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

2. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 2 1.Introduction 2.Political background 3.Methodology of the surveys 4.Results 5.Conclusion Content

3. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 3 1. Introduction This presentation deals with 2 aircraft noise surveys, carried out in 2001 and 2003 around Zurich Airport. 3 questions: 1.Changes in prevalence of annoyance between 2001 and 2003? 2.Changes in prevalence of annoyance between 1971 and 2001 / 1991 and 2001? 3.In areas with a step increase of noise exposure: overreactions?

4. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 4 Aircraft noise is a big political issue in the greater Zurich area Everyday subject in the media Several incidents in the past few years Most important are the problems with nearby Germany: Germany cancelled the treaty ruling the flights from and to Zurich airport over German territory -> never ending negotiations High uncertainty about future aircraft noise 2. Political Background

5. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 5 Germanys implemented regulation about overflights over German territory forced Zurich Airport to a new take-off and landing regime Thus residential areas with few aircraft noise were newly affected by aircraft noise This scenario allowed us to assess the changes in noise annoyance at steady state circumstances and at a step change in noise exposure 2. Political Background

6. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 6 3. Methodology of the Surveys Surveys carried out in August 2001 and August 2003 Random samples out of 57 communities around the airport Zurich 2001 Questionnaire Response rate = 52%: 1826 valid questionnaires 2003 Questionnaire and telephone interviews If possible, addresses from 2001 were used again Response rate = 35%: 1721 datasets Noise measures calculated for the home of every subject

7. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 7 3. Methodology of the Surveys Bern Zurich Airport Germany France Italy Austria

8. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 8 Since October 2001: Landing aircrafts early in the morning and late in the evening: step change in noise exposure. 3. Methodology of the Surveys

9. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 9 4. Results Is there any change of the prevalence of annoyance between 2001 and 2003? 4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady State Condition

10. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 10 4. Results 4.1 Comparison 2001 and 2003 at Steady State Condition No significant change in noise annoyance!

11. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 11 4. Results 4.2 Comparison with the 1971 survey Compared with a former noise survey carried out around Zurich Airport in 1971, was there any change in aircraft noise-induced annoyance at same sound levels?

12. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 12 4. Results 4.2 Comparison with the 1971 survey

13. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 13 4. Results 4.3 Comparison with the 1991 survey Compared with a former noise survey carried out around Zurich Airport in 1991, was there any change in aircraft noise-induced annoyance at same sound levels?

14. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 14 4. Results 4.3 Comparison with the 1991 survey

15. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 15 4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure In the data set of 2003 is there any effect of the step increase of noise exposure on annoyance detectable?

16. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 16 Overreaction e.g. opening of a new runway e.g. installation of noise insulation windows Overreaction Higher annoyance than suspected Noise level Overreaction Less annoyance than suspected Annoyance 4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure

17. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 17 4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure Significant effect of the noise exposure situation on annoyance!

18. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 18 Noise exposure measure 20012003 Steady state 2003 Step change L eq 6-22.26 *.01 L eq 0-24.28 *.02 L dn.31 *.04 L den.31 *.33 *.04 Correlation coefficients noise exposure - annoyance 4. Results 4.4 Effect of a step increase in noise exposure

19. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 19 No change of dose response relationship between 2001 and 2003 if steady state noise condition This is in agreement with a Dutch Study (2004) Overreaction in areas with a step increase of noise exposure Extent and persistence (almost 2 years) of these reactions is noteworthy, and in agreement with a study of Fidell et al. (2002) 5. Discussion (1)

20. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 20 No relationship between noise exposure and annoyance for subjects affected with step change of noise exposure In contrast, relationship between increase of noise exposure and annoyance It seems that the concerned residents refer not to the actual sound level, but to the change of sound level when asked about their noise annoyance 5. Discussion (2)

21. WESPAC 06 K. Wirth 21 Thank you for your attention!