- Home
- Implementing a noise intervention
- ANIMA Methodology
ANIMA Methodology
From working with airports to understand the nature of noise challenges and decision-making processes, including the importance of communication and engagement, ANIMA researchers proposed that airports may find value in following a methodology when looking to develop approaches to noise management issues, i.e. through the implementation of ICAO Balanced Approach measures. These phases are summarised below, with a range of questions provided that airports may wish to consider at each phase in that process.
The important thing to take away from this process is that good noise management does not start out with the objective of implementing a given noise management measure, rather it is about undertaking a process of discovery that will help airports to identify what the best thing to do is according to their own circumstances. In this sense noise management is less about ‘doing the right thing’ and more about ‘doing things the right way’ so that the most suitable management options emerge.
More information on effective approaches noise management can be found in this ANIMA publication.
- Identification
- Design
- Selection
- Implementation
- Post-Evaluation
![](/fileadmin/_processed_/f/a/csm_methodology_2_b3412aad54.png)
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?
![](/fileadmin/_processed_/f/a/csm_methodology_2_b3412aad54.png)
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?
![](/fileadmin/_processed_/f/a/csm_methodology_2_b3412aad54.png)
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 coupled 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?
![](/fileadmin/_processed_/f/a/csm_methodology_2_b3412aad54.png)
Implementation
- 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?
![](/fileadmin/_processed_/f/a/csm_methodology_2_b3412aad54.png)
Post-Evaluation
- 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?