation of ASDS - 90 dBA and selected human
responses Table 35 - Correlation of ASDS - 85 dBA and selected human
responses Table 36 - Correlation of ASDS - 80 dBA and selected human
responses Table 37 - Correlation of ASDS - 75 dBA and selected human
responses
SA
MP
LE
A
RE
AS
FO
R
1972
C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
NO
ISE
S
UR
VE
Y
Speci.al Analyses of Community Annoyaitce with Ai rc ra f t Noise Reported by Residents i n the Vicini ty of JFK Airport
1972
I. Introduction
A number o f s o c i a l survey s tud ie s have been made o f community reac t ions t o a i r - c r a f t noise i n the U.S.A. A/, 2/, 2/; Great Br i t a in 4/, z/; Sweden i/; Switzerland 11; France ;/; West Germany 2/ and o ther cotrntries. In general, using summery noise in- dexes such a s C.N.R. and N.N.I., a i r c r a f t noise alone has been found t o explain 15-207. of annoyance responses. I n addi t ion, reported f ea r of a i r c r a f t crashes, a t t i t u d e s about the primary importance of av ia t ion , the care and concern manifested by a i r l i n e , a i r p o r t and government a u t h o r i t i e s i n the vay a i r c r a f t a r e operated, b e l i e f s t h a t there a r e harmful heal th e f f e c t s and o ther personal f ac to r s account fo r another 40-SOX of the variance i n reported annoyance. These previous s tud ie s have determined the most important relevant fac tors t h a t e f f e c t annoyance react ions, but they have not f u l l y es - tabl ished the dynamic re la t ionships or a t heo re t i ca l system describing the noise annoy- ance process.
This study attempts a grea tc r in-depth ana lys is of the va r i a t i ons i n community noise exposures and of a f u l l e r undxstandinp, of the dynamics i n a i r c r a f t noise annoy- ance.
11. Survey Design
The data reported here were obta!.ned from a community noise survey conducted by the Columbia University Noise Research Unit i n February-March, and August-October 1972. The survey war primarily conhc ted i n order to provide data for an evaluat ion o f the Dynamic Preferen t ia l Runway Systen (a cmp~..t.crizcd method for assigning runway use) a t John F. Kennedy In te rna t iona l Airport (JFK), Yew York City, U.S.A., and fo r the selec- t i o n of subjects rmed i n laboratory t e s t s . I n the course of t h i s study, extensive de- t a i l s were col lected on a i r c r a f t operations and \.urnan rcsponses, which w i l l be used i n t h i s analysis .
A. Sampling 3 e s i ~
The sampling procedure Waf; dc~1; ;n i .d so a s t o maximize the homogeneity of noise exposure within tach survcycd arca. L'.r>cc qoise l c * ~ c l s from a i r c r a f t drop rap- idly a s one moves l a t e r a l l y away from l a i i . ' ; ~ ~ c'rd take-off f l i g h t paths, and a s one n w c s f a r the r from th9 end nf a runwav, i t was necessary t o in tens ive ly sanple a reas only a fcw blocks i n diameter. Clwcn s:vp;c areas were !.ocatcd 1 .l, 2.5 and 5.2 miles from the end of the various rl:r?w;i:*s a t JPK. These sampling e i t e s ore presented i n Figurc 1.
A l l inlerviewors were ~ i v e n p rcdcs jpaLcd addresses i n the sample a reas , each con- s i a t i a g of mf .1 c l u s t e r s of adjacent b1ocb.n. I n some assignment locat ion8 where the number of dwellings was l imited, every household was contacted. I n other a reas , every nth rlwelli~l: was selected. Kcspondcnts were required t o be over 18 years o ld , a perm- anent res ident of tha t dwelling and not i n cmptoywmt a t t h a t residence. Only one respondent was selected from each housetwld and T.e +ad t o havc an adequate comrmrnd of the English language. Alrc-nft noise annoynnce dat.3 for the months of June and Ju ly exclusively were d i r e c t l y o b t a h c d from rhose respondents (795) interviewed i n August. Respondents interviewed i n Fcbruory and Marc). 1972, (670) howvcr, were contacted by telephone a t the s t a r t of Auwst i n order to obtain comparable annoyance da t a f o r
ORIGINAL PAGE Is
June and July, so tha t the t o t a l sample consisted of 1465 interviews. t -
A l l rerpondentr (those interviewed 3n February, March and August 1972) were con- tacted by telephone again a t the s t a r t of October t o obtain annoyance data fo r the i I
months of August and September. From e s s f g m n t s for the three d i s t a ~ c e areas, 1465 - I
face-to-face interviews were cmple ted (84%). j :
8 . Community Quertionnaire
The questionnaires ueed for the face-to-face ictentiews and for the t e l e - phone interviews are presented i n the appendix. The questionnaire is slmilar i n many ways t o instruments used i n previous noise s tudier . Many items re la ted t o a i r c r a f t noise annoyance, fear of a i r c r a f t operations, be l i e f s i n the negligence (mirfeasance) of those connected with a t r c r a f t operations, a re very similar t o items used i n ea r l - i e r questionnaires (Borsky, 1961; McKennell, 1963; TRACOR, 1970). The interviews averaged about an hour i n length and proceeded from general queetions about l i k e s and d i s l ikes i n neighborhood environments t o more speci f ic perceptions and react ions t o general noise6 and f ina l ly , for those who reported hearing a i r c r a f t noise t o de ta i led probes about its ef fec ts .
A. Aircraf t Operations
Eleven coprmunities under seven d i f fe ren t f l i g h t paths were included i n t h i s study. Table 1 describes the physical locations of the eleven primary sample areas.
TABU 1
Distance Number from Airport Re l a ted Runways
Flight Path Rtspondentg C4mmuni t i e r (miles) . Departures Arrivals
Lawrence Long Beach Cedarhurst Island Park Howard Beach Bergen Beach Roreda l e South Rosedale North Floral Park Inwood Meadmere
Total 146 5 , - !
! . Since JFK Airport har the most advanced Alpha-numeric radar system which track8 . . ,
f l i g h t path, a l t i t u d e and runway for each operation, i t war posrible t o get the most accurate i n f o n n a t i o ~ on each f l i g h t by type of a i r c r a f t , speci f ic f l i g h t path, time of , . day and type of operation, Consequently, on departures, where a i r c r a f t nuke various a ,
turns a f t e r l i f t - o f f , only those percentages of a i r c r a f t f lying w e r the aelected s q l e 1 : area8 a r e included i n the operations data.
Table 2 presents them runway u t i l i z a t i o n data by f l i g h t path. Pour time period8 were ured ar follow8 :
Time Period Eastern-Dayligh t Time
1 - Night 10 PM - 6:59 AM 2 - Day 7 AM - 2:59 PM 3 - ,Day 3 PM - 6:59 PM 4 - Evening 7 PM - 9:59 PM
UTILIZATION TABU: OPERATION PERCENTAGES BY PATH AND TIME PERWD USED FOR CXLCULATIOIJS
1. Mix of Aircra f t
Of the raven f l i g h t pathr rtudied, only emall var ia t ionr occurred i n the a i r c r a f t mix from month to month rnong the d i f ferent f l i g h t pathr. Tabler 3 and 4 prerent there data for June-July and Augur t-September . Seven typer of a i r c r a f t were c l a r s i f i e d a s followr:
Aircra f t Type
1 &engine jot low by-pas8 engine 2 4-engine j e t high by-pass engine 3 3-engine j e t low by-pass engine 4 3-engine j e t high bv-pass engine 5 2-engine j c t 6 4-engine propeller 7 a11 other propeller a i r c r a f t
2. Number of Aircraf t Operations
Patterns i n operations i n June-July and Augurt-September wereB re la t ive ly the a m . To f a c i l i t a t e presentation of f l i g h t path data, therefore, only June-July data w i l l be presented. Table 5 present8 the variat ionr in da i ly operations by time period; Table 6, the month-to-month comparirons, and Table 7, the weekly d is t r ibut ionr .
Variationr i n da i ly operations a re great for the same and d i f fe ren t timc periode. In timt period 1, 10 PM-6:59 AM, only an average of 6 f l igh t s , cr l e s s than one per haur a re reported wer f l igh t paths 1 and 6 , while an average of 30-50 er' 4-5 per hour a r e reported i n the other areas. Peaks of 15-20 per hour a r e reported over f l i g h t pr thr 3 and 4.
In ti.mc period 2, 7 AH-2:59 PH, a low of 4 a r r r v a l r a re reported on the average for path one, o r l ee r than one per hour, while an average of a h c a t 90 departurer occurred wet paths 3 and 4 o r about 11 per hour, with same peak8 a t 15-20 per bow. During the l a t e afternoon time period 3, 3 PT.-6:59 EM, 4-5 departurer, or about one per hour a r e reported for patho 5 and 6, but 74 departurer on the average arc reported w e r path 4 o r alatorc 20 per hour. About one-third of the days had over 20 departurer per hour. This time period 3 i c the buriest a t SF% Airport. During the evening period 4, 7 PH- 9:59 PM, the average number of departures f a l l s t o less than one per haur wet arear 1, 2 and 5 and t o about 15 per hour and peaks of w e r 20 per hour i n area 5.
A r Table 6 indicate#, there were a l so conriderable f luctuat ions i n the number of da i ly total operation8 for each month. In Juae, on 40% of the dayr, no airplaner flew aver f l i g h t path 2, while i n almort a fourth of a l l dayr, 360-679 f l igh t8 crossed area 4, o r an overa l l average of 15-20 per hour. An equally high frequency i r reported on 7% of the dayr by f l i g h t path 3.
Table 7 r h w r the veekly var ia t ions i n t o t a l operation^.
Hours of Overflight
The number of d a i l y hour8 of w e r f l i g h t a l s o varied grea t ly .laang the f l i g h t pathr. Arear under f l i g h t pathr 3 and 4 experienced the grea tes t sa tura t ion of w e r f l i g h t r ,
Table 3
AlR
(BA
PII
OIX
RA
TIO
NS
BY A
IR-
TPPE,
TP
lE PERIOD A
ND
V
LIQ
lT PATH
Juaa -
Ju
ly 1972
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
, O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A&
D
To
tal -
37.7%
6.0
39.8
2.5
6.5
0.1 i .4
(1669)
27.7
9 .O
37.3
0.7
10.2
0.3
14.8
(18%)
33 .O
22.2
34.1
2.3
6.1
0.1
2.2
(1356)
i A
ID
1
Total
36.9%
8.2
38.1
1.5
6.3
0.1
8.9
(39
44
34.2
9.2
32.9
1.7
10 00
0.3
11 .7
(5814)
29.6
15.3
32.1
2.3
. 7.7
0.5
, 12.5
(477
5)
A&
D
To
tal -
37 -8%
9.2
38.1
1.5
6.4
0 . 1
6.9
(3046)
36.9
9.2
31.1
2.1
I0 .o 0.2
10.5
(4363)
23.2
10.8
32.9
1-7
, 9.9
C ,
20.7
(2422)
Arrf v.
21.3%
7.2
44
.3
2.3
5 04
0 00
19.5
('-?I)
17.3
7.2
35.2
1.0
1:. .l
0.4
2r) .
8 (712)
21.9
8.8
45.6
3.7
12.2
0 .o
7.8
(48
9)
2 3 4
5 6
7 Tot
al N
o.
3 34.1
4
. 1.1
5
16.6
6 0.4
7 18.6
Total No.
(823
)
1
22.5
2
8.7
3
65.3
4
3.6
5 12.1
6 '
0.3
7 i
7.8
Total
No
. ,
(503
)
Tim
e P
erio
d
4
To
tal
To
tal
No.
1
2 3
4 5 6 7 T
ota
l N
o.
Tab
la
3 (c
ont.
rPg.
2)
AIR
CR
\FT
O
PER
ATI
ON
S BY
A
IRC
RA
FT TYPe,
TIM
B PE
RIO
D A
ND
FL
IGH
T PA
TH
Jun
e - Ju
ly 1
972
1 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dep
. -
25.0
%
21.5
%
42.9
7.
FLIGHT .
PA
TH
S
3 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A&
D
To
tal -
35.9
%
18.7
34
.6
1.6
6.7
0
.o 2.
5 (6
41)
Arr
iv .
36.1
%
18.9
34
.6
1.6
6.6
0 .o
2.2
(635
)
Tot
al -
27.5
%
15.6
21
.7
1.5
8 .O
1
.0
24.7
(1
559)
Arr
iv.
Dep
. 14
.5%
32
.1%
8.
1 18
.2
26.7
1
9 9
0
5 1 *8
9.8
7 .4
1.
2 1 .o
39.2
19
.6
(408
) (1
151)
Arr
iv,
30 .4
%
14.1
32
.6
1.3
7.6
0.5
13.5
(1
722)
29.4
12
.2
36.1
1.
8 8 00
0.
4 zz
.1
(970
0)
Pi
T
ype
1
1 2 3 4
*
5 6 7 T
ota
l N
o.
r
2 1
Tab
le 3
(c
ont.
Pg.
3)
AIR
CR
AFT
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
BY A
IR-
TY
PE,
TIM
E PERIOD A
ND
FLIG
HT
2ATH
June - J
uly
197
2
PL
IG
HT
P
AT
HS
5 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A &
D
To
tal
Arr
iv.
-
34.9
%
35.0
%
5.6
5
.6
43
.3
43
.3
1.7
1
.7
6.1
6
.O
0 00
0
.o
8.4
8 .4
(124
6)
(123
2)
!
2 10
.5
3 j 3
9.1
4 i
0.7
5
1 11
.0
6 0
.2
7 )
10.9
T
ota
l N
o.
/ (1
815)
4 5 6 7 Tot
al No.
A&
D
To
tal -
29.1
%
9.6
34
.O
1.1
4
.7
0.0
21
.5
(638
)
19.8
5
04
33.3
1
.1
17
.1
0.3
23
.O
(1 22
4)
6 0
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
Arr
iv .
21.3
%
7.2
4
4.3
2
.3
5 04
0
.o
19
.5
(221
)
17
.3
7.2
35
.2
1 .o
1
8.1
0
.4
20.8
(7
12)
7 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A&D
To
tal -
36.6
%
6.4
37
.8
2 . 1
6.1
0
.1
10.9
(1
914)
27.5
3
.7
35
.4
1.0
1
1.2
0
.3
16
.9
(244
0)
31 .6
19
.2
34.8
2
.2
8.2
0
3 3.
7 (1
703)
Arr
iv .
37.8
%
6 .O
39
.9
2.5
6
.6
0.1
7.
1 (1
664)
27.8
9
.1
37.4
0
.7
10
.1
0.3
14
.6
(180
7)
33.1
22
.4
34.0
2.
4 5.
9 0
.1
2.1
(1
345)
Tab
le 3
(c
on
t.P
g.4
)
AIR
~A
FT
OPE
RA
TIO
NS BY AIRCRAFT
nw
, TIME P
ERIO
D A
M)
FLIG
~T P
ATH
Ju
ne
- Ju
ly 1
972
T~
W
A/C
P
erio
d
Tyv
e 4
1
2 3 4 5 6 7
To
tal
No.
To
tal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
To
tal
No.
5
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
AQ
D
To
tal -
35.3
%
17
.2
34.5
1 .b
8
.4
0 .1
2
.9
(237
9)
FL
IG
HT
' P
ATHS
6 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dep
. -
19.9
%
21.5
%
18.4
%
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dev
. -
33.3
%
36.1%
27.2%
Table
4
AIR
CR
AFT
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
BY A
IRC
RA
FT T
YPE
, TI
ME
PER
IOD
AND
FLI
GH
T PA
TH
Au
mn
t - S
emte
mbe
r 19
72
FLIGHT
PA
TE
1 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
AL
D
To
tal -
28 -4
%
8.9
I
37.5
1
.2
5.3
0
.0
18.7
T
ota
l S
o.
1
2 3 4
5 6 1
7 Tot
al N
o. '
1
1
2 I I
5 i 6 I
7 I
To
tal
No.
I I
Arr
iv .
13.8
%
3.7
4
2.4
1
.8
3.7
0 .o
34
.6
(217
)
22.3
7.
7 3
4.3
2
.5
22.6
0
.2
10
.4
(588
)
23.9
14
.7
38.7
4
04
14.7
0 .o
3.
6 (5
02)
2 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A&
D
To
tal -
37.2
%
4.3
4
0.9
2.
8 6
.2
0.1
8
.5
(205
1)
26.6
6
06
36.2
1
.0
11.7
0
.3
17.6
(2
181)
32.5
'
23.2
32
.1
2.6
6
.2
0.1
3
.3
(117
1)
Arr
iv .
37.3
%
4 04
41
.O
2.8
6.3
0
.1
8 1
(204
3)
26.8
6
.7
36.3
1
.o 11
.6
0.3
1
7.3
(2
155)
32.7
23
.5
31.9
2.
7 5.
9 0
.1
3.2
(1
155)
AL
D
To
tal
Arr
iv.
-
34.4
2 32
.1%
9
.0
4.3
33
.5
40
.2
2.5
3.9
3 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
, ,
A&D
To
tal
Arr
Sv,
-
33.3
%
30,5
%
8.1
3.
8 32
.4
36.3
2
.2
3.1
5.
5 6
.3
0.2
0
.2
18.3
1
9-8
(3
587)
(1
834)
Tab
le 4
(cont .P
g.2)
AIRC
RAFT
OPE
UTX
OH
S BY
AIR
CR
AFT
TYPE, TIME P
ERIO
D AND
fifG
W P
ATH
A
ugus
t - S
eptember 1
972
FLIGHT. P
AT
HS
-
- 2
3
4 OPERATYONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS
OPERATIOHS
5
6 17
i
To
tal
No.
To
tal
1
2 3
4 5 6 7
I
To
tal,
Ho.
A&
D
"ota
l A
rriv
. -
A&D
To
tal -
32.5
%
16.6
37
.5
4 .O
6.
3 0.
0 3.
1 (8
48
)
32 .O
10
.3
37.1
2.
3 8
.1
0.2
10 .0
(6
251)
I i A
&D
D
ep.
1 T
ota
l A
rriv
. I
To
tal -
28 -0
%
14.9
25
.1
2.3
6 02
1.
8 21
.7
(258
7)
Arr
iv .
24.4
%
11 ,t
30
.2
2.9
5.9
1.4
23.8
(1
283)
Th
e
Period
1 2 3
Tvln
1 2 i I
3 4
! i
5 6
i 7
Tot
al N
o.
'
1 2 I
3 4 !
5 6 7
i T
ota
l N
o,
; I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 To
tal
No.
Tab
le 4
(c
ont .Pg -
3).
AIR-
O
PEBA
TXIN
S BY
AIR
CR
APT
TY
PE,
lPaS
PE
RIO
D A
ND
RIG
HT
PA
TS
Aunust - S
eptember 1
972
F-
LI
GH
T PATHS
5 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
Arriv .
32.0
%
3 04
4
5.5
1
.3
7.1
0
00
10
.7
(972
)
2s.
2
12.4
4
1.3
1
.1
13
.2
0.4
6
.4
(72
7)
31.8
20
.2
35.6
2
.8
6.7
0.1
2
.8
(261
8)
6
0
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A 6
D
To
tal -
22.9
%
7.2
30
.4
1.0
4
.2
0.0
34
.3
(617
)
20.9
5
.0
33.2
2
.2
19
.5
0.3
18
.9
(119
1)
30.6
1
0.9
40
.7
3.1
17
.9
0 00
6
.S
(747
)
Arriv.
13.8
%
3.7
42
.4
1.8
3.7
0.0
34
.6
(217
)
22.3
7
.7
34.3
2.
5 22
.6
0.2
10
.4
(588
)
23.9
14
.7
38.7
4
04
14.7
0
.o
3.6
(502
)
A6
D
To
tal -
35 .4%
4.6
38
.6
2.5
5.9
0
.1
13.1
(2
302)
25.7
5.
9 35
.1
1.2
12.6
0
.3
19.2
(2
866)
29.9
19
.1
34.1
2
.3
9.3
0 . 1
5.2
(153
3)
Arrtv,
370%
6 -4
41 .O
2.
8 6
.3
0.1
8
.1
(2043)
26 -8
6
.7
36.3
1
.0
11
06
0.3
17
.3
(214
5)
32.7
23
.5
31.9
2.
7 5.
9 0
.1
3.2
(115
5)
1 I
2 .
! 3 4
I i 5
i 6
! 7
To
tal
No.
Tab
le 4
(c
oa
t .P
g.4)
AIR
CW
W~
OPE
BATI
ON
S BY
AI
RM
TYPE
, TI
MB
PKR
IOD
AND
FLIGHT P
ATH
Au
g~
8t - S
evte
mbe
r 19
72
FL
IG
I'T
P
AT
HS
5
6 O
PB
RA
TI
ON
S
A&
D
To
tal -
31.1
%
15.9
39
.7
3.8
7.2
0.1
2.
2 (2
702)
30.6
1
5.3
38
.9
2.9
7 07
0
01
4.5
(7
080)
Arr
lv .
31 .O
X 15
.9
39 0
7 3.
9 7
.2
0.1
2
.2
(269
7)
30.9
1
5.4
39
.2
2.8
7.
6 0
.1
4 .O
(7
014)
Arr
lv .
27.5
%
6.5
41
.8
7.9
15
.0
0 .o
1
.3
(153
)
22.1
9
04
37.8
3.
6 16
.3
0.1
10
.7
(146
0)
A&
D
To
tal -
31.7
%
IS .8
35
.4
3 .8
7.
5 0
.2
5 -6
(1
058)
30.2
9
.5
35.9
Per -
1
2
fi Requency
); (excluding 0
r (excluding 0
r
NUM
BER OF W
ILY
OW
RA
TDO
NS BY T
IME
PERX
OD
AND
PLIG
HT PATRS
June-July 1972
FLIGHT PATHS
1 3PEUTIONS
0.
Per
1
t Arrlv .
50.8
1.
45.9
0 .o
3.3
0 .o 0 .o
0.0
0 .o
2
0 PE
RAT
ION
S
Arrf v
. 42.6%
9.9
9.8
13.1
21.3
3.3
0.0
0 .o
44 .O
3 27.05
45.9
11.5
4.9 8.2
24.6
4.9
0 00
0 00
46.79
26-35
Arrlv .
41.0%
19.6
3.3
21.3
11.5
3.3
0.0
0 .o
37.64
27.67
45.9
26.2
6.6
21.3
0.0
0 00
0 00
0.0
16.27
10.91
Arr
iv.
31.2%
9.8
8.2
24.6
16.4
9.3
0 00
0.0
50.29
29.92
42.6
14.8
1.6
8.2
21.3
11.5
0 00
0.0
50 -43
32.88
#UB
[BB
R OF DAILY OPBRATISS BY
TPBe
PER
IOD
AND
PLIm
PATES
June-July 1972
lo.
Par
Hou
r 0
c2
2-
2.9
3-5 . 9
6-9.
9 10
-14.
9 15
-19.
9 20
+
0 < 2
2-2.
9 3-
5.9
6-9.
9 10
-14.
9
FL
IG
HT
. PATHS
Per
-
3 4
Tab
le 5
(can
t. Pg
-3)
NU
MB8
R OF M
ILV
OPERATIONS BY TME R
3RIO
D AND FLIGHT
PATR
June-July
1972
Arr
iv . -
63.9%
14.8
1.6
3.3
8.2 8.2 0 00
0.0
20.50
16.59
68.8
13.1
6.6
11.5
0 00
0 00
0 .o 0.0
7.32
4.67
FLIGHT- P
ATHS Ar
riv .
Ek
Table 5 (coat 28.4)
NU
BS
R OF
DA
ILY
OW
BATI
ON
S BY T
M PE
RIO
D A
ND FLICRI PATE
No.
Par
Ho
w
0 <2
2-2.9
3-5. 9
6-9.9
10-14.9
15-19.9
2Qt
0
c 2
2-2.9
3-5.9
6-9.9
10-116 .9
15 -19.9
20+
. .
.-.-
.. .
..
,
FL
IG
HT
.
PA
TH
S
Arr
iv .
63.9%
14.8
1.6
3.3
8.2
8.2
0 .o
0 00
20.H)
16.59
68.8
13.1
6.6
11.5
0.0
0 00
0 .o 0 00
7.32
4.67
Arr
iv . -
62.32
6.6
1.6
4.9
1.6
3.3
3.3
16.4
57.22
40.75
67.2
1.6
0 00
6.6
11.5
1.6
9.8 1.7
31 .05
17.12
FBeQ
UK
NC
Y
OF
'A)=
DAILY
0PB
BA
Tfl)
IS B
Y FL
IQiT
PATES. BY W
#TB
S
PL
IG
HT
P
AT
HS
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
k.
I
2 3
4
OP
BI
tA
TI
ON
S
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
O
PE
RA
TI
OB
S
To
tal
! lbD
A
rriv
. 40
.0%
16
.6
13
.3
16.7
6
.7
6.7
0
.o
0 00
12.9
12
.9
12.9
29
.O
19.4
1
2.9
0
00
0 00
Arr
iv.
13.4
%
30.0
23
.3
30 .O
3
.3
0.0
0 .a
0
.0
16.1
35
.5
25.8
22
.6
0 00
0 00
0
00
0.3
Ta
ble
6 (cont.Pg.2)
FRK
QUB
NCY OF T
OTA
L D
AIL
Y O
PBIU
TD(H
SS B
Y F
LIG
HT PATES.
BY )
IDlO
rBS
Yo.
Pe
r Hour
0
< 2 2-2.9
3-5.9
6-9.9
10-14.9
15-19.9
20+
1
OP
ER
AT
IO
IS
FL
IG
HT
. P
AT
ES
2 OPERATIOIS
A&
D
Total
16.1%
16.1
29 .O
12.9
22.6
3.3
0 .o
0 00
~ W * " r n ? O ' . O * ? C Y ~ O ~ . V ; O I ~ O O d O d d
AUGUST 1
972
No.
Per
lb
ur
0 < 2 2-
2.9
3-5.
9 '
6-9.
9
. ,
. ~
, ,
.. .
.._
, "
. ,
_ _ .
.'
.*
..
,,.
. , ,
, .
,,
.
."
_-
-_
_
,_I
__ _-_
___ _
_ _.. _
-
__
X_
_.-
-__-3.11-.."
^ --
.---
- --
- -
- -
---
- --
-
-crC
-*-----
Tab
le 6
(c
ont.
Pg.
4
)
FREQ
UENC
Y O
F TO
TAL
DA
UY
OP%
RATI
ONS
BY
FLIC
HT
PATH
S.
BY B
DNTH
S
FL
IG
HT
' P
AT
HS
5 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
AL
D
To
tal -
Arr
iv . k
6 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
7 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
Ab
D
I A
LD
T
ota
l -
Arr
iv .
D~
D.
, -
To
tal
Arr
iv.
&
No. Per
H
our -
Tab
le 7
FREQUENCY
OF
TO
TAL
WBE
KLY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
BY F
LIG
HT
PATH
S.
BY M
DNTH
g
FL
IG
HT
P
AT
HS
1
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
2
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
1 i I
A&
D
To
tal
Arriv.
Den.
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dep.
i -
i 3
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
Ab
D
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dem
.
JULY
19
72
Ta
ble
7
(cont.P
g.2
)
FREQ
UEN
CY
OF
TOTA
L W
EEKL
Y O
WRA
TWN
S BY
FL
IGH
T PA
THS.
BY
MW
lW
-
4
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
AI
D
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dep.
-
0%
0%
OX
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
50
75
25
50
0
AUGUST
1972
2
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
A&
D
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dev.
-
0%
0%
75%
0
0
2
5 50
50
0
SO
50
0
3 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A &
D
To
tal
Arr
iv,
&
-
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
50
2 5
25
50
75
1
OP
ER
AT
IO
NS
ALD
To
tal
Arr
iv. a
-
0%
0%
0%
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No.
Per
Hour -
0
< 2 2-
2.9
3-5.
9 6-
9.9
10-1
4.9
JUNE 1
972
Fre
auen
cp
0 a-33
5 .3
36-5
03
504-
1007
10
08-1
679
1680
-251
9
JULY
19
72
0 1-33
5 33
6-50
3 50
4-10
07
1008
-167
9 16
80-2
519
No.
Per
B
OW
T
-
0
< 2 2-2.
9 3-
5.9
6-9.
9 10
-14.
9
Table
7 (c
ont.
Pg.
3)
-
FREQ
UENC
Y O
F aD
TAL
WEU
CLY
OPB
RA
TIO
NS
BY F
LIG
HT
PATH
S.
BY m
TliS
5 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
ACD
Tot
al
Arr
iv.
Dep
. -
0%
0%
25%
0
0 75
25
25
0
75
7 5
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
FLIGHT
PA
TH
S
6 0
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
Tot
al
Arr
iv.
MP.
I "
A &
D
Tot
al
Arr
iv.
D~D.
AUGUST 1
972
Table
7 (cont.P8.4)
FREQ
UENC
Y O
F TO
TAL WEEKLY O
PER
ATI
ON
S BY
FLI
GH
T PA
THS.
BY
M)=
S
OP
BR
AT
IO
NS
Ab
D
To
tal
Arr
iv.
Dev
.
FL
IG
HT
' P
AT
HS
6 O
PE
RA
TI
ON
S
A&D
Total
Arr
iv.
D~R.
A&
D
Total
Arr
lw.
Den
. -
with about 40% of a l l dayr during July and September experiencing over 17 hourr of we r f l i gh t r per dry. Table 8 rhawr there variat ionr i n hour8 of dai ly overflight by f l ight path.
Table 9 prerentr the fluchlrtionr i n hourr of overflight by tiar period. Duriag the night-t irr period 1, f l igh t pathr 5 and 6 experienced m average of abaut 3 hourr per night, while f l igh t pathr 3 and 4 received twice a8 ~ u c h exporure during the month of June.
8. Likert S~plpplted Scaler ured i n Anal~rer
1. Aircraft Noire A~oyance
Reviou8 renarcher r have uued the a i r c r a f t noire dirturbance model a8 a mthod for manrring an individual'r pori t ive or negative feeliagr toward8 a i r c r a f t noim. The ratianale b r been to meamre the number of dirturbancer and the degree of ammy- ance caured by each dirturbance. 'Ihe model war developed from ea r l i e r in-depth inter- v i e w ~ and anowerr t o open quertionr about the chr rac te r i r t i c r of reported anmyance vith a i r c r a f t noire. / The a i r c r a f t rounda were unwanted noire, becauoe they interfered or dirturbed ac t i v i t i e r which the reapondent wanted. Since factor and rcalo-m analyrer indicated various reported dirturbancer were related, it war de- cided t o combine them in to a r ingle scale of intensity of annoyance.
An 11 item rcale war ured based on 4.24 i n the quertionnaire a8 follow8 :
"Can you t e l l PC i f the noire from airplaner ever (ark each item below) (Do they ever?......)
Interfere with your l i r teniag t o radio o r Tv? .......... .......... Make the TV picture f l icker? S ta r t l e o r frighten anyone i n yaw f-ily? .....**... .......... . D i r turb your family r rleep? ......... Make your houre r a t t l e o r rhake? Interfere with family'r rert or r e l u u - t ion? .......... Interfere with cowerration? Make you keep your windowr rhut during the day? .......... Make you keep your windwr rhut a t night? .......... .......... Make you feel tenre and edgy? Give you a headache? ..........
For each "yer", a rubqwrtion war arked, '@And haw dirturbed or 8oaop.d doeo t h i r make you feel? (0 * none, 4 - very mch). Since there are 11 it-, the range i n scale rcorer a re 0-44.
Buad upon a factor anr lyr i r (Principal Component#, v a r i P u rotation) it war &- tarmined that a l l item formed a gerural factor. The annoyance rcale u.r, therefore,
7 P
erce
nt
Day
8 30
.0%
26
.7
20.0
1
0 .o
13
.3
loo .
O
3.14
2.
53
26.7
10
.o
26.7
30
.o
6.6
10
0 .o
4.95
2.
12
20.0
13
.3
26.7
26
.7
13.3
lo
o 00
2.50
0
%
53.3
26
.7
3.3
16.7
I
Tab
le 9
TQTAL
mU
RS OF O
VE
RFL
IGE
I BY
TIB
B P
SRD
OD
AN
D PLIGHT P
ATH
A..
JW
1972
F
LI
GH
T
PA
TH
S
5 P
erce
nt
Day
s 40
.OX
16
.7
16.7
23
.3
3.3
loo .
o
3.22
2
.O7
46
.7
20.0
10
.o
6.7
1
6*
6
100.
0
4.62
2.
89
33.3
10
.0
23.3
20
-0
13
.6
loo .
o
2.55
.9
7
50 .O
10
00
13.3
26
.7
100
.o
6 P
erce
nt
Day
8 13.3
%
26.7
26
.7
26.7
6.
6 10
0.0
3.27
2.
10
30 .O
16
.7
2 P
rrce
nt
Day
s 56
.7%
10
.o
13.3
6
.7
13.3
10
0 .o
! i
4.1
5
:
Per
cen
t D
ays
1 16
.7%
1
16.7
i
6.7
i 23
.3
; 36
.6
1 10
0.0
i
5.60
;
3.0
3
i
26.7
10
.0
. 16
.7
.
30.0
'
16.6
'
100.
0 1
5.68
:
2.18
20.0
i
13.3
!
10.0
r
36.7
:
20.G
10
0.0
1 I 2.
79
1.00
50 0
0 23
.3
6.7
20 .o
10
0 .o
4 P
erce
nt
Day
s 6.7%
10
00
10 00
26
.7
46
.6
100
.o
6 .O
7 2.
83
20 .o
10
-0
13
.3
26.7
30
.O
100
.o
1 I
Per
cen
t D
ays
i6.n
23
.3
26 -7
26
.7
! 6
.6
100.
0 : !
3.20
i
2.06
i I
60.0
t
20.0
j
6.7
13
.3
j 0
.0
; 10
0 .o
Period -
1
- X (e
xclu
din
g 0
) 0-
0 1-2
3-5.
6-1
8
Tot
al
0 j
76.7
1
i 3.
3 2
! 10
.0
3 !
6.7
j 4
' 3
.3
,
To
tal
100.
0 :
I -
I
X(e
xc1
ud
iq 0
) /
2.43
r
.90
1 I
0
86.7
i
1
6.7
1
2 6.
6 3
i 0.
0 i
To
tal
100.
0
Tab
le 9
(cont ,Pg.
2)
TOTA
L H
OUR
S OF
O
MB
PL
IGE
T B
Y T
PlS
WR
IOD
AN
D FLIGHT P
ATU
FL
IG
HT
P
AT
HS
Per
cen
t i
Day
s 48
.4%
.
22.6
;
12.9
1
9.7
j 6
.4
100 -
0
2.75
:
2.17
22.6
22
.6
35.5
16
. 1 3.2
'
100 .
o
3 -8
7 1
-96
48
.4
.
32.3
'
0.0
6.4
. i
12.9
*
100.
0 ! I
Per
cen
t I
my8
29
.0%
j !
3 1
Per
cen
t f
Day
s.
i 3.
2%
! 1
6.1
1
22.6
1
12 .9
4
5.2
:
100.
0 1
5.33
3.
18
:
16.1
12
.9
12.9
25
.8
32.3
10
0 .o
6.12
2.
14
16.1
22
.6
29 -
0
12
.9
19.4
10
0 .o
I
2.35
j
1.1
1
;
4 !
Per
cen
t 1
Day
s 0.0%
; i 1 j I
5 P
erce
nt
Day
8
45
-2%
16
.1
29.0
1
3.2
1 6.
5 i
100.
0 i i i
2.65
i
2.11
'
51.6
:
19.3
,
6.5
.
16.1
!
6.5
i
100.
0 :
4.4
0
2.63
:
29.0
.
12.9
12
.9
29 .O
1
6.1
i
100.
0 i
Err
. o
f 1
Ov
erfl
igh
t 0
I 1 2-3
4-6
7-9
To
tal
i - X
(exc
lud
ing
0) I
ff
I 2
; 0
! 1
-2
1 ! ! 3-
5 I
! 6-
7 8 !
i T
ota
l
. - X
(exc
lud
ing
0) I
3 T
ota
l
. -
.-
6 P
erce
nt
38.7
I %
iw
19 .4
3
.2
9.7
j 10
0.0
1
2.45
:
2.25
19
.3
' 12
.9
48 .4
19
.4
0 .o
10
0.0
4.1
2
1.70
'
32.2
;
45
.2
. 1
2.9
j
9.7
'
0.0
1
100.
0 ,
1.48
-7
3
83.9
3.
2
Tab
le 9
(c
ont.
Ps.
3)
TOTA
L RO
URS
OF
OV
ERPL
IGH
T BY
TfM
e PERIOD M
ID F
LIG
HT
PATH
FL
IG
HT
PATHS
4
Per
cen
t I I 5;
6.5
'
25 .8
25
.8
:
29.0
10
0.0
5.15
2.
63
12.9
12
.9
3.2
16.1
5
4.9
10
0.0
6.7
4
2.12
,
16
.1
.
6.5
i
29 -0
1
9.4
.
29.0
;
100.
0 i
5 P
erce
nt
16.1
38
.7
3.2
0.0
10
0 -0
2 P
erce
nt
%z 3
.2
9.7
19
-4
41
.9
10
0.0
6 -0
0
2-27
38.7
6
.5
29.0
12
.9
12.9
100
.O
5.16
2.
08
80.7
3
-2
9 .7
3
.2
3.2
10
0.0
.
2.3
3
-94
83.9
0
-0
3.2
12
.9
10
0.0
2.80
-4
0
3 P
erce
nt
%m
6
.4
32.3
19
.4
29.0
10
0.0
Per
iod
I
Ov
erfl
igh
t 1
i
Per
cen
t
%z
38.7
19
-4
3.2
9
.7
100 .o
2.45
1 2-3
I i 4-
6 7-
9 I !
To
tal
:
0 1-2
3-5
6-7
8 To
tal
4 0
i
1 2 3 i !
To
tal
i
Table 9 (caat.Pg.4)
PL
IG
HT
P
AT
HS
-
5 P
erce
at
%m
13.3
13.3
10.0
3 04
100 00
6 Perceat
%
26.7
16.7
10.0
6.6
100 .o
20%
2 -46
23.3
16.7
30.0
26.7
3.3
100.0
4.57
1.91
26.7
33.3
23.3
3.3
13.4
100.0
1.95
1.11
80.0
10.0
6.7
3.3
100.0
1.67
075
1 Percent
Days
40 .O
X 26.7
16.7
10.0
6.6
100.0
2.94
2.46
50 .o
16.7
13.3
16.7
3.3
1m.o
4.47
2.19
60.0
6.7
16.7
3.3
13.3
100 .o
2.58
1.11
83.3
6.7
6.7
3.3
100 .o
1-80
. 75
Era. of
Overflight
0 0 1-2
3-5
6-7
8
Totr
- X (excluding
u-
0 1 2 3 4
Total
conrtructed by rrnamrting annoyance ra t ing8 fo r the eleven a c t i v i t y disturbance items. TRACOR (1970) had previourly demonstrated t h a t an unequal weighting ryrtem baaed u3on f ac to r loadings contributed l i t t l e t o improvement i n the predic t ion of annoyance by predic tor va r i ab l e s r imi la r t o thore used i n the present study. A mearure of i n - t e r n a l consietency or r e l i a b i l i t y (coef f ic ien t alpha, c f . Nunnally (1967) p.196) yielded valuer of rr.91 and rr.93 fo r the a i r c r a f t noire mraoyance r ca l e r f o r June-July and Augur t-September .
2. Noise Exposure
CNR (Caaporite Noise Rating, (Galloway and Birhop, 1970) war used ac the primary canposite measure of camuni ty a i r c r a f t noise exposure. CNR was calcu- l a t ed from k n m PNL valuer fo r ex i e t ing a i r c r a f t and operat ions data a t JFA fo r tbc periods June-July and August-Se?tember 1972. The f o l l w i n g equations were used fin the computation;
where j r e f e r s mean number of
Although there
mj PNLj + l O 1 0 g ~ ~ (N + 20 NN ) - 12 J
CNR = 101og10 6 an t i l og ( m j / 10) , 1
t o a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s of a i r c r a f t operat ion and ND and NN a r e the occurrences during day and night respect ively. j j
a r e a number of object ions t o the use of t h i s s ca l e , i t seems t o be r e l a t ed t o a i r c r a f t noise annoyance (as measured by the a c t i v i t i e s -dis turbance model) a s well a s any of the o ther conventional measures crf exposure (TRACOR, 1970).
The fear s c a l e used i n the present study consis ted of a rumnation of four i t e m from the comrmnity quest ionnaire . Fear i s defined a r a be l i e f t h a t a i r - c r a f t f ly ing overhead poses a ' ~ h r e a t t o one's sa fe ty . The noi re connotes an approach- ing plane and f ea r i r the b e l l e f t h a t i t may crash i n t o the place where the person i s located. The Likert s u n a ~ t e d r a t i n g s technique fD_I is used ' t o measure the i n t e n s i t y of a human responre. In t h i 8 process, the separate scores fo r responee ca tegor ies of a s c t of questionr, a l l represent ing a p a r t i c u l a r dimension o r a t t r i b u t e , a r e aurmned t o form a canposite ra t ing . By using a s e t of quest ions r a the r than a s ing le ques- t ion , g rea te r r e l i a b i l i t y i n the measurement of the dimension o r a t t r i b u t e is usua l ly .;btained.
Question 58, Item 8 - Respondents were asked how much they d i s l i ked twelve aspects t ha t apply t o l i v i n g condit ions i n tb-ir camratnity. Each respondent r e f e r r ed t o an "opinion thermometertt on which "0" corresponded t o "none" and "4" corresponded t o "Very Much". I n Question SB, Item 8, respondents r a t ed the d i r l i k e of . . . . . . . . . .
Unsafe low-flying a i rp l anes ........ Quertion 22D. How much does the noise f r an (item) s t a r t l e o r f r i gh ten you? The question was arked fo r var ious (5) noise sources. The response t o a i rp lane noise was ured i n the f ea r rcale . Again the responee choices ranged from "OO" (not a t a l l ) t o "4" (very much).
Question 27. Whan you see o r hear a i rp lanes f l y by, how o f t en do you f e e l they a r e f ly inn too lw fo r the sa fe ty of the r e s iden t s around here? Rerwnre choices were "0;' ( i o t a t a l l ) t o "4" (ver; of ten) .
Quertion 28. "And hw often do you f e e l there i r r o w daager tha t they might crarh nearby?" Rerponre choicer ware "0" (not a t all) t o "4" (very often).
Each rerpondmt'r fear rcore war obtained by 8-ing the rerponrer t o each of the four fear item. S b c e porrible rerponrer for each item were 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, the r(ml;b
of fear rcorer war 0-16.
Ihere item have r trong face va l id i ty a r well a8 high item intercorrelat ion. Siace actual experience indicater tha t moat crashes occur within a few miler from the boun& ritr of a i rpor t r , it i r r igni f icant t o note i n Table 13 tha t w e t ha l f the r e r i d t n t r l iving within about a mile of the a i rpor t report h i ~ h fear compared t o only 15% of the raridentr i n d i r t a n t arear . Converrely, only 20% of the c lore residents report low fear compared t o 47% of the diotant rer idente. In addition, a number of the i t a n r have been rhown t o be re la ted t o annoyance i n previour research (Borsky, 1961; WcKennell, 1963; TRACOR, 1970). The coefficient of r e l i a b i l i t y for the fear scale i r rm.84,
Table 10 rhowr the d is t r ibut ion of rerpondentr by fear rcore and res iden t i a l area. The cut t ing point8 of the scale, in to three groups were determined by two factorr : a) a su f f i c i en t number of e l ig ib le subject8 (36) were required i n laboratory r tudier 12 / for each fear and dirtance group, allowing for r e fu ra l r and other rcaronr for ndt - being available, b) the low fear group should represent a s l i t t l e fear a r possible. Other research d ic ta ted there c r i t e r i a ,
Table 11 r h w r the r t l a t i o a between fear and annoyance for each fear m a l e rcore group.
4. Hirfearance
The concept of rnirfearance i s an outgrowth of Borrky'r (1961) concept of "conrid- eratenerr", McKennell's (1963) concept of "preventability", and TRAOOR'~ (1970) con- cept of 'hrirkarance". Thir rca le war intended t o mearure the rerpondentr' be l ief :hat variour agent8 connected with a i r c r a f t noire production a re capable of reducing the noise but fo r rorpr inruff ic ient rearon a re not. The agentr i n the prerent r ca le include "the people vho run the a i r l i n e r t t , "the a i rpor t of f ic ia ls" , "th5 other gwern- mental o f f i e i a l r " , "the pi lotr" , "the der ignt r r and makers of a i rp l rner t@, and "the coumnity leaders".
A s i x item scale war used with a coeff ic ient of r e l i a b i l i t y (alpha) of .76, Each item ha:! a rerponse range of 0-4, so the t o t a l rcores ranged from 0-24. On Quertion 36, rc..rpondentr were rrked, 'Vould you say any of there people a re i n a por i t ion t o do anything about the a i r c r a f t m i r e around Iiere?" The coefficient of r e l i a b i l i t y (alpha: for the mirfeasance rca le i r r m.76.
5. Health Attitudes
McKennell (1963) reported a r t rong re la t ionrhip between the be l i e f tha t a i r c r a f t exparure affected the rerpondent'r heal th and annoyance. I n the prerent quert iooruire, rerpondentr were arked, "Hw harmful do you fee l the airplane noire i r t o yaur health?" Thir item war scored 0-6 with 4 being very much.
6, lmvortance of Aircraf t
, A m u l l re la t ionrhip (rr.12) war reported by c r a f t Lmportance rca le and annoyance. I n prerent portant they f e l t comercia1 airplaner w e ~ e t o a)
HcKennell (1963) betvecn an a i r - rtudy rerpondentr were arked h w Im- national welfare, b) the caaaunity
TABLE 10
Re~orted Number re anon dent^ by Fear and Dlatrnce of Realdance
D I S T A N C E
A. Lou Fear Pear Score - Total Cloao Middle D i a t a , \ t - --7
(0-1)
B . Medium Fear (2-7)
C. High Pear (8-16)
Top 1 343 X fear .32 S .47
Tog 1 X fear S
Tog 1 X fear S
TABLE 11 -- Annoyance Sc_*_Ze Scores by Feat and Distance of Residence
Total - Close Middle Distant
Fear Score - s~ - S~ - 54 - X X X X
=D
A. Law 0 4.5 5.8 5.9 8.0 4.6 5.6 4.0 4e.8 Fear 1 - - - -- 6 7 5.6 7.3 6.2 8.6 7.2 7.2 6.1 A - (C-1)
Total 5.41 6.1 6.7 7.8 5.9 5.9 4.7 5.2
B. Medim 2 9.7 9.1 13.9 9.8 7.3 6.1 9.1 9.8 Fear 3 9.9 7.7 6 9.3 10.2 8.1 7.8 4.9 (2-7) 4 13.3 8.2 17.2 7.9 11.6 8.4 12.4 7.4
5 12.0 7.4 12.1 6.9 13.5 8.8 9.4 5.6 6 15.7 10.3 19.3 9.9 15.1 11.9 11.3 6.6 7 - - 17.6 - 10.7 -- 20.8 11.4 -- 18.4 6.7 12.3 9.6
Total 12.03 9.1 15.2 9.8 11.1 8.7 9.8 7.8
C. High 8 Fear 9 (8-16) 10
11 12 13 14 15 16
Total 24.7 10.8 27.3 10.5 23.7 10.5 18.3 9.4
Grand Total 13.9 11.8 19.2 12.7 13.4 11.4 8.7 8.4
and c) t h e i r own f m i l y . Each item was lrcored 0-4 v i t h 4 meaning very important. The sum of there three i t e m waa termed respondents' feel ings of a i r c r a f t importance, end formed a rcale with a range i n scores of 0-12.
C. Coar~arison of Likert Summated Annoyance resoonses with a i r c r a f t noise with s ingle suunnary question responses.
Question 1 of the interview asked for an overal l r a t ing of the community a s a pince t o l ive . Question 2 was an open general question about any advantages t o l iv ing i n the cormmunity. Question 3 was an open question about any d is l ikes , nuieances o r i r r i t a t t m s involved i n l iv ing i n the comwrnity, Question 4 was an open question about "any pos- s ib ly dangerous o r frightening conditions". Question 5 was the f i r s t d i r ec t question about 11 general factors af fec t ing the qual i ty of l iv ing i n the community. A l l re - spondents were asked:
Q.5 A. Now here is a list of things same people d i s l i k e about the i r neighborhoods. (Hand Card 1 t o Respondent). For each item, please t e l l me whether it describes the way you fee l about t h i s area. F i r s t , do you fee l t h i s area is an especial ly expensive place t o l ive? ( I s it ...... does i t have?)
For each item disl iked, the respondent was asked:
"Now thinking of (it being ...... i t e m disl iked) around here, how much do you d i s l i k e i t? Remember tha t "very much" would be "4", 'hot a t a l l " would be "zero". How much do you d i s l i k e it being (item)? The
Item 4 dis l ikes .
items were :
...... 1. Especially expensive place t o l i v e ........ 2. Poor o r inconvenient location Inadequate comwnity f a c i l i t i e s , poor schools, shopping ....... Aircraf t noise ...... Traff ic and other noise ...... Dangerous t r a f f i c conditions ...... Unsafe t o walk a t night ...... Unsafe low-flying airplanes ...... Overcrowded, not enough privacy ...... Poor neighbors - unfriendly ...... Bad odors and a i r pollut ion ......
of Q.5 was "dislike" of a i r c r a f t noise, embedded i n the context of general
Questions 6 ? ' deal with act ion behavior of the most disl iked item mentioned i n Q . 5 , about general sleep behavior and a general noise r a t ing of the coolmunity. Then 4,22 i e asked about the kinds of noises sometimes heard. For each type of noise vol- unteered, e s e r i e s of sub-questions a r e asked, of which a summary noise annoyance question is included as the s ix th sub-question a s follows:
4.22 F. And how much does the noise from (item) disturb, bother o r annoy you?
Since a i r c r a f t noise is one type of noise usually mentioned, the answer t o t h i s eub-quertion can a l s o be compared to the Likert sunmrated annoyance sca le consisting of 11 separate items.
1 j 1 1
ie 0-4 response era les used i n the bee analyses ' 'L ordinal , i.e. the categories are rank ordered and the distances b e t w e ~ :he categories a r e not defined. There a re considerable differences i n opini;as among s t ~ t i s t i c i a n s about the importance i n d i f fe ren t i a t ing between ordinal and in terval sca les (distances between categories a r e defined), especial ly emmated sca les and the appropriateness of using parametric s t a t i s t i c s for in terval data and non-parametric s t a t i s t i c s for ordinal data. Paul Leslie Gardner, i n a recent review of these questions, concluded tha t :
1. "The d i s t inc t ion between ordinal and in terval sca les i s not sharp, Many summeted sca les y ie ld scores tha t , although not s t r i s t l y of in te rva l s trength, a r e only mildly d is tor ted versions of an in te rva l scale.
2. "Some of the arguments underlying the asser t ion tha t parametric pro- cedures require in terval s trength s t a t i s t i c s appear t o be of doubtful va l id i ty .
3. "Parametric procedures a re , i n any case, robust and yield va l id conclu- sions even when mildly d is tor ted data a r e fed in to them. Furthermore, i f the d i s - tor t ions a r e severe, various transformation techniques can be applied t o the date. 141
To t e s t &mpirically these conclusions, every corre la t ion reported i n t h i s study was calculated both ways, parametric Pearson, and non-parametric Spearman methods. In the hundreds of pa i r s of correlat ions calculated, not one proved substantial ly d i f f - erent i n the t?(o methods. For example, the Pearson coeff ic ients of corre la t ion be- tween the summated annoyance score and the a i r c r a f t annoyance answers t o Q.5 and 4.22 a re r1.61 and ru.67, while the Spearman correlat ions a re r1.65 and t=.71. These correlat ions are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s igni f icant w e l l beyond the p.01 level. For such a large sample of 1465 respondents, a Perrson corre la t ion of rm.051 is s igni f icant a t the p.05 level , and a corre la t ion of rm.067 i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s igni f icant a t the p.01 level. It should be noted, however, tha t the Q .5 sununary answer explained only 37% of the variance i n the 11-item annoyance sca le scores. Likewise, answers t o even Q.22F, which has a somewhat higher correlat inn, e x p l a i ~ ~ e d only 45% of che variance i n the 11-item scale scores. The regression equations for the Pearson correlat ions are:
Since our actual calculations indicate tha t there are no substantial differences i n parametric and non-parametric correlat ions for our data, and since multiple correla- t ions require parametric techniques, only parametric data w i l l usually be presented i n t h i s report.
When the emmated scale score i s divided by the number of items (11) t o make i t a comparable 0-4, f ive point scale, the mean annoyance for a11 subjects was 1.67. The overal l mean annoyance score for Q.5 was 2.93 and for 4.22 was 2.89. A "to' t e s t of these means clearly establishes the s t a t i s t i c a l significance of the differences between the suom~ated and single annoyance questions. The "t" value for the Q .5 comparison was 25.83 and for 4.22 comparison was 25.63. It should be noted tha t the average sunmated annoyance score produces less var ia t ion i n response than the single questions.
For t h i s s i ze sample, a "t" value of 1.96 i s s igni f icant a t the p.05 l eve l and a value of 2.58 is s igni f icant a t the p.01 level . When a correlat ion coeff ic ient i s not s igni f icant , i t w i l l be so s ta ted; otherwise i t may be assumed t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s igni f icant .
D. Relationship of Summated Aircraf t Annoyance and other Emotional Responses
In the course of the interview, questions were asked about mot ione l feel ings about non-aircraft items. Answers t o f ive of these items are compared below:
I n general, correlat ions with other emotional responses a re f a i r l y law, i n com- parison t o the correlat ion between a i r c r a f t annoyance and speci f ic fear of a i r c r a f t crashes.
1. Dangerous t r a f f i c conditions - Item 6 of 4.5 was degree of d ie l ike of dangerous t r a f f i c . The corre la t ion with a i r c r a f t annoyance is ru.12 which is eig- n i f icant. The non-parametric correlat ion is r m . 1 1 . The ' I t " value was 7.67, c lear ly indicat ing the differences i n the two means.
2. Unsafe t o walk a t ninht - Item 7 of Q.5 dea l t with danger of walking a t night. The correlat ion with a i r c r a f t annoyance is rs.45. The non-parametric cor- r e l a t ion is rm.44. The "t" value i s 19.04, establishing the difference i n means.
3. S tar t led o r frightened by cars , tr..cks o r motorcycle noise - one of the sub-parts is:
D. How much does the noise from (item) s t a r t l e o r fr ighten you? (use Degree Scale)
The correlat ion between cars and trucks with a i r c r a f t noise annoyance
the two
On 4.22,
is ro.22, and r-. 23 with motorcycles. Both of these correlat ions, while s igni f icant , a r e leas than other answers d i rec t ly re la ted t o a i r c r a f t . The "t" values a re a l so c l ea r ly signif icant . The value for cars and trucks i s 27.51 and 18.50 for motorcycles.
4. General noise sensitivity - 4.41 of the interview, towards the very end of the questionnaire was a s follows:
"Yes" answers t o a i r c r a f t annoyance is "t" value is 35.11.
Now here's a d i f ferent kind of question. I have a list of noises which sometimes annoy people. Do these ever annoy you when you hear them? (= l i s t ) F i r s t : -
............... The noise of a lawn mower ............... A dripping faucet ............... A dog barking continuously The sound of a knife scraping on a p la te ............... ............... Somebody whistling out of tune ............... Chalk scraping a blackboard ............... A pneumatic d r i l l o r a i r hammer A banging door ............... ............... Musical instruments i n pract ice Typewriters ...............
t h i s question comprise a 10-point scale. The correlat ion with only r1.03, not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s igni f icant relat ionship. The
5. Overall sa t i s fac t ion with community - A s previously noted, Q . l opemed with rr 5-point ra t ing of overal l s a t i s fac t ion or d iesa t i s fac t ion with the community.
The ac tua l question was:
1. The f i r s t question is: In general, how do you l i k e l i v i n g i n t h i s pa r t o f (name of area)? Do you r a t e i t a s an ex- ce l l en t , good, f a i r , poor, o r very poor place t o l i v e ?
Excellent .......... 1 ............... Good 2 ............... Fa i r 3 Poor ............... 4 Very poor .......... 5 Don't know ........ X Office use .......... Y
The co r re l a t ion with a i r c r a f t annoyance i s rP.12, i.e. the poorer the ove ra l l ra t ing , the grea te r the a i r c r a f t annoyance.
This r e l a t i onsh ip is reaffirmed by the sca l e obtained by combining anewers t o the 11 d i r e c t questions included i n 4.5. A maximum d i s l i k e score of 44 can be re - ported on ch is ove ra l l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n sca le . The co r re l a t ion with a i r c r a f t annoy- ance is r=.52, and the "t" value is 21.62, ind ica t ing d i f f e r e n t means. The cor re la - t i on between the answer t o Q . l and the combined 11-item index is ra.28, with a "t" value o f 44, f o r comparable means.
I n e a r l i e r research, s imi l a r findings suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y cf a "transposi- t i on effect1'. The more people d i s l i k e many things about t h e i r conmunities, about which they may f e e l powerless, the more they may transpose these h o s t i l e fee l ings against a i r c r a f t noise, which many f e e l can be reduced.
6. Fear of a i r c r a f t - On 4.22, degree of s t a r t l e o r f r i g h t f r m a i r c r a f t noiee was reported. The co r re l a t ion with a i r c r a f t noise annoyance is r1.61, i.e. a i r c r a f t noiee annoyance is very highly associated with fear bf a i r c r a f t . Voluntary cclaments recorded by interviewers c l ea r ly a t t e s t t o the intense fee l ings of f ea r by highly annoyed res idents . The "t" value i s 3.08 beyond the p.01 leve l .
The cor re la t ion between the summated fear index (4 questions described i n Section B) i s even grea te r , rm.73, the highest s ing le cor re la t ion between a i r c r a f t noise annoyance and any other var iable . The "t" value calculated on comparable means i s 6.86, es tab l i sh ing the d i f fe rence between the means.
E. Relationehips between Annoyance with Ai rc ra f t Noise and other Behavioral React ions
1. Health e f f e c t s - After the 11-item question on a c t i v i t i e s a f fec ted by a i r c r a f t noise, 4.25 was asked: "How harmful do you f e e l the a i rp lane noiee is t o your heal th?" The co r re l a t ion between answers t o t h i s hea l th question and a i r c r a f t annoyance was very high, rr.65. A "t" t e s t indicated no s ign i f i can t d i f fe rence be- tween the means. It should be emphasized tha t whether o r nor t h e i r hea l th was ac tua l ly adversely a f fec ted , i f r e s iden t s believed there was a heal th e f f e c t , t h e i r annoyance with a i r c r a f t noise was greater .
About ha l f of a l l respondents s a id they believed a i r c r a f t noise war harmful t o t h e i r heal th . These res idents were then asked, "In what way i s a i r c r a f t noiee harmful t o your heal th?" Over ha l f (552) eaid it makes them more tense, over a t h i r d (35%) eaid i t af fec ted t h e i r hearing, and about 7% sa id it disturbed s leep, made them f e a r f u l o r had o ther non-auditory hea l th e f f e c t s such a s hea r t beats f a s t e r , take p i l l s t o calm down, causes l o s s of appet i te .
2. Complaint a c t i v i t i e s - On Question 6 of the interview, 57% of the re- spondents volunteered tha t a i r c r a f t noise was the "one thing d is l iked mostm, 43% e i the r disl iked stnnething e l s e more or disl iked nothing very much. A l l respondents who disl iked one thing most, were asked:
Q.8 A. Did you o r anyone i n the family ever fee l l i k e doing ........ something about ( i t being, having thing dis- liked most) ? For example, did you ever f e e l l ike:
B. Did you
Discussing it with a friend o r neighbor? ......... Writing o r telephoning an o f f i c i a l about i t ? ..... Visit ing an o f f i c i a l ? ........ Signing a pe t i t ion? ........ Getting i n touch with a local neighborhood organization? ........ Helping t o s e t up a committee t o do some- thing? ........ Doing something e l s e ? What? ........
or anyone i n your family ever ac tual ly do any of these things? (Which?)
The correlat ion between desir ing t o complain expressed on Question 8 and a i r c r a f t noise annoyance was rn.47. For those who had not mentioned a i r c r a f t noise a s the most disl iked thing on Question 6, Question 31, which was ident ica l t o Question 8, was asked a f t e r a l l a i r c r a f t ac t iv i ty questions were answered. The corre la t ion between desir ing t o complain and a i r c r a f t noise annoyance for t h i s second group of respondents was ~ ~ ' 6 2 , higher than the f i r s t group. This suggests tha t the preceding detai led speci f ic questions might have influenced the answers t o the l a t e r question.
It is s igni f icant , however, tha t the corre la t ion between a i r c r a f t noise annoyance and ac tual complaints, answers t o par t B of Question 8 and Question 31, for the f i r s t group was rm.40 and rm.44 for the second group. While the reported desire t o cam- p la in was somewhat more related t o annoyance i n the second group, the actual behavior was about the earat. The mean a i r c r a f t noise annoyance for the f i r s t group (4.8) vas 2.11, which was higher than the mean annoyance of 1.28 reported for the second group (Q.31). The "t" value wa8 13.50 c lear ly establishing the difference between the means.
3. Resident's noise ra t ing of area - On Question 21, a l l respondents were asked, "On the whole, how rroiay would you r a t e t h i s neighborhood?" (scores 0-4). It should be noted tha t a l l preceding questions were i n the context of general problems and t h i s was the f i r s t of a s e r i e s of d i rec t probes about d i f f e ren t speci f ic noise sources. The corre la t ion with a i r c r a f t noise annoyance was r1.46, and the "to' score was 8.09, indicating differences between the means. It i s in te res t ing tha t t h i s se l f acrseemnt of general noise level had a higher correlat ion with a i r c r a f t annoyance than the compoaite noise index, CNR, which was only rr.32.
4. Time exposed t o noise - Some people believe tha t one can learn t o l i v e with a11 kinds of environmental insu l t s , given enough time t o get used t o them. Hw- ever, when length of residence i n the area was correlated with a i r c r a f t annoyance, eignif icant relat ionship was found; the correlat ion coefficient was only r--.001. The ' I t " value was 47.79,* c lear ly establishing the difference i n means.
** Wo aaterieke designate that r e s u l t s of a t e s t of s t a t i s t i c a l significance was a t the p.01 level .
A l l rerpondents were a l s o arked a screening question a t the beginning of the in- terview, about how long they were a t harae during the previous two months, June m d July. h e co r r e l a t ion between weeks a t hame and annoyance was not s i g n i f i c a n t , rm.02. This finding, however, m y be questionable because of the skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n of time a t home. Almort 75% of the reeid-.nts were home a l l the time, and only 5% were away three o r more weeks.
5. Desire t o move o r s e l l house - About ha l f of a l l respondents eaid t h a t they f e l t l i k e moving and a i r c r a f t noise i s the reason given by about one-third of the c lose and middle dis tance r e s iden t s and 10% of the more d i s t a n t residents . The cor re la t ion between a i r c r a f t noise being the reason for des i r ing t o move and a i r c r a f t annoyance is r1.43. A non-parametric "point by s e r i a l " correlat ior . was iden t i ca l t o the Pearson cor re la t ion . The "t" value was 45.01**.
For those r e r iden t r interviewed for the f i r s t time i n August 1972, Question 57 was asked of a l l home owners: "If a responsible agency found you a su i t ab l e house i n a qu ie te r loca t ion and paid you a f a i r market p r i ce fo r your present h o ~ e e , do you think you d e f i n i t e l y would be in t e re s t ed i n moving, t h a t you might but you a r e not sure o r t h a t you probably would not , o r d e f i n i t e l y would not consider moving?" The cor re la t ion between des i r e t o s e l l and a i r c r a f t annoyance was r1.31, highly s i g n i f - i can t . The "t" value was 9.3*.
6 . Importance of av ia t ion - Whether a person has been a passenger i n an a i rp lane during the pas t year has a small but s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ign i f i can t negative cor- r e l a t i o n with reported a i r c r a f t noise annoyance, r=-.09, 1.e. i f he has not been a passenger and had no benef i t s from a i r c r a f t , he l a l i k e l y t o be more annoyed with the r e r i d e n t i a l noise produced by a i r c r a f t .
Question 37 of the interview, which followed the de t a i l ed a i r c r a f t noise quer- t i on r , asked:
H o w important do you f ee l conmercial a i rp lanes a r e t o the na t iona l welfare? (use Degree Scale) How Important do you f ee l they e r e t o t h i s conwmity? And how important do you f ee l commercial a i rp lanes a r e t o your own family and fr iends?
Aircraf t noise annoyance i s negatively correlated w i t h anewers t o a l l th ree of the above questions, The l e s s Important the respondent f ee l s commercial a i rp lanes a r e t o the na t iona l welfare, the more annoyed he says he is ( r=- . l l ) . The co r re l a t ion i s even grea te r i f the res ident f ee l s av ia t ion i s Important t o h i s corarmnity o r t o h i 8 own family and fr iends. Responses t o Par t B o f Question 37 have a co r r e l a t ion of r--.20, the "t" value was 7.07*, and Per t C, a co r r e l a t ion of r=-.21. Apparently, i f a res ident sees pos i t ive advantages t o the primary mission of the noise source, he is l ee s l i ke ly t o be annoyed, It should be noted, however, t h a t these cor re la - t ions a r e not too large.
7. Belief t ha t persons i n some ways responsible for operat ions of a i r c r a f t a r e misfeasant - Question 36 of the interview asked:
Would you say any of these people are in a position to do anything about the aircraft noise around here? *Ask &h item in "A" before asking "8"-"C" for each "YES" in "A". How concerned would you way (item) are for the feelings and comfort of realdents like yourself (Use Degree Scale). How much do you feel they are actually doing to reduce the noise? (Use Degree Scale)
a. The b. The c. The d. The e. The f. The
.......... people who run the airlines .......... airport officials .......... other government officials pilots .......... ......... designers and makers of airplanes .......... conmunity leaders
The anevers to Part C, as previously described, were combined into a scale of misfeasance, i.e. the resident feels those responsible can do something to reduce the noise but are not doing as much as they possibly~could. The correlation between air- craft noiee annoyance and the feeling of misfeasance is rm.32.
8. Use of airconditioners - Towards the end of the rnterview, factual ques- tions were asked about airconditioning in the house. The relatimehips of the use of airconditioning and aircraft annoyance are not great. The use in the living room, dining room or kitchen are not significantly correlated with annoyance. Only in the use in the bedroom is the correlation statistically significant but small, r1.05.
F. Socio-Economic and other Personal Characteristics of Residents
There are smell negative correlatLons between aircraft annoyance and education, income and #ex. The correlation coefficients are rr.06* for education, r=-.05* for income andr=-.09*for sex. This suggests that people who are women, less educated, and with lower incomes are more annoyed. It is likely that the correlation with sex ie due to women more often being home all day and more expose'd to noise, while men are usually away during the day. The correlation with age is not at all signiFicant. The correlations with education and income are also probably confounded by the spe- cific locations of education and income groups. The correlations between distance from airport and education and income of residents are rm.12 (po.001) and rm.10 (p.001), i.e. the higher educated and wealthier residents live further away in quieter areas. The correlations between CNR levels end these personal characteristics are about the same as the coefficients for distance.
The regression equations for eelected status characteristics are:
Education = y = .01X + 12.5 Income = y -$175X + $12,420
G. Comparison of Mean Annoyance Responses for June-July and August-Sept. 1972
The correlation between average aircraft noise annoyance reported for the June- July period of exposure and annoyance for the August-September period is quite high; r . 7 A "t" test of the two means produced a score of t-1.26, indicating no signif- icant difference between the two annoyance means. It is interesting to note that the weighted mean UiR index of aircraft noise exposure also remained about the same for the two time perioda, dropping only 0.7 from 124.0 to 123.3. The average CNR hdex clas calculated by weighting the computed CNR for each of the eleven sample cfnanrun- itids by the number of reepondents interviewed in each conmnrnity.
Another number of operat ions - annoyance comparison was made. Since the a i r c r a f t mix is not too d i f f e r e n t from one sample coannunity Lo another, and s ince annoyance with approach and departure operat ionr a r e about the rame, the weighted t o t a l number o f a i r - c r a f t operat ions was computed f o r the two t h e periods a s an index of exporure. The similarity i n rnnoyance responses for both approach and landing operat ionr was faund i n laboratory judgements g/ anu by interview responses (Section L of repor t ) . This ca l - cu la t ion gives equal weight for each day and n ight f l i g h t operat ion i n con t r a s t t o the CM which combine f l i g h t s logari thmical ly and has a 10:l night-day weight. The weighted number of operat ions i n June-July was 7604 o r an average hourly r a t e of 5.19. The weighted number of operat ions (by number of respondents) for August-September was 7258 o r an average hourly r a t e of 4.96, and 4.49. l e s s thcn June-July. In comparison, the average mean annoyance response dropped 3.7%, almost the same a s t o t a l operat ions, from 1.694 i n June-July t o 1.632 i n August-September. The ca lcu la t ions for these com- parisons a r e shown on Page 43.
He Comparison of Annoyance reported for d i f f e r e n t time. periods
For the f i r s t time, respondents i n a comwnity annoyance survey were asked t o r e - port on t h e i r fee l ings of annoyance during d i f f e r e n t time periods, permit t ing a pos- s i b l e d i r e c t comparison of reported e f f e c t s of day-night exposures. Bach r e s iden t was asked on quest ions 46-49, towards the end o f the interview, t o summarize h i s a i r c r a f t noise annoyance f ee l i ngs for the June-July exposures. F i r s t , respondents were asked i f they were ueual ly a t home during 'hos t" of ecch time period, and i f they were, they asked "haw much the noise from the a i rp lanes bothers o r annoys you during the (day from 7:00 AM t o 7:00 PM, evening from 7:00 PM t o 11:OO PM, o r n igh ts from 1 1 : O O PM t o 7:OO AM) .I1
The first comparieons presented i n Table 12 a r e between ansvers of d i f f e r e n t numbers o f respondents who a r e a t home a t d i f f e r e n t times. The summated annoyance (11 a c t i v i t i e s ) is cor re la ted with the annoyance reported for each time period. Each of the co r r e l a t i ons and "t" t e s t s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the p.01 l e v e l , ind ica t ing consistency of annoyance responses. Surpris ingly the mean annoyances fo r evenings and weekends a r e g rea t e r than fo r night o r day. The average f o r the four time per iods represents those persons, usua l ly women, who reported being usua l ly a t home a l l the time.
Table 12
Time Period
Average for 4 time per iods
Day
Evening
Night
weekends
Comparison of Summated Annoyance and Annoyance Reported fo r Different Time Periods
Number Average Average Correlat ion Respondents Summated Annoyance for Coeff ic ient
Annoyance time ~ e r i o d
W t "
Score
The second comparisons a r e fo r reepondents who a r e usua l ly a t home during a l l th ree time per iods; day, evening and night . The co r r e l a t i ons a r e high fo r a l l comparisons,
CA
LCU
IATI
ON
S O
F W
E IC
HT
ED
MEA
N O
PER
ATU
lNS
A.
Jun
e-J
uly
1
97
2
Fli
gh
t N
umbe
r O
PE
LA
TI
ON
S
BY
T
IM
E
PERIOD
pa
th
exp
ose
d
NI
GH
T
-
DA
Y
EV
EN
IN
G
TO
TA
L
Res
po
nd
ents
W
ei~
hte
A
ctu
al
Wei
gh
ted
A
ctu
al
Wei
gh
ted
A
ctu
al
Wei
gh
ted
A
ctu
al
Wei
gh
ted
To
tals
1
46
5
100.
00
16
05
.L/
4480
.- 1 /
15
19
.- 76
04 .L
/ 1 /
No.
Hours
549
732
18
3
14
64
Mea
n H
ou
rly
Op
era
tio
ns
2.92
6.
12
8.30
5.
19
Be
Au
gu
st-S
epte
mb
er
19
72
To
tals
1
46
5
10
0 -0
0
1522
.A/
No.
H
our8
54
9
Mean
Hou
rly
Op
era
tio
ns
2.77
1/ rounded
to n
ea
rest
wh
ole
nu
mbe
r -
"
but it i e s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e r e i s a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n of annoyance, w i t h evening and day exposures producing more average annoyance than n i g h t time a c t i v i t y .
Table 13 -- Comparison o f Annoyance Reported f o r D i f f e r e n t Time Per iods
f o r Respondents u s u a l l y Home a l l t h e Time
Number Mean Cor re la t ion II t II Time Per iods Respondent8 Annoyance C o e f f i c i e n t --- Score -- Day vs . Evening 1103 2.16 vs . 2.76 .73 9.66
Day vs . Night 1109 2.16 vs . 1.95 .62 3.29 (p.01)
Evening vs . Night 1684 2.70 vs . 1.88 . 65 15.77
The t h i r d comparisons shown i n T a b l e 1 4 a r e f o r repor ted evening and n igk t time annoyance f o r r e s i d e n t s a t home dur ing t h e day o r no t a t home dur ing t h e day. Resi- den t s who a r e a t home dur ing the day a s w e l l a s evening o r n i g h t , genera l ly r e p o r t somewhat g r e a t e r annoyance dur ing the evening and n igh t pe r iods than those who a r e a t home only dur ing t h e evening and n i g h t . While these annoyance d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a l l s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Rreater cumulative exposure produces g r e a t e r annoyance, t h e abso lu te d i f fercnces a r e no t Large.
Table 1 4
Comparison of Evening and Night time Annoyance by Residents a t Home o r no t a t Home During the Day
Time Period - !! ' nnoyance "t" Score
A t Home Not a t Home Day Day -
Evening 2.75 2.55 2.84 (p.01)
Night 1.93 1 .65 3.90 (p.01)
Since the number of a i r c r a f t opera t ions dur ing t h e day a r e g r e a t e r than a t n i g h t time, a four th comparison shown i n Table 15 was made of repor ted mean annoyances f o r d i f f e r e n t time per iods and the weighted hour ly average number of opera t ions f o r each period. While n i g h t time opera t ions a r e only 359, of eveninc: o r 48% of day time a c t i v - i t y , t h e repor ted mean annoyance dur ing t h e n igh t i s 71% of evening and 90% of t h e day time repor ted annoyance. This suggests t h a t each n i g h t time f l i ~ h t has t h e equiv- a l e n t annoyance e f f e c t o f 2 day o r evening f l i g h t s . I n most composite no i se indexes i n c u r r e n t use. The weight i s 1 O : l o r g r e a t e r . Our d a t a suggest t h i s r a t i o i s much too high.
Table 1 5
Comparison of Number o f Average Hourly A i r c r a f t Operations and Reported Average Annoyance f o r D i f f e r e n t Time Per iods i n June-July 1972
T I M E P E R I O D - Night Day Evening
Operations pe r hour 2792 6.12 8.30 % Day 48% 1009. 136% % Evening 35% 747. 100%
Mean Annoyance 2 Day % Evening
I. Can~ar i ron of Reported Annoyance by Sleep Interference with Annoyance of Other Day Time Ac t iv i t i e r
The cor re la t ionr between degree of annoyance with reported eleep in te r fe rence and other day time a c t i v i t i e r i r very high and the meanr of s leep annoyance and annoyance with interference with other day time a c t i v i t i e s a r e not. s ign i f i can t ly d i f f e r en t . The number of rerpondentr, hewever, report ink each day ti;--activity in te r fe rence i s d i f - fe ren t , ruggerting t h a t the combined sca l e i s more comprehensive a s a measure of ove re l l a i r c r a f t noip- annoyance. Table 16 presents there findinge; the data a r e derived from anrwerr t o Q. 25.
Table 16
Campariron of An. IJyance with Sleep Interference and Annoyance with other Ac t iv i t i e s
Cornpariron of Sleep and Number Correlat ion l l t l l
Other Act iv i ty Reepondent s Mean Annoyances Coeff icient - Score S lee? Other
Listening t o Radio o r TV 693 3.16 3.30 .86 1.83
TV f l i c k e r 660 3.14 3.17 .82 .47
Rest & Relaxation 637 3.19 3.19 .90 .03
Converea t ion 697 3.16 3.30 .87 1.89
Shut windows st night 350 2.91 2.85 .94 .4?
After Q. 24, which recorded annoyance by each a c t i v i t y in te r rupted , the following e w m r y Quertion 26 was asked about s leep interference.
4.26 Now here a r e some ways t h a t people oiiy a i rp lane noise dieturba them a t night ; they a r e .....( Hand card 3 and Read) Which or;? way beat descr iber how you f e e l ?
.......... They cause no dibturbance a t a l l 1 They d i s tu rb my s leep from t h e t o ........... time but don't f u l l y awke me 2 They occassionally wake me c m p l e t e l y
but I eoon go back t o s leep ............. 3 They of ten mite me up c m p l e t e l y but
I soon go back t o s leep ................. 4 They wake me up and I have d i f f i c u l t y
going back t o s leep ..................... 5 ................................ Don' t know X
The quertionr a r e phrased 80 tha t category 5 reprerent r the prerumcd moat negative experience, The cor re la t ion between these answers t o ove ra l l degree of annoyance w i t h eleep interference (4.24) and 4.26 is only r-. 34 which muggertm t h a t even the lover ca te - Cory rerponrer 2-4 a r e rated a s more highly annoying, when rerpondentr i n t eg ra t e the kinds of mleep i n t e r ferencc .
Correlat ionr between anrwerr t o the summary s leep Quertion 26 and other personal var iab les a r e presented i n Table 17. In general, the pat tern8 of r e l a t i on rh ip r a r e s imi la r t o thore already reported for the rumaated annoyance ra t ings .
Other Variable
Table 17
Correlrtiori Coe f f i c i e n t s between Swmated Sleep Interference and Other Variebles -
Summated annoyance CNR June -July Distance from Airport Fear EFFECT on hea l th Aviation important t o Community Aviation important t o Family Age Length of Re~idence i n Area Like l i v ing i n Area Sex (Male = 1, Female 0) General Noise Sens i t i v i ty Use of Airconditioners General Sens i t i v i ty ( s e l f r a t i n g )
Correlat ion Coefficieirt
.65
.24 -.33
.63
.55 - . 20 - .I9
.18
.09 a15
0.10 not s ign i f i can t not s ign i f i can t not s ign i f i can t
J . gvaluarion of Personal Characteristics of Residents by In t ens i ty of Fear of A i rc ra f t C r ~ s h e ~
Since fear of a i r c r a f t has been found t o be one of the most important reported intervening a t t i t u d i n a l var iab les a f f e c t i n g annoyance with a i r c r a f t noise, it i e des i rab le t o determine whether ce r t a in t:ypes of people a r e more prone t o be f e a r f u l than o ther types. In t h i s ana lys is only a l imited number of demographic fac tors a r e considered.
I f eimple cross tabulat ions a r e compared, chi-square t e s t s suggest t ha t persons with high fear a r e more of ten older women, with l e s s education and lower income, l i v - ing close t o the a i r p o r t . The three fear groups used i n t h i s ana lys is a r e based on the 16-point acs le discussed i n sec t ion B and were defined a s follows:
f e a r g r o u p - scale scores -- -
low mcdium high
Table 18 prpsents these cross tabulat ions. Since fear i s cor re la ted with noise exposure l eve l (dis tance r = - .385), and s i cce most of these demographic va r i ab l e s i n the samples of rea idents a r e a l s o cor re la ted with noise exposure, it i s necessary t o examine the re la t ionships of fear and personal var iab les under comparable noise ex- posure conditions. h'hcn t h i s is done, only sex (women more f ea r fu l ) and home owner- ship for the c loces t res idents appear t o be s ign i f i can t ly r e l a t ed t o fear . Education, income and age a r e not s ign i f i can t ly d i f f e r e n t among the d i f f e r en t f ea r groups l i v i n g under comparable noise exposures. These data a r e shown i n Table 19.
Fear of a i r c r a f t is a l s o highly cor re la ted with fee l ings tha t hea l th is adversely a f fec ted r - 6 and t h a t s leep i s se r ious ly interrupted ( r - .63). Marc moder- a t e but aign? f i can t cor re la t ions a l s o e x i s t between fear and fee l ings of misfeasance (r = . 3O) , with negative w e r a l l fee l ings about the conamrnitv ( r =. 14) with fee l ings tha t the a i r p o r t has no great importcrnce t o the community ( r = - .I61 o r t o the responti- c n t ' s family ( r = -.19) and with whether the respondent ha?: flown an a i rp lane i n the pas t 1 2 months ( r = .15). Cencral noise s e n s i t i v i t y i s nor: s ign i f i can t ly cor re la ted with fear ( r = -.01), and not a t a l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t ed t o a s e l f r a t i n g of general senei- t i v i t y , o r of length of reaidtnce i n the a r e s .
TABLE 18
Inten8i ty of Fear of A i r c r a f t Crashes by Personal Cha rac t e r i s t i c s of Residents
A . A s F E A R G R , 3 U P Low Med ium High Tota l
Year8 - N-352 N487 N-90 1 N-1740
Total 100 .OX 100 .OX 100.0% 100.0%
c h i square 10.894 (low v s . high) s i g n i f i c a r r t l eve l .05
B. Sex N=367
f ema le 6 4 . 9 % 66.1% 74 .O% 70.0% male 35.1 3 3 . 9 26 .O - - 30.6 - Tota l 100.0% 100 .O% 100.07. 100.0%
c h i square 10.923 (low vs . high) s ign i f icance leve l .O1
C. Distance from A i r -
Closc(1 mile from a i r - por t ) 20.5% 28.8% 52.17, 41.87.
Middle (2.5 miles from a i r p o r t ) 19.0 23 .O 26.0 2 4 . 3
Distant (5 miles from a i r p o r t ) 60.5 - 48.2 - 21.9 - 33.9
Total l. 00.0% 100 .OX 100.07. 100.0%
c h i square 171.80 r ign i f icance l eve l . C 1
TABLE 18 (Cant.)
D. Education Low Medium High N=366 N=508 Ne974
Total N=1848
0-4 Grade 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 5-6 Grade 1.7 0.6 2.5 7.8Grade 6.3 7.9 8.9 1-3 H.S. 10.9 12.6 17.2 4 y r . H.S. 36.6 42.9 46.5 1 - 3 c o l . 21.3 15.7 12.2 4 y r . col. 23.2 - 19.7 11.6
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ch i square 71.58 s ignif icance l eve l .O1
E. Own o r Rent N=367 N=506 N=980
own 86.1% 86. '% 86.9% r e n t 13.9 13.8 13.1
Total 100.0% 100.0% 200.0%
ch i square .25 signif icance l eve l - not s fgn i f i can t
F. Income N=321 N=429
Total 100 .O% 100.0% 100 .O%
c h i square 38.67 s ignif icance leve l . O 1
TABLE 19
Intensity of Fear of Aircraft Crashes by Personal Characteristics and Location of Residents
A. Age F E A R G R O U P 1, Close distance (1 mile from airport)
Low Medium High Total Years - Nu40 N=115 N 4 5 3 N=608
Total 100 .O% 100 .O% 100.0% 100 .O':
chi square 11.1 significance level - not significant
2. Middle distance (2.5 miles from airport)
Years - N=41 N=99 N=239 N=379
Total 100.0% 100 .O% 100.0% 100.0%
chi square 10.5 significance level - not significant
3. Distant distance (5 miles from airport)
Years - N=109 N=196 N=18S N9493
Total 100.0% 100 .OX 100.0% 100. OX
chi square 12.3 significance level - not significant
TABLE 19 (Cont.1
B. Sex 1. Cloae dis tance (1 mile from a i r p o r t )
F E A R G R O U P Low Medium High Total N-40 N=121 N5486 b 6 4 7
female 60.0% 56.2% 75.1% 70.6% male - 40.0 - 43.8 24.9 - 29.4
To ta l 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ch i equare 17.5 s igni f icance l eve l . O 1
2. Middle dis tance (2.5 miles from a i r p o r t )
f e m l e 64.4% 69.7% 74.3% 72.1% male - 35.6 -- 30.3 25.7 - 27.9
Total 100.0% 100.02 100.0% 100 .O%
ch i square 2.3 s igni f icance l eve l - not s ign i f i can t
3. Distant dis tance (5 miles from a i r p o r t )
f ema l e 63.6% 69.0% 71.1% 68.6% male - 36.4 - 31 .O - 28.9 - 31.4
Total 100 .O% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
SO.
ch i square 2.0 s igni f icance l eve l - not s ign i f i can t
C. Education 1. Close d i s tance
Low N=40
0-4 Grade 0 .O% 5-6 Grade 5.0 7-8 Grade 17.5 1-3 H . S . 15.0 4 yr . H.S. 45.0 1-3 Col. 10.0 4 yr. Col. 7.5
Tota l 100.0%
TABLE 19 (Cont.)
(1 mile from a i r p o r t )
F E A R G R O U P Medium High N o 1 20 Na484
Tota l Nu644
1.1% 2.2 9.8
19.3 50.9 10.2
6.5 - 100.0%
c h i square 12.1 s igni£icance l eve l - not s i g n i f i c a n t
2. Middle d i s tance (2.5 miles from a i r p o r t )
0-4 Grade 0.0% 0 .O% 1.9% 1.29. 5-6 Grade 4.4 0.0 2.6 2.1 7-8 Grade 8.9 12 .O 9.7 10.2 1-3 H . S . 13.3 11.1 17.9 15.7 4 yr. H.S. 35.6 34.3 34.7 34.7 1-3 Col. 22.2 13.0 13.4 14.2 4 yr. Col. 15.6 - 29.6 - 19.8 - 21.9
Tota l 100.0% 100 .O% 100.0% 100.0%
c h i square 16.4 s ign i f icance l eve l - not s i g n i f i c a n t
3. Distant d i s tance (5 miles from a i r p o r t )
0-4 Grade 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 5-6Grade 0.9 0 . F 2.5 1.4 7-8 Grade 5.1 7.4 6.5 6.5 1-3 H . S . 12.8 10.8 10.9 11.3 4 yr. H.S. 34.2 47.3 50.3 45.5 1-3 Col. 25.6 15.8 15.9 18.0 4 yr. Col. 21.4 17.7 13.4 - 16.9
Tota l 100.0% 200.0% 100.0% 100.09.
c h i square 16.8 s ign i f icance l eve l - not s i g n i f i c a n t
TABLE 19 (Cont.)
D. Own o r Rent 1. Close dis tance ( 1 mile from a i r p o r t )
Low F E A R G R O U P Medium High Total
awn 67.5% 82.1% 87.7% 85.4% r e n t 32.5 12.3 14.6 - 17.9 -- -- Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ch i square 13.8 s igni f icance leve l . O 1
2. Middle dis tance (2.5 miles from a i r p o r t )
own 66.7% 78.0% 80.7% 78.5% r e n t 33.3 - 22.0 - 19.3 - 21.5 - Total 100.0% 100 .O% 100.0% 100.07.
ch i square 4.5 s igni f icance leve l - not s ign i f i can t
3. Distant dis tance (5 miles from a i rpo r t )
own 87.3% 88.2% 92.2% 89.5% r e n t 12.7 - 11.8 - 7.8 10.5 - Total 100.0% 100.0% 100 .O% 100.0%
c h i square 2.5 s ignif icanco l eve l - not s ign i f i can t
E. Income
TABLE 19 (Cont.)
F E A R G R O U P
1. Close distance (1 mile from airport)
Low Medium High Total Nu33 N=lOO N-419 Nu552
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100 .O% 100.0%
chi square 6.5 significance level - not significant
2. Middle distance (2.5 miles from airport)
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
chi square 6.2 significance level - not significant
3. Distant distance (5 miles from airport)
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100 .O%
chi square 10.3 significance level - not significant
K.. Reported Annoyance with A i r c r a f t Noise by Conmrunities
Ae previously described i n Sect ion A , eleven sample a reas were used i n t h i s sur- vey. A s Table 20 ind ica tes , there a r e four comparable noise exposure groupings of these sample a reas . Areas 1-3 had a June-July noise exposure of CNR 135-136; a reas 4-6 a CNR exposure of 125-128, a reas 7-8 a (;NR exposure of about 119, and a reas 9-11 a CNR expo- sure of 110-114. Table 14 compares the means of these 11 areas and the "t" scores which ind ica te whether o r not the means a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . A s ing le a s t e r i s k (*) designates s ign i f icance a t the p.05 l eve l ; a double a s t e r i s k (*) designates the p.01 leve 1.
In general, where the CNR di f fe rences a r e l e s s than 6 , the reported mean annoyances may o r may not be d i f f e r en t . For CNR di f fe rences g rea t e r than 6, they a r e usua l ly d i f - fe ren t , but i n a number of comparisons c i t e d below, a r e not d i f f e r e n t . CNR by i t s e l f appears t o be an unre l iab le pred ic tor of annoyance.
I n comparing a reas 1-3, no d i f fe rences i n mean annoyance a r e found. Likewise, annoyance i n Area 1 is d i f f e r e n t from annoyances i n a reas 5 and 7-11, but not d i f f e r e n t from Area 4 (CNR di f fe rence of 7.5) and Area 6 (CNR d i f fe rence of 10.2). Area 2 r e - po r t s about the same annoyance a s Area 4 (CM di f fe rence of 8.5), Area 5 (CNR d i f f e r - ence of 10.1) and Area 6 (CNR di f fe rence of 10.8). Area 3 r epo r t s the same annoyance as Area 4 (CNR difference of 8.4), but a higher annoyance with a l l o ther lower CNR r a t ed areae.
Xn comparing Areas 4-6, although CNR l eve l s a r e only 1 - 2 po in ts d i f f e r e n t , annoy- ance i s d i f f e r e n t i n Areas 4 and 5 and 4 and 6 ; only Areas 5 and 6 a r e the same i n mean annoyance leve ls . Area 4 annoyance is a l s o d i f f e r e n t frcm a l l o ther lower CNR exposed areas, a s . i s Area 6 annoyance, but Area 5 r epor t s the same annoyance a s Area 9 (CNR di f fe rence of 12.3).
Comparisons of annoyance r epor t s i n Areas 7-8, ind ica te no d i f fe rence between them, but Area 7 has s ign i f i can t ly l e s s annoyance than Areas 1-6, which have g rea t e r CNR ex- posures and no d i f fe rences i n annoyance with Areas 9-11 which have subs t an t i a l l y lower CNR l eve ls . Likewise, Area 8 r epo r t s no d i f fe rence with annoyance i n Areas 9 and 10, but g rea t e r annoyance than r e s iden t s i n Area 11.
Last ly , i n comparing Areas 9-11, Areas 9 and 10 have about the same annoyance, but repor t s ign i f i can t ly more annoyance than Area 11.
Area -
* 2
3 4 5 6 7 8
9
10
11
June
Ju
ly
mR -
13
5.1
13
6.1
136 .O
12
7.6
12
5.9
12
5.3
11
9.3
11
8.9
11
3.6
11
4.2
11
0.1
Mean
Annoy-
ance
23.9
23.0
25.4
24
.2
20.0
21.5
14
.1
15
.7
16
.7
14
.5
11
.5
Number
Respond-
ents
12
3
TABLE
20
"t"
Test Scores for Comparisons of Mean Annoyance
of ~ifferent Areas
* p =
.0
5 =
"t"
va
lue
of
1.9
6
or m
ore
* p
P .Of
= 'It1' v
alu
e of
2.5
8 or m
ore
AR
EA
4
5 6
.20
2.0
6*
1.8
0
.63
1.3
1
.82
.82
2.
92*
3.06
**
- 2.
29*
2.1
5*
- .83 -
7 5. O
O*
3.80
*
5.92
**
5.30**
2.62**
4.03
**
-
11
9.16
-
6.18
-
11 .o
o*
10.
oo**
4.85
**
8.6
5+
*
1.4
1
3.16
**
3.88
*
2.
LO*
C o r r e l a t i o n Analyses o f A i r c r a f t Operat ions and Se lec ted Human Response Var iab les
1. Objec t iveo - The summated annoyance index c a l c u l a t e d from anowere on oach in te rv iew l a a n i n t e g r a t e d human response t o l i t e r a l l y hundreds o f thousands o f d i f f e r e n t f lyover exposures. S m e h w , t h e human b r a i n is a b l e t o weight t h e s e vary- i n g p h y s i c a l parameters and r e p o r t a genera l annoyance response. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s e ana lyses is to a t tempt through c o r r e l a t i o n techniques , t o a s c e r t a i n t h e r e l a t i v e importance of some of t h e va ry ing components o f a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s on genera l a i r - c r a f t annoyance and o t h e r s e l e c t e d r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s .
S e c t i o n A o f P a r t 1x1 p r e s e n t s t h e d e t b l l s of t h e va ry ing f l i g h t o p e r a t i o n s dur- ing each time pe r iod f o r which annoyance responses were recorded. I f only a i r c r a f t types 1-6, which inc lude a l l t h e l a r g e r a i r c r a f t , a r e considered, almost 55,000 a r r i v - e l s and d e p a r t u r e s occurred dur ing June-July 1972 over t h e 7 f l i g h t p a t h s s t u d i e d . Of t h c t o t a l , 35,600 were a r r i v a l s and almost 19,000 were departures. Th i s imbalance i n types o f o p e r a t i o n s i s due t o t h e primary l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h programs f o r which t h e in te rv iews were i n i t i a l l y obta ined. The l a b o r a t o r y s tudy eva lua ted t h e e f f e c t s o f r e t r o f i t on annoyance and a c c e p t a b i l i t y judgements, a/ f o r approach o p e r a t i o n s only . Ae Table 21 i n d i c a t e s , f l i g h t p a t h s 2 and 5 wi th over 700 respondents , had n e g l i g i b l e depar tu res r epor ted . This unfor tuna tc sequence i n t h e a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f l i g h t opera t ions v i o l a t e s some of t h e ass impt ions i n Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s and pro- duces a numbcr o f spur ious e f f e c t s .
NUMBER OF FL?CHT OPERATIONS
June-July 1972
Nuinber O P E R A T I O N S F l i g h t Path Respondents T o t a l Approach Departure
7 T o t a l
2 . Operat ions by time per iod, type o f o p e r a t i o n and type o f a i r c r a f t - These a r e the t h r e e primary parameters which d e s c r i b e each a i r c r a f t f l i g h t . It was hoped t h a t when c o r r e l a t e d wi th annoyance and o t h e r hum:n response v a r i a b l e s , t h e r e l a t i v e i m - por tance O F t h e phys ica l parameters would be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . Unfor tunate ly , a s Table 22 and Table 7 7 i n d i c a t e , a l l of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e r e l a t i v e l y smal l and a l - though om.c are tati is tic ally s i g n i f i c a n t , none o f t h e parameters was s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r c a t c r t 5 m the o t h e r s . Apparentlv, t h e i n t e g r a t e d annoyance response i s not based on a simple a r i t h m e t i c weighting o f o p e r a t i o n s .
I n P a r t A o f Table 22, t h e h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n between an o p e r a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e and annoyance i s o n l y r = .12, f o r l a t e a f t e rnoon d e p a r t u r e s o f p lane type 6 (4-engine prop- e l l e r a i r c r a f t ) . Th i s is undoubtedly a not t o o meaningful s t a t i s t i c , however, s i n c e t h e r e were so few f l i g h t s o f his type o f a i r c r a f t (60), and f l i g h t p a t h s 1 , 2 and 5 had 2 such f l - ights and pa ths 6 and 7 had under 10 each dur ing the e n t i r e June-Ju ly pe r - iod. S u r p r i s i n g l y , time pe r iod 1 (n igh t time) had no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s and
X X * m m o o X X *
=3;?;:2 wi m m d a n uar*r@ r-mr-m
3 9 Y 9 ???? 9 1 ? 9
X X X dud03 X X X r - r - m a r X X X CYInrth n m r - o a r-NhCQ w h o m artvrm
X X * X r t d r n h l
m h w g 0rcdr.I
mr-et- 9 3 7 9 ? 9 ? 9 . . . . 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9
r X X m m o o * X X olnmm % d m * X ** ** m d a d n m a m r -
X t t X d CV 9 r-
(r(rDC0- S O N 4 4 O d d mat-t- 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0. " . d. " . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
X X X HI -.lag f 9 3 9 9
TABL
E 23
F. :
- &r. :
e P
erio
d
1
2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 !. 1
C) L 3 4
CO
RR
ELA
TIG
N O
F AUGUST-SE m
MBE
R O
PE
UT
ION
S AND
SEU
CT
ED
HW
AN
RES WXSE
A.
Au
gu
st
An
noy
ance
P
LA
NE
T
YP
E
B.
Fea
r !
. C40
.064
* i
.C4L
- -
039
.084**
1 -.032
.00
7
.loo*
.Ol8
.03
0
,053
" :
-03
2
plane type 1 (707 and DC-88) which i s by f a r the n o i s i e s t a i r c r a f t , d id not show higher correlation^ than the smaller and l e s s noisy a i rp lanes . While departures appear more o f t e n . t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y co r r e l a t ed with annoyance. This i s believed t o be la rge ly an a r t i f a c t of the imbalance previously noted, i n thc d i s t r i b u t i o n of departures among t.hc f l i g h t paths.
The pa t t e rn of r e l a t i onsh ips between June operat ions and August annoyance (suggest - ing possible l a g e f f ec t a ) i s s imi l a r t o the June annoyance cor re la t ions . Ftve of the r i x a r r i v a l co r r e l a t i ons , however, a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t the p.05 l eve l dur- ing the n igh t time period. Fear and misfeasance a t t i t u d e s appear t o be cor re la tcd pr imari ly with departure operat ions. Unfortunately, however, the imbalance i n frequency of a r r i v a l s and departures may be obscuring the v a l i d i t y of t h i s observation.
The cons is len t negative co r r e l a t i ons of misfeasance and operat ions a l s o k v e nc ready o r l og i ca l explanation, It may be an a r t i f a c t of the sample of communities which happen t o be included i n t h i s study. A s noted bclow, Bergen Beach (path 4) and Howard Beach (path 3). which include over ha l f the operat ions, have r e l a t i v e l y low mean mfs- feasance scores. The number of operat ions and mean misfeasance scores for a l l f l i g h t paths a re :
Number Mean Hear Fl igh t Path Number June-July Misfeasance Annoy-
Respondents Operations Score -- ance
Table 24 col lapses time of day and focuses a t t e n t i o n on plane types and type of operation. Again, none of the r o r r e l a t i o n coe f f i c i en t s a t e very g rea t , and the gcn- e r a 1 p a t t e r n of r e l a t i onsh ips remains the same a s noted above. Plane type 1 does not appear t o be more highly co r r e l a t ed with annoyance o r o ther va r i ab l e s than l e s s noisy a i r c r a f t .
Tables 25 and 26 focuses a t t e n t i o n on time period of ove r f l i gh t . There a r e no c l e a r cu t pa t t e rns of the r e l a t i v e importance of time of exposure, end none of the cor- r e l a t i o n s a r e very large.
I n an e f f o r t t o ad jus t fo r some of the sampling imbalance i n operat ions, a l l o f the responses fo r f l i g h t paths 2 and 5 were excluded, s ince they had p r a c t i c a l l y no de- par tures . I n addi t ion , plane types 5 and 6 were a l s o excluded, s ince they r e p e s e n t e d a neg l ig ib l e por t ion of a i r t r a f f i c . F ina l ly , time periods 2 and 3 were corr.bined i n t o a s ing l e daytime c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Tablcs 27-29 prere bt the . : :--elations for t h i s r e - duced, but l e s s imbalanced d i s t r i b u t i o n of a i r c r a f t exposures. In Table 27, - of the J u n e J u l y operat ions i b ~ig;niffca; i t ly co-'re- ' *yg.th suim~:,ired annoyance responses. Fear, however, appears t o be somewhat more s ign i f ica . . ~y corre:ated with n igh t time ex- posures (time period I), but not g r ea t ly d i f f e r e ~ t for d i f f e r c n i a i r c r a f t . About a t h i r d of a l l exposures a r e by a i r c r a f t type 1, and an almost equal number by a i r c r a f t type 3, and these have a s l i g h t l y higher co r r c l a t i on with f ea r , but only a t the p.05 l eve l of significance. Misfeasance i s s t i l l nega t i v c l y co r r e l a t ed w i t h number of opcr- a t ions and evening exposures appear t o he somewhat more r e l a t ed . When CNR, which i s a l og r i t hn i c index of operat ions, with a :0:1 day-nfeht weighting, i s co r r e l a t ed with June-July annoyance, the c o t r c l a t i o n i s positive, b u t equal ly small , r = . lo .
TABLE 25
NUMBER OF OPERATIONS BY TIME PERIOD AND ARRIVALS AND DEPARTUFBS
A. June-July O~erations
T I M E P E R I O D --
B. August-September Operations
June Annoy. .016 .032 Au g . Annoy. .057* .029 Fear .051 .064* Health Att. -.014 -.015
1 k D
Aug. Annoy. .067* .030 Fear .O46 .064* Health Att. .014 -.016 Misfeasance .035 -.OW**
- .039 .057* .002 .O 56*
-.024 .093* -.035 -.004
Misfcasenee - .Ol8 - .Ogl*Jr .006 - .O84- / - .O(+l - .O78** - .Ol6 - ,081::"
.a04 .072*+ 0 .077"* .010 .115** -,044 ,010
.034 .0'4*
.02f .0!,4* ,021 . 1005.* - .C25 .OO 1
TABLE 26
ORRELATION OF NUMBER OF QPERATIONS BY TIME PERIOD
June-Jnly Operations
June Annoyance .028 August Annoyance .052 Pear .069* Health Attitude - ,018 Mis feasarcc - .065*
T I M E P E R I O D
2 3 4 Total . r
I
B. August-September Operations
August Annoyance .06 2* Fear .071* Health Attitude - .001 Misfeasance -.OX
TABLE 27
CORRELATION 0 F JUNE -JULY OPERATIONS BY TIME PERIOD AND PRINCIPAL TYPES OF AIRCRAFT
P L A N E T Y P E Time Period
A. June Annoyance (N0715) A l l 1 2 3 4 Ai rc ra f t
.061 .068 .056 .066 .060 1 2 and 3 4 Tota l
B e August Annoyance (Nu598)
1 2 and 3 4 Total
C. Fear (Nm702)
1 2 and 3 4 Tota l
D. Health At t i tude (N=734)
1 2 and 3 4 Total
1 2 and 3 4 Total
E . Misfeasance (N~719)
11 excludes a reas under f l i g h t paths 2 and 5 which a r e almost exclusively approach - operations.
TABLE 28
CORRELATION OF AUGUST-SE PTEMBER OPERATIONS BY TIME PERIOD AND PRINCIPAL TYPES OF AIRCRAFT I /
P L A N E T Y P E A l l
Time Period 1 2 3 4 A i r c r a f t
A. August Annoyance (N498)
1 .117* .097* 2 and 3 .071 .035 4 ,073 .075 Tota l .083* .055
B. Fear (N=702)
1 .152* .13,6** 2 and 3 . 0 94* . C49 4 .097* .099* Total .108* . C?4*
C. Health At t i tude (N=734)
1 .OOO - .018 2 and 3 - .036 - .058 4 - .032 - .032 Total - .027 - .046
D. Misfeasance (N=7191
1 - .068 - . 080* 2 and 3 - .091* - . loo* 4 - 988* - .087* Total -, .086* - .095*
11 excludes a r ea s under f l i g h t pa ths 2 and 5, which a r e almost exclusively approach - opcratlons.
X X X * cr\o\Nrn4 d d r n 0 h P i d d O O
Table 29 e v a l u a t e s the i n t e r a c t i o n o f p lane type and opera t ion . Annoyance s t i l l appears t o be more sf g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d v i t h d e l x r t u r e o p e r a t i o n s , f o r a l l ma j o t p lane types. D i r e c t responses from the in te rv iews , however, c o n t r a d i c t t h e s e c o r r e l a - t i o n analyses . Likewise, l a b o r a t o r y judgements i n a r e c e n t experiment a l s o showed no d i f f e renccs i n annoyance judgements f o r landing and rake-off over f l i g h t s .W
Question 29 o f the in te rv iew aslced a l l rcspondents :
4.29. AF f a r a s yoa know, do a i r p l a n e s both t a k e o f f and land over t h i s a rea , o r do they on ly t ake o t f o r land over he re?
...................... Both 1* ............. Takc o f f only. 2
Land on ly .................. 3 Don't know.. ............... X
* I f answer cs "both", a sk "A" and "B" A. How annoying would you r a t e the no i se from land ings?
(use ~ e ~ r e e Sca le ) B. And ho:: anaoyiqg would aou r a t e t h e t a k e o f f s when
p lanes take o f f over here?
About 700 r e s i d e n t s r epor ted exposures o f both landings and t ake-of f s , and a chi-square test o f r epor ted annoyance responses indicated no s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e beereen t h e !mo responses. Table 30 p r e s e n t s t h e s e f ind ings .
TABLE 30
COMPARISON 0 F ANNOYANCE RESPONSES FOR TAKE-OF AND LhYDTNG OPERATIONS
Landings Annoyance Number % Response
4 3 2 1 0
T o t a l
Take-offs . T o t a l Number X %
The l a s t t e s t which was made,of whether t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a i r c r a f t oper- a t i o n s and annoyance is s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i n e a r is p resen ted i n Tables 31 aad 32. I n a l i previous t e s t s , a l though d i f f e r e n c e s i n p lanes and o p e r a t i o n s were t aken i n t o account , the r e l a t i v e loudness o f each plane was no t f u l l y recognized. A l l commun- i t i e s under the same f l i g h t path were considered equa l , even though some were c l o s e r t o the a i r p o r t than o t h e r s and, t h e r e f o r e , thc loudness of each f lyover would va ry somewhat wi th +he l o c a t i o n of t1.e community. I n t h i s t e s t the peak dBA l e v e l s o f each type of a plane was ca lculs ; .ed f o r each community. The number o f a p p r o p r i a t e opera t ions (approach and d e p a r t u r e s by rcnway) was thcn m u l t i p l i e d by the peak dBA t o d e r i v e a new a r i t h m e t i c i.ndex number of peak dBA l e v e l weighted opera t ions . Since f l i g h t paths 2 and 5 a r e almost e x c l u s i v e l y approach o p e r a t i o n s , they a r e excluded from Table 32, t o e l i m i n a t e the e f f e c t s o f t h i s imbalance. Furthermore,
ORIGINAL PAGE fS OF POOR QUALITY
I . . . .
" X X X * cp c O N r n 4 l z U 9 C O Q l d r n
,o 9 9 9 9 9 I I
Juv
e n
nn
oy
vx
e
Au.
ps t
at
lno
van
ce
Fea
r V
ea
lth
a
ttit
u,?
~
Fis
Fe
as
nn
ce
-'.X
;US
t a
iln
op
arce
%
ea
r lt
ea
lth
att
itu
de
s
Mis
fea
ssn
ce
TA
BL
E 32
CO
RR
ELA
TIO
N O
F PEAK d
U L
EV
ZL
S E
EIG
IIT
ED
BY
NUM
BER
OF
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
FOR
SE
LEC
TED
Aii
lC2A
PT
AT
SG
UC
Ei)
CO
~~
~~
XI
TI
ES
-11
A.
Jun
e-J
uly
O
pe
rati
on
s
PL
A:
;E
TYPE
-----
PL
AN
E
TY
PE
1.
2 3
To
tal
A D
T
ota
l .A
D
Ta
tal
X
3 -.-
To
tal
. A
-
To
tal
.0°2*
- .C31
- .002
- .C25
.12C*
-03
6
.117
* .0
51
.1
SO*
- ,04
2
- .00
4
- .081
* -.
07
3 -
To
tal
To
tal
- ,06
9
.034
.0
67
.050
.0
89*
.C59
.10
S*
.128
Jck
- .037
- .0
36
- .O16
9
-.08
1*
-.0
69
- .0
81*
i
.10
Ra
M
.140
* - .0
09
-.
076*
To
tal
.
P. D
.07
5
.117
* .0
99*
.150*
-.01
2 - -003
, -.
06
3
- .07
3
i
.113
- .1
07*
.13!*k
- .0
09
- .
@75*
.C2E
.0
41
- .
04
8
-.O
W+
7-
1/
ex
clu
de
s a
rea
s u
nd
er
flig
ht
pa
ths
2 an
d
5 w
hic
h
are
alm
ost
ex
clu
siv
ely
ap
pro
ach
-
op
era
tio
ns
and
pla
ne
ty
pee
4-6
w
hic
h
are
fe
w i
n n
umbe
r
- ,93
3
,03
3
.OL7
-.
04
1
-.07
8*
.05
2
.C88
* .1
16*3
? - .
023
- .ODf
+*
1
.llO
-*
,I4
21k*
-.0
08
- .0
74*
- .0
53
.0
1l
.01
9
- .057
-.
087*
s i n c e plane types 4-6 which c o n s t i t u t e only aboct 10% of a l l o p e r a t i o n s , might a l s o confound t h e c o r r e l a t i o n ana lyses , they a r e a l s o e l iminated from t h i s t e s t . \;hat remains a r e a l l f l i g h t s f o r p lane types 1 (707 and DC-6). 2 (747) anc 3 (727). Tiisted below a r e the peak dBA l e v e l s f o r each major plane type a t t h e e leven cmlrrmn- i t i e s included i n t h i s study. Rosec?al? North and South, F l o r a l Park (path 5) and Cedarhurst and I s land Park (path 2) a r c excluded from Table 32.
PEAK dBA UVELS BY SELECTED PWNE T E E , OFERATION AUI: COMMUNITY
Community
Rosedale South Keadowmere Inwc* . Howard Beach Cedarhurst Lawrence Rosedale North So. F l o r a l Pa rk I s l and Park Long Beach Bergen Beach
P L A N E T Y P E -
11 Runway 13L I Table 31 p r e s e n t s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the new weinhtc dBA index and annov- ! d
ancc responsesm i n a l l e l even a r c a s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e on ly s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r than t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r unweighted opera t ions shown i n Table 24. Likewise, when f l i g h t pa ths 2 and 5 a r e excluded i n Table 37, the c o r r e l a t i o n s of the new weighted dBA index a r e improved, but a r e on ly s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r than t h e comparable unweighted op- e r a t i o n s c o r r e l a t i o n s shown i n Table 29. Likewise, depar tu res appear t o be s l i g h t l y b e t t e r c o r r e l a t e d than a r r i v a l s , poss ib ly r e f l e c t i n g t h e higher dBA l e v e l s f o r some depar tures . I n genera l , our ana lyses c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t the annoyance response i s n o t c o r r e l a t e d t o t h e number of opera t ions i n a s t r i c t l y a r i t h m e t i c s c a l e .
M. Corre la t ions of A i r c r a f t Sound Descr ip t ion System (ASDS) and Sumnated Annoyance and Other Related Hurnan Respowcs
The Federal Aviation Adminis t ra t ion has developed s t i i l ano ther index f o r des- c r i b i n g t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f numbers o f d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t opera t ions . 2 1 E s s e n t i a l l y i t a r i t h m e t i c a l l y summates a i r c r a f t no i se exposure a s t h e number of seconds above a given dBA th resho ld l e v e l t h a t a given cormunity exper iences . Likewise, i t does not weight n i g h t opera t ions d i f f e r e n t l y from day opera t ions . Duration o f exposure i s a func t ion o f t h e a l t i t u d e o f t h e a i r c r a f t d i r e c t l y overhead and t h e : r t e r a l d i s t a n c e s w e r which t h e a i r c r a f t exceeds t h e given ASDS l e v e l e . These d i s t a t ?a were calcu- l a t e d f o r each o f a i r c r a f t types 1-4 , which account f o r over 90% of a ' opera t ions a t JFK a i r p o r t . mhe summated ASDS v a l u e s i n seconds above a given dBA l e v e l a r e presented f o r t h e 11 sample communities i n Table 33.
As can be seen, depar tu res , which have a h igher a l t i t u d e and longer d u r a t i o n , have genera l ly much g r e a t e r ASDS va lues . Departures a l s o have many ze ro ASDS values , e s p e c i a l l y f o r plane type 4 (DC-20, L1011) a t ASDS-90 dBh and 85 dBA l e v e l s . Such squeness i n v a l u e s can produce spur ious c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , 00 it war decided t o exclude plane type 4 from t h e r e ASDS analyses .
TABLE 33
ASDS DURATIONS BY TYPE OF OPERATION AND COMMUNITY
A. Seconds Abovc 90 dBA
P L A N E T Y P L
Bergen Beach Roeedale North Rosedale South So. F l o r a l Park Mcadowmcre Ccdarhurs t I s l and Park Lawrcncc Inwood Long Beach Howard Beach
B. Seconds Ahovc 85 dCA
1
Connnunity -- Bergen Beach Rosedale North Rosedale South So. F l o r a l Park Mcadowmcre C e d a r h ~ ~ r s t I s l and Park Lawrence Znwood Long Rcach Howard Beach
P L A N E T Y P E
T A B U 33 (Cont .l
C. Seconds Above 80 dBA
Bergen Beach Roredale North Roeedale South So. Floral Park Meadowmere Cedarhure t Island Park Lawrence Inwood Long Beach Howard Beach
P L A N E T Y P E 2 3
B . Seconds Above 75 dBA
P L A N E T Y P E
Community
Bergen Beach Roseda l e North Rosedale South So. Floral Park Meadmere Cedarhuret Island Park Lawrence Inwood Long Beach Howard Beach
Table 34 preren ta the co r r e l a t i ons for ASDS-90 dBA l eve l s . Plane type 1 (707, DC-8), which is the n o i s i e s t , has the highest co r r e l a t i on with reported annoyance r e - sponses. The co r r e l a t i on coe f f i c i en t fo r June-July perat at ions of r-. 274, and of rm.270 fo r August-September operat ions a r e higher than the simple peak dBA and relecter! operat ions cor re la t ions var iables . The ove ra l l June-July ASDS-90 dBA c o r r e l a t i o n for a l l th ree major a i r c r a f t of r1.267 is somewhat lower than the CNR noise index co r r e l a - t i o n of r1.32. The apparent d i f fe rences i n co r r e l a t i ons f o r a r r i v a l s and departures a r e mixed and confusing. I n Table 33, plane type 1 has the highest ASDS-90 dBA values for departures , ye t a s indicated i n Table 34, a r r i v a l s have a s l i g h t l y higher cor re la - t i o n than departures. It could be t ha t t h i s f inding is an a r t i f a c t of the p a r t i c u l a r samples included i n t h i s study. For example, t h i s high co r r e l a t i on for a r r i v a l s m y br unduly influenced by responses i n Bergen Beach, which had a zero ASDS-90 dBA value and a very low mean annoyance score of 8.6 (see Page 20). It seems a s i f i t may not be feas ib le t o test d i f fe rences i n e f f e c t s of a r r i v a l s and departures i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample of respondents.
Tables 35-37 present the co r r e l a t i ons for ASDS-85 dBA through ASDS-75 dBA. A s shown below, the h ighes t co r r e l a t i ons a r e for ASDS-90 dBA and ASDS-85 dBA. These a r e subs t an t i a l Improvements over simple operat ions co r r e l a t i ons , but s t i l l not a s grea t a s the cor re la t ions for the logrithmic index of operat ions (CNR) . These f indings tend t o subs t an t i a t e the FAA be l i e f t h a t ASDS-85 can be used a s a threshold l eve l fo r des- c r ib ing a i r c r a f t noise exposures. A summary of the co r r e l a t i ons for a11 a i r c r a f t (1-3) i s presented below:
CORRELATIONS OF JUNE-JULY ANNOYANCE FOR ALL AIRCRAFT FOR JUNE-JULY EXWSURES - ASDS Leve 1 Arr iva ls Departures Total
I n conclceion, a number of a r i thmet ic weighting schemes for descr ibing a i r c r a f t operat ions has been cor re la ted with summated annoyance responses. Deficiencies i n the sample of a reas ava i lab le for ana lys i s have Limited t he kinds of s t a t i 8 t i c ; i c m - par isons t h a t a r e reasonable. Adjusting fo r these weaknesses i n the basic sample a s bes t a s possible , it was found t h a t the co r r e l a t i ons of CNR measures were higher than any ar i thmetic index, including ASDS. It should be emphasized t h a t t h i s conclu- s ion is based on the l imited sample ava i lab le for ana lys i s i n t h i s study, and should be r e t e s t ed with o ther survey responses i n communities having a grea te r range and more equal types of exposures, This study does not va l ida t e the logrithmic r u l e for i n t eg ra t i ng a i r c r a f t operations, but i t does i nd i ca t e t h a t a simple a r i thmet ic r u l e i s not the bcst method for combining a i r c r a f t exposures. It is hoped t h a t t h i s i n i - t i a l indepth evaluatior. of operat ions and znnoyance w i l l s t imulate fur ther research t o determine the bes t way t o i n t eg ra t e the complex of noise exposures over time.
TABLE
34
CO
RR
ELA
TIO
N O
F A
SPS
- 90
dBA AND SELECTED
HU
MAN
R
ESH
lNSE
S
A.
Jun
e-Ju
ly O
pe
rati
on
s
PLANE TYPE
1
2 3
To
tal
A
D
To
tal
A
D
To
tal
A
D
To
tal
A
D
To
tal
I I
I
B.
Aug
uqt-
Sep
tem
ber
Op
erat
ion
s
PL
AN
E
TY
PE
June annoy.
.207
* .1
76**
-2
74-
Au
g.
anno
y.
.255
* .1
49*
.286
* F
ear
.236
* .1
91*
.308
* H
ea
lth
att
. -1
35-
.079
* .I%
**
Mis
feas
ance
.0
84*
- .007
.O
%*
1
2 A
D
To
tal
A
D T
ota
l
.212
**
.128
* .2
22*
.265
- .I
ll+
*
.233
+*
.241
* .1
52*
.26
6w
.1
4G*
.041
.1
10**
.0
78*
-.04
7 - . M
IA
I
3 T
ota
l A
D
A
D
To
tal
To
tal
, .W
l*
.142
* .2
62*
; .2
92*
.184
+*
.299
*+
j -1
68-
.072
* .1
43*
i .0
90*
-.01
6 .0
32
I ! 1
Aug
. an
noy.
.2
70*
.143
* . f7
O*
Fea
r .26iV*
.184
* .3
0J+
* H
ealt
h a
tt.
.164
* .0
75-
.148
* M
isfe
aran
cc
.093
* - .0
09
.049
.28O
**
.107
* .2
17*
.260
* .1
48*
.253
**
.149
* .0
39
. lOl*
.081
* -.
047
-.00
9
t t t r mgr-twm z a s s a . .
OO
RR
EUTX
ON
OF ASDS
- 80
dBA
AND
SE
UC
TeD
HUM
AN RESPONSES
2.
Au
gust
-Sep
tem
ber
Op
erat
ion
s
1 2
3 ‘r
ot81
A
D
To
tal
A
D
Tot
81
A
D
To
tal
A
D
Tot
81
PL
AN
E
TY
PE
Jun
e an
noy
, .0
40
.069
* .0
83*
Aug
. an
noy.
.0
68*
.065
* .0
9S*
Fea
r .0
55*
,102
- . 12
4w
X
ealt
h a
tt.
-.00
5 .a
. 000
Mis
feas
ance
.W
1
-.07
8*
-.07
1*
.062
* ,O
%*
.080
* .0
85*
.053
.0
89*
.072
* .0
8S*
.119
* .0
07
-.00
6 -.
00
3
.(I0
5 -.G
84sr
* -.
079*
1 2
3 T
ota
l A
D
To
tal
A
D
. T
ota
l A
D T
ota
l T
ota
l
Aug
, an
noy
. .O
Ww
.OM*
.09
6w
P
er r
.O
67*
.1W
* , 12
5w
H
ealt
h a
tt.
.OlC
.0
02
,095
Nfs
feam
ance
-0
22
- .O7R
- - .O
66*
. 192
n
.097
* ,1
93*
.232
* .0
91*
.211
* ,2
21-
,132
- -2
46-
,106
- .0
23
.081
* .0
56*
-,06
9*+
-.
031
.123
* .0
69*
,127
* .I
ll+
+
.107
* .0
31
.09S
* .0
52
.086
* .O
W*
.086
* 1
6
.012
-.
007
-.0
02
.0
07
-.08
4*
-,
07
F
-
.242
- .0
93*
,126
- .2
34*
.133
**
.117
* .0
25
.085
* .0
7'+
* -,
067*
-.
02S
X X X < d r n h l d h O o r d 0 91999
BIBLIOGRAPHY
11 Borsky, Paul N., Coarrmnity Aspects of A i r c r a f t No :& - National Advisory - Cammittee fo r Aeronautics, 1952.
21 Borsky, Paul N., Carmaunity Reactions t o A i r Force Noise, W.A.D.D., Technical - Report 60-689, March 1961.
3; Borsky, Paul N. - Leonard, Skipton, A Causal Model for Relat ing Noise Exposure, - Psycho-social Variables and Ai rc r a f t Noise Annoyance, In te rna t iona l Congress on Noiee a s a Public Health Problem, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, May 13-18, 1973.
41 McKennell, A.C., Ai rc ra f t Noise Annoyance Around London Airport , Central - i l f f ice of Information, Londox. 1963.
51 Heathrow Airport Survey, M i l Research Ltd., London 1967. - 61 Carlsson, Costa, Ronge, Hous., At t i tude and Opinion Studies on Human Reactions -
t o A i r c r a f t Noise, University of Lund, Sweden, April 1962.
7/ Grandjean, Etienne e t a l , A Survey of A i r c r a f t Noise i n Switzerland, Proceedings - "Internat ional Congress on Noise a s a Public Health Problem", Dubrovnik 1973.
81 Annoyance Caused bv Noise Around Airports , Center Sc ien t i f ique e t Technique du - Batiment, Par i s , March 1, 1968..
91 Pinke, H.O., Guski H., Bohnnan B., st a l . An I n t e r d i s c i ~ l i n a r v Study of the - Ef fec t s of A i r c r a f t Noise on Man, Proceedings " In te rna t iona l Congress on Noise a s a Public Health Problm", Dubrovnik 1973.
101 Nunnally, J., Psychometric Theory, New York, N.Y. McGraw-Hill 1967. - 116 Borskv, Paul N. - Leonard, Skipton, Annoyance Judgments o f A i r c r a f t With And -
Without Acoustically Treated Nacelles, NASA Report CR-2261, Washington, D.C., August 1973.
12/ Borsky, Paul N., Annoyance and Acceptabi l i ty Judgments of Noise Produced by Three T Y - c ~ of A i r c r a f t by Residents Living Near JFK Airport , NASA Report December i 174.
131 Cruz, J .E., Airc ra f t Sound Description System - Background and Applicatiun, - Federal Aviation Administration, 54-73-7, March 1973.
14/ Gardner, Paul L., Scales and S t a t i s t i c s , Review of Educational Research Winter - 1975, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 43-57. -
