Translate to other languages using Google Translate
- Implementing a noise intervention
- ANIMA Methodology
Identification of the need for an intervention
- Do you have multi-stakeholder and independently led stakeholder engagement forums (including community representatives) through which the requirement for an operational change could be communicated and discussed?
- Are all communities represented in such engagement activity, so that any re-distributive effectives on noise exposure can be systematically addressed and consensus built as to the most socially optimal outcome(s)?
- Are such stakeholders and community groups engaged with openly and transparently to establish trust? Is noise data made available on-line for those not able to attend such forums?
- Do stakeholders have the ability (via independent sources) to challenge noise and interdependency data at the request of members, i.e. to respond to a particular concern potentially through the generation of their own data?
- Is the stakeholder group driven by an agreed singular vision of what it is trying to achieve?
- Are there other avenues through which communities or other stakeholders can raise concerns with noise managers and/or make complaints?
- Are the concerns of those contacting an airport acknowledged? Are individuals provided with tailored responses relevant to their specific concern, rather than via template responses?
Design of options
- Are all stakeholders given the possibility of designing their own solutions to the required change?
- Do stakeholders have the opportunity to work in collaboration with each other in identifying potential noise mitigation solutions?
- Are designs pre-informed by a set of criteria and objectives, for example by framing them within what is logistically feasible, safe, and regulatory compliant?
Selection of intervention option
- Has modelling been carried out (ideally by an independent entity) to assess the impacts of the potential design options? Does this modelling include interdependencies?
- Are these results communicated to stakeholder forums for discussion?
- Have all stakeholders been included in the discussion, even if they appear to be removed from the designed option (to help identify unintended consequences and trade-offs between communities)?
- Have the reasons why some options may not be feasible been communicated effectively?
- Have the results of any modelling, analysis and discussions been effectively disseminated to the public? So that there is a clear and transparent pathway that shows how the requirement for change was first raised, which options where considered, and why one in particular has been advocated.
- Have other complementary interventions been considered? For example, could an operational change be couple with a change in land-use planning to enhance the predicted benefits?
- Have trials been carried out to verify modelling outcomes, and to perform analysis on the impacts on communities and other stakeholders?
- Do communities understand and value the metrics and dissemination tools used? Do you need to consider a different approach to communication?
- Have all stakeholders been made aware of the intervention in advance?
- In order to demonstrate outcomes, have you considered if you need to move noise monitoring terminals, purchase new terminals, or make use of mobile terminals?
- Is regular feedback of the progress of the implementation made available to stakeholders?
- Have contingency plans been designed should the new procedure change and you need to fall back to the previous procedure?
- Do you have plans for on-going evaluation of the procedure, and plans for regular dissemination?
- Have you committed to long term monitoring and evaluation and reporting to stakeholders?
- Do you communicate the procedure at engagement events?
- Do you have a long-term plan for the evaluation of the outcome of the intervention on non-acoustic factors, general acceptability of the decision and quality of life implications for local residents?