Home Email this page Print this page Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size
Noise & Health  
 CURRENT ISSUE    PAST ISSUES    AHEAD OF PRINT    SEARCH   GET E-ALERTS    
 
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
   Abstract
   Introduction
   Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Acknowledgements
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5419    
    Printed211    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded188    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 7    

Recommend this journal

 


 
ARTICLES Table of Contents   
Year : 2002  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 17  |  Page : 23-34
Aircraft noise exposure from schiphol airport : A relation with complainants

1 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory of Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology, Bilthoven, Netherlands
2 Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Inro Department Environment and Health, Delft, Netherlands

Click here for correspondence address and email
 
  Abstract 

The possible relation between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants around Schiphol airport was studied. The home address of people who complain about aircraft noise at the Environment Advisory Committee Schiphol was combined with annual average noise levels, using a Geographic Information System. The prevalence of complainants in areas with different noise exposure was calculated. In addition, data from a questionnaire survey was used to gain insight into the influence of sound insulation, personal characteristics, and aspects of health on complaint behaviour. The prevalence of complainants increases from < 1% at 50 dB(A) (L den ) to about 7% at 62 dB(A). Above this level the prevalence drops back to < 3%. An increase in the percentage of sound insulated houses with increasing noise levels is observed, rising markedly above 60 dB(A) (from 24% to almost 90%). When comparing people who complain with those who do not complain about aircraft noise, complainants report more noise annoyance (OR=10.2, 95% CI=8.54-12.3), sleep disturbance (OR=9.87, 95% CI=8.19-11.9), concern about health (OR=8.02, 95% CI=6.75-9.53), and fear for an aircraft crash (OR=3.64, 95% CI=3.07-4.31). Results indicate a relation between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants, possibly influenced by sound insulation. Important determinants of complaint behaviour apart from noise level are noise annoyance, sleep disturbance, concern about health, and fear for an aircraft crash. Although complainants do not seem to be representative for the total population, and do not reflect the full extent of noise annoyance, their prevalence does reflect the regional distribution of aircraft noise annoyance in a noise polluted area.

Keywords: aircraft noise, complaint behaviour, complainants, annoyance, sleep disturbance, sound insulation

How to cite this article:
van Wiechen CM, Franssen EA, de Jong RG, Lebret E. Aircraft noise exposure from schiphol airport : A relation with complainants. Noise Health 2002;5:23-34

How to cite this URL:
van Wiechen CM, Franssen EA, de Jong RG, Lebret E. Aircraft noise exposure from schiphol airport : A relation with complainants. Noise Health [serial online] 2002 [cited 2020 May 31];5:23-34. Available from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2002/5/17/23/31837

  Introduction Top


Recently the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated that, in contrast to many other environmental problems, noise pollution continues to grow. This growth is accompanied by an increasing number of complaints from people exposed to noise (Berglund et al., 1999). Environmental noise caused by aeroplanes, in particular, is becoming an extensive problem. Globally, civil aviation is a growing industry, and economists expect a continuing growth in the next decades. Major airports, the nodes of the global air transport network, are experiencing an increasing concentration of aircraft taking off and landing (Passchier-Vermeer and Passchier, 2000). Although the events in the USA at September 11, 2001, have slowed down this growth, this is likely to be a temporal effect.

One of the major international airports in Europe is Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (AAS). During the last decade this Dutch airport has been expanding at a rapid rate. The growth of AAS does not remain unnoticed by the population in the surroundings of the airport, since AAS is situated in a densely populated region. As a result, complaints about aircraft noise are increasing, and public concern about health risks of pollution associated with air traffic, is growing as well.

In the seventies, noise from aircraft was already recognised as an ever-present feature of the environment near a major airport, and there has been considerable controversy over its effect on health and well-being of the people who live under these conditions (Fiedler and Fiedler, 1975). Since then the body of literature about this topic is growing, indicating that aircraft noise may cause adverse health effects such as annoyance, sleep disturbance and cardiovascular diseases (Passchier-Vermeer and Passchier, 2000; Berglund and Lindvall, 1995; Morrell et al., 1997; Porter et al., 1998). The exposed individual's reaction to the perception of sound is strongly dependent on the context of the exposure (Passchier et al., 2000). For example, some people have a specific sensitivity to noise and will be more susceptible to its effects than other people. An important physical environmental factor which influences noise exposure is sound insulation of houses. The mean reduction in noise exposure due to sound insulation is 17 dB(A) (Staatsen et al., 1993).

Few studies have been reported that deal with noise complaints. Some of these studies conclude that complaints are closely related to noise exposure by aircraft (Stockbridge and Lee, 1973; Gillen and Levesque, 1994; Bronzaft et al., 1998). In contrast, others state that noise complaints do not sufficiently measure the community response to aircraft noise pollution, and do not represent the scope and scale of the environmental problem (Borsky, 1979; Luz et al., 1983). In general, complaints about aircraft noise from surrounding neighbourhoods indicate a negative perception of the airport activities by complainants. A complaint is an outcome of an individual's decision that can be modelled as a discrete choice problem; either the individual does or does not complain (Gillen and Levesque, 1994). Complaining can be regarded as an aspect of coping behaviour, as a result of e.g. annoyance or other adverse health effects of noise.

In the Netherlands there is an ongoing social and political debate regarding the airport expansion. The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment requested us to study the relation between noise and complaint behaviour around Schiphol airport, because of the increasing number of aircraft noise complaints over the last decade, and the limited understanding of complaint behaviour mentioned above. In this study we postulated a relation between aircraft noise exposure and complaint behaviour, with a mediating impact of exogenous determinants, personal characteristics, and health effects. The study subjects were the complainants. The main objective was to explore the possible exposure­response relation between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants. In addition, we wanted to gain more insight into the role of sound insulation of houses as mediating factor, and into possible determinants of complaint behaviour, like personal characteristics and aspects of health.


  Materials and Methods Top


Two sources of data have been used in this study: 1) the complaints registration of the Environment Advisory Committee Schiphol (EACS) and 2) the questionnaire survey of the Health Impact Assessment Schiphol airport (HIAS).

Complaints about aircraft noise are registered by the EACS, an independent committee which was installed in 1968 by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, to monitor the quality of the environment around Schiphol airport. Complaints about aircraft noise can be made by telephone or in writing, 24 hours a day. With every complaint the name and address of the complainant is registered; anonymous complaints are not recorded. Of each complainant in 1998 and 1999 the 6 digit postal code area (an area with on average 16-17 addresses) and the number of complaints per time-period of the day (daytime 7 am - 11 pm, nighttime 11 pm - 7 am) were used for further analysis.

A questionnaire survey among adults (18 years and older) on annoyance, sleep disturbance, health aspects, perceived risk, and residential satisfaction was carried out in the Schiphol region in 1996. The data were collected in a study area with a radius of 25 kilometres around the airport, using a postal questionnaire. Questionnaires were mailed to 30,000 randomly selected addresses. The random sample was stratified by aircraft noise levels, and by distance to the centre of Schiphol airport. Due to this sample design, the probability of selection for the random sample was not equal for all individuals in the population. This has been taken into account by weighting the results in accordance with the actual population aged 18 years and older in the research area for each noise level and distance interval.

The questionnaire consisted of questions about annoyance as a result of noise, odour, dust, soot or smoke and vibrations, and about sleep disturbance, self-perceived health, respiratory complaints, medication use, perceived risk, residential satisfaction, and coping behaviour. Questions were also asked about important determinants of these variables, such as personal characteristics, living situation, and smoking behaviour. The response rate was 39%.

To examine whether the results could have been biased by selective non-response, the postal questionnaire was supplemented with a short telephone survey among a random sample of the non-respondents (N = 500, response rate 54%). Results from this survey indicated that selective non-response very likely did occur. For example, non-respondents, in comparison to the respondents, suffered relatively less annoyance due to aircraft noise, were relatively less higher educated and were less of Dutch origin. On the basis of this non-response survey, an estimate was made to correct the results for the possible bias due to selective non-response. This was carried out using a logistic regression analysis on a combined data set with both the respondents (N=11,812) and non-respondents (N=271). The variables age, education, country of origin, and annoyance due to aircraft noise were compared in both groups, resulting in a weighting factor for each respondent (TNO-PG and RIVM, 1998).

One of the questions in the questionnaire survey was: "What action have you taken against aircraft noise, against Schiphol, or against its expansion?". Respondents could tick answers such as: signed a petition; attended a public meeting or demonstration; joined an organisation opposed to aircraft noise; wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper; telephoned the EACS; attempted to move; approached the police, municipality or provincial government. When respondents indicated that they had telephoned the EACS they were regarded as complainants. When respondents had not approached the EACS they were regarded as non-complainants. When respondents had given equivocal answers, they were excluded from the analyses.

Analyses with EACS data

EACS data was used to relate complainants to aircraft noise levels. The postal code of each complainant was combined with Geographic Information System (GIS) data, containing x,y co-ordinates of the central point of each postal code area, and mapped as a GIS-point layer. The National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR)

calculated annual average L den noise exposure levels (in dB(A)) in an area of 55 x 55 kilometres around Schiphol airport, on the basis of a model which is laid down in the Dutch Aviation Act.

L den is an equivalent sound level over 24 hours expressed in dB(A), with sound levels during the evening (7-11 pm) increased by a penalty of 5 dB(A), and those during the night (11 pm - 7 am) increased by a penalty of 10 dB(A). As a result of these penalties to the evening and night levels, the L den value is equal to, or higher than the L Aeq24h value, the difference depending on the distribution of the traffic over the day, evening and night period. Based on the yearly number of flights during the day, evening and night at Schiphol airport, the average difference between the L den values and the L Aeq24h values have been estimated to be roughly 1 dB.

However, locally, the differences can vary significantly due to the difference in flight routes between day and night.

The L den -grids (with 250 x 250 m gridcells) of 1998 and 1999 were converted into a GIS­polygon layer, and combined with the geographical location of each complainant, in order to assign a noise level to complainants.

The period prevalence rate (the number of complainants in the population within one year, divided by the total number of inhabitants) with 95% confidence intervals was calculated in areas with 1 dB(A) noise level interval. The number of inhabitants in each noise level area was generated in GIS by combining a point layer containing population numbers with the noise polygon layer. This was carried out for the EACS complainants' data of 1998 and 1999. Software used was the statistical software package SAS (version 8.1) and the Geographic Information System package Arc/Info (version 7.2).

Analyses with questionnaire data

In order to gain insight into the impact of sound insulation of houses on the relation between noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants, data from the questionnaire survey were analysed. Answers to the question "Has your house been especially insulated against noise from aircraft?" were related to the noise measure L den of the year in which the data were collected (1996).

Data from the questionnaire survey were also analysed to identify personal characteristics and health aspects of both complainants and people who do not complain. One should note that respondents to the questionnaire survey are not necessarily the same individuals as the complainants derived from the EACS registration (linkage and verification of the identity are not possible under the Dutch privacy laws). With respect to the variables noise sensitivity, sleep disturbance, and noise annoyance, respondents could value their appraisal on an 11 point scale (0 - 10). Respondents with scores 8 to 10 on this scale are considered to be highly noise sensitive, highly disturbed in their sleep, or highly annoyed.

We compared characteristics of complainants with those of non-complainants, calculating odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals with use of the statistical software package SAS (version 8.1). Both groups are defined as described earlier in this section. Since noise annoyance is an important effect of noise exposure and a likely determinant of complaint behaviour, we also compared characteristics of 'highly annoyed' complainants with those of 'highly annoyed' non-complainants. Results are adjusted for the stratified sample design and potential selective non-response.


  Results Top


Results of analyses with data from the EACS registration

Until 1990, in between one to six thousand aircraft noise complaints were registered yearly. When looking at the trend in number of complaints since 1990 [Figure - 1] the numbers increased dramatically, resulting in around 200,000 yearly complaints towards the end of the last century. During the same period aircraft movements almost doubled. The trend in complainants approximately follows the pattern of the trend in complaints but with lower numbers, due to multiple complaints per individual. The peak, which is observed in 1997, is mainly due to the exceptional circumstances of temporary closure of the main runway at Schiphol in that year, causing high use of the remaining runways, which were less well placed with respect to the residential areas.

In addition to the increase in the absolute number of complainants, a regional expansion of complainants has been observed as well. In 1992 complaints came from 64 municipalities, situated in an area with a radius of 25 kilometres around the airport. This number increased in line with the number of complainants up to around 130 municipalities, of which the majority lies in an area with a radius of 30 kilometres around the airport [Figure - 2]. The number of complainants is highest closer to the airport and along flight paths, but complaints also occur at greater distances and in all directions from the airport.

In 1998 12,549 complainants were registered, with a total number of 199,828 complaints; 170,631 (85%) during daytime and 29,197 (15%) during nighttime. In 1999, there were 10,257 complainants and 182,505 complaints, with the same percentages for day and night (85% and 15%, respectively). The frequencies of number of complaints per complainant were also similar in 1998 (on average 16, median 2) and 1999 (on average 18, median 3). Respectively, 32% and 30% complained only once, 54% and 53% complained 2 to 10 times, 13% and 15% complained 11 to 100 times, 1% and 2% complained more than 100 times.

[Table - 1] gives results of the noise levels assigned to complainants for both 1998 and 1999. It shows a decrease in the absolute number of complainants as well as inhabitants with rising noise levels. A noise level could not be assigned to approximately one thousand complainants (8.2% in 1998, 10.2% in 1999), due to the fact that the complainant's address was located outside the modelled noise area (55 x 55 km). However, we were able to categorise their noise level as less than 50 dB(A) (L den ), since this noise contour was the lowest fitting completely within the modelled noise area. More than half of the total number of complainants arise from the areas with noise levels of less than 50 dB(A).

By contrast, the prevalence of complainants in the population in each area with 1 dB(A) noise level interval in both years [Figure - 3] shows a gradual increase from less than 1% at 50 dB(A) up to almost 3% at 58 dB(A), and a peak around 7% at 62 dB(A). Then it drops to less than 3% at higher noise levels. The total number of inhabitants in the area with L den noise levels of 50 dB(A) or more is around half a million.

Results of analyses with data from the questionnaire survey

Of the 30,000 questionnaires mailed, 11,812 (39%) were returned. Of all respondents, 592 (5%) indicated that they had telephoned the EACS, and are regarded as complainants; 11,076 (94%) respondents had not approached the EACS and are regarded as non-complainants; 144 (1%) respondents gave equivocal answers, and were not taken into account.

Results with respect to the sound insulation of dwellings, are presented in [Figure - 4]. An increase in insulated houses with increasing noise levels can be observed, taking a major rise between 60 and 61 dB(A) (from 24% to 55%). Major rises also occur between 61 and 62 dB(A), and between 62 and 63 dB(A). This is most probably due to government policy, offering sound insulation against aircraft noise when a dwelling is situated within the noise area of approximately 61 dB(A) (L den ) or more.

The comparison between complainants and non­complainants shows differences in most of all the personal characteristics [Table - 2]. The differences in some of the health aspects are large; complainants are more often highly annoyed by aircraft noise, and report sleep disturbance more often. They also report more concern about their health due to aircraft noise, and fear for an aircraft crash; there is a small difference in self-perceived health. The differences in medication use are not statistically significant.

[Table - 3] shows that of the total group of highly annoyed respondents (N = 1,882) 356 (19%) had complained about aircraft noise at the EACS. Comparing 'highly annoyed' complainants with 'highly annoyed' non-complainants [Table - 3], there are smaller differences in most of the personal characteristics. The difference in noise sensitivity disappeared. But highly annoyed complainants are still more often highly disturbed in their sleep, and report more concern about their health and fear for an aircraft crash than non-complainants with the same annoyance level.

When looking at other sort of actions taken against aircraft noise or against the expansion of Schiphol, complainants more often took action than non-complainants (43% versus 6%). For example, respectively 24% and 3% signed a petition; 16% and 1% attended a public meeting or demonstration; 9% and 0.7% joined an organisation opposed to aircraft noise; 8% and 0.6% attempted to move.


  Discussion Top


The main aim of the current study was to explore the possible relation between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants about aircraft noise. Results indeed show an exposure-response relation; the prevalence of complainants increases with rising noise levels.

In these analyses, we have related complainants, who are often triggered to complain by individual noise events, to annual average noise levels. Since it is likely that the occurrence of noise events increases with rising annual average noise levels, we believe that this method is justified. The large size of the EACS study groups and the exposure contrast within the group of complainants strengthen the power of the exposure-response analyses. The assignment of a modelled noise level to each complainant is quite accurate due to the use of GIS data at a low aggregation level. However, we could not adjust for factors influencing the actual noise level, like sound insulation and ventilation behaviour. The exposure-response relation could also not be adjusted for demographic variables like age, sex, and education, since these types of data are not available within the EACS registration. It has generally been found that persons who are older, better educated, have higher income, and higher social status, are more prone to express their feelings in the form of complaints. They are also more often members of an environmental organisation than people who do not complain (Borsky, 1979; Guski, 1977; Hulshof and Noyon, 1997). This is confirmed by our analyses, with data derived from the questionnaire survey. Several annoyance studies show that demographic variables, despite the fact that they have some influence, do not affect annoyance to an important extent (Fields, 1993; Miedema and Vos, 1999). However, although we assume that complaint behaviour is a result of annoyance, we do not know whether adjusting for demographic variables would have shown a major change in the relation between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants.

Sound insulation of houses provides an explanation of the sudden decrease in prevalence of complainants at higher noise levels. The noise level at which we find a prevalence decrease (above 62 dB(A)) is approximately the same level above which the Sound Insulation Schiphol programme is executed. Within the first phase of this programme, between 1985 and 1996, more than 80% of the households living within the area with noise levels of approximately 61 dB(A) or more decided to accept the offer of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management to add sound insulation to their houses (Hulshof and Noyon, 1997). From the literature it is known that noise annoyance also relates to sound insulation (Fields, 1993). In the questionnaire survey (TNO-PG and RIVM, 1998/1999) a relation was found between the reported noise annoyance and the aircraft noise levels. People who used to live in areas with higher levels of aircraft noise reported more noise annoyance. However, here too a decline in prevalence of high annoyance was found at higher noise levels, starting at approximately 63 dB(A) L den . No clear explanation for this phenomenon was demonstrated, but it was suggested that sound insulation, the departure of people who are sensitive to noise, and adaptation to living in a noisy environment may play a role. It is likely that the same mechanisms apply to complaint behaviour, but the Dutch policy might be playing a role too. Since 1992 a very strict town planning policy concerning the high noise exposed areas around Schiphol airport has been implemented. For example, households exposed to 65 dB(A) or more are requested to move out of the area, and in areas exposed to 56 dB(A) or more there are serious building restrictions. This supports the idea that residents who decide to live in high noise exposed areas are aware of the noise problems in their environment, and are less likely to complain.

With regard to the aspects of health, we found major differences between complainants and non-complainants in aircraft noise annoyance and sleep disturbance, and also in variables like concern about health and fear for an aircraft crash. When only taking into account the highly annoyed groups, sleep disturbance, concern about health and fear still occur more often in the group of complainants. But highly annoyed complainants report the same level of noise sensitivity as non-complainants do. The fact that sleep disturbance is an important determinant of complaint behaviour is in line with results from a survey among complainants around Schiphol airport carried out in 1996 (Hulshof and Noyon, 1997). In this study complainants most frequently mentioned sleep disturbance as an effect of aircraft noise on daily life.

Sleep disturbance is considered to be a major adverse health effect of environmental noise by a WHO expert committee (Berglund et al., 1999) The WHO advises that individual noise events exceeding 45 dB(A) L Amax should be avoided for a good night's sleep. In addition, at night, outdoor sound levels about 1 meter from facades of living spaces should not exceed 45 dB(A) L Aeq , so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open. However, when these limits cannot be met, offering sound insulation to complainants as compensation could help in diminishing sleep disturbance and annoyance due to aircraft noise. A reduction in the number of people who complain might then be achieved as well. However, the role of sound insulation within the relation between noise exposure and complaint behaviour needs to be further established.

When comparing the number of complainants and complaints around Schiphol airport with those of similar international airports, Schiphol shows a high level of complaint behaviour (Hulshof and Noyon, 1997). Also the noise annoyance around Schiphol airport is higher than expected on the basis of relations between noise annoyance and noise levels around Schiphol that were established in the 1960s and 1980s, and on the basis of data from other countries. It was suggested that the higher annoyance figures might be due to e.g. increased sensitivity to noise, concern about safety, actual noise levels that are higher than the modelled values, and the influence of the political and social debate about the expansion of the airport (TNO-PG and RIVM, 1998/1999). With respect to complaint behaviour, these factors might play a role too. In addition, two key factors influence complaint behaviour: 'knowledge of where to go to complain' and 'feeling hopeful that it would do some good' (Borsky, 1979). Central to the coping concept is the belief and confidence of an affected person that he or she will somehow manage the problem, directly or indirectly (Guski, 1999). Environmental noise sources like aircraft noise cannot be turned off directly, thus the affected person is left with indirect coping strategies, like registering a complaint. In this process, low expectation of success indicates a major reason for the disparity between underlying feelings and actual behaviour. When people know that their complaints are taken seriously and are useful for policymakers, it is likely that the number of complaints will increase. The EACS is an independent institute that is well-known to the public and easily accessible. These seem to be important conditions to ensure reliable complaint behaviour, representing the annoyance in surrounding neighbourhoods of airports.

However, it is essential to keep in mind that results of this study also show that the number of complainants does not reflect the full extent of noise annoyance in the surroundings of the airport. Less than one fifth of the highly annoyed people in the questionnaire survey had complained about aircraft noise at the EACS.

In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that there is an exposure-response relation between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of complainants. It is suggested that sound insulation of houses influences this relation. From the study, it appears that important determinants of complaint behaviour apart from noise level are noise annoyance, sleep disturbance, concern about health, and fear for an aircraft crash. In addition, complainants take more action against aircraft noise or against the expansion of the airport than non-complainants do. Although complainants do not seem to be representative for the total population, and do not reflect the full extent of noise annoyance, their prevalence does reflect the extent and regional distribution of aircraft noise annoyance in a noise polluted area.


  Acknowledgements Top


We thank the Environment Advisory Committee Schiphol for the use of their data. Special thanks go to Anneke van den Berkmortel and Jannie van der Pluijm, for their hospitality and exchange of ideas. We thank Siem Heisterkamp for his statistical advises and Danny Houthuijs for his helpful comments on this manuscript. The questionnaire survey was carried out within the framework of the Health Impact Assessment Schiphol airport. This research programme is commissioned by three Dutch Ministries: Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment; Transport, Public Works and Water Management; Health, Welfare and Sports.[20]

 
  References Top

1.Berglund B., Lindvall T., eds. (1995) Community noise; document prepared for the World Health Organization. Archives of the center for sensory research 2(1):1-195  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Berglund B., Lindvall T., Schwela D.H., eds. (1999) Guidelines for community noise. London:World Health Organization  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Borsky P.N. (1979) Sociopsychological factors affecting the human response to noise exposure. Otolaryngol. Clin. North. Am. 12:521-35  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Bronzaft A.L., Ahern K.D., Mcginn R., O'Connor J., Savino B. (1998) Aircraft noise: a potential health hazard. Environment & Behavior 30(1):101-13  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Fiedler F.E., Fiedler J. (1975) Port noise complaints: verbal and behavioral reactions to airport-related noise. J. Appl. Psychol. 60:498-506  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Fields J.M. (1993) Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93:2753-63  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Gillen D.W., Levesque T.J. (1994) A socio-economic assessment of complaints about airport noise. Transportation Planning Technology 18:45-55  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Guski R. (1977) An analysis of spontaneous noise complaints. Environ. Res. 13:229-36  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Guski R. (1999) Personal and social variables as co­determinants of noise annoyance. Noise & Health 3:45-56  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Hulshof M., Noyon R. (1997) Complaining about Schiphol: causes and effects of noise annoyance [in Dutch]. Amsterdam:Regioplan Stad en Land  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Luz G.A., Raspet R., Schomer P.D. (1983) An analysis of community complaints to noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73:1229-35  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Miedema H.M.E., Vos H. (1999) Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105:3336-4  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Morrell S., Taylor R., Lylu D. (1997) A review of health effects of aircraft. Australian and New Zealand J. Public Health 21:221-36  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Passchier W., Knottnerus A., Albering H., Walda I. (2000) Public health impact of large airports. Rev. Environ. Health 15:83-96  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Passchier-Vermeer W., Passchier W.F. (2000) Noise exposure and public health. Environ. Health Perspect. 108(suppl 1):123-31  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Porter N.D., Flindell I.H., Berry B.F. (1998) Health effect­based noise assessment methods: a review and feasibility study. NPL Report CMAM 16. Teddington:National Physical Laboratory  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Staatsen B.A.M., Franssen E.A.M., Doornbos G., Abbink F., Veen A.A. van der, Heisterkamp S.H., Lebret E. (1993) Health Impact Assessment Schiphol airport [in Dutch]. RIVM Report Nr.: 441520001. Bilthoven:National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Stockbridge H.C.W., Lee M. (1973) The psycho-social consequences of aircraft noise. Applied Ergonomics 4:44-­5  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.TNO-PG and RIVM. (1998) Annoyance, sleep disturbance, health aspects, perceived risk, and residential satisfaction around Schiphol airport; results of a questionnaire survey [in Dutch]. RIVM Report Nr.: 441520010, TNO-PG Report Nr.: 98.039. Bilthoven/Leiden:National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO-PG)  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.TNO-PG and RIVM. (1999) Annoyance, sleep disturbance, health aspects, perceived risk, and residential satisfaction around Schiphol airport; results of a questionnaire survey. Summary [in English]. RIVM Report Nr.: 441520011, TNO-PG Report Nr.: 98.052. Bilthoven/Leiden:National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO-PG)  Back to cited text no. 20    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Carla MAG van Wiechen
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Laboratory of Exposure, Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology, P.O.Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven
Netherlands
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 12537832

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure - 1], [Figure - 2], [Figure - 3], [Figure - 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table - 1], [Table - 2], [Table - 3]

This article has been cited by
1 Evolution of metrics used to assess community response to blast noise
Valente, D. and Nykaza, E.T. and Swift, S.H. and Luz, G.
Military Operations Research. 2013; 18(1): 39-59
[Pubmed]
2 On the relationship between blast noise complaints and community annoyance
Nykaza, E.T. and Hodgdon, K.K. and Gaugler, T. and Krecker, P. and Luz, G.A.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2013; 133(5): 2690-2698
[Pubmed]
3 A potential role for noise complaints as a predictor of the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise
Fidell, S. and Mestre, V. and Sneddon, M.
Noise Control Engineering Journal. 2012; 60(1): 62-68
[Pubmed]
4 The efficiency of asset management strategies to reduce urban flood risk
Ten Veldhuis, J.A.E. and Clemens, F.H.L.R.
Water Science and Technology. 2011; 64(6): 1317-1324
[Pubmed]
5 Complaint data as an index of annoyance - Theoretical and methodological issues
Maziul, M., Job, R.F.S., Vogt, J.
Noise Health. 2005; 7(28): 17-27
[Pubmed]
6 Community complaints in response to a new airport runway
Hume, K.I., Morley, H., Thomas, C.
Collection of Technical Papers - 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. 2004; 1: 98-105
[Pubmed]
7 Noise-induced health effects: Recent epidemiological studies [Effets du bruit sur la santé: Données épidé miologiques récentes]
Camard, J.-P. and Lefranc, A. and Gremy, I. and Ferry, R.
Environnement, Risques et Sante. 2004; 3(4): 235-242
[Pubmed]



 

Top