- Understanding aviation noise
- Improving impact management
- Quality of life interventions
- ANIMA focus groups interviews
A sound insulation scheme was chosen for Marseille Airport. Such a scheme aims to reduce noise complaints and general community dissatisfaction by reducing noise disturbance attributable to aircraft overflights.
Since 1997, the French state has implemented a specific system for large airports – soundproofing assistance. Residents affected by aircraft noise can receive a grant for sound insulation for their homes. This system was initially managed by the environment and energy management agency in France and financed by the general tax on polluting activities. Now, the grant has been funded exclusively by airlines via a tax on air noise pollution (TNSA), levied by the DGAC (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) according to the “polluter pays” principle. Criteria for eligibility around Marseille Airport are that the accommodation is located inside the annoyance map contours and was built before the noise annoyance plan has been created.
The range of possible actions and the need to tailor mitigation and compensation provisions to local needs mean that actions, which are perceived to be generous and effective in one location may not receive the same response at another airport. Indeed, any ultimate indicator of the effectiveness of these actions (e.g. responses to community outreach, number of noise complaints, etc.) will result from a number of other inputs such as the success of communication strategies and the effectiveness of attempts to manage aircraft noise at source.
Nevertheless, considering the literature reviewed, it is interesting to note that results deal with fairness of the insulation scheme and, more widely, of the airport's compensation to its residents. Fairness is a non-acoustical factor, which has been shown to largely influence the annoyance experienced. This assumption reveals that fairness needs to be implemented in the way interventions are designed as a concrete resident’s participation.
Results revealed that an intervention has to take into account not only the indoor noise but also the outdoor noise exposure. Moreover, the quality of life goes beyond the sound quality of the living place. For instance, by remembering feelings like fear, stress or even issues like air pollution, people are thinking about their health. A good residential area must be safe in the sense of health. The same applies to the capacity of the intervention to improve social interactions in their residential area and mostly at home. The insulation scheme is still a good way to avoid annoyance inside, but it must be complemented by other interventions, primarily when impacted areas are situated in a warm climate area where staying outdoors is more common.
Moreover, in France, regulations appear to encourage owners to make insulation works in their house, as for this reason they can get a state grant. Additionally, new buildings in the area are obliged to follow these new thermal regulations and new kinds of interventions to lower aircraft annoyance in general (noise but not only) must be thought out.