What was the purpose of the study?

The study aimed to observe community reactions to aircraft noise in smaller cities and compare them with reactions in larger urban areas.

How many cities were surveyed in this study?

The study surveyed two cities: Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Reno, Nevada.

What method was used to gather data from residents?

Data was gathered through personal interviews based on questionnaires, with respondents chosen randomly from various noise exposure zones.

What were the findings regarding annoyance levels?

The study found that annoyance levels in smaller cities were significantly lower than those in larger cities, with less than half the percentage of highly annoyed individuals.

What is the significance of the predictive equation developed in the study?

The predictive equation allows for estimating community reactions to noise based on noise exposure and population density, specifically tailored for smaller cities.

Community reaction to aircraft noise around smaller city airports

Document

i.;

‘ii -(

,1 ’

!, i 1.1 i’ .li:

$NASA CONTRACTOR AS N

‘I REPORT I l q iN COPY: RETURN TO AFWL CDOUL) KIRTLAND AFB, N. M.

COMMUNITY REACTION TO AIRCRAFT NOISE

AROUND SMALLER CITY AIRPORTS

’ .; _‘/..

; .,‘-

; .

‘..

8,. ~

‘a ,,

,-I-:’ (., ” “:\1\

by Wi&mz K. Connor und Hurrold P. Putterson

j:: ,‘,-i -,~- I_ :‘-:”

i, ._ ,,-. ,- _

‘<:,.., !,-.

. ....’ Prepared by ‘\\L,, -- .‘. ..

:, s . .,‘j ,, T / ,: ;_ .‘\. c.:.,,+’ TRACOR, Inc.

3., ~a..

Austin, Texas 78721 for Langley Research Center NATIONAL AERONAUTICSAND SPACE ADMINISTRATION . WASHINGTON, D. C. . AUGUST 1972 --- ._ .

If

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM i

Ilnlllllllllmsll~~ll

1. Repat No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Reci, llObLL85’

I I

NASA CR-2104 I I 5. Report Date 4. Title and Subtitle August 1972 Community Reaction to Aircraft Noise Around Smaller City Airports 6. Performing Organization Coda 8. Performing Org&ation Report No.

7. Autbor(sJ William K. Conner and Harrold P. Patterson 10. Work Unit No.

9. Perfaming Organization Name and Address TRACOR, Inc.

11. Contract or Grant No.

Austin, Texas 78721 NASI-10,216

I

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Contractor Report National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20546 I 5.’ Supplementary Notes 6. Abstract This report presents the results of a study of community reaction to jet aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Reno, Nevada.

These cities were surveyed in order to obtain data for comparison with that obtained in larger cities during a previous study. (The cities studied earlier were Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York.) The purpose of the present effort was to observe the relative reaction under conditions of lower noise exposure and in less highly urbanized areas, and to test the previously developed predictive equation for annoyance under such circumstances.

In Chattanooga and Reno a total of 1960 personal interviews based upon questionnaires were obtained. .Aircraft noise measurements were made concurrently and aircraft operations logs were maintained for several weeks in each city to permit computation of noise exposures.

The survey respondents were chosen randomly from various exposure zones.

7. Key-Words (Suggested by Author(s)) 19. Distribution Statement Aircraft noise Unclassified-Unlimited Subjective response to noise Comnunity reaction to noise 22. Price- ‘9. Security Classif. (of this report) 29 Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Peges Unclassified Unclassified $3.00 *For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section SOCIAL SURVEY .... : . ., ................

Site Selection ........ .'; ............

Sampling Plan ... .' ...................

FieldOperations' ....................

Sample Characteristics .................

Operations Logs Noise Monitoring ....................

Noise Exposure Computations ...............

COMPARISON OF ANNOYANCE IN THE TWO-CITY AND SEVEN- CITYSAMPLES Annoyance Categories and Noise Exposure Discussion .................. . . . 28 Noise Exposure ............ . . . 30 Characteristics of the Sample . . . 35 INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE ................

.... . . . 35 Correlation of Annoyance and Noise Exposure . . . 37 Effects of Number Correction and Operation Type . .

.......... . . . 39 Seven-City Predictive Equation Two-City Predictive Equation ............ . . .

Comparison of the Seven-City and Two-City Equations . . . 47 ANNOYANCE AND COMPLAINT ............... . . . 53 ESTIMATING COMMUNITY REACTION ............. . . . 57 . . . 61 CONCLUSIONS ......................

APPENDIXA ...... . ..............

. . . 63 .....................

APPENDIXB . . . 101 .....................

APPENDIXC . . . 127 ; ...........

APPENDIX'D ......... . . . 135 REFERENCES . . .

iii -.-- . _ . ..-- LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS F,igure Title Page 1 MAP OF CHATTANOOGASHCXJING SAMPLING ZONES DEFINED BY PNdB CONTOURS 2 MAP OF RENO/SPARKS SHOWING SAMPLING ZONES 8 DEFINED BY PNdB CONTOURS 3 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY CNR CATEGORY 9 4 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DAILY OFERATIONS BY TIME 18 OF DAY FOR CHATTANOOGA, RENO, AND THREE PHASE I CITIES FROM THE SEVEN-CITY STUDY BLOCK DIAGRAM OF NOISE MONITOR SYSTEM CATEGORIES OF ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF NOISE EXPOSURE, SEVEN-CITY SAMPLE CATEGORIES OF ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF NOISE 26 EXPOSURE, TWO-CITY SAMPLE 8 .PERCENTAGE OF HIGHLY ANNOYED RESPONDENTS WITH LEAST-SQUARE LINES THROUGH COMMONINTERCEPT 9 LINES OF REGRESSION OF ANNOYANCE G ON NOISE EXPOSURE (CNR) FOR SEVEN CITY AND TWO CITY SAMPLES 10 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF HIGHLY ANNOYED AND PERCENTAGE OF COMPLAINANTS IN SEVEN-CITY AND TWO-CITY SAMPLES iv LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 BASIC SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: TWO-CITY STUDY VERSUS PHASE II SEVEN-CITY STUDY 2 PERCENT RESPONDENTS MENTIONING (WITHOUT 13 PROMPTING) AIRCRAFT NOISE AS FIRST NEIGHBOR- HOOD DISADVANTAGE, AND PERCENT REPORTING (WITH PROMPTING) AIRCRAFT NOISE AS MOST DISLIKED THING IN NEIGHBORHOOD PERCENT RESPONDENTS REPORTING POTENTIAL 13 AND ACTUAL COMPLAINT CONCERNING MOST DISLIKED THING IN NEIGHBORHOOD PERCENT RESPONSE ON ANNOYANCE AND ITS 14 IMPORTANT CORRELATES PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTSWITH LOW, MODERATE, 24 AND HIGH ANNOYANCE G PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY MONTH, 1959-1967, KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CORRELATION OF ANNOYANCE G WITH CNR-TYPE 38 VARIABLES CORRELATION OF STANDARD CNR WITH OTHER CNR- 38 TYPE VARIABLES COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL ANNOYANCE 42 G FOR TWO-CITY AND SEVEN-CITY PHASE II SAMPLES 10 CORRELATIONS OF VARIOUS VARIABLES WITH ANNOYANCE G 11 MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS MODELS FOR 45-46 PREDICTION OF ANNOYANCE G 12 TWO-CITY PREDICTIVE EQUATION FOR ANNOYANCE G 48 13 VARIABLES, CLASSES, AND MCA COEFFICIENTS FOR 49 TWO-CITY PREDICTIVE EQUATION V LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table Title Page 14 COMPARISON OF VARIABLES USED IN SEVEN-CITY 50 AND TWO-CITY PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS FOR ANNOYANCE ANNOYANCE AND COMPLAINT STATISTICS FOR 15 53 SEVEN-CITY AND TWO-CITY SAMPLES 16 PERCENTAGE HIGHLY ANfiOYED BY NEF ZONE ESTIMATION OF COMMUNITY REACTION FOR A 17 59 HYPOTHETICAL AIRPORT COMMUNITY vi COMMUNITY REACTION TO AIRCRAFT NOISE,AROHND SMALLER CITY AIRPORTS By William K. Connor and Harrold P. Patterson TRACOR, Inc.

SUMMARY This report presents the results of a study of community reaction to jet aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports in These cities were Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Reno, Nevada.

surveyed in order to obtain data for comparison with those obtained in larger cities during a previous study. (The cities studied earlier were Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, and,New York.) The purpose of the present effort was to observe the relative reaction under conditions of lower noise exposure and in less highly urbanized areas, and to test the previously developed predictive equation for annoyance under such circum- stances.

In Chattanooga and Reno a total of 1960 personal interviews based upon questionnaires were obtained. Aircraft noise measure- ments were made concurrently and aircraft operations logs were maintained for several weeks in each city to permit computation of noise exposures. The survey respondents were chosen randomly from various exposure zones.

The following conclusions resulted from this study: A significant difference exists between the smaller 1.

cities and the seven cities previously studied in regard to the relationship between annoyance and air- craft noise exposure at Composite Noise Rating values

L -

The percentage of highly annoyed persons below 125.

in the smaller cities was less than half that in the This difference appears to be related to larger cities.

factors other than basic demographic characteristics.

2. The multivariant annoyance predictive. equation developed in the previous study produced a somewhat less accurate prediction for the smaller cities than for the larger cities. A similar equation developed from the smaller city data employs a modified set of predictor variables and produced about the same accuracy as the earlier equation, when used for the smaller cities.

3. The relationship between aggregate community annoyance and complaint is well defined for the nine cities which have been studied.

The percentage of complainants is considerably less than the percentage of highly annoyed and is proportional to the square of the latter.

Given the noise exposure and population density 4.

patterns for'a community, the number of.highly annoyed persons and the number of complainants can be estimated for the community as a whole.

This report presents the results, procedures, and data from a study of community reaction to jet noise around small city airports under Contract NASl-10216. The specified period of performance is 17 August 1970 to 2 October 1971.

In 1970 TRACOR completed a three-year study of conrnunity reaction around seven major U.S.. airports (Contract NASw-1549).l This study will be referred to as "the seven-city study," following In this research a colloquial usage which has established itself.

considerable insight was gained into the interrelationships of noise exposure, annoyance, complaint, and individual attitudes and characteristics. Additional information was obtained concerning noise monitoring techniques, the relationships between different measures of community noise exposure, and the effect of house attenuation. A multivariant equation for predicting individual annoyance was derived in the first phase of work and tested in the second phase.

Following review of the seven-city study it was suggested that surveys be performed also in cities having smaller airports.

Several reasons were advanced for this.

First of all, additional data from relatively low noise exposure areas are needed to permit more accurate estimations of response following implemen- tation of noise alleviation measures such as aircraft retrofitting, noise abatement flight patterns, and introduction of quieter aircraft.

Second, because of increasing jet service to secondary traffic centers in relatively small cities, it is important to determine if such communities tend to have patterns of response significantly different from those observed in metropolitan areas.

Finally, smaller airports offer an opportunity to test the weight of operations counts with respect to effective noise exposure, since they are served by typical aircraft but at a relatively low traffic volume. This latter consideration is particularly significant since publication of the report on the second London airport survey, which raises some questions concerning the effect of the number of aircraft operations.

The foregoing considerations led to the present work, which will be denoted "the- two-city study" in contradistinction to the earlier effort. In the two-city study,, acoustical and social surveys in Reno, Nevada, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, were performed employing esse;tially the same techniques used previously by TRACOR and by others. ' The observed community response was significantly different from that in the seven-city study. Reasons for this are discussed in this report, which also presents noise exposure, demographic, and attitudinal data and explores the relationship of these to annoyance and complaint. In the course of this analysis, considerable use is made of data from the seven- city study as a baseline for comparison and some new results from these are included. In addition, a new computer tape containing salient data for all nine cities was prepared and used for comparisons; this tape is a resource for further research beyond the scope of the present effort.

In the sections entitled Social Survey and Noise Exposure, this report describes the procedures used in data collection and and analysis. The remaining sections present and discuss the results in various aspects. These results are also presented briefly in the SUMMARY. Appendices contain the survey questionnaire, definitions of all variables involved in the study, frequencies of these variables, and a comparison of annoyance scales.

SOCIAL SURVEY Site Selection During February 1970 a list of 22 candidate survey sites was compiled. Criteria for selection of these cities were a 1960 population of approximately 250,000 and annual scheduled aircraft departures from 10,000 to 25,000.- Basic data (maps, census data, etc.) for each of these candidate sites were acquired for further Over one-half of the cities were dropped from the list study.

for reasons which included 1) proximity to military air operations, 2) low population density in the vicinity of the airport, 3) increase in population substantially above 250,000, and 4) presence of other public or private airports in the near vicinity.

The remaining candidates were Little Rock, Arkansas; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Jacksonville, Florida; Madison, Wisconsin; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Sacramento, California; Spokane, Washington; and Colorado Springs, Colorado. Staff visits to these cities were made during July and August to obtain first hand information.

Most of the cities were eliminated for one or more of the reasons cited above. Madison and Spokane had extensive military air operations; Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Little Rock, and Jacksonville did not have an adequate sample population near the airport; and Colorado Springs was eliminated for both reasons.

After full consideration, Chattanooga and Reno (actually the cities of Reno and Sparks) were finally chosen for the sample cities. Reno did have some Air National Guard flights, but these originated from the commercial airport rather than from a military base and were readily distinguishable from commercial flights by residents.

Sampling Plan Since low levels of noise exposure were expected in the survey cities, a sampling plan was developed which would assure continuity with seven-city data and at the same time achieve an adequate sample at all levels of exposure. The method employed was to map rough noise exposure zones off each end of the then to sample equally in each zone.

main runway, The noise exposure zones were defined by PNdB contours for typical aircraft and operations in each city. As shown 'in Figures 1 and 2, the three sampling zones were 80-90, 90-100, and lOO+ PNdB. These contours and zones were used for sampling purposes only; actual noise exposures were determined independently. However, this procedure did produce a reasonable distribution of respondent the plan called for exposures, as shown in Figure 3. Initially, equal interviewing off both ends of the runway. However, in Reno this was impossible for lack of population south of the airport.

The procedure used in Reno was to list all possible blocks off both ends of the runway and, from these, to select a random sample in each noise exposure zone. In Chattanooga the sample was divided equally and a random sample of blocks within noise expo- sure zones was selected off both ends'of the runway.

The mechanics of sample selection,involved listing blocks by location from runway and by exposure zones,, randomly selecting blocks and listing them, and finally producing assignment sheets complete with maps for each interviewer. With a planned sample size of 1,000 in each city and allowing six interviews per block, 167 blocks were selected in each city.

Field Operations During and following the preparation of the sample plan, field operations were initiated. Interviewers were hired and trained and interviewing was begun in Reno during the period CHATTANOOGA FIG. 1 - MAP OF CHATTANOOGA SHCWING SAMPLING ZONES DEFINED BY PNdB CONTOURS N T.

FIG. 2 - MAP OF EtENQ/SPARKS SHWING SAMPLING ZONES DEFINED BY PNdB CONTOURS

r 0 CHATTANOOGA

= 1114) W --o-- RENO -- I = 846) / (N NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS loo 1.05 110 115 120 125 130 130+ -- 85 90 95 8!1 COMPOSITE NOISE RATING (CNR) FIG. 3 - NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY CNR CATEGORY from 13 bctober through 25 October. Hiring and training of interviewers was accomplished in Chattanooga during the period of 9 November through 16 November and interviewing there was begun immediately thereafter.

It was originally intended that approximately 1,000 interviews would be gathered in each of .the two cities. However, because of a total of only 846 interviews were obtained in Reno contract delay, by 19 December. As it was not economically feasible to suspend Reno operations during the Christmas holidays and to resume interviewing in January, it was decided to curtail the Reno survey and to over-sample in Chattanooga during the month of January.

A total of 1,114 interviews were completed in Chattanooga when field operations were discontinued there on 31 January 1971. The total interview sample for both cities was thus 1,960.

The questionnaire used for interviewing was a revised version of the Form D questionnaire used in Phase 11 of the seven-city study; it is included as Appendix A. The revisions consisted largely of deletions approved by the Bureau of the Budget; these did not affect any of the variables dealt with in this report.

Validity checks were made on 77% of the Reno interviews and 53% of the Chattanooga interviews.

Sample Characteristics Table 1 gives some of the basic characteristics of the Chattanooga and Reno'samples; for comparison, these are also shown for the Phase II samples of the seven-city study.

(The latter, which include the cities of Boston, Miami, and New York, were selected in particular because they were most recently surveyed and because the interview procedures used were essentially the same as in the two-city study.) The variables presented in Table 1 are defined in Appendix B.

The Chattanooga and Reno samples show a much higher degree of mobility than those of

I - .-----

Table 1 BASIC SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: TWO-CITY STUDY VERSUS, PHASE 11 SEVEN-CITY STUDY .

% Education % High more than Median Occupational tsyc$& % Age City Mobility ' Rating High School 60+ Chattanooga 0.59 25 39 32 24 34 16 Reno 2.09 19 50 29 24 Boston 0.08 22 37 43 33 Miami 0.44 20 36 38 13 New York 0.13 37 56 % Home- % High % High owners Visitation % Anglo % Female Discussion Chattanooga 81 39 96 74 19 Reno 75 39 96 70 14 Boston 63 50 98 71 46 Miami 74 35 71 59 29 New York 82 54 94 68 54 Phase.11, with Reno notably high in this respect. They also have lower indices of visitation and discussion than Boston Otherwise, the characteristics listed exhibit no and New York.

prominent differences between the two-city and seven-city samples.

Tables 2, 3, and 4 deal with characteristics related to aircraft noise disturbance, again for both the two-city and seven- According to Table 2, more Reno respondents city Phase 11 samples.

reported general disturbance by aircraft noise than did Chattanooga respondents, but in both cities the incidence of such response was much lower than in the Phase II cities, by a factor of 3 or more in comparison to Boston and New York. Table 3 has to do with potential or actual complaint concerning aircraft or other things most disliked in the neighborhood. The Chattanooga and Reno respondents tended to direct their animosity toward non-aircraft elements more so than did those of the Phase II sample; the level irrespective of its object, is lower in of actyal complaint, Chattanooga and Reno. Table 4 gives a comparison of the cities with respect to annoyance and to the variables most closely related to it. (These variables are defined in AppendixB and discussed further in the section entitled Individual Annoyance.)

The distinction between the two sets of cities is clear except in the case of "noise susceptibility" where,little difference is seen. Chattanooga and Reno have a lower incidence of high annoyance, high fear, high misfeasance, and low importance, and a much higher index of adaptability.

From the foregoing evidence it is apparent that on a general community basis, aircraft noise is not a problem of dominant significance in Chattanooga and Reno. Both tend to rank somewhat below Miami (as surveyed in 1969) in all the indicators of aircraft noise impact and resulting reaction, and of course far below Boston and New York, where aircraft noise problems were unparalleled in the USA except for Los Angeles.

These results are to be expected in view of the lower noise exposure conditions Table 2 PERCENT RESPONDENTS MENTIONING WITHOUT PROMPTING) AEIGHBORHOOD AIRCRAFT NOISE AS FIRST DISADVANTAGE, AND PERCENT REPORTING (WITH PROMPTING) AIRCRAFT NOISE AS MOST DISLIKED THING IN NEIGHBORHOOD Most Disliked First Neighborhood Thing Disadvantage city Chattanooga 5% 5% Reno 8 Boston 37 12 19 Miami New York 31 Table 3 PERCENT RESPONDENTS REPORTING POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL COMPLAINT CONCERNING MOST DISLIKED THING IN NEIGHBORHOOD Complaint Potential* Complaint Action**

1 I

Most Disliked Thing Most Disliked Thing City in the Neighborhood in the Neighborhood Aircraft Other Aircraft Other Chattanooga 51% 72% 20% 43% Reno 32 64 26 Boston 81 70 54 Miami 46 53 36 New York 81 53 74 70 *Felt like complaining **Actually complained Table 4 PERCENT RESPONSE ON ANNOYANCEAND ITS IMPORTANT CORRELATES High High High High High Low Airport City Annoyance Fear Susceptibility Adaptability Misfeasance Importance

I

Chattanooga 9% 18% 5% 57% 5% 1% Reno 14 13 9 61 8 1 Boston 43 44 10 29 16 4 Miami 21 16 4 50 9 2 New York 63 51 7 19 J9 6 found around smaller airports. The question of response in the two sets of cities at the same levels of exposure is examined in the succeeding sections and it is found that the degree of reaction'is lower in Chattanooga and Reno than in previously studied cities even at the same noise exposure levels.

II - NOISE EXPOSURE Operations Logs The fact that commercial traffic at both Chattanooga and Reno is relatively light permitted detailed records of operations as well as extensive noise measurements. With the cooperation of FAA tower officials, personnel were stationed in the respective airport control towers to maintain operations logs over a,period of approximately two months prior to and during the social surveys.

Although these persons worked on a 40-hour per week basis, their working shifts were staggered so as to cover about equally all periods of the day and all days of the week. In addition, infonna- tion concerning the few night operations was obtainable at most times from the tower personnel. These records made possible an accurate reconstruction of events for correlation with field noise data and for determining average operations counts.

The distribution of commercial operations by time of day for the two survey cities is compared to that of three cities It is apparent that, from the seven-city study in Figure 4.

although the total counts are much lower, the daily pattern is much the same.

Noise Monitoring The noise produced in the survey areas was monitored and recorded in detail over a period of two to four weeks during The purpose of these measurements was to the social survey.

obtain a good sampling of each type of flyover (by aircraft, runway, and operation type) at representative points in the community, from which, together with long-term average operation noise exposure values could be computed.

counts, oCHATTANOOGA ,n RENO A LOS ANGELES PERCENT OF OPERATIONS 0 0600 1200 1800 2400 TIME OF DAY PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DAILY OPERATIONS FIG. 4 - BY TIME OF DAY FOR CHATTANOOGA, RENO, AND THREE PHASE I CITIES FROM THE SEVEN-CITY STUDY Five specially constructed monitor units were used to obtain noise data. Each unit consisted of a microphone with windscreen, an'electronics section in a tamperproof housing, and a battery- inverter power supply. A block diagram of the system is shown in Figure 5. The N-weighted noise level was recorded continuously for periods of up to 4 days (at which p0int.a change of battery and paper tape reloading was required) by a graphic recording device.

The recording scale had a dynamic range of 50 dB which could be set according to the peak levels prevailing at the installation site.

In use, the five monitors were' deployed as a group in one section of the community. By inspecting all five records simulta- neously and referring to the operations logs, it was possible to associate the appropriate aircraft operation with each noise peak and to discriminate against peaks caused by local road vehicles.

The monitors were moved according to wind conditions so as to sample both take-offs and landings at both ends of the primary runway at each airport.

Noise Exposure Computations For comparison with data from the seven-city study, noise exposures were computed in terms of Composite Noise Rating (CNR) values. It was found in the previolis study that CNR is at least as good a predictor of community and individual response as any other standard measure. For traffic levels such as those in Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles, the following approximations relating CNR to other well-known measures were found to be valid: = NEF + 72 CM CNRrNNI' + 56 where NEF is the Noise Exposure Forecast and NNI' the modified Noise and Number Index, both'as computed from actual field data.

N-WEIGHTING f DIGITAL LOG INVERTER DETECTOR SUPPLY I I DIGITAL TO 12 V AUTO ANALOG BATTERY CONVERTER RECORDING METER FIG. 5 - BLOCK DIAGRAM OF NOISE MONITOR SYSTEM Exposure values were computed according to the formulae CNR = F antilog (CNRj/lO) 10 l0Q-j = PNLj + 10 loglo 'NDj + 20 NNj) - 12 CNR.

J where j is a single class of operation producing a particular noise characteristic at some particular reference point, N Dj are the number of occurrences in that class during the and NNj periods (0600-2100) and (2100-0600) respectively, and PNLj is the energy-mean maximum perceived noise level for that class.

The PNL for each measured flyover was determined by adding 7 units to the maximum N-weighted level, this being the correction factor established from the seven-city data between the latter and the non-discrete-frequency-corrected PNL calculated from band analysis.

Noise exposure was determined at a number of points in each community and values were assigned to each block in the social survey, extrapolating where necessary. The distribution of expo- sure by survey respondents is shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the sampling plan described previously resulted in a reasonable distribution up to CNR 120 including a good represen- tation at the lower exposure levels which are of particular interest.

COMPARISON OF ANNOYANCE IN THE 'IWO-CITY AND SEVEN-CITY SAMPLES Measures of Annoyance Annoyance is by definition the state or condition-of being disturbed or irritated , particularly by a specific set of repeated stimuli. For research purposes vari.ous scales of annoyance have been developed to quantify such states for individuals. The measure Annoyance G is used in this section. Other annoyance variables, such as Annoyance V used in Phase I of the seven-city study and Annoyance F discussed in Appendix.C are more sophisti- cated in construction than Annoyance G but in fact do not prove to have substantially greater meaning or utility. This is consistent with the observation of McKennell that annoyance measures are relatively insensitive to the procedures used in their construction. Both the V and F measures incorporate Annoyance G or its elements and correlate very highly with it.

Annoyance G is a summated disturbance rating constructed for each survey respondent from his responses to Question 20 of the interview form. (The questionnaire is incorporated in this report as Appendix A.)

A list of nine normal daily activities was presented to the respondent, who was asked to indicate the degree of bother by aircraft noise for each activity on a scale of 0 to 4. These ratings were scored according to the procedures described in Appendix C to form Annoyance G, which has a range of 0 to 45.

At a given level of aircraft noise exposure there is a wide range of individual annoyance scores.

Therefore it is sometimes convenient to define categories of annoyance and to determine the proportion of the sample population in each category.

Such a procedure was used in Phase I of the seven-city study.

Low, moderate, and high annoyance categories were established so as to provide three respondent groups of approximately equal size.

The category ranges, which are still used in order to maintain continuity, are as follows: Range of Annoyance G Annoyance Category 21 - 45 High 10 - 20 Moderate o- 9 Low Although these categories were originally defined rather arbitrarily, the term "high annoyance" has literal meaning.

In order to be a member of the highly annoyed group, a respondent must have median or higher scores on the disturbance of at least seven out of nine activities. To describe such a 'person as highly annoyed would seem reasonable. Thus the proportion of highly annoyed in a given population is a parameter on which meaningful community criteria may be based.

The percentage of respondents in each of the three annoyance categories for the two cities of the present study and those of the previous seven-city study are given in Table 5: Table 5 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WITH LOW, MODERATE, AND HIGH ANNOYANCE G City Low Moderate High Chicago (1967) 43% 23% 34% Dallas (1967) 52 23 25 Denver (1967) 62 17 21 Los Angeles (1967) 31 22 47 Boston (1969) 29 28 43 Miami (1969) 56 23 21 New York City (1969) 14 23 63 Chattanooga (1970) 74 18 Reno (1970) .65 21 14 is sometimes used to denote the response The term "annoyance" In such cases it is of subjects in psychophysical experiments.

associated directly with measures of noisiness such as PNL or EPNL.

It should be emphasized that in this report no such meaning is annoyance here means the elicited response of indivi- ever implied; duals to stimuli received during the course of normal home activity.

Annoyance Categories and Noise Exposure for the seven-city and two-city samples Figures 6 and 7 show, the percentage of respondents in each of the three respectively, categories of Annoyance G as a function of aircraft noise exposure.

The latter is measured in terms of CNR computed in accordance with the section entitled Noise Exposure Computations. The contrast 1OOr N = 6502 PER 50- CENT <80 90 100 110 120 2130 NOISE EXPOSURE (CNR UNITS) FIG. 6 - CATEGORIES OF ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF NOISE EXPOSURE, SEVEN-CITY SAMPLE n PER CENT 180 90 100 110 120 2130 NOISE EXPOSURE (CNR UNITS) CATEGORIES OF ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF NOISE FIG. 7 - EXPOSURE, TWO-CITY SAMPLE between these two sets of data is striking.

The 10 percent highly annoyed level is reached at a CNR of about 90 in the seven-city case but at a CNR of 105 in the two-city sample, a shift of 15 units. the proportions of the three categories are about Also, equal for the seven cities at CNR 106, whereas for the two cities such a point would occur above CNR 120. Not only are the cities of the present study unusually low in aircraft noise disturbance generally, but also at specific levels of noise exposure.

It is instructive to compare the behavior of the high annoyance category alone in Figures 6 and 7.

It is apparent that in both cases the percentage approaches zero at some point below CNR 90 but that the slopes are quite different.

To emphasize this behavior, two regression lines as shown in Figure 8 were developed from the two sets of data respectively. These lines were constrained to pass through the same abscissa intercept, as . 'SEVEN-CITY SAMPLE

r

0 TWO-CITY SAMPLE PERCENT HIGHLY ANNOYED NOISE EXPOSURE (CM UNITS) FIG. 8 - PERCENTAGE OF HIGHLY ANNOYED RESPONDENTS WITH LEAST- SQUARE LINES THROUGH COMMONINTERCEPT (CNR = 85.3) determined from the combined data. This intercept value is CNR 85.3; for the seven-city data alone, the value is CNR 81.9 and for the two-city, CNR 85.9. The equations for the two lines are % Highly Annoyed (7-city) = 1.585 (CNR - 85.3) % Highly Annoyed (2-city) = 0.729 (CNR - 85.3) The implication of this analysis is that below CNR 85 essentially no high annoyance exists but that its rate of.growth in the seven- city sample is about 2.2 times that in the two-city. The point for CNR 125-130 in the latter sample was not used in determining the two-city regression line, in order to emphasize the relative slope of the two ‘lines at lower levels; it should be remembered that the percentage of highly annoyed at this level of exposure is approximately the same for the two samples.

Discussion The foregoing results show a substantial difference in response Inasmuch as the field between the seven-city and two-city samples.

procedures for measurement of noise and acquisition of response data were essentially identical in the two studies, this difference must be attributable to some other factor or set of factors. Two areas in which these might lie are the noise exposure formulation and the characteristics of the sample. .Each of these will be considered in turn.

- The noise exposure parameter used in this Noise Exposure report is the Composite Noise Rating (CNR). This measure reflects two relationships which were empirically determined in past studies. These are the effective noise differential between daytime operations and nighttime operations (one night operation equivalent to 20 day operations) and the so-called number correc- tion (10 log N). If these relationships are not generally correct, in the sense of being applicable to both the large-city and small- city situations, a shift in effective noise exposure could exist which might explain the observed difference in response.

In order for the time of day differential to produce a significant shift in effective exposure, the ratio of daytime to nighttime operations must be greatly different for the seven- city and two-city samples. In fact, this ratio .(as determined from the data shown graphically in Figure 4) is 4.38 for the two-city operations and'4.77 for the representative seven-city operations. This difference between the two samples is so small that the day-night differential would have to be radically altered, controverting all previous evidence, in order to produce a significant exposure shift. It is concluded that this element is a very unlikely source of the observed differences in response as a function of exposure.

The number correction is an element of particular4interest, and since the British NNI measure utilizes a 15 log N term the German Q index, as applied to aircraft‘noise, a 13 log N term. The use of either of these stronger weightings in place of the 10 log N correction in the CNR formula would tend to emphasize the difference in operations counts between the two-city and seven-city studies in such a way as to reduce the apparent Further evidence of the importance of annoyance differences.

in addition to an independent confirmation of operations counts, the effects obsgrved in the present study, is given in a recent Swedish report. In the Swedish study it was found that, in airport areas with less than 70 take-offs per day, the level of annoyance was much lower than elsewhere. This is consistent with the circumstances observed in Reno and Chattanooga.

The average daily number of commercial aircraft operations in the two-city study was 52 (range: 50 to 54). In the seven- the average daily number (for the year 1967) was city study, 353 to 1573).

834 (range: Using the ratio of the average operations counts, a number correction of 15 log N as opposed to the CNR number correction of 10 log N would produce an effective shift in exposure of 6 units; a number correction of 20 log N would produce a shift of 12 units. Alteration of the number correction in this way, however, does not produce a satis- factory resolution of the two-city/seven-city difference in observed for the following reasons: annoyance,, (1) The shift in response is not large enough over most of the exposure range.

(2) The effect is only a shift in exposure', which does not explain the difference in slopes shown in Figure 8.

(3) An increase in the number weighting produces a decrease in correlation of exposure and annoy- ance, as demonstrated in the chapter INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE, and is therefore undesirable.

Although the logarithmic number correction does not provide the desired explanation, it is possible that some other form The Swedish investigators suggest that the effect might do so.

of operations counts may be different for different levels of reaching a plateau of saturation for high operations air traffic, counts; their data, however, are too limited to depict this behavior in detail.' in the second Heathrow study it was Also, found that annoyance correlated more highly with operations counts on a linear basis than on a logarithmic basis. These results and those at hand suggest the need for investigation of a non-CNR- type exposure measure, using the presently available data bank and emphasizing the effect of operations counts upon both individual and aggregate annoyance scores, to determine if a number correc- tion of linear or other type will produce both an explanation of the differences of Figure 8 and an acceptable correlation with individual annoyance.

Characteristics of the Sample - It was noted in the previous section entitled Sample Characteristics that the two-city sample differed from the seven-city Phase II sample in certain characteris- in particular, displayed lower ratings on variables tics and, The only basic social associated with aircraft noise annoyance.

differences were more frequent moving or residence (mobility) in Reno and less discussion among family and friends of the most disliked neighborhood problems in both Reno and Chattanooga. A significant association of mobility with annoyance has never appeared in analysis of data from either the two-city or the seven-city sample, nor is there any obvious rationale for such an effect. The same In the two- is not true of the discussion variable, however.

city analysis, discussion ranked sixth among variables correlated with annoyance. (See Table 10.) It seems possible that lack of social reinforcement due to an unusually low.level of discussion may to some extent be responsible for lower annoyance at a given However, this factor is exposure level in the two-city sample.

too weak to account for more than a small part of the differences in observed annoyance.

The remaining variables reflecting two-city/seven-city differences, as listed under Sample Characteristics, tend to be associated with aircraft noise annoyance. These include "most disliked thing" in the neighborhood, adaptability to aircraft noise, and similar items. None of the differences in these variables can be regarded as factors determining, or conditioning toward, unusually low annoyance at a given level of noise exposure.

Any causal relationships between negative attitudes about aircraft and noise exposure from aircraft are as likely to proceed from the latter to the former as in the opposite direction.

There is thus no evidence that particular characteristics of the local samples contribute to decreased reaction, save for the minor effect of discussion mentioned above.

One remaining characteristic of the sample or, more accurately, of the survey itself, which may be responsible for the relatively low levels of annoyance in Chattanooga and Reno, is the season of the year. All of the seven-city surveys were performed in the summer, which is a season of heightened reaction, at least in northern communities, whereas the two-city field work was done in the late fall and early winter months October through January.

Some confirmation of the seasonal effect in quantitative terms is available from data on seasonal variation of community Such data are available complaint concerning aircraft noise.

for New York City (Kennedy International Airport area) and are The mean monthly complaint rate for the shown in Table 6.

seven-city survey months (May through September) is 16.6%; for the two-city survey months (October through January) it is 1.9%, Table 6 PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY MONTH, 1959-1967, KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT % Annual % Annual Month Complaints Month Complaints JAN 2 JUL 24.5 FEB 1.5 AUG 23 MAR 2.5 SEP 10 APR 4 OCT 3.5 MAY 7.5 .NOV 2 JUN 18 DEC 1.5 a ratio of 8.7. If it is assumed that this behavior is typical of all cities having a distinct winter season (including Chattanooga and Reno), then the expected summer complaint rate for the two- city sample would be 8.7 times the observed rate. The implication of this, according to the general relationship developed in the section entitled Annoyance and Complaint, is a substantially reduced level of annoyance during the winter survey months of the two-city study, .as actually observed.

To apply this hypo- thetical explanation directly.to the data of Figure 8 in order

I -

to resolve the difference shown would require knowledge of the distribution of "winter" and "non-winter" types in the sample according to noise exposure and annoyance category. For example, if it happened that the two-city subsample with an exposure of 125-130 CNR units was surveyed early during the warmer days, the relatively high percentage of highly annoyed which was actually obtained for that particular group would be expected.

Since no simple assumptions can be made as to the seasonal distribution of the sample, however, confirmation of the seasonal effect will require additional data.

If the seasonal hypothesis is accepted, the question arises The survey data do not as to what mechanism produces the effect.

It is believed that provide any obvious indication of this.

seasonal changes in reaction are due to changes in individual orientation from outdoor circumstances to indoor, concomitant with When a person goes out normal seasonal changes in living habits.

of doors only as a transient and conducts all his regular activities indoors, he is insulated from aircraft noise by building structures and is subjected to lower effective noise exposure, thereby probably experiencing reduced annoyance.

INDIVIDUAL ANNOYANCE annoyance was dealt with in discrete In the previous section, Such an approach is convenient for planning and categories.

It does not, estimating purposes involving large populations.

however, lead to any understanding of the annoyance of specific individuals and to possible sources of alleviation based upon such knowledge. This section of the.report discusses individual annoy- ance and its relationship to noise exposure and other variables.

Correlation of Annoyance and Noise Exposure In the seven-city study it was shown that individual annoyance correlated as well or better with Composite Noise Rating (CNR) as with other standard measures of aircraft noise exposure.

This correlation was re-examined in the present study using a master analytic data tape incorporating revised seven-city data as well as two-city data. The correlation of annoyance with exposure in terms of CNR was 0.25 for the two-city sample. The value for the seven-city Phase II sample was 0.41, lower than the 0.49 given in the seven-city report;' this difference resulted from revisions of the basic exposure data. The revised data are more accurate and thus also is the new correlation coefficient, even though it is lower. Improved correlation or prediction of individual annoyance requires consideration of additional variables as discussed in a later section.

Figure 9 shows lines of regression of Annoyance G on CNR for the two samples.

The two lines are given by Annoyance G (7-city Phase II) = -35.3 + 0.497 CNR Annoyance G (2-city) = -9.24 + 0.190 CNR ANNOYANCE G SAMPLE 1960) (N = / 90 100 110 120 NOISE EXPOSURE (CNR UNITS) FIG. 9 - LINES OF REGRESSION OF ANNOYANCE G ON NOISE EXPOSURE (CNR) FOR SEVEN-CITY AND TWO-CITY SAMPLES These regression lines behave similarly to those for percent highly annoyed (given-in Annoyance Categories) in two respects.

which is the value at which the highly They intersect at CNR 85, Also the ratio of their slopes annoyed categories approached zero.

is 2.6, comparable to 2.2 for the categories with one of the two- city datum points omitted.

Effects of Number Correction and Operation Type The new master analytic tape was also used to analyze the effects upon correlation of annoyance and exposure of the number correction and of operation type (landing or take-off). This was done by constructing CNR-type variables using different number weightings and by examining the partial CNR's for landings and take-offs separately as well as in combination. Such variables were defined as follows: - Partial CNR for noise due to landings only LCNR - Partial CNR for noise 'due to take-offs only TCNR Combined CNR for all operations CCNR - CNR with (K log N) number correction CNRK - Thus in this notation the standard CNR measure would be denoted CCNRlO. (Because exposure computations for Phase I of the seven-city study were performed without regard to operation types per se, the reconstruction of the basic data would be difficult and perhaps unreliable; therefore only Phase II is included in the present analysis.)

The correlations of Annoyance G, as computed for individual respondents, with the various constructed exposure variables is given in Table 7. The variation with number correction is small and clearly does not offer any justification for changing from the present standard 10 log N factor.

It is apparent, however, that the 15 log N factor used in the Noise and Number Index @WI) formulation would be somewhat inferior to a 5 log N weighting.

The variation of correlation with respect to type of operation is striking and also contrary in direction for the seven-city and two-city samples. In the‘former, take-off noise would appear to Table 7 CORRELATION OF ANNOYANCE G WITH CNR-TYPE VARIABLES Two-City Seven-City Phase II Exposure K=20 K=lO K=15 K=20 K=5 K= 10 K=15 Vari'able Kc5 0.41 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.41 LCNRK 0.42 I I TCNRK 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.17 CCN-RK 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.22 play essentially no role in determining reaction; in the latter, .such noise tends to take precedence.

The data of Table 8 offer some explanation.

These show that noise exposure itself, as represented by the combined CNR, is dominated by landings in the first case and by take-offs in the second. This probably is a consequence of the geography of all three Phase II cities (Boston, Miami, and New York); their airports are situated by the ocean or adjacent to largely unpopulated land areas and offer options Table 8 CORRELATION OF STANDARD CNR WITH OTHER CNR-TYPE VARIABLES Seven-City Phase II Two-City

I

.K=lO, K=20 K=5 K =15 K=lO K=15 K=20 I 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.88 for take-offs over the water and/or community-avoidance take-off Since take-offs are generally noisier than flight procedures.

As a result, such options are taken wherever possible.

landings, noise exposure for the Phase II survey respondents is predominantly In the case of the two-city'sample, the dominance from landings.

of take-offs is probably due to the fortuitous combination of wind and geographical population distribution, since the airports in these cities have only one major runway and thus offer no alternative flight options except under calm wind conditions.

The stronger differential between landing and take-off coefficients in Table 7 as compared to Table 8 suggests a greater sensitivity to landing noise'itself. This might partially explain the lower since take-offs are dominant annoyance in the two-city sample, there.

The preceding observations with respect to the number variable and types of operation are comparable to findings of the second London airport study. it was found that'the In particular, factor K in the number correction had little effect upon annoyance prediction by a measure of the NNI type and thus that the 15 log N term used in the NNI formula is of no special distinction among other possibilities. It was also found that the proportion of landings to total operations was not a factor sufficiently impor- tant to be included in a simple noise exposure measure.

Seven-City Predictive Equation During Phase I of the seven-city study a dummy-variable multiple regression equation was developed for explaining and predicting annoyance due to aircraft noise exposure. This equation used the following eight predictor variables, for each of which the detailed construction is described,in Appendix B: Fear - apprehension or worry that aircraft might crash in the neighborhood Noise Susceptibility - degree of bother by typical neighborhood sounds Distance - distance from center of airport to residence Adaptability - willingness to accept increased aircraft noise City - city of residence - belief that responsible persons are not Misfeasance doing anything about aircraft noise Importance - feelings regarding the value and importance of the airport and air transportation in general Noise Exposure - Composite Noise Rating Using these variables, a multiple correlation coefficient of 0.75 was obtained for the Phase I data on the basis of which the When subjected to validation predictive equation was derived.

using Phase II data, the same equation produced a correlation of predicted and observed annoyance of 0.71. There has been specula- tion as to how well the equation would work under low noise exposure conditions such as those found in Reno and Chattanooga.

Thus one goal of the present research was to determine the applicability of the seven-city predictive equation to such situations.

The following procedure was followed in evaluating the equation with data from the two-city study. All eight variables (except for City) were constructed from the two-city data. The same (The lowest categories were used as in the original equation.

possible coefficient was used for the City variable since both Chattanooga and Reno had considerably lower levels of air traffic.)

Then, using the coefficients from the seven-city study, a predicted Annoyance G value was obtained for each two-city respondent. These were then compared to actual values calculated from the survey data.

Table 9 shows a comparison between mean values of predicted and actual Annoyance G for the two-city study and also for the In Reno the equation Phase II cities of the seven-city study.

In general, the in Chattanooga it predicts high.

predicts low; equation predicts less well for the two-city study than for the although the correlation is much better than that larger cities, obtained in a preceding section using CNR as the sole predictor variable.

The lower correlation for the two-city sample is consistent with Swedish findings at smaller airports in Scandinavian countries'; essentially no correlation between annoyance and noise-related variables was obtained where there were less than 70 take-offs per day.'

Two-City Predictive Equation Data from the two-city sample were used to establish a predictive equation for annoyance similar to the seven-city equation.

The purpose of this effort was to determine whether an equation derived exclusively from smaller city data would have greater predictive power than the seven-city equation and to ascertain whether the important variables would be the same or not.

Table 10 shows the variables which correlate to a significant extent with Annoyance G in the two-city data.

(Distance from the airport was included simply to show that it does not correlate with annoyance in the smaller cities.)

Table 9 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL ANNOYANCE G FOR 'IWO-CITY AND SEVEN-CITY PHASE II SAMPLES (PREDICTIONS BASED ON PHASE I EQUATION) Mean Predicted Standard Mean Actual Standard Correlation Annoyance G Deviation Annoyance G Deviation Coefficient Boston 21.0 8.8 18.8 12.8 0.61 Miami 10.0 8.0 9.3 10.7 0.69 New York 23.1 9.4 24.3 12.2 0.61 Chattanooga 10.4 8.1 9.1 7.1 0.49 Reno 10.5 7.4 10.9 9.2 0.54 &o-city sample 10.4 7.8 9.9 7.7 0.51 Table 10 CORRELATIONS OF VARIOUS VARIABLES WITH ANNOYANCE G (Two-City Sample) Correlations with Annoyance G Variable Fear 0.3789 Adaptability -0.2657 CNR 0.2502 Pollution.Annoyance 0.2306 Noise Susceptibility 0.2236 Discussion 0.1961 Misfeasance 0.1682 Importance 0.1576 -0.1389 Age Health Damage 0.1350 Noise Irritability 0.1238 Distance 0.0055 In addition to variables embodied in the seven-city equation, Table 10 lists five other variables which are defined in detail in Appendix B. These are as follows: - bother by aircraft smoke, fumes, Pollution Annoyance oil dropout, landing lights - frequency of discussion of aircraft noise Discussion with friends, neighbors, or relatives - age of respondent A&!2 HealthDamage - belief that aircraft noise can damage a person's health Noise Irritability - degree of bother by sounds of high irritation potential The procedure used in developing a two-city equation was to construct a series of models (equations) for evaluation, each utilizing a certain number of variables from Table Id. The single variable Fear was used in the first model. Both Fear and Noise Susceptibility were used in the next model. Each succeeding model incorporated another variable and at each step the significance of adding that variable was tested. The Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) scheme was used throughout to construct the models.

Table 11 lists the models by number, the variables in each model, the relation of each variable to Annoyance G without considering the influence of the other variables in the model (Eta), the relation of each variable to Annoyance G taking into consideration the other variables in the set (Beta), the multiple correlation coefficient (R), the amount of variance explained in the dependent variable by the model (R2), and an F value which represents the significance of the increment over the previous model.

This procedure tests the significance of adding variables to a multiple regression equation. Model 1 is very signi- ficant. Each variable added to the previous model produces a significant increment in the amount of variance explained until Model 7 is reached. From that point on, no significant in.crements are obtained. The optimal model is thus Model 6 involving the variables Fear, CNR,. Noise Susceptibility, Adapta- bility, Pollution Annoyance, and Discussion, in order of importance.

Table 11 MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS MODELS FOR PREDICTION OF ANNOYANCE G (TWO-CITY SAMPLE) Model Variables Eta Beta R R2 F-Value .- ___- Fear 0.40 0.40 0.156* 120.25 0.395 Fear 0.40 0.38 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.16 0.424 0.179 18.75 Fear 0.40 0.33, Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.14 Pollution Annoyance 13.28 0.23 0.14 0.443 0.196 Fear 0.40 0.30 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.13 Pollution Annoyance 0.23 0.13 Adaptability 0.27 0.16 0.468 0.219 28.89 Fear 0.40 0.26 Noise Susceptibility 0.15 0.25 5 Pollution Annoyance 0.11 0.23 Adaptability 0.13 0.27 CNR 0.21 0.258 10.28 0.31 0.508 Fear 0.25 0.40 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.14 Pollution Annoyance 0.11 0.23 Adaptability 0.27 0.13 CNR 0.31 0.21 Discussion 0.21 0.10 0.517 0.267 4.53 Fear 0.40 0.24 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.13 Pollution Annoyance 0.23 0.10 7 Adaptability 0.27 0.12 CNR 0.31 0.21 Discussion 0.21 0.10 Misfeasance 0.17 0.07 0.520 0.271 1.89 Fear 0.40 0.24 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.13 Pollution Annoyance 0.23 0.10 Adaptability 0.27 0.12 CNR 0.31 0.21 Discussion 0.21 0.10 Misfeasance. 0.17 0.07 Noise Irritability 0.12 0.03 0.520 0.271 0.

*Significant at the 0.001 level . _____.. - .._.-.-- -.-.-- . m Table 11 - cont.

MULTIPLE CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS MODELS FOR PREDICTION OF ANNOYANCE G- (TWO-CITY SAMPLE) Model Variables Eta Beta R R2 F-Value Fear 0.40 0.23 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.12 Pollution Annoyance 0.23 0.09 Adaptability 0.27 0.12 CNR 0.31 0.21 Discussion 0.21 0.10 Misfeasance 0.17 0.07 Noise Irritability 0.12 0.03 Importance 0.20 0.93 0.08 0.525 0.275 Fear 0.40 0.23 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.12 Pollution Annoyance 0.23 0.09 Adaptability 0.27 0.12 CNR 0.31 0.21 Discussion 0.21 0.10 Misfeasance 0.17 0.06 Noise Irritability 0.12 0;03 Importance 0.20 0.08 Health Damage 0.14 0.05 0.527 0.278 0.39 Fear 0.40 0.23 Noise Susceptibility 0.25 0.11 Pollution Annoyance 0.23 0.09 Adaptability 0.27 0.12 CNR 0.31 0.21 11 Discussion 0.21 0.09 Misfeasance 0.17 0.05 Noise Irritability 0.12 0.03 Importance 0.20 0.08 Health Damage 0.14 0.06 0.14 0.09 0.532 0.297 0.43 4s 46.

I It is apparent that the two-city MCA equation represented by Model 6 does not in fact offer any significant increase in predic- tive power over the seven-city equation, although it does utilize a modified set of predictors as discussed in the next section. The two-city equation and associated coefficients are given in Tables 12 and 13 respectively. It may be noted that the number of categories for most predictors is smaller than in the seven-city equation; this was necessary because of the limited distribution of these predictors in the two-city sample.

Comparison of the Seven-City and Two-City Equations There are both contrasts and similarities between the constituents of the seven-city and two-city equations as shown in Table 14. An important difference is the inclusion of Discussion in the latter equation. This is the first instance in which a sociological variable has entered into the prediction of annoyance. It is also important that the two-city equation does not contain the items Misfeasance, Importance, and Distance.

The only new variable included besides Discussion is Pollution which is an indication of dissatisfaction with the Annoyance, polluting aspects of aircraft operations and which was important in the seven-city study in the explanation of complaint. A consideration of the Beta values in Model 6 shows that Fear and CNR are more important than the other variables. The rank of CNR has risen considerably from fifth out of eight variables in The central element in both equations the seven-city equation.

In the larger cities in the explanation of annoyance is Fear.

feelings of mistrust of officials and non-affective ties to the airport are important in explaining annoyance. In the smaller cities this is not the case.

The multiple R value of 0.53 to 0.55 for the two-city equation does not compare favorably with the value of 0.75 obtained with Table 12 njO-CITY PREDICTIVE EQUATION FOR ANNOYANCE G (Fear) = 9.96 + aln 'ln FL n= (Noise 'Susceptibility) a2n '2n (Pollution Annoyance) + n$l '3n '3n (Adaptability) + C &4n '4n n=l (CNR) + igl u5n '5n (Discussion) + n$l u6n '6n Table 13 VARIABLES, CLASSES, AND MCA COEFFICIENTS FOR TWO-CITY PREDICTIVE EQUATION m Variable n- Class %n (low) -1.24 1 Fear 4 ;I; bed) -0.01 (high) 4.14 3 7 -10 (low) -1.07 1 o-9 Noise 2 2 %29 (med) -0.12 Susceptibility 3 W-gh) 3.62 o-5 -0.21 Pollution (j-11 {:::j 3 ; 3.15 Annoyance 12+ 4.09 (high) None 1.22 4 Adaptability ; -0.85 Any

2’ 85-90 O-84 -0.25 -1.72

2 95-99 90-95 --0.68 -0.97 -0.69 5 100-104 5 CNR ; 110-114 105-109 -0.11 2.71 9” 115-119 120-124 4.64 1.42 10 125+ 10.77 -0.73 0.68 ; 10 0.48 6 Discussion 2 2 0.53 5 2 1.52 -~- Table 14 COMPARISON OF VARIABLES USED IN SEVEN-CITY AND TWO-CITY PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS FOR ANNOYANCE Seven-City Equation Rank Two-City Equation Rank I Fear 1 Fear 1 Noise Susceptibility 2 CNR 2 Adaptability 3 Noise Susceptibility 3 Distance 4 Adaptability 4 CNR 5 Pollution Annoyance 5 City 6 Discussion 6 Misfeasance 7 Importance 8 the original Phase I equation for Annoyance G or with the correlation coefficient of 0.71 obtained in the Phase II validation of that equation. This lack of predictive power may be due partially to the limited distribution of the dependent and predictor variables; it also reflects the operation of factors not included among the predictor variables.

Amalgamation of the seven-city and two-city samples for the derivation of a new predictive equation would appear to be a desirable goal.

Unfortunately, the differences in behavior of the fundamental variables are such that the data cannot be readily combined for this purpose.

It was shown in previous sections that the growth of annoyance with noise exposure is different for the two samples and that the difference is not attributable to a simple shift in either variable.

If the data are simply combined, the resulting predictive equation could have inferior predictive power and would be less applicable to the larger airport communit&es. If the data are combined and an additional binary large-city/small-city variable added in the MCA scheme, this variable would serve only as an additive constant rather than as a true predictor, although it might produce an inflated correlation and might cause the mean annoyance values for the two samples to coincide more nearly. To combine the data meaningfully, a procedure is needed for adjusting the effective noise exposure so as to resolve the two-city/seven-city differences in the previous chapter.

Annoyance and complaint as dealt with in this section denote, respectively, the "highly annoyed" category of Annoyance G as defined under Annoyance Categories and the fact of having at some time registered an overt complaint concerning aircraft noise. In the analysis of the seven-city data, it was found that high annoyance tends to be a necessary but not a suffi- cient condition for complaint. Also it was shown that a relationship exists between the percentage of respondents in a city who are highly annoyed and of those who are complainants.

This was expressed as a linear relation, but-it vas recognized that this was an approximation to a curvilinear function.

Addition of the two-city data requires a more accurate definition of the annoyance-complaint relationship. The fundamental information for all nine cities surveyed to date are given in Table 15. The percentage of highly annoyed ranges from 9% to 65%; that of complainants, from 0.3% to 22.4%. These Table 15 ANNOYANCE AND COMPLAINT STATISTICS FOR SEVEN-CITY AND TWO-CITY SAMPLES Percentage Number Number Percentage Highly Highly City N Complainants Complainants Annoyed Annoyed Boston 13.4 44.3 1,166 156 517 Chattanooga 1,114 3 0.27 102 9.15 Chicago 872 43 4.93 299 34.3 Dallas 923 22 2.38 236 25.6 Denver 1,009 33 3.27 215 21.3 Los Angeles 786 11.8 93 382 48.6 1.78 Miami 676 12 148 21.9 New York 240 1,070 22.4 696 65.0 R&o 846 4 0.48 124 14.6 data are plotted in Figure 10 together with a least-squares parabola, given by (percent highly annoyed) = 14.3J(percent complainanfiich fits the data well. The coefficient of linear correlation between observed and predicted values is 0.98, whether the fundamental predictor is percent highly annoyed or percent complainants. The implication of the relationship postulated above is that the rate of increase of complaint with respect to annoy- Since this applies to a large ance is proportional to annoyance.

population, the further implication is that a social interaction process is at work. If individuals such as the survey respondents were totally isolated from one another, it is unlikely that the, probability of one individual's being a complainant would be dependent upon the state of annoyance in others, It is reasonable to assume that a person's complaint potential depends upon both his own degree.of annoyance and the amount of general community distur- bance, the latter as perceived through the news media and discussions with others, individually or within a group.

On the basis of the hypothetical curve of Figure 10, high annoyance on the part of an entire population would not impel all its members to become complainants.

The 100% highly annoyed point corresponds to 49% complainants, in fact. Although this is an extrapolation, it does agree with the finding that certain factors other than annoyance are involved in complaint ;~;~;;~;"fyff . It also has been suggested that some households may have only one "representative" when such reaction is manifested; this would tend to reduce the observed complaint incidence.

It should be possible to predict the number of highly annoyed persons or the number of complainants in a community of reasonable size, given the other variable, with good accuracy.

This is a useful capability when dealing with the problem of community reaction. If adequate records are kept of complaint . .

o BOSTON PERCENT HIGHLY ANNOYED (HI . .

3 3 CHATTANOOGA i 0 5 10 15 20 25 PERCENT COMPLAINANTS (C) FIG. lo- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF HIGHLY ANNOYED AND PERCENTAGE OF COMPLAINANTS IN SEVEN-CITY AND TWO-CITY SAMPLES activity at an existing site --this requires distinguishing complainants from complaints --an assessment of the state of community annoyance is available. On the other hand, if the number of highly annoyed is.known from a survey of an adequate or if it can be predicted from noise exposure data, the sample, number of complainants expected can be computed. A simple procedure for doing the latter is set forth in the next chapter.

ESTIMATING COMMUNITY REACTION Relationships established earlier in this report can be used to estimate or predict reaction to aircraft noise in airport communities in terms of the number of people highly annoyed and the number who are expected to be complainants. The basic relationships (given previously) are the following: % Highly Annoyed (7-city) = 1.585 (CNR - 85.3) % Highly Annoyed (2-city) = 0.729 (CNR - 85.3) % Complainants = (% Highly Annoyed/14.3)2 For convenience, the first two equations may be modified to use the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) as the exposure variable on the basis of the relation NEF 1 CNR - 72 developed from the seven- city noise data. With this modification and reasonable rounding off, one obtains % Highly Annoyed (7-city) = 1.6 (NEF - 15) % Highly Annoyed (2-city) = '0.73 (NEF - 15) It is also convenient in many cases to deal in terms of standard NEF zones. For these situations the values in Table 16 may be used.

For larger cities in the summer months the seven-city values are applicable; for smaller cities in the fall and winter, the two city values should be used.

For other circumstances--such as a large city in wintertime-- the choice will depend upon whether one accepts the seasonal hypothesis or not. This choice must be left to the user, pending further knowledge.

The required steps in estimating community reaction are as follows: Table 16 PE&CENTAGE HIGHLY ANNOYED BY NEF ZONE

-

Percentage Highly Annoyed

T

NEF Zone !- Seven-City Two-City 15-20 6 20-25 14 7 22 10 25-30 30-35 30 14 35-40 38 18 40-45 46 21 45-50 54 25 50-55 62 29 Establish geographical aircraft noise exposure zones (1) using published NEF contours or measured exposure data.

Determine the resident population in each zone (2) starting at NEF 15, using census tract data, land area times estimated population density, etc.

Calculate the number of highly annoyed in each (3) zone from the population data and the percentage in Table 16.

Sum the number of highly annoyed and the populations (4) over all zones.

Calculate the percentage of highly annoyed for the (5) entire community area .within the NEF 15 contour.

(6) Calculate the percentage of complainants for the area.

The foregoing procedure is carried out as an example in Table Thus far it has not been applied to a real community or 17.

otherwise independently validated.

Table 17 ESTIMATION OF COMMUNITY REACTION FOR A HYPOTHETICAL AIRPORT COMMUNITY Percentage Number NEF Zone Population Highly Annoyed Highly Annoyed 15-20 6,000 6 360 20-25 4,000 14 560 25-30 3,000 22 660 30-35 2,000 30 600 35-40 700 38 266 40-45 200 46 92 45-50 100 54 50-55 0 62 0 TOTALS 16,000 2,592

I

Community Percentage Highly Annoyed = ma x 100 , = 16.2% .Community Percentage Complainants = (16.2/14.3)2 = 1.3% It is not presently possible to estimate the percentage of complainants in particular exposure zones, although it is recognized that complaints do arise from areas of relatively low noise exposure. The‘relationship between the percentage of complainants and the actual monthly complaint rate has not been It is likely that this relationship is highly established.

dependent upon the complaint channels available as well as other factors and therefore may have to be assessed for each individual community. On the basis of subjective observations made in the nine cities thus far surveyed, it appears that airport community noise problems of a very serious nature, such as numerous legal suits, may arise when the proportion of highly annoyed exceeds 25% or when the proportion of complainants exceeds 3%.

CONCLUSIONS A study of community reaction to jet aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Reno, Nevada, together with data from previous studies in seven larger cities of the USA, led to the following conclusions: 1. The percentage of highly annoyed.persons in the Chattanooga-Reno sample was slightly less than half that for the large-city sample at Composite Noise Rating (CNR) values below-125. For both samples, essentially no high annoyance existed at a CNR of 85 or less.

2. The difference in annoyance between the two samples is not attributable to basic demographic characteris- tics; the factors most likely responsible are season of the year and number of aircraft operations.

3. Prediction of. individual annoyance in Chattanooga either by CNR alone or by the predictive and Reno, equation developed in the study of larger cities, was less accurate than in the previous study. This result may be partly attributed to limited annoy- ance in the two-city sample. A new predictive equation derived solely 'from the two-city data emphasizes a somewhat different set of variables and affords about the same predictive power as the earlier equation.

4. The relationship between annoyance and complaint in a community as a whole is well defined for the nine cities studied. The percentage of complainants is considerably less than the percentage of highly annoyed and is proportional to the square of the latter.

This relationship is indicative of social srcement underlying complaint.

5. From known noise exposure and population density patterns in a community, the number of highly annoyed persons and the number of complainants can be estimated for the community as a whole.

APPENDIX A FORM D(R) QUESTIONNAIRE The original questionnaire page number is,given in parentheses at the bottom of each page for reference as required for Appendices B and C.

OFFICE USE ONLY No.

/ Red: Log Validity P/R / Grade

I

PROGRAM

IN

COMMUNITY STUDIES

FORM D (R)

FORM APPROVED BUDGET BUREAUNO. 104~S70002 QUESTIONNAIRE (FORMD--REVISED) Interviewer Name Number City.

Date of Interview / / Month Year Day Time Interview Began Ended Total Minutes Census Tract Census Block (NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ARF IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND ENCLOSED IN PARENTHESES. DO NOT RRAD THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO -- RESPONDENT.)

(INTRODUCE SELF) (1) * (INDICATE SUBJECT AND PURPOSE 0~ STUDY, FOR EXAMPLE:) (2).

I am a research interviewer working on a study of community issues My job is to help conduct here in (NAME OF CITY).

a survey of the attitudes and opinions of the residents of this city and this neighborhood regarding common issues.

Any answers you give me will be confidential, and they will be used to help plan future connnunity improvements.

(3) (HAND RESPONDENT OPINION THERMOMETER.)

The two sides of this card have "opinion thermometers" which we will use in several questions to estimate h&w you feel about certain things. For example, turn to Side I. On the left is a Frequency Scale to estimate How Often. For prac- tice, let's estimate how often you go to the movies. Think of hcrw often you go.

If you rarelygo to the movies, you <i> 67 APPENDIX A would say "zero". On the other hand, if you went very ;~g~o;;tf;ym;~;;;; ;~up~~~;~ss~;h:~~~;l otf ,;~', .

If you go to the movies about as often as your friends or acquaintances you would have a score of "two" - the average in most cases.

Now, how often would you say you go to the movies? (CIRCLE NUMBER) 0 12 3 4 The other scales (How Much and How Good) are used in 'the same way. Remember that "three" or "four" mean Very Much "zero" means Very Poor or Not at All, and or Very Good, "two" means About Average.

Now we will start.

1. HOW long have you lived in (NEIGHBORHOOD).?

(RECORD IN YEARS) DK NR How long have you lived in (CITY)?

(RECORD INYEARS) DK NR (2) APPENDIX A Now, at the present time, what are some of the things you like or don't like about living in this neighborhotid - things that you feel are advantages and make this a good place to live, or disadvantages - things that you feel are unpleasant?

What are the advantages, if any?

(RECORD ANSWER VERBATIM IN SPACE BELOW) (3) 69 APPENDIX A Now, most neighborhoods have some things about them people dislike.

What are the disadvantages of living in this neighborhood, 4a.

if any?

(RECORD ANSWER VERBATIM, RETAINING ORDER OF MENTION) (NUXBER ORDER OF MENTION IN COLUMN 4A) (IF VERBATIM ANSWERS DO NOT "FIT" CATEGORIES, RECORD ANSWERS IN SPACES BELOW "AIRCRAFT NOISE") DISADVANTAGES 1.

DK x3 Here is a list of things some people dislike the most about where they live.

(INTRODUCE CARD 1, HAND TO RESPONDENT) Which one thing on this list (ADD ANY MENTIONED IN 4a) 4b.

do you dislike the most about where you live?

(MARK ONE THING DISLIKED THE MOST IN COLUMN 4B) (4) APPENDIX A 4A NOTHING DISLIKED INCONVENIENT LOCATION EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE UNSAFE PLACE TO LIVE RUN-DOWN NEIGHBORHOOD POOR FACILITIES UNFRIENDLY NEIGHBORS DISLIKE FOR A CERTAIN HOUSE NO PRIVACY OTHER NOISE AIRCRAFT NOISE (TAKE BACK CARD 1) 4c. Using the Opinion Thermometer, 110~ much do you dislike this one thing? * (CIRCLE NUMBER IN COLUMN 4C) (GO TO 4D) b(SKIP TO 5A) (5) APPENDIX A In order to find out how important (Most Disliked Thing) is 4d.

in comparison to other things in the neighborhood, we want you (HAND R. CARD 2.) The idea to locate sev*a-tans on a scale.

is to pick a number on the scale which shows the relative importance of (Most Disliked Thing) to you.

(IF AIRCRAFT NOISE IS MOST DISLIKED THING): Notice that Aircraft Noise is located at the number "100." What number below it do you feel best fits the next most disliked thing in your neighborhood?

(WRITE IN LOCATION OF NEXT MOST DISLIKED THING) (TAKE BACK CARD 2) (GO TO 5C) iI, &&AFT'NOISE-IS &M~~T-D%IJ&, TH;NG), - - - - - - - - - - For example, Aircraft Noise is located at the number "100." What number above it do you feel best fits (Most Disliked Thing) in comparison to Aircraft Noise?

(WRITE IN LOCATION OF MOST DISLIKED THING) (TAKE BACK CARD 2) (GO TO 5C) ------.----------------------- - ---- 200.....

- 150.....

loo..... Aircraft Noise 50.....

0 . . . . .

: (6) APPENDIX A (IF NOTHING DISLIKED, ASK:) 5a. In the past was there ever anything you disliked about living here?

NO (IF NO, DK OR N-R GO TO QUESTION 8) YES -; N-R DK ; What.was that?

5b. (IF ,,,: 5c. How manv times in an average week do/did you discuss (MOST DISLIKED THING OR ONE THING DISLIKED IN THE PAST) with friends, neighbors, or relatives?

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 012 3 4 More than 4 DK NR -m Do/did you yourself ever feel like doing something to improve 5d.

this situation? For example, do/did you feel like: (READ LIST, MARK "YES" OR "NO") 5E 5D -_- - ~~-- IDKINRIYESI No 1 DK INR 1 I I I I I (7) APPENDIX A TO ALL ITEMS IN 5D, GO TO 5F) (IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "NO" Did you (or your family) actually do any of these things?

5e.

YES -; DK NR NO - (IF YES): Which one(s)? (MARK IN COLUMN 5E) What happened?

(IF NO): Why is that? That is, why did you decide not to dd anything?

5f. Has any local organization ever asked you to do any of these things?

YES ; NO ; DK .; NR What do you think are/were the chances of an organization 5g.

improving or reducing this situation?

VERY GOOD -; GOOD -; FAIR -; NOT VERY GOOD -; POOR -; DK -; NR- 6. Do/did you happen to know who or where to call if you wanted to complain?

YES DK ; NR NO ; -; (8) APPENDIX A In your own opinion, how mu'ch are/were your neighbors 7.

bothered by this situation?

Use the Opinion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 0 i 2 3 4 DK NR - -- (ASK EVERYONE): 8. Here is a list‘of sounds which sometimes bother people.

Most people hear these sounds somewhere,.not necessarily in their own homes. Use the Opinion Thermometer to rate how much each sound bothers you when you do hear it.

(READ LIST AND CIRCLE NUMBER FOR EACH SOUND) MUSICAL IN AIR HAPPIE NEIGHBORS LA (9) 75

I

APPENDIX A 9a. I will now read a number of noises heard in different Which ones do you hear in this neighbor- neighborhoods.

hood ?

(READ&;rN;;)RESPONDENT, CHECKING WHETHER NOISE IS (FINISH 9a BEFORE ASKING 9b) Of those that you hear, how much tire you bothered or 9b.

Use the Opinion Thermometer.

annoyed?

(CIRC& NUMBER IN COLUMN 9b ONLY FOR THOSE NOISES (FINISH 9b BEFORE ASKING SC) Some people are more aware of noise than others.

9c. How much is each noise that you hear noticeable to you; that is, how much attention do you pay to each one? Please use the Opinion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER IN COLUMN 9c > (PROBE TO SEE IF RES,PONDENT WOULD NOW LIKE TO INCLUDE MORE NOISES AS HEARD) 76 (10) APPENDIX k L(SKIP TO QUESTION 20a) APPENDIX A When you see or hear airplanes overhead, how often do you 10.

feel they are flying too low for the safety of residents in the area? Use Op.inion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 012 3 4 l NR DK , 11. When you see or hear airplanes overhead how often do you feel there is some danger that they might crash nearby?

Use .Opinion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 012 3 4 *NR DK , 12. What times of the day do you particularly notice aircraft (CHECK WHETHER WEEKDAYS 0~ WEEKENDS) noise?

Morning Afternoon Evening Morning Afternoon Evening Night Night 6-9 6-9 9-12 9-12 12-3 12-3 3-6 3-6 6-9 6-9 9-12 9-12 12-3 12-3 3-6 3-6 WEEK- WEEK- DAYS DAYS WEEK- WEEK- ENDS ENDS DK DK NR NR All the time No particular time APPENDIX A What days of the week do you particularly notice aircraft 13.

noise?

Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat.

Sun. Mon.

YES NO DK NR Every day No particular day 14. How often do you notice smoke, fumes, oil dropout, or land- Use the Opinion ing lights from overflying airplanes?

(MARK IN COLUMN 14 BELOW) Thermometer.

14 15 SMOKE 01234DKNRO1234DKNR 01234DKNRO1234DKNR FUMES OIL DROPOUT 01234DKNRO1234DKNR 01234DKNRO1234DKNR LANDING LIGHTS IF "NONE," (ZERO ON ALL ITEMS) FOR QUESTION 14 How much does (EACH ITEM IN QUESTION 14 THAT IS NOTICED) annoy you? Use the Opinion Thermometer. (MARK IN COLUMN 15 ABOVE) Were you fully aware of the noise from aircraft operations in this neighborhood before coming here?

YES NO ; DK ; ;m (13) APPENDIX A How much would you say aircraft operations have increased 17.

in this area in the past five years? Use the Opinion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 0 1 2 3 4 DK ; NR Would you say that you have learned to live with aircraft 18.

noise the way it is now?

YES * UNDECIDED ;NO , ;m 19a. If this area were to receive more noise from aircraft, how much of this noise do you think.you could learn to live with?

TWICE AS MUCH * THREETIMES AS MUCH , ; FOL'R TIMES AS MUCH * , NO MORE AT ALL ; UNDECIDED NR 19b. Which could you learn to live with, aircraft noise which occurs frequently but not very loud, or aircraft noise which occurs infrequently but loud?

FREQUENTLY BUT NOT VERY LOUD INFREQUENTLY BUT LOUD UNDECIDED NR (14) APPENDIX A 20a. I will now read a number of daily activities. Which of these are disturbed by aircraft noise in your own situa- tion here? (READ LIST BELOW AND CHECK "YES," "NO," "DK," OR "NR") .20a 20b DISTURBED BOTHERED 20b. (OF THOSE THAT ARE DISTURBED): How much are you bothered?

Use the Opinion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE R-UMBERIN COLUMN 20b) How often do airplanes make the house (building) vibrate or 521.

make the windows rattle?

Use the Opinion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 0 1 2 3 4 DK NR 22. Who would you say controls the flight operations of aircraft around here?

DK NR -- (15) -~ -.--..... . . . . . . , , .

Would you say the value of land in this area has gone up, 23a.

gone down, or not changed in the past five years?

NOT CHANGED DK GONE DOWN NR GONE UP 23b. (IF CHANGED): Has the airport or aircraft operations been responsible for this change in any way?

YES ; NO (IF LAND VALUE HAS GONE DOWN IN QUESTION 23a): If a person r- 24a.

felt that aircraft operations were reducing the value of his property, do you think he would be able to recover damages through an appeal to the proper authorities?

- DK YES ;NO , ;m (IF NO): Why not?

&4b.

Do you know of anyone who has mcved out of this area 25.

because.of aircraft noise?

YES - DK ;NO 2 NR ; (IF YES): How many?

c (16) APPENDIX A YES NO DK NR Do you think that jet engines could 26.

safely be made quieter with mufflers or other devices like that?

m--- 27. Is it necessary for jet planes to sit on the ends of runways and roar their engines?

---- Do jet planes have to takeoff and land 28.

on certain runways because of weather conditions?

e--- 29. Do all airplanes have to circle the airport before landing?

----.

30. Do jet planes have to fly at lower altitudes depending on weather conditions?

---- Now we have a series of True-False questions : TRUE FALSE DK NR Politics in this country are controlled 31.

by only a handful of persons or families.

---- Most local government officials are 32.

honest.

---m 33'. Most people don't care what happens to the next fellow.

---e Nowadays a person has to live pretty 34.

much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

---- Any devices designed to reduce aircraft 35.

noise will prove too costly to be practical. ' ---e 36. Aircraft designers are doing all they can to produce quieter engines.

---v 07) APPENDIX A TRUE FALSE DK NR The a&&&---is operated in such a way as 37.

to serve the best interests of the entire city.

---- A person should not have to put up with 38.

aircraft noise.

---- 39. Community leaders are doing all they can possibly do to reduce aircraft noise in this city.

---- Airport authorities are doing all: they 40.

can possibly do to reduce aircraft noise.

---- 41. Aircraft noise is rather pleasant and soothing.

---- 42. This city can be proud of the services its airport provides to both the community and to its clients.

---- The advantages to the community from 43.

having a large airport far outweigh any disadvantages.

---s Airport authorities probably are not 44.

very much concerned with what the average citizen thinks about them.

---- Airport authorities try to avoid,sending 45.

many flights over heavily populated areas.

---- 46. Most business firms and leaders in this city are simply pawns of different governmental officials and agencies.

P--I It is not likely for an airplane to 47.

crash in this area.

---- 48. The defense of our country is not possible without military aircraft.

---- 49. Most individuals and groups that protest about airplane noise do so because they are genuinely interested in eliminating the annoyance to themselves and others.

---- (18) APPENDIX A TRUEFALSE DKNR People who complain ahout airplane noise 50.

are only trying to gain personal fame and advancement.

---v Most people are sometimes frightened 51.

by aircraft noise.

---- 52. Most people are often frightened by aircraft noise.

---- 53. Airplane noise can damage a person's health.

m--- 54. Airline companies will do nothing about airplane noise unless they are forced to.

m--- 55. Air transportation is the only practical way of long-distance travel.

-P-B Do you think that a jet plane could safely land at less 56.

than full power?

YES DK ; NO ;m Have you flown as a passenger on a jet plane once, twice 57.

or more, or never?

ONCE , * TWICE'OR MORE ; NEVER 58a. Do you think air travel is as safe as cars?

YES - DK ;NO , ;m 3 58b. (IF YES): Is it safer?

YES * DK ;NO , ;m 59. Do you think pilots consider the people below them when they take off and land?

YES NO ; ;DK s - m- (19) APPENDIX A Do you think pilots try to hold down the noise made by 60.

their planes?

-NR YES , *NO s *DK , 61. Do you think that noise made by planes at the terminal and while on the ground could be reduced?

* NO - NR YES , ;DK > Who is responsible for reducing the noise from airplanes?

62.

The pilot, the airport authorities, the manufacturers, or who? (CHECK MORE THAN ONE, IF NECESSARY) PILOT - AIRPORT AUTHORITIES , ; ; MANUFACTURER OTHERS DK (20) What kinds of clubs or organizations do you work with or participate in?

63a.

educational, recreational, political, social, business, For example: church, fraternal, or any other such groups.

63c 63d 63e 63b 63f MEMBER MEETS ATTENDS "rd- "gp- ORGANIiATION PURPOSE ONLY (IF INVOLVED IN ONE OR MORE ORGANIZATIONS): 63b. What are these organizations?

(RECORD IN COLUMN63b) 63~. What is the purpose of these organizations? For example, discussions of current events, service to ,the community, brotherhood, socializing, e c.?

y (RECORD IN COLUMN63~) 63d. How many times did the organization(s) meet in the last'year?

(RECORD IN COLUMN63d) 63e. How many times did you attend meetings in the last year?

(RECORD IN COLUMN63e) 63f. Were you or are you now an officer or committee member in any of these organizations?

(RECORD IN COLUMN63f) APPENDIX A (IF ANY ORGANIZATION INTERESTED IN AIRCRAFT NOISE, ASK QUESTION 64.)

Do you think they could succeed if they tried to do somr- 64.

thin'g -to improve or reduce aircraft noise?

-NR - NO ;DK , YES , How many people including yourself, any children, and 65.

relatives live here? DK NR Who is the head of the household in this house?

66a.

DK NR 66b. Is he (she) employed now, at the present time?

YES, , *NR -NO -DK , , 66~. What sort of work does (HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD) do, that is, what does he (she) do on the job?

OCCUPATION -.

DK NR (IF RESPONDENT IS NOT THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD, ASK QUESTION 67, OTHERWISE GO TO QUESTION 68a) 67a. Do you have a job away from home?

7b. (IF YES): What sort of work do you do?

OCCUPATION 67~. (IF NO, INDICATE STATUS; i.e., HOUSEWIFE, STUDENT,, RETIRED, ETC.)

HOUSEWIFE ; STUDENT s RETIRED , ; DISABLED ; OTHER, SPECIFY (23) 90.

APPENDIX A 68a. Are you or anyone in your family employed at this time at an airport or by an airline company?

* NO *NR YES , ;DK , r- L, 68b. (IF YES): What type work does 'he (she) do? (MECHANIC, CLERK, MANAGER, ETC.)

68c. Have you or anyone in your family ever worked or been employed at an airport or by an airline company?

YES *DK. , *NR ;NO' , Here is a card with typical family incomes. (HAND RESPON- 69.

DENT CARD 3) Which category most nearly represents your from all sources and before taxes?

total family income -- (CIRCLE NUMBER) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DK REFUSED TO ANSWER (TAKE BACK CARD 3) What is the highest grade of school head of household/you 7(B.

has/have completed?

GRADE SCHOOL (l-8) HIGH SCHOOL (9-12) 1-3 YEARS COLLEGE COLLEGE GRADUATE MORE THAN 4 YEARS COLLEGE DK NR (24) APPENDIX A 70b. In which age category does/do head of household/you belong?

20-29 - 30-39 - 40-49 - 50-59 - 60-69 - 70+ 71a. Do you own your home or are you renting?

*NR . RENT , OWN , *DK , 71b. (IF OWN): How much would a home like this rent for in this neighborhood, not including furniture and utilities?

; $125-$174 * $175-$224 ; UNDER $75 $75-$124 ; , ; $325-$374 - $375-$424 , ; * $225-$274 , $275-$324 $425 OR MORE Approximately how much do you pay for rent?

71c. (IF RENT): ; ; $75-$124 . $125-$174 ; $175-$224 UNDER $75 , $225-$274 ; $275-$324 . $325~$374 * $375-$424 : , , $425 OR MORE 72. How many times have you moved within the past ten years?

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more DK NR -- (25) APPENDIX A How often do you visit or drop in on relatives or friends?

73.

Use thmnion Thermometer.

(CIRCLE NUMBER) 0 1 2 3 4 DK NR Do you have a fireplace?

74.

- DK YES -NO , , ;m Do you have central air-conditioning, window air-condition- 75.

ing, evaporative coolers, or fans?

YES - DK ;NO , ;m 76. Does the building have insulation in the walls or between the ceiling and the roof?

No - WALLS ROOF BOTH DK NR 77. Are your windows made of single or multiple thicknesses of glass?

SINGLE MULTIPLE BOTH OTHER DK NR (26) APPENDIX A Does the building have storm windows?

78.

- DK YES , *NO , ;m Does the building have an attic or a space between the 79.

ceiling and the roof?

YES * DK ;NO , ;m What is the outside of this building made of?

80.

WOOD OR STUCCO MASONRY (BRICK, STONE, CEMENT, ETC.)

WOOD AND STUCCO/MASONRY ASBESTOS/SHINGLE OTHER ii About how thick are the exterior walls?

81.

LESS THAN SIX INCHES SIX TO TWELVE INCHES MORE THAN TWELVE INCHES ii 82. How many windows and glass doors are there?

DK NR How many outside doors (excluding large glass doors) do you have?

(RECORD NUMBER) DK NR (IF DWELLING UNIT IS OTHER THAN A SINGLE-UNIT HOUSE I.E., AN APARTMENT, DUPLEX, ETC., ASK QUESTION 85): How many walls are exposed to the outside?

84.

DK NR (DOES THE RESPONDENT LIVE ON THE TOP FLOOR OF A'MULTI-UNIT 85.

STRUCTURE?)

(YES ; NO > (27) APPENDIX A 8 6. In case I've forgotten anything and we need to call, what number should we call, and what would be the best time of day?

NUMBER: BEST TIME: May I please have your name?

87.

88. What is your address here?

(RECORD NAM-EAND ADDRESS ON COVER) (INTERVIEWER: SEX OF R) 89.

Male Female (INTERVIEWER: ETHNIC GROUP OF R) 90.

N A- S O- APPENDIX A CARD1 INCONVENIENT LOCATION (far from schools, work, shopping, etc.)

EXPENSIVE PLACE TO LIVE (expensive housing, high rent, high taxes).

NOISINESS OF AREA UNSAFE PLACE TO LIVE RUN-DOWN NEIGHBORHOOD POOR FACILITIES (poor stores, schools, etc.)

UNFRIENDLINESS OF NEIGHBORS DISLIKE FOR A CERTAIN HOUSE NO PRIVACY APPENDIX A CARD2 200 ...... - - 190 ......

- 180 ......

- 170 ......

- 160 ......

- 150 ......

140 ...... - - 130 ......

120 ...... _ 110 ...... - - - Aircraft Noise 100 ......

90 ...... - 80 ...... -' 70 ...... - - 60 ......

- 50 ......

40 ...... - 30 ...... - 20 ...... _ 10 ...... _ 0 ...... _ i APPENDIX A CARD3 INCOME NUMBER UNDER $1,999 $2,000-$3,999 $4,000-$5,999 3 $6,000-$7,999 $8,000-$9,999 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$24,999 $25,000-OVER OPINION THERMOMETER FREQUENCY DEGREE SCALE SCALE /--,

/ \

f-\

!

"HOWOFTEN" "HOWMUCH" "HOWGOOD"

I

VERYOFTEN EXTREMELY EXCELLENT

/

1 1

ZERO

ZERO NEVER NOT AT ALL VERYPOOR NEE SIDE II- SIDE I APPENDIX B APPENDIX B CONSTRUCTION OF VARIABLES The variables in.this appendix were used at different points in this report. In order that the reader may more easily under- stand what each variable means, complete documentation is presented.

The title of the variable (e.g. Fear) is listed first. The range of possible values follows. If the range of values has been grouped into categories (e.g., high, medium, and low) the ,latter are also given. The source of each variable is found'in the questionnaire item number and page number. Finally, if a special process was involved in constructing the variable, this is The variables are ordered alphabetically.

specified.

APPENDIX B Variable: Adaptability 1.

Range/;/'- o-1 2.

3. Categories: none 4. Questionnaire items: (p. 14) If this area were to receive more noise from 19A.

aircraft, how much of this noise do you thing you could learn to live with?

TWICE AS MUCH-, THREETIMESASMUCH-, FOUR TIMES AS MUCH-, NO MORE AT ALL-, UNDECIDED-, NR;.

5. Construction: If the respondent indicated NO MORE AT ALL, UNDECIDED, or If the respondent NR, he was given the score of zero (0).

indicated TWICE AS MUCH, or more, the score of one (1) was given.

APPENDIX B Variable: 1.

Age 2. Range: Under 30-70+ 3. Categories: under 30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+ . Questionnaire item: 70B.

(p. 25) In which age category does/do the head of household/you belong?

Construction: 4.

Age is as indicated by the chosen category.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Annoyance-G 2. Range: o-45 3. Categories: O-9 (low), lo-21 (medium), 22-45 (high) Questionnaire items: 4.

20A. (p. 15) I will now read a number of daily activities Which of these are disturbed by aircraft noise in your own situation here? (READ LIST BELOW AND CHECK "YES," "NO,," "DK," OR "NR.") 20B. (p. 15) (OF THOSE THAT ARE DISTURBED): How much are Use Opinion Thermometer.

you bothered?

5. Construction:.

Annoyance-G is a summated-ratings index composed of nine everyday activities: relaxing/resting inside, relaxing/ resting outside, sleep, conversation, telephone conversation, listening to records/tapes, radio/TV interference, reading or concentration, and eating. Fran the list of items on page 15, an average of the items "children sleeping/napping," "going to sleep," and "late sleep" was used for the item "sleep." An average of "listening to radio/TV" and "watching TV" was used for,the item "radio/TV interference." In order to form the total index, each Oko-4 scale was converted to l-to-5, "DK" and "NR" were coded zero (0), and all scores summed.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: CNR (Composite Noise Rating) 2. Range: o-130+ 3. Categories: O-84, 85-89, 90-94, 95-99, 100-104, 105-109, 110-114, 115-119, 120-124, 125-129, 130-k 4. Questionnaire item: (Calculated by direct field measurement) 5. Construction: See the section on Noise Exposure Computation in the text.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Complaint Action 2. Range: o-1 Categories: none 3.

4. Questionnaire items: (p. 8) Did you (or your family) actually do any of 5E.

these things?

Discussed it with someone?

Telephoned or wrote to an official?

Signed a petition?

Visited an official?

Attended a meeting about it?

Helped to set up a committee to do something about it?

Wrote a letter to the editor?

Filed a suit?

Other?

5. Construction: Since the incidence of anyone actually doing anything was low, a response of "yes" to any of the above items was considered action and the respondent was given a code of one (l), "any," for complaint action, otherwise.he was given the code zero "none."

(01, APPENDIX B Complaint Potential 1. Variable: Range: o-1 2,.

Categories: none 3.

4. Questionnaire items: 5D. (p. 7) Do/did you yourself ever feel like doing something to improve this situation?

For example, do/did you feel like: Discussing it with someone?

Telephoning or writing to an official?

Signing a petition?

Visiting an official?

Attending a meeting about it?

Helping to set up a committee to do something about it?

Writing a letter to the editor?

Filing a suit?

Other?

5. Construction: Since the incidence of anyone feeling like doing anything was slight, a response of "yes" to any one of the above items was considered potential action and the respondent was given a code of one (l), "any;" otherwise he was given the code zero (0), "none."

APPENDIX B Discussion 1. Variable: Range: 2. o-4 Categories: none 3.

4. Questionnaire items: (p. 7) How many times in an average week do/did you 5c.

discuss (MOST DISLIKED THING OR ONE THING DISLIKED IN THE PAST) with friends, neighbors, or relatives? (CIRCLE NUMBER.)

012 3 4 More than 4 DK NR - - - 5. Construction: The category "more than 4" was combined with "4." All "DK" and "NR".are given the code of blank and are dropped from the analysis.

APPENDIX B Variable: Distance 1.

Range: O-10 2.

Categories: 1.0-1.9, 2.0-2.9, 3.0-3.9, 4.0-4.9, 5.0-5.9, 3.

6.0-6.9, 7.0-7.9, 8.0-8.9, 9.0-9.9, lO.O+ Questionnaire item: 4.

(Calculated from maps) Construction: 5.

Distance was calculated from the end of the runway to the block address of the respondent. Measurement was to the nearest tenth-mile.

APPENDIX B Education (head of Household) 1. Variable: 2. Range: Grade school - more than 4 years college Grade school (l-8), high school (9-12) 3. Categories: l-3 years college, college graduate, more than 4 years college.

4. Questionnaire item: 70A. (p. 24) What is the highest grade of school head of household/you has/have completed?

5. Construction: Education was considered one of the five categories listed above.

APPENDIX B Ethnicity (Respondent) 1. Variable: 2. Range: N/A Categories: Anglo, Spanish-American, Negro, Other 3.

Questionnaire item: 4.

(Interviewer observation) Construction: 5.

none APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Fear 2. Range: O-10 3. Categories: O-3 (low), 4-6 (medium), 7-10 (high) 4. Questionnaire items: 10. When you see or hear airplanes overhead, how (P* 12) often do you feel they are flying too low for Use the safety of residents in the area?

Opinion Thermometer. 0 1 2 3 4 DK- NR- 11. When you see or hear airplanes overhead how (PO 12) often do you feel there is some danger that Use Opinion Thermometer.

they might crash nearby?

0 1 2 3 4 DK- NR- 5. Construction: "Fear" is formed by converting O-to-4 scale to 1-to-5, coding "DK" and "NR" zero, and summing for both items.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Health Damage Range: o-1 2.

Categories: none 3.

4. Questionnaire item: 53 (p. 19) Airplane noise can damage a person's health.

FALSE TRUE Construction: 5.

TRUE is coded one (1) and FALSE is coded zero (0).

APPENDIX B Variable: 1. Home ownership 2. Range: N/A 3. Categories: Owner, Renter 4. Questionnaire item: (p. 25) Do you own your home or are you renting?

71A.

5. Construction: none APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Importance Range: o-5 2.

3. Categories: none Questionnaire items: 4.

42. (p. 18) This city can be proud of the services its airport provides to both the community and to its clients.

TRUE FALSE (p. 18) The advantages to the community from having 43.

a large airport far outweigh any disadvantages.

TRUE FALSE (p. 18) Airport authorities try to avoid sending many 45.

flights over heavily populated areas..

TRUE FALSE (p. 18) The defense of ourcountry is not possible 48.

without military aircraft.

TRUE FALSE (p. 19) Air transportation is the only practical way 55.

of long-distance travel.

TRUE FALSE -.

5. Construction: For each item TRUE is coded zero (0) and FALSE is coded one The sum of the five items constitutes the Importance (1) l index. This index measures the affective attractiveness of the airport or the airline industry to the respondent. A high score indicates a lack of importance to the respondent.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Income (Total Family Annual Income) 2. Range: O-$25,000+ 3. Categories: O-$1,999, $2,000-$3,999, $4,000-$5,999,'$6,000- $7,999, $8,000-$9,999, $lO,OOO-$14,999, $lS,OOO- $24,999, $25,000+ 4. Questionnaire item: (p. 24) Here is a card with typical family incomes.

69.

(HAND RESPONDENT CARD 3.) Which category most nearly represents your total family income--from all sources and before taxes?

5. Construction: Total incomewas considered one of the eight categories listed above.

APPENDIX B Variable: Misfeasance 1.

o-4 2. Range: 3. Categories: none 4. Questionnaire items: 36. Aircraft designers are doing all they can to (P* 17) produce quieter engines..

TRUE FALSE DK NR The airport is operated in such a way as to 37.

(P* 18) serve the best interests of the entire city.

TRUE FALSE DK NR Community leaders are doing all they can possibly 39.

(P- 18) do to reduce aircraft noise in this city.

TRUE FALSE DK NR Airport authorities are doing all they can 40.

(P* 18) possibly do to reduce aircraft noise.

TRUE FALSE DK NR 5. Construction: For each item TRUE is coded zero (0) and FALSE is coded one (1).

The sum of the four items constitutes the Misfeasance index.

This index measures the respondent's belief that those officials and authorities who are in a position to do something about the noise problem simply are not doing their job. Misfeasance is used rather than malfeasance since there is no intent to break the law or to do something illegal.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Noise Irritability Range: O-60 2.

3. Categories: o-12 (low), 13-36 (medium), 37-60 (high) Questionnaire items: 4.

8. (p. 9) Here is a list of sounds which sometimes bother people. Most people hear these sounds somewhere, not necessarily in their own homes. Use the Opinion Thermometer to rate how much each sound bothers you when you'd0 hear it.

Construction: 5.

Item list is as follows: Walking on gritty floors, musical instruments in practice, banging doors, air hammers, dripping water, whistling, chalk scraping on a blackboard, neighbor's ringing telephone, people walking on the floor above, chairs scraping on the floor, neighbors laughing or quarreling, and typewriters.

The O-to-4 scale is converted to l-to-5 and all scores are summed.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Noise Susceptibility 2. Range: O-65 3. Categories: O-9 (low), lo-29 (medium), 30-65 (high) 4. Questionnaire items: 9A. (p. 10) I will now read a number of noises heard in different neighborhoods. Which ones do you hear in this neighborhood? (READ LIST TO RESPONDENT, CHECKING WHETHER NOISE IS BEARD OR NOT.)

9B. (p. 10) Of those that you hear, how much are you bothered or annoyed? Use Opinion Thermometer.

5. Construction: The thirteen noise sources are autos, neighborhood children, aircraft, dogs/pets, people, motorcycles/hot rods, trains, sirens, construction, lawn mowers, garbage collection, sonic booms, and trucks. Each O-to-4 scale was converted to l*to-5, "DK" and "NR" were coded zero (0), and all items summed.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Occupational Rating (Head of Household) 2. Range: o-99 3. Categories: retired, l-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90-99 4. Questionnaire item: 66C. (p. 23) What sort of work does (Head of Household) do, that is, what does he (she) do on the job?

Construction: 5.

Occupational ratings were derived only for heads of household according to Methodology and Scores of Socio-economic Status, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Working Paper No. 15, 1963.

APPENDIX B 1. Variable: Pollution Annoyance 2. Range: O-20 3. Categories: O-5 (low), 6-11 (medium), 12-20 (high) Questionnaire items: 4.

(p. 13) How often do you notice smoke, fumes, oil 14.

dropout, or landing lights from overflying airplanes? Use Opinion Thermometer.

(p. 13) How much does (EACH ITEM IN QUESTION 14 THAT 15.

IS NOTICED) annoy you? Use Opinion Thermometer.

5. Construction: For each of the four items the O-to-4 scale was converted to l-to-5, "DK" and "NR" were coded zero (0), and all items were summed.

APPENDIX B Variable: 1. Residential Mobility 2. Range: o-9 Categories: Not moved, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+ 3.

4. Questionnaire item: (p. 25) How many times have you moved within the past 72.

ten years?

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more 0 1 2 - 5. Construction: Number of times moved represents residential mobility directly.

APPENDIX B Sex (Respondent) 1. Variable: 2. Range: N/A Categories: Male, Female 3.

4. Questionnaire item: (p. 28) (Interviewer observation) 89.

5. Construction: none ,124 APPENDIX B Visitation 1. Variable: Range: o-5 2.

Categories: none 3.

4. Questionnaire item: (p. 26) How often do you visit or drop in on relatives 73.

or friends? Use Opinion Thermometer.

012 3 4 DK NR - - 5. Construction: The O-to-4 scale was changed to L-to-S; "DK" and "NR" were changed to zero (0).

APPENDIX C APPENDIX C SCALES OF .ANNOYANCE Since a variety of methods have been used to measure annoyance both in the seven-city study and elsewhere, it is appropriate to consider what is the most appropriate way to develop a scale of annoyance. This section is concerned with this question and specifically examines the choice between summated-rating and factor score techniques.

Scales of annoyance from aircraft noise typically are This procedure involves constructed by the summated-rating method.

asking respondents a series of questions related to some item of interest; in each case having them rate their feelings or attitudes toward this item on a numerical scale (either explicit or implicit); and then simply adding all the ratings to obtain a summary score.

In the TRACOR studies, respondents were asked whether aircraft noise disturbed each of nine everyday activities. (These were relaxing inside, relaxing outside, sleep, conversation, telephone conversation, listening to records or tapes, radio or television reception, reading or concentration, and eating.) When the respon- dent indicated disturbance of a particular activity, he was asked how much he was bothered. The response, obtained with a graphic aid called an "opinion thermometer," had a range of 0 to 4 for each activity. This range was scored on a scale of 1 to 5 and the value 0 was assigned when no disturbance of the activity was reported.

The scores for all nine activities were added to produce a summated rating which thus had a value of 0 representing no disturbance of any activity and a range of 1 to 45 for those respondents who were disturbed. This scale is Annoyance G as used in this and previous reports.

After Phase I of the seven-city study it was suggested that the list of activities be expanded. The "sleep" category was APPENDIX C divided into the more specific categories "children sleeping or " "going to sleep," and "late sleep" (being awakened after napping, the intent being to better define the time being fully asleep), of day or night involved. The category "radio or television recep- tion" was also split into "listening to radio or television" and "watching television," the envisioned distinction being between acoustical and visual interference. The list of activities potentially disturbed thus included twelve items. This list was used in Phase II of the seven-city study and in the two-city study.

The nine-item Annoyance G scale was produced from twelve-item data by averaging responses in the subdivided categories.

A more sophisticated method of developing a scale is to perform a factor analysis and to use factor weights to construct a score for each respondent. A factor score has several advantages over a summated-ratings score. Since the factor score is based on the intercorrelation of each question with the overall factor, arbitrariness of item weighting is eliminated. Of course, it is necessary to show that an annoyance factor does exist and that other factors explain very little of the common variance. This method relieves the researcher of the responsibility of assigning weights to each item or, as is more often the case, deciding to weight each item equally.

Three different scales of annoyance will be examined: (1) a summated-rating scale based on nine items (Annoyance G), (2) a factor score based on nine items (Annoyance F), and (3) a factor score based on twelve items (Annoyance T). These will be considered in terms of their correlations with each other and with other annoyance-related 'variables.

Before a factor analysis could be performed on the combined data from both the seven-city and two-city studies, considerable manipulation was necessary since three different questionnaires, APPENDIX C Standardization interview schedules, and coding forms were used.

of questionnaire items and homogenization of the data were A specific required in order to produce meaningful results.

problem was that in Phase I of the seven-city study respondents were asked about disturbance of activities by aircraft noise only whereas all respondents in later if they reported hearing aircraft, surveys were asked about such disturbance. Although the original .procedure would seem rational, a possible effect on the data of the procedures employed existed. To evaluate such an effect, factor analyses were performed on limited sample data for those who reported hearing aircraft (N = 2857) and those who did not The factors for both Annoyance F and Annoyance T were (N = 55).

evaluated and the results are given in Tables 14 and 15. The factor loadings are sufficiently similar, it is felt, that the Table 14 FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPLE-COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS OF NINE ANNOYANCE F COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO PERCEPTION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE Activity Disturbed Relaxing inside 0.7490 0.8203 Relaxing outside 0.7162 0.6812 Sleep 0.6585 0.6864 Conversation 0.7436 0.7792 Telephone conversation 0.7102 0.7669 Listening to records or tapes 0.6670 0.6385 Radio or television reception 0.6871 0.5720 Reading or concentration 0.6622 0.6440 Eating 0.5017 0.6902 Number of Respondents 2857 I ~- ---.-. - .-..-. - --____.___...._______..._...

APPENDIX C Table 15 FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPLE-COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TWELVE ANNOYANCE T COMPONENTS ACCORDING TO PERCEPTION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE Factor Loadings Activity Disturbed Reports Hearing Aircraft Yes No* Relaxing inside 0.7543 0.3517 -0.8610 Relaxing outside 0.5528 -0.3659 0.7019 Children sleeping or napping 0.4198 0.4722 0.0006 Conversation 0.7402 0.7329 -0.3320 Telephone conversation 0.7100 0.7500 -0.2936 Going to sleep 0.6650 0.2181 -0.7089 Listening to records or tapes 0.7988 0.6766 -0.0533 Listening to radio or television 0.7348 0.6024 -0.3293 Watching television 0.6886 0.5826 -0.1938 Late sleep 0.5616 0.1605 -0.8909 Reading or concentration 0.6576 0.1334 -0.8389 Eating 0.4965 0.5393 -0.3838 Number of Respondents 2857 55 producing two factors *Varimax rotation used , annoyance scores obtained for the small number of respondents in the later surveys who did not report hearing aircraft can be included in the general analysis.

The combined data (N = 8462) were subsequently subjected to The loadings and weights a principle-component factor analysis.

for elements of the nine-item scale Annoyance F are shown in In the case Table 16. These represent a single strong factor.

APPENDIX C Table 16 FACTOR LOADINGS AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FROM PRINCIPLE-COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS OF NINE ITEMS DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE (N = 8462) Factor Factor Loadings Weights Activity Disturbed 0.7777 0.1811 Relaxing inside 0.1406 Relaxing outside 0.7610 Conversation 0.7979 0.2043 Telephone conversation 0.7712 0.1673 Sleep 0.6888 0.1027 Listening to records or tapes 0.6952 0.1133 Radio or television reception 0.5862 0.0894 Reading or concentration 0.7370 0.1363 Eating 0.6306 0.1363 of the twelve-item Annoyance T, two factors were found. Varimax rotation, which tends to maximize differences in the factors, was employed. The first and stronger factor is apparently an "annoy- ance" factor and its loadings and weights are given in Table 17.

The second factor had small negative loadings for the most part and is thus likely to be simply a reflection of the first.

The weights of Table 16 and 17 are used to generate Annoyance F and Annoyance T scores for individual respondents by multiplying them by the standardized activity disturbance scores and then summing over all activities. This was done for the combined samples. Correlations between the three annoyance scales and other selected variables are shown in Table 18.

It is apparent that the G and F scales are very highly correlated; the factor analysis and scoring technique did not produce values significantly different APPENDIX C Table 17 FACTOR LOADINGS AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FROM PRINCIPLE-COMPONENT FACTOR ANALYSIS (AFTER VARIMAX ROTATION) ON TWELVE ITEMS DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE (N = 8462) Varimax Varimax Factor Factor Activity Disturbed Loading Weights Relaxing inside 0.7105 0.3427 Relaxing outside 0.6593 0.3048 Children sleeping or napping 0.6089 0.4051 Conversation 0.7193 0.3355 Telephone conversation 0.8843 0.3368 Going to sleep 0.6471 0.2626 Listening to records or tapes 0.6956 0.1942 Listening to radio or television 0.6305 0.4227 Watching television 0.1921 0.0000 Late sleep 0.5738 0.1618 Reading or concentration 0.7687 0.3358 Eating 0.6564 0.7763 Table 18 CORRELATIONS BETWEENANNOYANCEMEASURES AND SELECTED VARIABLES (N = 8462) 1 Annoyance G Annoyance F Annoyance T Annoyance F 0.9738 1.0000 0.6500 Annoyance T 0.6015 0.6500 1.0000 Misfeasance 0.3050 0.2845 0.1725 Importance 0.2835 0.2513 0.1572 Fear 0.5716 0.5939 0.4673 --0.3371 Adaptability -0.4341 -0.4567 Noise Susceptibility 0.3384 0.3949 0.1855 Distance 0.0636 -0.0591 0.5750 CNR 0.4005 0.4233 0.2691 APPENDIX C from the simple summated-rating scheme. Annoyance T differed Correlation of substantially from the other scales, however.

Annoyance F with the other variables was slightly better than that of Annoyance G, although perhaps not sufficiently so as to justify its relative complexity. Annoyance T performed much less well in this respect and would appear to have little potential for further use. It is concluded that from the standpoint of general utility Annoyance G is the best of the three measures.

APPENDIX D APPENDIX D FREQUENCIES APPENDIX D NOTE CONCERNING SYMBOLS The following special symbols are used in the tables 'of this section of the Appendix: All distributions are given in percentages unless A.

otherwise indicated.

B. Numbers on Frequency and Degree Scales (Opinion Thermometer Scales) 1. "How often" frequency scale (O-4) 0 = Never 4 = Very often "How much" degree scale,(O-4) 2.

0 = Not at all or none 4 = Extremely Means and Standard Deviations C.

Means 1.

= Mean of entire sample under consideration % = Mean of respondents in sample who responded "2 to particular question 2. Standard Deviations = Standard deviation of entire sample under sl consideration = Standard deviation of respondent in sample s2 who responded to a particular question APPENDIX D The symbol A indicates the percent of respondents who D.

fit into one of the following categories: Don't Know 1 : 2. No response 3. Not applicable APPENDIX D LIST OF TABLES Title Table Composite Noise Ratings 2 Frequency Aircraft Smoke, Fumes,.Oil Dropout, and Lights Noticed 3 Frequency of Window Rattles and House Vibra- tions by Aircraft General Noise Annoyance Degree of Sensitivity to Noise Stimuli Alienation Adaptability to Aircraft Noise Activities Disturbed by Aircraft Noise Annoyance Caused by Aircraft Smoke, Fumes, Oil Dropout, and Lights 10 Frequency of Aircraft Noise Discussion with Family and Friends 11 Frequency .of Visitation with Family and Friends 12 Organizational Involvement Knowledge of Persons Moving Because of Aircraft Noise 14 Attitudes Toward the Aircraft Industry Attitudes Toward the Importance of the Airport 16 Fear of Crash 17 Technical Knowledge of Jet Aircraft 18 Perceived Increase in Air Traffic 19 Awareness of Aircraft Operations before Moving to Present Residence APPENDIX D LIST OF TABLES - cont.

Title Table Chances for Organization to Improve Aircraft Noise Situation 21 Increase or Decrease in Land Value Types of Complaint 23 Aircraft Interest Organizations City of Residence 25 Distance from Airport Head of Household's Occupation Total Family Income 28 Respondent's Highest Level of Education 29 Population of Household (Persons) Age of Respondent 31 Sex of Respondent 32 Times Moved in Last 10 Years Length of Residence: 33 City 34 Length of Residence: Neighborhood Housing Owner or Renter p APPENDIX D Table 1 CeMPOSITE NOISE RATINGS Rating Chattanooga Reno Total 0 - 84 1.1 10.8 6.6 85 - 89 10.8 4.3 7.1 90 - 94 18.8 12.3 7.5 95 - 99 9.9 18.4 13.6 100 - 104 26.1 18.9 23.0 105 - 109 22.4 13.1 18.4 110 - 114 13.3 10.5 12.1 115 - 119 4.9 5.3 5.1 120 - 124 1.1 0.5 1.8 125 - 129 0.4 1.3 0.8 130+ A 0 0 0 L L 100.0 100.1 100.1

x 101.22 101.1 101.2

APPENDIX D Table 2 FREQUENCY AIRCRAFT SMOKE, FUMES, OIL DROPOUT, AND LIGHTS NOTICED Form D(R) Question 14, Page 13 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 1. Smoke 0 47.04 38.42 43.32 15.53 19.15 17.09 2 17.41 16.31 16.94 3 11.31 11.82 11.53 8.44 13.95 10.82 0.27 0.35 0.31 A 1.18 1.43 1.29 1.18 1.44 1.29 K2 1.40 1.35 1.45 sl 1.35 1.45 1.40 s2 2. Fumes 0 78.99 85.22 81.68 6.73 4.96 5.97 2 7.00 3.55 5.51 3 4.58 2.25 3.57 4 2.33 2.60 2.45 0.36 1.42 0.82 A 0.44 0.29 0.38 0.44 0.30 0.38 0.97 0.85 0.92 sl 0.97 0.86 0.93 s2 3. Oil 96.77 95.51 96.22 1.62 1.18 1.43 0.72 0.83 0.77 3 0.27 0.47 0.36

II -

APPENDIX D Table 2 - cont.

FREQUENCY AIRCRAFT SMOKE, FUMES, OIL DROPOUT, AND LIGHTS NOTICED Form D(R) Question 14, Page 13 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 3. Oil 4 0.36 0;47 0.41 0.27 1.54 0.82 A 0.05 0.06 0.06 x1 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.35 0.40 0.33 sl 0.35 0.40 0.37 s2 4. Lights 0 53.86 39.83 47.81 1 13.46 20.21 16.38 2 15.17 19.98 17.24 3 9.96 10.17 10.05 4 7.27 8.87 7.96 0.27 0.95 0.56 A 1.03 1.26 1.13 1.03 1.27 1.13 1.32 1.32 1.33 sl 1.32 1.32 1.33 s2 APPENDIX D Table 3 FREQUENCY OF WINDOW RATTLES AND HOUSE VIBRATIONS BY AIRCRAFT Form D(R) Question 21, Page 15 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined How often aircraft rattle/ vibrate house 0 36.45 37.23 36.79 27.02 22.22 24.95 2 18.85 12.29 16.02 9.69 7.45 8.72 4 4.85 5.67 5.20 3.14 15.13 8.32 A 1.13 0.92 1.04 x1 1.17 1.08 1.13 F2 1.18 1.20 1.19 sl 1.18 1.24 1.20 s2 APPENDIX D Table-4 GENERAL NOISE ANNOYANCE Form D(R) Questiocgb, Page Reno Combined Variable Chattanooga Trucks and autos 1.

38.60 40.08 36.65 17.91 16.86 1 16.07 13.11 13.01 13.06 7,.50 4.79 6.33 4.04 4.97 4.44 19.21 22.70 20.72 A 0.81 0.78 0.80 % 1.00 1.01 1.01 T2 1.16 1.15 1.15 sl 1.22 1.21 1.21 s2 2. Aircraft operations 0 36.89. 30.26 34.03 18.20 17.96 1 17.77 2 18.85 20.80 19.69 12.41 3 13.55 13.06 4 9.96 15.96 12.55 2.96 2.36 2.70 A 1.36 1.61 1.47 F-1 1.40 1.65 1.51 x2 1.38 1.45 1.41 sl 1.38 1.44 1.41 s2 Neighborhood 3.

children 0 49.46 42.91 46.63 1 11.67 16.55 13.78 APPENDIX D Table 4 - cont.

GENERAZ. NOISE ANNOYANCE Form D(R) Question 9b, Page 11 Chattanooga Reno Variable Combined 3. Nei hborhood f chi dren 8.26 10.05 9.03 3 3.77 4.49 4.08 4 1.44 2.96 2.09 25.40 23.05 24.39 A 0.45 0.62 0.52 "1 0.61 0.80 0.69 K2 0.90 1.03 0.96 sl 1.00 1.11 1.05 s2 4. Dogs/other pets 30.88 25.06 28.37 1 18.20 15.71 16.79 18.67 18.44 18.57 3 11.67 12.17 11.89 10.14 11.94 10.92 12.93 14.18 A 13.47 1.29 1.39 1.33 ^1 1.48 1.62 1.54 x2 1.39 1.41 1.40 sl 1.39 1.39 1.39 s2 5. People 33.39 37.47 35.15 7.45 12.17 9.49 2 4.76 5.31 6.03 3 0.72 1.42‘ 1.02 APPENDIX D Table 4 - cont.

GENERAL, NOISE ANNOYANCE Form D(R) Question 9b, Page 11 Reno Combined Variable Chattanoopa 5. People 0.36 0.59 0.46 53.32 42.32 48.57 A 0.31 0.21 0.25 % 0.44 0.53 0.49 X2 0.59 0.70 0.64 sl 0.80 0.85 0.83 s2 6. Motorcycles/ hot rods 15.35 13.36 14.49 12.30 12.29 12.30 17.15 19.03 17.96 18.13 18.56 18.32 16.70 24.47 20.05 20.38 12.29 16.89 1.68 2.04 1.83 2.11 2.32 2.21 1.52 1.52 1.53 1.41 1.40 1.41 s2 7. Trains 21.10 13.83 17.96 5.57 3.43 4.64 2.06 1.06 1.63 0.72 0.83 0.77 0.36 0.83 0.56 A 70.20 80.02 74.44 APPENDIX D Table 4 - cont.

GENERAL NOISE ANNOYANCE Form D(R) Question 9b, Page 11 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 7. Trains 0.13 0.11 0.12 El 0.45 0.57 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.50 sl 0.82 1.05 0.91 s2 8. Sirens 37.70 40.90 39.08 1 20.29 15.72 18.32 18.04 11.82 15.36 9.16 7.92 8.62 4 4.49 5.79 5.05 10.32 17.85 A 13.57 1.02 0.86 0.95 % 1.14 1.05 1.10 %2 1.20 1.23 1.22 sl 1.21 1.29 1.24 s2 9. Construction 9.52 15.01 11.89 5.21 8.04 6.43 3.50 4.96 4.13 1.53 2.96 2.14 0.90 2.60 1.63 A 79.35 66.43 73.78 0.20 0.37 0.28 xl 1.11 0.99 1.05 r2 0.66 0.91 0.78 sl 1.15 1.28 1.22 s2 APPENDIX D Table 4 - cont.

GENERAL NOISE ANNOYANCE Form D(R) Question 9b, Page 11 Variable Chattanoopa Reno Combined 10. Lawn mowers/ garbage collection 57.32 42.02 50.72 16.52 16.91 16.69 2 8.93 10.11 9.44 3 3.10 4.20 3.57 4 0.99 2.66 1.71 13.15 A 24.11 17.88 0.48 0.61 0.53 x1 0.55 0.80 0.65 =2 0.86 1.01 0.93 sl 0.90 1.09 0.99 s2 11. Sonic boom 17.68' 22.70 19.85 13.91 15.48 14.59 9.52 15.96 12.30 8.26 14.18 10.82 7.09 20.69 12.96 A 43.54 10.99 29.49 0.86 1.73 1.23 % 1.52 1.94 1.75 1.29 1.55 1.47 sl 1.39 1.51 1.47 s2 APPENDIX D Table 5 DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY TO NOISE STIMLnI Form D(R) Question 8, Page 9 Reno Combined Chattanooga Variable 1. k&$g on gritty 38.57 37.43 40.07 13.24 14.69 15.80 16.02 17.32 14.30 12.65 12.04 11.58 19.27 18.01 17.06 0.66 0.81 0.47 A 1.57 1.55 1.53 1.56 1.55 1.58 1.57 1.53 1.51 1.51 1.57 1.53 2. Musical instruments in practice 54.69 56.19 52.72 14.99 15.60 15.26 i 15.37 15.71 15.98 8.11.

.7.27 9.22 6.86 5.97 5.30 0.26 0.27 0.24 A 1.01 0.95 0.90 x1 0.90 1.02 0.95 1.25 1.22 1.29 sl 1.22 1.29 1.25, s2 APPENDIX D ' Table 5 - cont.

DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY TO NOISE STIMULI Form D(R) Question 8, Page 9 Combined Variable Chattanooga. Reno 3. Banging doors 0 28.28 26.00 27.30 17.09 1 17.68 16.31 2 25.13 24.70 24.95 17.40 3 16.34 18.79 14.07 13.11 4 12.39 0.18 0.12 0.15 A 1.78 1.72 1.67 1.72 1.67 1.79 1.36 1.38 1.37 1.36 1.38 1.37 4. Air hammers 0 23.97 26.00 24.85 1 9.43 7.57 8.62 2 17.24 17.02 17.14 3 19.84 19.86 19.85 4 29.26 29.55 29.39 A. 0.27 0. 0.15 2.20 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.19 2.20 1.56 1.55 1.57 sl 1.54 1.57 1.55 s2 5. Dripping water 16.43 19.27 17.65 1 11.58 11.02 10.28 20.38 18.56 19.59 APPENDIX D Table 5 - cont.

DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY TO NOISE STIMULI Form D(R) Question 8, Page 9 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 5. Dripping water 20.83 17.97 19.59 33.92 32.14 4 30.79 0. 0.. 0.

A 2.38 2.37 2.38 2.38 2.37 2.38 1.51 1.47 1.44 1.44 1.51 1.47 6. Whistling 0 71.90 67.61 70.05 1 13.73 14.30 13.98 10.99 2 9.07 9.90 3 3.68 4.26 3.93 4 1.44 2.60 1.94 0.18 0.24 0.20 A 0.49 0.59 0.53 x1 0.49 0.60 0.53 x2 0.91 1.01 0.96 sl 0.91 1.01 0.96 s2 Chalk scraping on 7.

blackboards 26.24 29.90 0 32.68 1 10.32 8.27 9.44 2 14.45 14.08 13.59 3 15.26 131.24 14.39 26.84 38.42 31.84 '152 APPENDIX D Table 5 - cont. ' DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY TO NOISE STIMULI Form D(R) Question 8, Page 9 Chattanooga Reno Combined Variable 7. Chalk scraping on.

blackboards 0.45 0.24 0.36 A 1.92 2.29 2.08 x1 1.93 2.29 2.09 1.63 1.65 1.65 sl 1.63 1.65 1.65 s2 8. Neighbors telephone 0 72.17 69.74 71.12 1 12.21 12.88 12.50 2 10.32 10.40 10.36 3 3.86 4.73 4.23 4 1.26 1.48 1.77 0.18 0.47 0.31 A x 0'. 49 0.52 0.55 -1 0.50 0.55 0.52 x2 0.92 0.98 0.94 sl 0.92 0.98 0.94 s2 9. People walking on the floor above 53.14 54.14 53.57 11.49 10.76 11.17 16.16 18.32 17.09 11.31 8.98 10.31 5.92 6.03 5.97 A 1.97 1.77 1.89 1.01 0.98 1.00 x1

L

APPENDIX D Table 5 - cont.

DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY TO NOISE STIMULI Form D(R) Question 8, Page 9 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 9. People walking on the floor above 1.03 1.00 1.02 1.30 1.28 1.29 sl 1.31 1.29 1.30 s2 Chairs scraping on 10.

floors 37.25 39.95 38.42 19.48 17.02 18.42 22.53 24.35 23.32 13.11 11.47 12.40 7.45 6.97 7.24 A 0.18 0.24 0.20 r 1.34 1.28 1.31 -1 1.34 1.28 1.31 x2 1.30 1.29 1.29 sl 1.30 1.29 1.29 s2 11. Neighbors laughing or quarreling 43.99 44.09 44.03 12.12 12.65 12.35 17.95 20.92 19.23 12.66 11.47 12.14 12.84 10.40 11.79 0.45 A 0.47 0.46 1.37 1.30 1.34 % 1.38 1.31 1.35 ?12 1.46 1.40 1.44 sl 1.47 1.40 1.44 s2 . . .

‘R APPENDIX D Table 5 - cont.

DEGREE OF SENSITIVITY TO NOISE STIMULI Form D(R) Question 8, Page 9 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 12; Typewriters 0 78.10 80.73 79.23 11.40 12.06 11.68 2 7.99 4.85 6.63 3 1.89 1.89 1.89 4 0.54 0.35 0.46 0.09 0.12 0.10 A 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.75 0.68 0.72 0.75 0.68 0.72 APPENDIX D Table 6 ALIENATION Form D(R) Variable Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Reno Combined . Politics 31 17 controlled by handful T 46.86 39.95 43.88 F 48.74 55.79 51.79 4.40 4.26 4.34 A . Next fellow 33 17 T 54.04 48.46 51.63 F 45.06 50.71 47.50 A 0.90 0.83 0.87 4. Live day 34 17 by day T 51.53 36.17 44.90 F 47.76 63.48 54.54 A 9.72 0.35 0.56 APPENDIX D Table 7 ADAPTABILITY TO AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Variable Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Reno Combined 1. Four times 19A 14 more noise No 91.47 82.15 87.45 Yes 5.03 10.05 7.19 A 3.50 7.80 5.36 Two times 2. 19A 14 more noise No 51.71 50.59 51.22 Yes 44.79 41.61 43.42 3.50 7.80 A 5.36 3. Adjust to 19B 14 aircraft frequency 0 = Neither 0. 0.

1 = Frequent, not very 83.30 81.09 82.35 loud 2 = Infrequent, but loud 12.21 12.77 12.45 3 = Undecided 3.50 4.49 3..93 A 0.99 1.65 1.28 APPENDIX D Table 8 ACTIVITIES DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question 20A, Page 15 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined 1. R&a;~g/resting 29.53 27.42 28.62 1 6.37 7.92 7.04 2 9.34 10.99 10.05 3 4.67 5.91 5.20 4 1.71 4.26 2.81 48.38 46.28 43.50 A 0.46 0.65 0.54 F;1 0.89 1.14 1.00 =2 1.15 0.96 1.05 Sl 1.18 1.32 1.26 s2 2. Relaxing outside 0 30.43 28.01 29.39 1 6.73 6.86 6.79 2 9.78 9.46 9.64 3 6.28 7.33 6.73 2.87 4.85 3.72 43.90 43.50 43.72 A 0.57 0.67 0.61 % 1.01 1.19 1.09 1.08 1.20 1.13 sl 1.27 1.39 1.33 s2 Sleeping 3.

0 29.89 27.54 28.88 4.49 2.48 3.62 2 6.46 5.56 6.07 APPENDIX D' Table 8 - cont.

ACTIVITIES DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question 2OA, Page ,15 Chattanooga Reno Variable Combined - 3. Sleeping 3 3.32 4.26 3.72 4 2.96 4.96 3.83 52.87 55.20 53.88 A 0.39 0.46 0.42 "1 0.83 1.03 0.92 0.96 1.10 1.02 sl 1.26 1.45 1.35 s2 4. Conversation 0 29.53 28.25 28.98 1 10.05 7.99 8.88 10.23 12.06 11.02 7.36 8.39 7.81 4 6.55. 9.22 7.70 38.33 32.03 35.61 A 0.77 0.96 0.85 1.24 1.42 1.32 1.27 1.37 1.32 1.42 1.46 1.44 Telephone 5.

conversation 0 29.62 28.49 29.13 7.27 7.33 7.30 6.64 10.64 8.37 3 7.00 8.27 7.55 4 5.75 10.17 7.65 43.72 35.11 40.00 A APPENDIX D Table 8 - cont.

ACTIVITIES DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question ZOA, Page 15 Chattanooga Redo Combined Variable 5. Telephone conversation 0.65 3.94 0.77 % 1.15 1.45 1.29 K2 1.21 1.41 1.31 sl 1.43 1.52 1.48 s2 6. Listening to records/tapes 0 29.44 27.66 28.67 1 3.77 3.19 3.52 2 5.03 5.91 5.41 3 4.22 7.68 5.71 5 .56 3.52 4 1.97 55.57 50.00 53.16 A 0.60 0.46 0.34 1.21 0.77 0.97 0.90 1.22 1.06 sl 1.23 1.50 1.38 s2 7. TV/radio recep- tion/watching 0 30.07 28.49 29.39 1 16.97 9.69 13.83 2 14.90 12.06 13.67 3 13.91 11.58 12.91 13.71 4 8.89 10.97 15.26 24.47 19.23 A 1.24 1.23 1.24 % APPENDIX D Table 8 - cont.

ACTIVITIES DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question 2OA, Page 15 Variable Chattanoopa Reno Combined 7. TV/radio recep- tion[watching x2 1.46 1.63 1.53 sl 1.38 1.51 1.44 s2 1.38 1.54 1.45 8. Reading, concentration 0 29.26 27.78 28.62 1 3.50 2.48 3.06 2 5.12 5.91 5.46 3 3.32 5.32 4.18 4 2.65 1.35 4.37 54.14 56.82 57.45 A 0.48 0.29 0.37 % 0.68' 1.04 Q.84 0.82 1.10 0.96 sl 1.14 1.43 1.29 S2 9. Eating 0 29.44 27.66 28.67 1 0.90 0.83 0.8?

2 1.08 1.65 1.33 3 0.54 1.42 0.92 4 0.27 1.06 0.61 67.77 67.38 67.60 A 0.06 0.13 0.09 % 0.18 0.39 0.27 0.37 0.60 0.48 sl 0.64 1.00 0.82 s2 ,.,,. , . . , . .,, . ,..,. _, , . . . . ..-.-.,. .,., . ...,...,, -,.-.. ..- . . -- APPENDIX D Table 8 - cont.

ACTIVITIES DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question 2OA, Page 15 Chattanooga Reno Combined Variable 10. Children sleeping or napping 0 29.35 27.90 28.72 1 1.71 2.13 1.89 2 2.33 2.60 2.45 3 1.62 3.78 2.55 4.85 3.42 4 2.33 62.66 58.75 60.97 A F 0.21 0.38 0.28 -1 0.55 0.92 0.72 x2 0.77 1.05 0.90 sl 1.18 1.47 1.33 s2 11. Late Sleep 0 29.44 27.66 28.67 1 3.23 2.13 2.76 2 4.13 3.43 3.83 3.23 4.37 3.72 4 1.44 4.73 2.86 57.68 58.33 58.16 A ‘jT 0.27 0.41 0.33 -1 0.65 0.97 0.79 x2 0.80 1.07 0.93 sl 1.14 1.47 1.31 s2 12. Listening to TV 28.25 29.29 0 30.07 1 9.16 7.45 8.42 2 10.64 10.86 10.77 APPENDIX D Table 8 - cont.

ACTIVITIES DISTURBED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question 2OA, Page 15 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined Listening to TV 12.

3 10.05 10.28 10.15 4 8.32 6.10 11.23 A 32.15 33.06 33.75 % 1.04 0.94 0.85 z2 1.40 1.29 1.54 sl 1.37 1.30 1.46 s2 1.40 1.54 1.47 APPENDIX D Table 9 ANNOYANCE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT SMOKE, FUMES, OIL DROPOUT, AND LIGHTS Form D(R) Question 15, Page 13 Variable Chattanoopa Reno Combined 1. Smoke 0 26.75 30.50 28.37 6.91 7;21 7.04 2 6.91 7.57 7.19 3 5.66 7.09 6.28 5.12 8.63 6.63 48.65 39.01 A 44.49 0.58 0.78 0.67 % 1.13 1.28 1.20 F2 1.16 1.34 1.24 sl 1.41 1.51 1.46 s2 2. Fumes 10.50 5.20 8.21 1 2.60 2.24 1.77 2.96 1.89 2.50 3 2.24 1.89 2.09 1.80 2.36 2.04 79.89 A 86.88 82.91 0.22 0.21 0.22 % 1.12 1.58 1.27 ?12 0.76 0.77 0.77 sl 1.38 1.55 1.46 s2 Oil 3.

0 0.72 0.59 0.66 1.35 0.47 0.97 2 0.45 0.59 0.51 3 0.27 0.47 0.36 APPENDIX D Table 9 - cont.

ANNOYANCE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT SMOKE, FUMES, OIL DROPOUT, AND LIGHTS Form D(R) Question 15, Page 13 Chattanooga Variable Reno Combined 3. Oil 0.18 0.83 0.46 A 97.04 97.04 97.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 xl 1.27 2.16 1.66 % 0.29 0.45 0.37 sl 1.11 1.49 1.36 s2 4. Lights 0 35.55 53.78 43.42 3.50 2.96 3.27 2.69 1.42 2.14 3 2.51 0.47 1.63 1.08 0.47 0.82 54.67 40.90 48.72 A 0.21 0.09 0.16 "1 0.46 0.15 0.31 "2 0.71 0.44 0.61 sl 0.99 0.57 0.82 s2 I APPENDIX D Table 10 FREQUENCY OF DISCUSSION OF MOST DISLIKED THING WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS Form D(R) Question 5C, Page 7 Chattanooga Reno Combined Variable 0* 22.17 24.00 22.96 20.92 21.87 21.33 2 13.11 6.86 10.41 8.71 4.61 6.94 4 5.12 3.90 4.59 >5 5.03 5.20 5.10 24.96 33.57 28.67 d 1.19 0.91 1.07 % '- 1.58 1.37 1.50 x2 1.48 1.42 1.46 sl 1.51 1.54 1.53 s2 *Respondents reported the number ofatimes per week aircraft noise was a topic of discussion among friends, neighbors, or relatives APPENDIX D Table 11 FREQUENCY OF VISITATION WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS Form D(R) Question 73, Page 26 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined Relatives and friends 3.14 6.15 4.44 22.08 23.40 22.65 35.10 31.44 33.52 3 20.38 22 .lO 21.12 4 18.94 16.78 18.01 0.36 0.12 0.26 A 2.29 2.20 2.25 ^1 2.30 2.20 2.26 x2 1.11 1.16 1.13 sl 1.11 1.15 1.13 s2 - APPENDIX:D Table 12 ORGANIZATIONAL INVOLVEMENT Form D(R) Question 63B, Page 21 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined Lodges 9.25 10.76 9.90 4.94 Church groups 5.67 5.26 Sports and athletic 2.87 5.67 4.08 groups Social groups 2.78 3.66 3.16 PTA 13.55 10.16 12.09 Political groups 1.98 9.69 5.31 Farm organizations 0. 0. 0.

Educational 0. 0.59 0.26 Labor unions 2.78 3.78 3.21 General business or 1.44 14.18 1.43 professional Special business or 8.08 5.67 7.04 professional Neighborhood groups 6.19 2.72 4.69 Any others 9.87 15.01 12.09 Veterans organizations 3.59 2.36 3.06 Church 54.67 12.17 36.33 Local government 0. 0.

Civil and human rights 0. 0. 0.

Aircraft noise 0.

0.12 0.05 associations '168 APPENDIX D Table 13 KNOWLEDGEOF PERSONS MOVING BECAUSE OF AIRCRAFT NOISE Form D(R) Question 25, Page 16 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined Neighbors Moving No 97.94 97.52 97.76 Yes 1.35 2.13 1.68 A 0.72 0.35 0.56 APPENDIX D Table 14 ATTITUDES TaJARD THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY Form D(R) Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Reno Combined Variable 1. Aircraft designers 36 17 doing all they can T 62.48 65.60 63.83 F 27.20 24.82 26.17 A lo.'32 9.57 10.00.

2. Airport operated in 37 18 best interest of city T 84.92 76.83 81.43 F 10.77 18.20 13.98 4.31 A 4.96 4.59 3. Airport ,authorities 40 18 doing all they can to eliminate noise T 56.10 53.55 55.00 F 32.05 33.33 32.60 A 11.85 13.12 12.40 4. Airport authorities 44 18 not very much con- cerned with average, citizen T 32.50 27.07 30.15 F 64.63 68.79 66.43 A 2.87 4.14 3.42 5. Airline companies 54 19 will do nothing unless forced T 52.87 51.30 52.19 F 40.39 42.08 41.12 6.73 6.62 A 6.68 APPENDIX D Table 14 - cont.

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY Form D(R) Chattanooga Reno Combined Variable Quest. Pg.

Air travel only 55 19 6.

practical means for future T 72.17 77.54 74.49 F 26.93 21.75 24.69 0.90 0.71 0.82 A APPENDIX D Table 15 ATTITUDES TOWARD THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AIRPORT Form D(R) Variable Chattanooga Quest. Pp. Reno Combined 1. City proud of 42 18 aircraft services T 87.07 78.84 83.52 F 9;78 15.48 12.24 3.14 A 5:67 4.23 43 18 2. Advantages outweigh disadvantages T 83.84 78.96 81.73 F 13.73 17.61 15.41 A 2.42 3.43 2.86 3. Business leaders 46 18 pawns of government T 35.46 20.57 29.03 F 52.06 69.86 59.74 12.48 9.57 11.22 A Leaders doing all 4. 39 18 possible to reduce noise T 41.38 32.62 37.60 F 43.45 52.25 47.24 15.17 15.13 15.15 A

I -

APPENDIX D Table 16 FEAR OF CRASH Form D(R) Variable Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Reno Combined 10 12 - . Too low for safety 0 45.60 48.83 53.07 1 20.83 19.85 18.56 2 12.06 13..72 14.99 3 10.95 6.62 9.08 4 7.09 8.04 7.50 0.54 1.65 1.02 A 1.12 0.95 1.05 x1 1.13 0.96 1.06 x2 1.29 1.29 1.29 % 1.29 1.29 1.30 s2 2. How often fear 11 12 crash 46.41 57.45 51.17 21.54 20.09 20.92 2 14.63 10.05 12.65 9.52 5.08 7.60 4 7.45 6.26 6.94 0.45 A 1.06 0.71 1.09 0.80 0.97

x1

1.10 0.81 0.97 x2 1.29 1.19 1.25 % 1.29 1.19 1.26 s2 i73

- I

APPENDIX D Table 17 TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGEOF JET AIRCRAFT Form D(R) Variable Quest. Pg. ChattanooEa Reno Combined 1. Jet engines quiet 26 17 with mufflers Yes 71.45 65.84 69.03 No 13.11 12.77 12.96 A 15.44 21.39 18.01 2.

Necessary for jets 27 17 to sit and roar engines Yes 57.36 68.09 61.99 No 25.49 18.91 22.65 17.15 A 13.00 15.36 3. Fly lower due to 30 17 weather Yes 39.50 38.89 39.23 No 43.36 43.26 43.32 A 17.15 17.85 17.45 APPENDIX D Table 18 PERCEIVED INCREASE IN AIR TRAFFIC Form D(R) Variable guest. PP. Chattanooga Reno Combined 1. Perceived increase 17 14 in air traffic 0 12.53 12.65 12.75 1 6.82 6.74 6.79 2 25.04 23.76 24.49 28.10 22.22 25.56 4 12.03 10.17 11.22 15.26 24.59 19.29 A 1.89 1.62 1.77 % 2.23 2.14 2.20 "2 1.39 1.43 1.41 % 1.24 1.25 1.24 s2 Table 19 AWARENESS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BEFORE MOVING TO PRESENT RESIDENCE Form D(R) Variable Quest. Pg.

Chattanooga Reno Combined 1. Awareness 16 13 Yes 44.43 41.84 43.32 No 53.32 51.65 52.60 A 2.24 6.50 4.08 APPENDIX D Table 20 CHANCES FOR ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE AIRCRAFT NOISE SITUATION Form D(R) Variable Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Reno Combined 1. Chances 5G 8 1 = good very 5.12 2.96 4.18 2 = good 12.39 6.97 10.05 3 = fair 12.12 9.93 11.17 very 4 = not good 15.26 7.33 11.84 5 = poor 25.85 32.98 28.93 A 29.26 39.83 33.83 Table 21 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN LAND VALUE Form D(R) Reno Combined Variable Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Land value changed 23A 16 1.

0 = not changed B.10 2.13 4.39 1 = gone down 4.31 1.65 3.16 2 = gone up 82.05 88.42 84.80 7.80 7.54 7.65 A 2. Aircraft operations 23B 16 responsible for change Yes 4.76 6.62 5.56 No 79.53 81.09 80.20 14.23 A 15.71 12.29 APPENDIX D Table 22 TYPES OF COMPLAINT Chattanooga Reno Combined Variable N = 59 N = 106 N = 165 Discussed with someone 7.55 8.48 10.16 Phoned or wrote someone 3.39 3.77 3.64 Signed a petition 1.69 0. 0.61 Visited an official 1.69 0. 0.61' Attended a meeting 1.69 0. 0.61 Helped set up a 0. 0. 0.

committee Wrote letters to 0. 0. 0.

editor Filed suit 0. 0. 0.

Other 1.69 0.

0.61 +cThose eligible to complain were those who mentioned aircraft noise as the most disliked thing in the neighborhood. The N's at the top Each of each column reflect the number in each city who qualified.

potential complainant was asked whether or not he actually did any The percents reflect those who reported of the items listed above.

"Yes ." For this reason the column percents do not total to 100 percent.

APPENDIX D Table 23 AIRCRAFT INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS* Form D(R) Question 63C, Page 21 Variable Chattanooga Reno Combined First organization mentioned 0. 0.12 0.05 Second organization mentioned 0. 0.24 0.10 Third organization mentioned 0.. 0. 0.

Fourth organization mentioned 0. 0. 0.

Fifth organization mentioned 0. 0. 0.

*The percents in each row represent that portion of the total sample for that particular category. For this reason the individual colums do not add up to 100 percent.

Table 24 CITY OF RESIDENCE* Chattanooga 1114 56.84 Reno 846 43.16 Total 1960 100.00 *Interviewing completed fall and winter, 1970-1971.

APPENDIX D Table 25 DISTANCE FROM AIRPORT Distance in Miles Chattanooga Reno Combined 11.85 Less than lOi99 11.48 one mile 1.0 - 1.9 21.63 23.17 22.30 2.0 - 2.9 36.62 37.71 37.09 3.0 - 3.9 15.26 17.49 16.22 4.0 - 4.9 2.13 2.81 3.32 5.0 - 5.9 1.80 4.26 2.86 6.0 - 6.9 0. 4.26 1.84 7.0 - 7.9 8.80 0. 5.00 8.0 - 8.9 0.72 0. 0.41 9.0 - 9.9 0. 0. 0.

lo+ 0. 0. 0.

I APPENDIX D Table 26 HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION Form D(R) Question 66C Occupational Score Chattanoopa Reno Combined No Response/ 3.95 3.19 3.62 Don't Know Retired 14.00 11.11 12.76 01 - 09 0. 0.35 0.15 10 - 19 .1.71 4.26 2.90 20 - 29 0.90 2.71 1.68 30 - 39 4.32 7.09 5.51 40 - 49 5.30 7.21 6.10‘ 50 - 59 7.10 6.74 6.95 60 - 69 18.06 18.90 18.42 70 - 79 19.30 19.15 19.24 80 - 89 14.10 10.63 12.60 90 - 99 11.32 8.63 10.15 F* 69.22 63.38 66.64 s* 18.91 21:42 20.27 *x and S are excluding Retired's, No Response's and Don't Know's.

APPENDIX D Table 27 TOTAL FAMILY INCOME Form D(R) Question 69, Page 24 Combined Chattanooga Reno Response 11.58 9.81 10.82 0 - $3,999 40.39 37.00 38.93 $4,000 - $9,999 33.85 47.28 39.64 $10,000 .

14.18 5.91 10.61 No Response Table 28 RESPONDENT'S HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION Form D(R) Question 70A, Page 24 Response Chattanooga Reno Combined Grade school (l-8) 14.27 13.00 13.73 High school (9-12) 53.41 52.60 53.06 College l-3 years 16.61 22.34 19.08 College graduate 9.25 7.80 8.62 College 4 years+ 6.01 3.66 5.00 No Response/ 0.45 0.59 0.51 Don't Know

I

APPENDIX D Table 29 POPULATION OF HOUSEHOLD (PERSONS) Form D(R) Question 65, Page 23 Number Chattanooga Reno Combined 1 6.37 6.86 * 6.58 2 28.55 23.88 26.53 3 22.08 20.33 21.33 4 22.17 21.75 21.99 5 12.84 13.12 12.96 6+ 7.81 14.07 10.51 No Response/ 0.18 0. 0.10 Don't Know x (A Out) 3.30 3.53 3.40 S 1.38 1.50 1.43 Table 30 AGE OF RESPONDENT Form D(R) Question 70B, Page 25 Response Chattanooga Reno Combined Under 30 19.30 21.28 20.15 30 - 39 18.49 23.88 20.82 40 - 49 22.08 21.87 21.99 50 - 59 16.07 16.43 16.22 60 - 69 14.45 11.11 13.01 7cH- 9.25 4.96 7.40 No Response 0.36 0.47 0.41 x (A Out) 3.16 2.87 3.03 S 1.46 1.54 1.59 APPENDIX'D Table 31 SEX OF RESPONDENT Form D(R) Question 89, Page 28 Response Chattanooga Reno Combined Male 26.48 30.38 28.16.

Female 73.52 69.62 71.84 No Response 0. 0. 0.

Table 32 TIMES MOVED IN LAST TEN YEARS Form D(R) Question 72, Page 25 Chattanooga Reno Combined Response 20.69 30.20 Has not moved 37.43 20.56 17.14 19.08 Moved one time 12.84 10.64 11.89 Moved two times 13.12 11.58 Moved three times 10.41 9.46 7.55 Moved four times 6.10 Moved five times 11.94 28.26 18.97 or more No Response/Don't 0.72 0.71 0.71 Know 3.22 Mean (A Out) 1.86 2.45 Standard 2.30 2.93 2.68 deviation APPENDIX D Table 33 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN CITY Form D(R) Question 2, Page 2 Combined Chattanooga Reno Years 17.14 25.05 o- 5 35.46 20.21 13.53 6 - 10 8.45 12.17 9.44 11 - 15 7.37 11.95 10.28 11.24 16 - 20 21+ 55.18 21:87 39.77 No Response/ 0. 0. 0.

Don't Know 20.03 Mean 25.20 13.22 Standard 17.81 12.84 16.93 deviation Table 34 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN NEIGHBORHOOD Years Chattanooga Reno Combined o- 5 43.90 60.40 -51.02 6 - 10 20.29 20.33 20.30 11 12.83 11.02 - 15 8.63 16 - 20 9.87 4.37 7.50 21+ 13.05 6.28 10.08 No Response/ 0.09 0. 0.05 Don't Know Mean 9.83 6.83 8.53 Standard 9.40 8.65 9.21 deviation APPENDIX D Table 35 HOUSING OWNEROR RENTER Form D(R) Question 71A, Page 25 Combined Response Chattanooga Reno Own 81.06 75.30 78.57 Rent 18.85 24.59 21.33 No Response/ 0.09 0.12 0.10 Don't Know Table 36 ETHNICITY OF RESPONDENT Form D(R) Question 90, Page 28 Combined Response Chattanooga Reno Anglo 95.33 95.74 95.51 Spanish/ 0. 1.77 0.77 American Negro 4.04 0.59 2.55 Other 0.27 1.42 0.77 No Response 0.36 0.47 0.41 Table 37 AIRLINE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT Form D(R) Question 68A, Page 24 Response Chattanooga Reno Comoined Yes 2.06 6.03 3.78 No 97.94 93.85 96.17 No Response/ 0. 0.12 0.05 Don't Know APPENDIX D Table 38 BUILDING ATTENUATION Variable Quest. Pg. Chattanooga Reno Combined Building 74, 75 26 attenuation 76, 77 78, 79 27 Unknown 0. 0.

80, 81 <20 82, 83 0. 0.

84, 85 0. 0. 0.

0. 0. 0.

23 0.09 0. 0.05 0.45 0.12 0.31 25 0.81 0.36 0.61 4.31 1.07 2.91 27 14.36 4.27 10.02 22.98 13.17 18.75 32.32 24.91 29.13 13.64 30.96 21.10 10.23 16.01 12.72 0.27 7.71 3.47 0.45 1.19 0.77 0.09: 0.24 0.15 35+ 0. 0.

x 28.67 29.65 29.09 REFERENCES 1. TRACOR, Inc., Community Reaction to Airport Noise. Vol. I, NASA CR-1761, Vol. II, NASA CR-111316, September 1970: 2. MIL RESEARCH LTD, Second Survey of Aircraft Noise Annoyance Office of Population around London (Heathrow) Airport.

Censuses and Surveys, Social Survey Division, Prepared on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, 1971 (London).

3. Borsky, P. N., Community Reactions to Air Force Noise, I: Basic Concepts and Preliminary Methodology; II: Data on Community Studies and Their Interpretation. WADD 60-689, March 1961.

McKennell, A; C., Aircraft Noise Annoyance Around London 4.

(Heathrow) Airport. Social Survey Report S.S. 337, Central Office of Information, April 1963.

Predictions of Noise Disturbance Near Large 5. Hazard, W. R., Airports.

J. Sound Vib. 15: 4, 1971, pp. 425-445.

McKennell, A. C., Noise Complaints and Community Action.

Transportation Noises, J. D. Chalupnik, ed., University of Washington Press (Seattle), 1970, pp. 228-244.

7. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft Noise. AFM 86-5, TM 5-365, NAVDOCKS P-98, U.S. Department of Defense, October 1964.

8. Biirck, W., Griitzmacher, M., and Meister, F. J., FluglZirm: Seine Messung and Berwertung, seine BerUcksichtigung bei der Siedlungsplanung, Massnahmen zu seiner Minderung.

Bundesministeriums ftir Gesundheitswesen, Gbttingen, 1969.

9. Rylander, Ragnar, and Sorenson, Stefan, Aircraft Noise Determinants for Community Annoyance Reactions. Institute of Hygiene, Karolinska Institute, and Department of Environmental Hygiene, National Environment Protection Board, Stockholm, Sweden, 1971 or 1972 (no date).

CR-2104 -2

Overview

Key points

Document

‘ii -(

,1 ’

$NASA CONTRACTOR AS N

COMMUNITY REACTION TO AIRCRAFT NOISE

AROUND SMALLER CITY AIRPORTS

; .,‘-

8,. ~

,-I-:’ (., ” “:\1\

by Wi&mz K. Connor und Hurrold P. Putterson

j:: ,‘,-i -,~- I_ :‘-:”

i, ._ ,,-. ,- _

If

Ilnlllllllllmsll~~ll

I I

I

L -

r 0 CHATTANOOGA

I - .-----

1 I

I

r

I -

I

2’ 85-90 O-84 -0.25 -1.72

-

T

I

I

PROGRAM

IN

COMMUNITY STUDIES

FORM D (R)

I

/ \

!

I

/

1 1

ZERO

x 101.22 101.1 101.2

II -

L

I -

x1

- I

I

Source & rights

Document details