Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
this apparent paradox. This definition (WHO, 1999) states that health is a state of
complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of
disease and infirmity. The inclusion of well-being in the definition expands the con-
cept of health beyond clinical significance to encompass a number of effects of air-
craft noise that are well known (annoyance, sleep disturbance, interference with
speech communication, cognitive and performance effects).
The problem of aircraft noise disturbance involves the complex interaction of a
number of physical, biological, psychological and sociological processes (Schultz,
1978). The relevant physical factors include those associated with noise generation:
aircraft type, mode of operation and the resulting noise level. The other critical com-
ponents are the human factors, which include the basic biological systems of audition
followed by the psychological processes that interpret these signals and can include
health status, annoyance and stress (Job, 1996). The further interpretation of noise
disturbance can be influenced by social conditions that may include factors such as
socio-economic status and cultural and lifestyle differences. Finally, although indi-
viduals may complain about the 'noise' of aircraft, a variety of other factors, such as
fear of air accidents or disturbance from other airport activities, can be involved in
the underlying causes of annoyance (Moss et al, 1997).
The level of perceived nuisance is therefore only, in part, a function of the fre-
quency and noisiness of aircraft movements. Noise perception is also affected by:
•
the variation in affluence, attitude, culture and lifestyle that affect perceptions of
disturbance or annoyance arising from aircraft noise in different communities;
•
an awareness of the social and economic consequences of constraining airport
growth upon the local and regional communities they serve;
•
the considerable variation in socio-economic need and the need for air route
development in different regions of the world; and
•
the level of public debate or opposition to airport development and the extent
to which democratic systems are responsive to such action.
Noise metrics do not take account of the fact that less affluent residents of commu-
nities surrounding airports are likely to be more tolerant of aircraft noise and, at the
same time, stand to gain additional employment from the continued growth of those
airports. It is exactly for these reasons that there has been an inability of acoustic
variables on their own to satisfactorily predict self-reported annoyance due to envi-
ronmental noise.
M
EASURING
NOISE
EXPOSURE
As a result of the above difficulties in precisely determining the effect of (or response
to) aircraft noise, authorities have settled for the easier option of quantifying overall
noise exposure. The level of exposure to aircraft noise can be, and is, measured in a
variety of ways (reviewed in Ollerhead et al, 1992), such that there is no universal
measure of exposure at the present time, although efforts to standardize metrics are
taking place - for example, across the European Community through EC Directive
2002/49/EC (Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise) (European
