Why is aircraft noise more annoying than other transportation noises?

KTH Centrum för Hållbar Luftfart (CSA) Workshop om Flygbuller Måndag 3 Oktober 09.00-13.00 med efterföljande lunch & mingel Plats: KTH OpenLab, Multihallen, Valhallavägen 79 Why is aircraft noise more annoying than other transportation noises? Mats E. Nilsson Gösta Ekman Laboratory, Department of Psychology Stockholm University

WHO s Guidelines for community noise 2000 www.who.int

2011 2011 www.euro.who.int

Traffic Noise and Health Traffic noise Annoyance Cardiovascular disease Sleep disturbance

Noise annoyance Individual factors (noise sensitivity, attitudes to the source, age, ) Noise at facade Perceived annoyance Activity disturbance (speech, concentration, rest, sleep ) Non-acoustic exposure factors (Visual intrusion, odor, vibration, ) Self-reported noise annoyance Acoustic factors (quiet side, facade reduction, window opening habits, )

Noise annoyance questionnaire ISO. (2003). Acoustics-Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socioacoustic surveys. ISO/TS 15666:2003(E). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home, how much does noise from. bother, disturb or annoy you? Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

MAXFLYG 2013 Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G. (2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

Schultz (1978) Schultz, T. J. (1978). Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(2), 377-405.

Kryter (1982) Kryter, K. D. (1982). Community annoyance from aircraft and ground vehicle noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72(4), 1222-1242. See also rebuttals to comments by Schultz

Miedema & Oudshoorn, 2001 Commission of the European Communities, 2002 0 Miedema, & Oudshoorn, (2001). Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 409-416. CEC. (2002). Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Andel bullerstörda Andel bullerstörda av trafikbuller i svenska storstäder: Data och prediktion.7 Vägtrafikbuller.7 Spårtrafikbuller.6.6.5.4.3.2.1.5.4.3.2.1 Metaanalysprediktion [1] 0 <45 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Vägtrafikbuller, L DEN (db) 65-69 >70 0 <45 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Spårtrafikbuller, L DEN (db) 65-69 >70 Ströningsdata: Miljöhälsoenkät 2007 N = 2496 (Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö) Bullerdata: END kartor [1] Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001) Eriksson, et al. (2011)

Proprtion highly annoyedr [%] Nosie annoyance road traffic Road traffic noise [db LDEN] Babsich, et al., 2009

proprtion highly annoyed [%] Is aircraft noise getting more disturbing? Noise annoyance aircraft Aircraft noise [db LDEN] Babsich, et al., 2009

Trends in aircraft noise annoyance Janssen et al. (2011). JASA, 129, 1953-1962.

Why is aircraft noise more annoying? Kryter s answer: Kryter, K. D. (1982). Community annoyance from aircraft and ground vehicle noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72(4), 1222-1242.

Noise annoyance and access to quiet facade Öhrström, et al. (2006) Kluizenaar, et al. (2011)

Proprtin highly sleep disturbed (%HSD) Self reported sleep disturbance 35 % 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Traffic noise (db, Lnight) Air Road Rail Source: Miedema and Oudshoorn, 2003, 2004

Jonsson & Sörensen. (1970). Relation between annoyance reactions and attitude to source of annoyance. Public Health Reports, 85, 1070-1074.

Attityder till trafik 41% 44% 5% 52% 46% 27% 7% 10% 68% 1. 113 (20 %, n = 611) 2. 222 (15 %, n = 461) 3. 223 (14 %, n = 442) 25. 321 (0.1%, n = 2) 26. 312 (0 %, n =1 ) 27. 311 (0 %, n =1 ) Unpublished data from the MAXFLYG study

Model 1: Attitudes influences annoyance Background variables Noise exsposure Noise annoyance Attitudes to noise source Model 2: Annoyance influences attitudes Background variables Noise exsposure Noise annoyance Attitudes to noise source

Flygbullerexponering och attityd Samhället bör verka för en minskning av 1 Alla flygplatser 0.9 Andel negativ flygtrafik allmänt 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Vägtrafik Spårtrafik Flygtrafik 0 0 1-2 3-5 6-14 15-29 30-59 >=60 Antal flygbullerhändelser 70 db L A max,s low Unpublished data from the MAXFLYG study

Summary o Aircraft more annoying than road and rail The difference seem to be increasing, unclear why o Why makes aircraft noise more annoying? Acoustic factors (quite side) Attitudes to the source

Flygbullerstörning och attityd till flygtrafik 1 0.9 Ej negativ egen flygplats Negativ egen flygplats 1 0.9 Ej negativ flygtrafik Negativ flygtrafik Andel flygbullerstörda uteplats 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Andel flygbullerstörda uteplats 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 1-2 3-5 6-14 15-29 30-59 >=60 0 1-2 3-5 6-14 15-29 30-59 >=60 Antal flygbullerhändelser 70 db L A max,s low Antal flygbullerhändelser 70 db L A max,s low 4. Vid jämförbar flygbullerexponering är andelen flygbullerstörda markant högre bland personer med en negativ attityd till flygtrafik jämfört med personer med en mer positiv attityd. För båda grupperna ses dock ett tydligt och starkt samband mellan flygbullerexponering och bullerstörning.

Aircraft Noise Annoyance Aircraft 20 studies, total n = 34 214 Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445

Road traffic Noise Annoyance Road traffic 26 studies, total n = 21 228 Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445

Railway noise annoyance Railway 9 studies, total n = 8 527 Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445

Target: 40 db L night to protect the public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly Interim target: 55 db L night [if the target] cannot be achieved in the short term for various reasons, and where policy makers choose to adopt a stepwise approach 2009 www.euro.who.int