How Does a Community Respond to Changes in Aircraft Noise? A Comparison of Two Surveys Conducted 11 Years Apart in Ho Chi Minh City
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Is there a secular change in the community reaction owing to the increase/decrease in exposure to aircraft noise?
- (2)
- Are the WHO guidelines applicable to developing Asian countries?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Sites
2.1.1. Survey 2008
2.1.2. Survey 2019
2.2. Socio-Acoustic and Health Surveys
2.2.1. Survey 2008
2.2.2. Survey 2019
2.3. Noise Exposure Data
2.3.1. Survey 2008
2.3.2. Survey 2019
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Data of the Respondents
3.2. Increase in Number of Flights and Noise Levels
3.3. Changes in General Annoyance and Sleep Effects
3.4. Influence of Residential and Nonacoustic Factors
3.4.1. Residential and Nonacoustic Factors
3.4.2. Multiple Logistic Models for Annoyance and Low Sleep Quality
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of Nonacoustic Factors on Noise Exposure–Response Relationships
4.2. Change in Aircraft Annoyance and Implications for the Environmental Quality Standard for Aircraft Noise
4.3. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guski, R.; Schreckenberg, D.; Schuemer, R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Basner, M.; McGuire, S. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and effects on sleep. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kempen, E.V.; Casas, M.; Pershagen, G.; Foraster, M. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, L.A.; Van Kamp, I. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. A systematic review of transport noise interventions and their impacts on health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Health Organization. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region; World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Guski, R. How to forecast community annoyance in planning noisy facilities. Noise Health 2004, 6, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.L.; Nguyen, T.L.; Morinaga, M.; Yokoshima, S.; Yano, T.; Sato, T.; Yamada, I. Community response to a step change in the aircraft noise exposure around Hanoi Noi Bai International Airport. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2018, 143, 2901–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.L.; Trieu, B.L.; Hiraguri, Y.; Morinaga, M.; Morihara, T.; Yano, T. Effects of Changes in Acoustic and Non-Acoustic Factors on Public Health and Reactions: Follow-Up Surveys in the Vicinity of the Hanoi Noi Bai International Airport. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam, Delay in Flight Operations at Tan Son Nhat-Causes and Solutions. 2019. Available online: https://caa.gov.vn/hoat-dong-nganh/cham-tre-hoat-dong-bay-tai-tan-son-nhat-nguyen-nhan-va-giai-phap-20190820095050690.htm (accessed on 22 February 2021).
- Nguyen, T.L.; Yano, T.; Nguyen, H.Q.; Nishimura, T.; Fukushima, H.; Sato, T.; Morihara, T.; Hashimoto, Y. Community response to aircraft noise in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi. Appl. Acoust. 2011, 72, 814–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 15666, Acoustics—Assessment of Noise Annoyance by Means of Social and Socio–Acoustic Surveys; International Organization for Standardization: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Fields, J.M.; de Jong, R.G.; Gjestland, T.; Flindell, I.H.; Job, R.F.S.; Kurra, S.; Lercher, P.; Vallet, M.; Yano, T.; Guski, R. Standardized general–purpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: Research and a recommendation. J. Sound Vibr. 2001, 242, 641–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buysse, D.J.; Ancoli–Israel, S.; Edinger, J.D.; Lichstein, K.L.; Morin, C.M. Recommendations for a standard research assessment of insomnia. Sleep 2006, 29, 1155–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michele, L.; Okun, H.; Kravitz, M.; Sowers, M.F.; Douglas, E.; Moul, D.; Buysse, J.; Hall, M. Psychometric Evaluation of the Insomnia Symptom Questionnaire: A Self–Report Measure to Identify Chronic Insomnia. J. Clin. Sleep Med. 2009, 5, 41–51. [Google Scholar]
- Lichstein, K.L.; Durrence, H.H.; Taylor, D.J.; Bush, A.J.; Riedel, B.W. Quantitative criteria for insomnia. Behav. Res. Ther. 2003, 41, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeker, E.R.; Dinges, E.; He, B.; Fleming, G.; Roof, C.; Gerbi, P.J.; Rapoza, A.S.; Hemann, J. Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0 Technical Manual; Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
- Marshall, C. Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart. Available online: https://www.grainger.com/tps/safety_decibel_chart.pdf/ (accessed on 22 February 2021).
- European Commission. Position Paper on Dose Response Relationships between Transportation Noise and Annoyance, EU’s Future Noise Policy WG2–Dose/Effect; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; Available online: http://www.noiseineu.eu/en/2928-a/homeindex/file?objectid=2705&objecttypeid=0/ (accessed on 22 February 2021).
- Miedema, H.M.E.; Vos, H. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999, 105, 3336–3344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guski, R. Community response to environmental noise. In Environmental Urban Noise; Garcia, A., Ed.; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2001; Chapter 4. [Google Scholar]
- Fields, J.M. Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1993, 93, 2753–2763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guski, R. Personal and social variables as co-determinants of noise annoyance. J. Noise Health 1999, 3, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
- Michaud, D.S.; Keith, S.E.; Feder, K.; Voicescu, S.A.; Marro, L.; Than, J.; Guay, M.; Bower, T.; Denning, A.; Lavigne, E.; et al. Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2016, 139, 1455–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Welch, D.; Dirks, K.N.; Shepherd, D.; McBride, D. Health-related quality of life is impacted by proximity to an airport in noise-sensitive people. Noise Health 2018, 20, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Viet Nam Population and HOUSING Census. 2019. Available online: http://tongdieutradanso.vn/ket-qua-tong-dieu-tra-dan-so-va-nha-o-thoi-diem-0-gio-ngay-01-thang-4-nam-2019.html (accessed on 22 February 2021).
- General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey. 2010. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/11/result-of-the-vietnam-household-living-standards-survey-2010/ (accessed on 22 February 2021).
- Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Does access to neighbourhood green space promote a healthy duration of sleep? Novel findings from a cross-sectional study of 259,319 Australians. Br. Med. J. Open 2013, 3, e003094. [Google Scholar]
- Schäffer, B.; Brink, M.; Schlatter, F.; Vienneau, D.; Wunderli, J.M. Residential green is associated with reduced annoyance to road traffic and railway noise but increased annoyance to aircraft noise exposure. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, T.; Kuwano, S.; Yamada, I.; Yano, T.; Morinaga, M. Picture-Frustration Test to Assess Environmental Attitudes of Residents Exposed to Aircraft Noise from Hanoi Noi Bai International Airport. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yokoshima, S.; Yano, T.; Morinaga, M.; Ota, A. Representative dose-response curves for individual transportation noises in Japan. In Proceedings of the 41st International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering 2012 (INTER-NOISE 2012), New York, NY, USA, 19–22 August 2012; pp. 45–56. [Google Scholar]
- Babisch, W.; Houthuijs, D.; Pershagen, G.; Cadum, E.; Katsouyanni, K.; Velonakis, M.; Dudley, M.L.; Marohn, H.D.; Swart, W.; Breugelmans, O.; et al. Annoyance due to aircraft noise has increased over the years—Results of the HYENA study. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 1169–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, S.A.; Vos, H.; Kempen, E.E.M.M.; van Breugelmans, O.R.P.; Miedema, H.M.E. Trends in aircraft noise annoyance: The role of study and sample characteristics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2011, 129, 1953–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gjestland, T. A Systematic Review of the Basis for WHO’s New Recommendation for Limiting Aircraft Noise Annoyance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gjestland, T. On the Temporal Stability of People’s Annoyance with Road Traffic Noise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gjestland, T. Recent World Health Organization regulatory recommendations are not supported by existing evidence. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2020, 148, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brink, M. Comment on “Recent World Health Organization regulatory recommendations are not supported by existing evidence. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 148, 511–517. 2020”. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2020, 148, 3397–3398. [Google Scholar]
- Gjestland, T.; Gelderblom, F.B. Prevalence of noise induced annoyance and its dependency on number of aircraft movements. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2017, 103, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Survey | Annoyance Questions | Sleep Disturbance Questions |
---|---|---|
2008 | Thinking about the last 12 months or so, what number from 0 to 10 best shows how much you are bothered, disturbed, or annoyed by aircraft noise? 11point scale used from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely) (HA a:8, 9, 10) | Q17. In daily life, when an airplane passes by, to what degree are you disturbed in the following cases: Q17_6. When it makes it difficult for you to fall asleep? Q17_7. When you are awakened from your sleep? Not at all; Slightly; Moderately; Very; Extremely. (HSD b: Very, Extremely) Q20. How is the status of your daily sleep? Extremely good; Good; Neutral; Bad; Extremely bad. (LSQ c: Bad, Extremely bad) |
2019 | Same | Q8. How often do you have trouble getting to sleep or staying asleep? 1. Often; 2. Sometimes; 3. Almost never Q9. How many hours of sleep do you usually get at night? 6 h or less; 7 h; 8 h; 9 h or more Q10. During the past 4 weeks, how would you rate the quality of your sleep overall? 1. Very good; 2. Fairly good; 3. Fairly bad; 4. Very bad. Q11. Please answer this question concerning your sleep: Q11.1. Do you have any trouble with your sleep? (1) No; (2) Yes. If you answered “Yes” to the above question, please choose appropriate numbers for each item.
Q11.2. If you have trouble with your sleep, do you think that it is due to the aircraft noise? (1) No; (2) Yes |
Items | Surveys | Vietnamese Census (2019) * | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2008 | 2019 | |||
Number of respondents | 880 | 502 | ||
Response rate (%) | 88 | 60 | ||
Sex (%) | Male | 47 | 46 | 50 |
Female | 53 | 54 | 50 | |
Age (%) | 20–50 years | 89 | 82 | 88 |
≥60 years | 11 | 18 | 12 | |
Occupation (%) | Employment | 45 | 54 | 74 a 55 b |
Student, homemaker, retired, unemployed | 55 | 46 | 26 a 45 b |
Time Period | Operation Modes | Surveys | |
---|---|---|---|
2008 | 2019 | ||
Day (6:00–18:00) | Arrival | 67 | 214 |
Departure | 82 | 244 | |
Total | 149 | 458 | |
Evening (18:00–22:00) | Arrival | 28 | 73 |
Departure | 16 | 64 | |
Total | 44 | 137 | |
Night (22:00–6:00) | Arrival | 17 | 77 |
Departure | 14 | 56 | |
Total | 31 | 133 | |
All day | Arrival | 112 | 364 |
Departure | 112 | 364 | |
Total | 224 | 728 |
Noise Levels | Survey Sites | RMS c | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |||
Ldena | Estimated | 64.3 | 65.4 | 65.5 | 62.8 | 81.3 | 74.2 | 69.8 | 66.1 | 63.7 | 67.4 | 47.3 | 45.0 | 1.9 |
Measured | 65.6 | 67.9 | - | - | 78.9 | 73.7 | 70.4 | - | 64.6 | 63.8 | 45.8 | 44.2 | ||
Lnightb | Estimated | 56.6 | 57.6 | 57.7 | 55 | 73.6 | 66.2 | 61.9 | 58.3 | 55.9 | 59.6 | 39.8 | 37.5 | 2.4 |
Measured | 58.5 | 60.7 | - | - | 71.6 | 66.9 | 63.1 | - | 56.8 | 55.4 | 36.6 | 35.9 |
2008 Survey | 2019 Survey | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Site | Ldena | Lnightb | Site | Ldena | Lnightb |
Site A1 | 59 | 52 | Site B1 | 64 | 57 |
Site A2 | 53 | 45 | Site B2 | 65 | 58 |
Site A3 | 55 | 48 | Site B3 | 66 | 58 |
Site A4 | 57 | 49 | Site B4 | 63 | 55 |
Site A5 | 71 | 62 | Site B5 | 81 | 74 |
Site A6 | 64 | 56 | Site B6 | 74 | 66 |
Site A7 | 66 | 58 | Site B7 | 70 | 62 |
Site A8 | 62 | 55 | Site B8 | 66 | 58 |
Site A9 | 62 | 54 | Site B9 | 64 | 56 |
Site A10 | 60 | 53 | Site B10 | 67 | 60 |
2008 Survey | 2019 Survey | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Site | %HA a | %LSQ b | No. of Responses | Site | %HA a | %LSQ b | No. of Responses |
Site A1 | 5 | 7 | 85 | Site B1 | 0 | 14 | 48 |
Site A2 | 0 | 8 | 86 | Site B2 | 7 | 12 | 41 |
Site A3 | 7 | 3 | 90 | Site B3 | 0 | 27 | 31 |
Site A4 | 9 | 8 | 90 | Site B4 | 2 | 18 | 49 |
Site A5 | 52 | 27 | 90 | Site B5 | 3 | 15 | 33 |
Site A6 | 49 | 11 | 83 | Site B6 | 18 | 35 | 49 |
Site A7 | 34 | 12 | 90 | Site B7 | 13 | 10 | 48 |
Site A8 | 11 | 9 | 88 | Site B8 | 6 | 12 | 32 |
Site A9 | 3 | 13 | 89 | Site B9 | 0 | 22 | 45 |
Site A10 | 1 | 2 | 89 | Site B10 | 2 | 4 | 33 |
Noise Level Ranges Lden a (dB) | p-Value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<60 | 60–65 | 65–70 | >70 | |||
2008 survey | %HA | 5.2 | 15.5 | 34.4 | 52.2 | <0.0001 |
Response number/N | 17/330 | 53/341 | 31/90 | 47/90 | ||
2019 survey | %HA | 0.7 | 6.1 | 12.2 | 0.0082 | |
Response number/N | 1/142 | 12/197 | 10/82 |
Noise Level Ranges Lnight a (dB) | p-Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<50 | 50–55 | 55–60 | 60–65 | >65 | |||
2008 survey | %LSQ | 6.5 | 7.8 | 11.6 | 26.7 | <0.0001 | |
Response number | 17/260 | 27/345 | 20/172 | 24/90 | |||
2019 survey | %LSQ | 15.2 | 10.4 | 26.8 | 0.3974 (n.s) | ||
Response number | 45/297 | 5/48 | 22/82 |
Factors | Categories | 2008 Survey | 2019 Survey | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Residential Factors | ||||
Housing type | Self-owning | 65.6 (576/878) | 64.9 (321/495) | 0.8743 |
Floor Area/Width of house | ≤50 m2 | 53.2 (462/868) | 59.1 (269/455) | 0.2632 |
Housing structure | 1. Wooden 2. Brick 3. Prefabricated 4. Reinforced concrete 5. Reinforced concrete with brick wall 6. Others | 1.8 (16/871) 39.6 (345/871) 1.4 (12/871) 16.9 (147/871) 39.4 (343/871) 0.9 (8/871) | 2.1 (7/337) 14.5 (49/337) 0.3 (1/337) 44.8 (151/337) 34.4 (116/337) 3.9 (13/337) | <0.0001 |
Number of glass layers in living room windows and doors | 1. More than 3 layers 2. 2 layers 3. 1 layer 4. Others (the window has no glass) | 0.1 (1/866) 7.5 (65/866) 71.7 (621/866) 20.7 (179/866) | 2.7 (13/490) 18.2 (89/490) 75.3 (369/490) 3.9 (19/490) | <0.0001 |
Type of frame of living room windows and doors | 1. Aluminum frame 2. Wooden frame 3. Plastic frame 4. Others | 32.2 (276/858) 25.8 (221/858) 1.9 (16/858) 40.2 (345/858) | 31.7 (156/492) 14.2 (70/492) 1.4 (7/492) 52.6 (259/492) | 0.0061 |
Number of glass layers in bedroom windows and doors | 1. More than 3 layers 2. 2 layers 3. 1 layer 4. Others (the window has no glass) | 0.5 (4/850) 6.8 (58/850) 68.6 (583/850) 24.1 (205/850) | 1.2 (6/488) 13.5 (66/488) 77.7 (379/488) 7.6 (37/488) | <0.0001 |
Type of frame of bedroom windows and doors | 1. Aluminum frame 2. Wooden frame 3. Plastic frame 4. Others | 27.5 (234/850) 31.8 (270/850) 4.5 (38/850) 36.2 (308/850) | 37.3 (181/485) 20.0 (97/485) 2.7 (13/485) 40.0 (194/485) | 0.0115 * |
Personal and attitudinal factors | ||||
Sex | Male | 47.1 (411/872) | 46.2 (229/496) | 0.8467 |
Age | ≥60 years old | 10.5 (91/867) | 18.1 (90/498) | 0.0490 * |
Residence length Residential area preference and quality (% Bad and Extremely bad) | ≤5 years 1 Green 2 Street sceneries 3 View 4 Quietness 5 Work convenience 6 Education convenience 7 Health care convenience 8 Daily life service convenience 9 Transport convenience | 55.2 (478/866) 21.2 (185/873) 24.5 (214/874) 13.8 (119/865) 15.1 (131/870) 9.8 (85/863) 22.5 (195/868) 26.0 (226/869) 24.1 (209/868) 16.4 (142/866) | 41.7 (204/489) 12.3 (60/487) 7.9 (38/483) 8.0 (39/485) 9.0 (43/478) 3.8 (18/475) 1.9 (9/478) 3.4 (16/477) 1.3 (6/477) 4.4 (21/478) | 0.0063 ** 0.0070 ** <0.0001 0.0275 * 0.0341 * 0.0015 ** <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 |
Opening of bedroom windows (% Often and Always) | 1. Dry season 2. Rainy season | 34.8 (301/865) 24.4 (210/860) | 31.2 (140/449) 17.9 (81/452) | 0.0157 * 0.0005 *** |
Sensitivity(% Very and Extremely | 1. Cold 2. Heat 3. Noise 4. Vibration 5. Chemicals 6. Odors 7. Dust, pollen, polluted air | 3.0 (26/862) 24.2 (209/862) 26.0 (224/860) 5.7 (49/854) 7.8 (67/856) 14.2 (122/861) 12.0 (103/860) | 2.9 (14/480) 15.6 (75/482) 16.1 (78/483) 8.5 (41/482) 5.4 (26/480) 8.8 (42/480) 6.7 (32/481) | 0.9528 0.0166 * 0.0072 ** 0.3210 0.2869 0.0551 0.0326 * |
Job | 1. Employed 2. Student 3. Homemaker 4. Retired 5. Unemployed | 45.3 (392/865) 10.2 (88/865) 15.6 (135/865) 13.9 (120/865) 15.0 (130/865) | 53.6 (266/496) 9.3 (46/496) 13.1 (65/496) 9.7 (48/496) 14.3 (71/496) | 0.4471 |
Number of hours staying at home | 1. Under 8 h 2. From 8 to 15 h 3. Above 15 h | 8.2 (64/784) 27.0 (212/784) 64.8 (508/784) | 30.6 (149/487) 36.6 (178/487) 32.6 (159/487) | <0.0001 |
Item | Category | Estimate | Std Error | p-Value | Odds Ratio | Lower 95% | Upper 95% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | −16.509 | 1.624 | <0.0001 | ||||
Ldena | 0.224 | 0.025 | <0.0001 | 1.250 b | 1.313 b | 0.800 b | |
Survey factor | 2008 survey | 1 | |||||
2019 survey | −1.348 | 0.361 | 0.0002 | 0.260 | 0.128 | 0.527 | |
Ldena × Survey factor | −0.187 | 0.050 | 0.0002 | ||||
Sex | Male | 1 | |||||
Female | 0.100 | 0.199 | 0.6156 | 1.105 | 0.748 | 1.633 | |
Age | ≤60 years | 1 | |||||
>60 years | 0.622 | 0.304 | 0.0406 | 1.864 | 1.027 | 3.381 | |
Green | Satisfied | 1 | |||||
Dissatisfied | 0.330 | 0.244 | 0.1753 | 1.392 | 0.863 | 2.244 | |
Work convenience | Satisfied | 1 | |||||
Dissatisfied | 1.084 | 0.279 | 0.0001 | 2.956 | 1.710 | 5.110 | |
Noise sensitivity | Insensitive | 1 | |||||
Sensitive | 1.527 | 0.200 | <0.0001 | 4.604 | 3.109 | 6.820 |
Item | Category | Estimate | Std Error | p-Value | Odds Ratio | Lower 95% | Upper 95% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | −7.963 | 1.487 | <0.0001 | ||||
Lnighta | 0.090 | 0.027 | 0.0008 | 1.095 b | 1.154 b | 0.914 b | |
Survey factor | 2008 survey | 1 | |||||
2019 survey | 0.778 | 0.227 | 0.0006 | 2.177 | 1.394 | 3.400 | |
Lnighta × survey factor | −0.098 | 0.037 | 0.0078 | ||||
Sex | Male | 1 | |||||
Female | 0.230 | 0.185 | 0.2130 | 1.259 | 0.876 | 1.809 | |
Age | ≤60 years | 1 | |||||
>60 years | 0.928 | 0.232 | <0.0001 | 2.529 | 1.605 | 3.987 | |
Green | Satisfied | 1 | |||||
Dissatisfied | 0.708 | 0.221 | 0.0014 | 2.030 | 1.316 | 3.133 | |
Work convenience | Satisfied | 1 | |||||
Dissatisfied | 0.064 | 0.344 | 0.8529 | 1.066 | 0.543 | 2.093 | |
Noise sensitivity | Insensitive | 1 | |||||
Sensitive | 1.190 | 0.204 | <0.0001 | 3.288 | 2.206 | 4.901 |
Variable | Category | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | p-Value | Order of Entry into Model: R2 at Each Step |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ldena | Continuous | 1.129 (1.095, 1.164) b | <0.0001 | Base: 0.0647 |
Survey factor | 2019/2008 | 0.074 (0.043, 0.129) | <0.0001 | Step 1: 0.1871 |
Sensitivity | Sensitive/Insensitive | 4.500 (3.083, 6.567) | <0.0001 | Step 2: 0.2487 |
Work convenience | Dissatisfied/Satisfied | 2.646 (1.554, 4.507) | 0.0003 | Step 3: 0.2641 |
Age | >60 years/≤60 years | 1.750 (0.976, 3.135) | 0.0669 | Step 4: 0.2676 |
Green | Dissatisfied/Satisfied | 1.201 (0.757, 1.904) | 0.4368 | Step 5: 0.2682 |
Sex | Female/Male | 1.077 (0.734, 1.581) | 0.7046 | Step 6: 0.2674 |
Variable | Category | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | p-Value | Order of Entry into Model: R2 at Each Step |
---|---|---|---|---|
Lnighta | Continuous | 1.087 (1.053, 1.121) b | <0.0001 | Base: 0.0290 |
Sensitivity | Sensitive/Insensitive | 2.916 (2.030, 4.187) | <0.0001 | Step 1: 0.0663 |
Age | >60 years/≤60 years | 2.437 (1.571, 3.781) | <0.0001 | Step 2: 0.0808 |
Green | Dissatisfied/Satisfied | 1.752 (1.154, 2.658) | 0.0084 | Step 3: 0.0873 |
Survey factor | 2019/2008 | 1.681 (1.087, 2.602) | 0.0197 | Step 4: 0.0932 |
Sex | Female/Male | 1.256 (0.876, 1.801) | 0.2156 | Step 5: 0.0951 |
Work convenience | Dissatisfied/Satisfied | 1.045 (0.534, 2.043) | 0.8987 | Step 6: 0.0976 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Trieu, B.L.; Nguyen, T.L.; Hiraguri, Y.; Morinaga, M.; Morihara, T. How Does a Community Respond to Changes in Aircraft Noise? A Comparison of Two Surveys Conducted 11 Years Apart in Ho Chi Minh City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084307
Trieu BL, Nguyen TL, Hiraguri Y, Morinaga M, Morihara T. How Does a Community Respond to Changes in Aircraft Noise? A Comparison of Two Surveys Conducted 11 Years Apart in Ho Chi Minh City. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(8):4307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084307
Chicago/Turabian StyleTrieu, Bach Lien, Thu Lan Nguyen, Yasuhiro Hiraguri, Makoto Morinaga, and Takashi Morihara. 2021. "How Does a Community Respond to Changes in Aircraft Noise? A Comparison of Two Surveys Conducted 11 Years Apart in Ho Chi Minh City" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8: 4307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084307