Understanding Noise Pollution In London Heathrow Airport And Its Impact On Residents

Theoretical framework

The aim of this study was to understand the noise pollution in London Heathrow Airport and document the narratives regarding the perceptions of people who live in the close proximity. The study is committed in understanding the health issues and the experiential reality of the residents near the Heathrow Airport. Therefore, the paper focused on the negative outcome of the noise pollution due to the noise produced from the Heathrow Airport. Theory can be understood as a model or a framework that helps the researcher to observe and understand a particular phenomenon or event. It is theory that shapes the understanding of the researcher and directs him/her to seek links between one or more variables. Another feature of theory is that it enables the researcher to make link with the between the abstract and the concrete (Flick 2015). Theory enables the researcher to make connections between one or more types of phenomenon and in providing generalized explanatory principle. Theory is a set of interconnected abstractions that helps in connecting with the concrete.  It refers to the individual or a group of ideas that consolidate and organize knowledge about the world. The use of theory in research is that it enables in framing the procedures that should be adopted in the course of the research. Theory also enhances the awareness of the researcher regarding the interconnections and that is related to the broader significance of the data. The theory used for this research Fujiwara, Lawton and Mac Kerron’s who have found out that aircraft noise has affected people who are located in close proximity of the airports. The theoretical framework of Guarnaccia has also guided and informed my understanding about the research. According to the author, noise pollution is one of the major environmental threats in the present context and it causes severe problems for people who are residing near the airport. Studies by Kopsch (2016) and Bruno et al (2017) had also been useful in examining the impact of aircraft noise and the negative implications that it has on the people. I adopted the quantitative methodology for the purpose of the study. Methodology can be defined as the framework that guides the researcher about the methods and techniques of data collection that needs to be adopted to accomplish the research goals. The methodological framework adopted by Schimdt et al (2015) has been particularly helpful in conducting the research. Schimdt conducted survey among sixty patients to explore and gauge the impact of noise pollution and exposure to noise exposure. I selected the quantitative methodology for the purpose of the research as it enabled me to quantify the data and provide a holistic overview about the exact nature of the impact of noise pollution on the people. The method of data collection for the study was survey and the technique of data collection adopted for the study was online survey that was used collecting the data (Lewis 2015). Apart from the primary data analysis, I also engaged with critical review of peer-reviewed journals and academic literature that dealt with measurements from the Hounslow and Heathrow. I could have used structured interview for the research that would have enabled me to attain a deeper insight into the problems faced by people and in what ways it is affecting their daily activities. One disadvantage with survey is that it fails to grasp the complexities of the nature of the problem. Ethnography and participant observation could also have been conducted to actually understand what it feels like to be exposed to such high decibel of noise due to the movement of aircraft. The adoption of the online survey was cost effective and was easy to administer. One disadvantage that I experienced with the online surveys was that I had to constantly enquire from the respondents whether they have filled up the questionnaire and urged them to return the questionnaire once on completion.

Methodology

Description of the location-The universe of study for the research is London Heathrow Airport that is located in the London Borough of Hillingdon that is one of the major international airports in London. It is the second busiest international airport in the world. It is situated approximately 13 miles that is to the west of central London. It is encircled by suburban housing , mixed-used open land and the business properties. An online survey was conducted on April 25, 2018 and the time spent on the survey was 5 hours, 45 minutes (the questionnaire will be attached in the appendix). The research population for this study comprised of men and women who were situated near the London Heathrow Airport. The term research population can be defined as the particular group of people on whom the research would be conducted for collecting data (Lewis 2015). The research population for this study is 239, 748 people according to the population data collected in the year 2011. This is known as the sampling frame of the research. The number of people who are  exposed to the high level of noise population according to the population data of 2011 estimated over 63,000 people and they account for 25 per cent of the population. The unit of analysis for the study is the residents of the London Heathrow Airport . The sample population for the study was 76 men and women. Some of the questions in the questionnaire are the basic demographic details about the person (gender and age), type of noise that is creating problem for the person, time of the day the aircraft noise is louder and opinion o the respondent regarding the thirdway that is to be constructed in Heathrow. In addition, enquiries were made regarding whether there is any  prevalence of healthy condition, whether the respondents have double glazing at home, the length of the period the residents have stayed in the area and the degree of noise that creates disturbance for the person, whether children complain about aircraft noise and whether the residents are aware about the support provided by the London Heathrow Airport for minimizing the effects of noise exposure.  I did not conduct pilot study prior to the research. I engaged in SRS (simple Random Sampling) to select my respondents who comprised of both male and female. The rationale behind adopting the SRS sampling technique is that it allows each member of the research population to have an equal chance of being selected for the purpose of the study. The advantage with simple random sampling unlike more complicated sampling technique is that there is no need to segregate the population into subpopulations of the purpose of the research.

Data collection technique

Validity and reliability are important concepts for understanding the scope and potential of the research. The term validity of research refers that the instrument or a test is able to accurately measure something that it is supposed to do. There are different kinds of validity like content validity, criterion validity, curricular validity, external validity, formative validity and face validity amongst others.  On the other hand, the term reliability connotes the measure of the consistency or the stability of the test scores. Reliability underscore on the repeat factor of the test based on its success. Reliability is of two types-internal reliability and external reliability. The term internal reliability or internal consistency refers to the measure about how well the test is capable of measuring what it is supposed to do. On the other hand, external reliability connotes that the test can be generalized beyond what it is measuring. Tests that are valid are always reliable, however the other way round is not true.  I conducted a survey on the research on the sampling population that comprised of the residents inhabiting near the London Heathrow Airport. The study is reliable as it could measure the level of noise pollution in the universe of study (London Heathrow Airport) and in what ways the residents in the vicinity are affected due to this everyday exposure to the noise pollution. In addition, the research was committed in understanding the perception of the residents in the airport whether they have been able to reap the benefits the measures taken by the London Heathrow Airport noise plan for reduction the veracity of noise pollution.

Analysis of the results

Based on the questionnaire survey that was conducted on the sample population of the residents of the London Heathrow Airport, I analyzed the data from the spreadsheet. In quantitative data analysis, raw data is turned into meaningful that through the help of rational and critical (Choy 2014). Since the findings can be analyzed in different manner, it is important to examine the data carefully in a fair manner. There is a need to carefully analyze the findings of the data and compare it with other findings that are within the framework of the same research. The data analysis stage is also important for reflecting on the findings of the results based on the review of literature that was part of the secondary data analysis of the study.  The data was analyzed using Survey Monkey. It is one of the most popular online surveys that were developed in the year 1999 which is a cloud-based software that enables in sample selection, elimination of bias, data analysis and generating data representation tools.  In Survey Money, the steps for collecting the survey involves first opting for the collector Responses section of the survey and this is followed by choosing the right collector type depending on the requirements of the survey and finally editing the collector options to customize the respondent’s experience of taking the survey. Based on the transcription and analysis of the data, there emerged certain themes.

Validity and reliability

According to the findings of the survey, it can be found that 69.33 per cent of the sample population comprised of women and 30. 67 per cent of the population comprised of men. Total number of respondents for the study was 75. The number of female respondents who participated in the study is 52 and the number of male respondents who participated in the study are 23. It was found that 11 respondents belonged to the age group of 18 to 24, 19 respondents belonged to the age group of 25 to 34, 36 people belonged to the age group of 35 to 44, 14 people belonged to the age group of 45 to 54 and 6 people who responded to the study belonged to the age group of 55 to 64. There was no one in the study who belonged to the age group of 65 and older. The total number of respondents was 76. It could be seen that the maximum number of people belonged to the age group of 35 to 44 (34.21 per cent). This is followed by the age group of 25 to 44 that comprised of 25 per cent of the given sample population. Regarding the types of noise that is, creating disturbances for the respondents are aircraft, road traffic and train. These three variables were included in this section of the questionnaire. It was found that 15 respondents (19.74 per cent) felt it is aircraft the primary cause of noise pollution. 48 respondents (63.16 per cent) were of the opinion that it is road traffic that is the primary cause that is the central cause of pollution. Only 13 respondents (17.11 per cent) found train to be a contributor to noise pollution in the environment. Therefore, it can be seen that it is road traffic that has been understood to be the major cause of noise pollution. Regarding the time of the day when the noise pollution is louder, the variables that were included are daytime (7am to 11 am), Nighttime (11pm to 7am) and both. In this section, it was found that 37 respondents (48.68 per cent) were found the daytime when the noise is louder whereas 23 respondents (30. 26 percent) found the night time to be the loudest. For 16 respondents (21.05 per cent) both the day and the nighttime is louder. Therefore, it can be seen that majority of the respondents found the daytime to be the loudest that is followed. Some of the health conditions that were documented in the questionnaire were heart disease, sleep disturbance, high blood pressure, hearing problem and also a variable that includes none of these questions. It was found that 3 respondents (3.95 per cent) have heart disease, 15 respondents (19.74 per cent) have sleep disturbance, 6 respondents (7.89 per cent) have high blood pressure, 4 respondents (5.26 per cent) have hearing problem and 50 respondents reported that did not face any of the mentioned diseases. This indicates two issues (i) I could have included more number of diseases to understand the exact nature of repercussion from the noise pollution and (ii) secondly, the impact of noise pollution due to aircraft is not much thereby proving that the noise pollution mitigation plan adopted by the London Heathrow Airport has proved to be effective. The next section in the questionnaire was concerned with understanding the opinion of the  residents regarding the construction of a third runway in the airport. It was found that out of 76 respondents 13 of them opposed the decision that constitutes 17. 11 per cent of the sample population whereas 25 respondents supported the decision that comprised of 32. 89 per cent of the population. It was interesting to find that majority of the sample population a number of 38 people (50.00 per cent) were not sure about this move. The next section of the questionnaire was interested in understanding whether there is double glazing in the homes of the respondents. It was found that out of 76 respondents 51 of them have double glazers in their houses that constitutes to 67. 11 per cent of the sample population. On the other hand, 21 respondents reported that they do not have double glazers in their houses that constitutes to 27. 63 per cent of the sample population. 4 respondents were not aware whether they had double glazers in their home. This constitutes to 5.26 per cent of the sample population. The next section of the questionnaire was interested to understand how long the respondents have resided in that area. It was found that 12 respondents (15.79 per cent) have resided in the area for less than 6 months, 11 respondents (14.47 per cent) have resided in that area for 6 (14.4 per cent) months to 1 year, 25 (32. 89 per cent) respondents were reported to have lived in the area between 1 years to 5 years, 13 respondents (17. 11 per cent) reported to have lived in the area between 5 years to 10 years and 15 respondents (19. 74 per cent) were reported to have resided in the area for more than 10 years. Therefore, it can be seen that the majority of the respondents have resided in the area for 1 year to 5 years, thus comprising of 32. 89 per cent of the sample population. In the next section of the questionnaire, it was found that 28 respondents (36. 84 per cent) reported that they did not face any noise pollution. 18 respondents (23. 68 per cent) reported that they slightly faced noise pollution, 21 respondents (27. 63 per cent) reported that they were moderately disturbed by the noise, 6 respondents (7.89 per cent) of the sample population reported that they were very much disturbed by the noise from the aircraft whereas 3 respondents (3.95 per cent) reported that they were extremely affected the noise pollution from the airport. The next section of the questionnaire was concerned with whether noise from aircraft interfered with any aspect of the lives of the respondents. It was found that 10 respondents  (13.16 per cent) ensued that their study was affected, 7 respondents (9.21 per cent) reported that their conversations over phone was affected, 9 respondents (11.84 per cent) of the population reported that their leisure activities like reading, resting and writing are intruded, 16 respondents (21.05 per cent)  were reported to have found that their activity of spending outside the home was affected and 26 respondents (34.21 per cent)  were reported to have they found it difficult to open their windows or doors open. It was reported that 32 respondents (42.11 per cent) reported that they did not find any disturbance. Therefore, it can be found that majority of their activities were affected by the noise, there indicating that the veracity of the problem might be not that much. It was found that 8 respondents (10. 67 per cent) reported that their children were affected by the activity, 34 respondents (45.33 per cent) were reported to be not affected by the noise pollution, 10 (13. 33 per cent) respondents reported that were sometimes affected by the noise pollution, 23 (30. 67 per cent) respondents  reported that do not have children and 1 respondent skipped this question. It was found that 20 (26. 32 per cent) respondents were aware about the Heathrow airport offer to reduce the noise pollution, 33 respondents (43.42 per cent) were not aware about this initiative. It was found that 41 (54. 57 per cent) respondents agreed that the noise exposure from the aircraft is bad for their health., 32 (42. 67 per cent) respondents disagreed that noise exposure can interfere with the education of their children, 38 ( 50.00 per cent) respondents were of the opinion that having an airport in the vicinity is good for the economy, 33(43. 42 per cent)  people believed that noise from aircraft makes them stressed and 33(43. 2 per cent)  people did not like to live near the airports. This was measured through the construction of an ordinal scale.

Data analysis

The findings of my research have both divergence and convergence with the secondary data analysis (relevant literature). Schreckenberg et al. (2017) argued that noise exposure from the aircraft impedes in the learning abilities of children, therefore interfering with their study. However, according to the findings of my research it can be stated that 34 respondents out of 76 respondents felt that their children were not affected by the noise pollution. This indicate that the noise plan adopted by the London Heathrow Airport authorities have proved to be effective. According to Kaltenbach et al. (2016) blood pressure and hypertension are found to be the main consequences of noise pollution. In my findings, I have expanded the number of diseases. It was found that any diseases did not affect majority of the respondents and more than 14 per cent of the respondents has issues with their sleep cycle. According to Lawton and Fujiwara (2016) that the aviation industry is not subsumed within the noise nuisance claims, however in my research it was found that the London Heathrow Airport has noise plans that offers the community the necessary support to reduce noise pollution. According to Fujiwara, Lawton and MacKerron (2017) the psychological impact on children due to noise pollution is quite immense. However, in my study majority of the participants (45. 33 per cent) said that they were not affected due to noise exposure from the airport.

Conclusion

This research was committed in understanding  the impact of noise exposure on the residents who live in the vicinity of the London Heathrow Airport. It was found that this airport was one of the largest and most popular airport in the world and currently it has two runaways. The airport authorities are planning on constructing the third runaway. The Report on London Borough of Hounslow found that there are severe negative implications on the health of the residents due to stark exposure to noise pollution. The study was interested in understanding and documenting the perceptions. I deployed both primary and secondary data analysis to investigate the impact of noise pollution in the airport. It was found that the study was not consistent with the given literature as most of the participants of the study were not facing any disturbance or interference with their activities due the noise pollution. However, it was also found that the participants did not like living in the vicinity of the airport. Most of the participants of this study were women and they belong to the millennial generation. It was interesting to find out that majority of the participants were exposed to any health issues due the noise pollution. All these indicate that participants have actually benefitted from the noise plan and therefore, they were not facing much problems whether in terms of health or otherwise. Some of the limitations of the study is that there could have more respondents in the study that would have enabled in understanding about the wider population. Since the study did not have respondents who were older than 65 it is difficult to assess the impact of noise pollution them. Qualitative study would have more useful for this study to have a deeper insight.

References

Aguilar de Soto, N., Gkikopoulou, K., Hooker, S., Isojunno, S., Johnson, M., Miller, P., Tyack, P., Wensveen, P., Donovan, C., Harris, C.M. and Harris, D., 2016, July. From physiology to policy: A review of physiological noise effects on marine fauna with implications for mitigation. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 4ENAL (Vol. 27, No. 1, p. 040008). ASA.

Bruno, R., Faraguna, U., Di Pilla, M., Di Galante, M., Banfi, T., Gemignani, A., Fidecaro, F., Licitra, G., Bonanni, E., Berrettini, S. and MA, V., 2017. Increased central pressure augmentation is associated with reduced sleep duration in individuals exposed to aircraft noise pollution: the SERA-CV study. JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 35(2), pp. 134-150.

Bruno, R.M., Faraguna, U., Di Pilla, M., Di Galante, M., Banfi, T., Gemignani, A., Licitra, G., Vigotti, M.A., Taddei, S. and Ghiadoni, L., 2017. Increased wave reflection is associated with reduced sleep duration in individuals exposed to aircraft noise pollution. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 27(1), pp. 10-20.

Choy, L.T., 2014. The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), pp.99-104.

Flick, U., 2015. Introducing research methodology: A beginner’s guide to doing a research project. Sage.

Forns, J., Dadvand, P., Foraster, M., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Rivas, I., López-Vicente, M., Suades-Gonzalez, E., Garcia-Esteban, R., Esnaola, M., Cirach, M. and Grellier, J., 2016. Traffic-related air pollution, noise at school, and behavioral problems in Barcelona schoolchildren: a cross-sectional study. Environmental health perspectives, 124(4), p.529.

Fujiwara, D., Lawton, R.N. and MacKerron, G., 2017. Experience sampling in and around airports. Momentary subjective wellbeing, airports, and aviation noise in England. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 56(2), pp.43-54.

Guarnaccia, C., Quartieri, J., Tepedino, C. and Rodrigues, E.R., 2015. An analysis of airport noise data using a non-homogeneous Poisson model with a change-point. Applied Acoustics, 91(2), pp.33-39.

Kaltenbach, M., Maschke, C., Heb, F., Niemann, H. and Führ, M., 2016. Health impairments, annoyance and learning disorders caused by aircraft noise. Int. J. Environ. Protect, 6, pp.15-46.

Kopsch, F., 2016. The cost of aircraft noise–Does it differ from road noise? A meta-analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57(2), pp.138-142.

Lawton, R.N. and Fujiwara, D., 2016. Living with aircraft noise: Airport proximity, aviation noise and subjective wellbeing in England. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 42(2), pp.104-118.

Lewis, S., 2015. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice, 16(4), pp.473-475.

Münzel, T., Sørensen, M., Gori, T., Schmidt, F.P., Rao, X., Brook, J., Chen, L.C., Brook, R.D. and Rajagopalan, S., 2017. Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: part I–epidemiologic evidence supporting a role for noise and air pollution and effects of mitigation strategies. European heart journal, 38(8), pp.550-556.

Ozkurt, N., Sari, D., Akdag, A., Kutukoglu, M. and Gurarslan, A., 2014. Modeling of noise pollution and estimated human exposure around ?stanbul Atatürk Airport in Turkey. Science of the Total Environment, 482(2), pp.486-492.

Pepper, C.B., Nascarella, M.A. and Kendall, R.J., 2003. A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environmental Management, 32(4), pp.418-432.

Ramírez, A. and Domínguez, E., 2013. Modeling urban traffic noise with stochastic and deterministic traffic models. Applied Acoustics, 74(4), pp.614-621.

Rodríguez-Díaz, A., Adenso-Díaz, B. and González-Torre, P.L., 2017. A review of the impact of noise restrictions at airports. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 50, pp.144-153.

Sadr, M.K., Nassiri, P., Hosseini, M., Monavari, M. and Gharagozlou, A., 2014. Assessment of land use compatibility and noise pollution at Imam Khomeini International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 34(2), pp.49-56.

Schreckenberg, D., Benz, S., Kuhlmann, J., Conrady, M. and Felscher-Suhr, U., 2017, June. Attitudes towards authorities and aircraft noise annoyance. Sensitivity analyses on the relationship between non-acoustical factors and annoyance. In Proceedings of the 12th ICBEN Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem.

Seong, J.C., Park, T.H., Ko, J.H., Chang, S.I., Kim, M., Holt, J.B. and Mehdi, M.R., 2014. Modeling of road traffic noise and estimated human exposure in Fulton County, Georgia, USA. Environment international, 37(8), pp.1336-1341.

Wolfe, P.J., Malina, R., Barrett, S.R. and Waitz, I.A., 2016. Costs and benefits of us aviation noise land-use policies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44(2), pp.147-156.

Yan, H.K., Wang, N., Wu, N. and Lin, W.N., 2018. Maritime construction site selection from the perspective of ecological protection: The relationship between the Dalian offshore airport and spotted seals (Phoca largha) in China based on the noise pollution. Ocean & Coastal Management, 152(2), pp.145-153.