The most recent large scale cross-sectional study, the RANCH study (Road traffic and Aircraft Noise and children’s Cognition & Health), of 2844 children aged 9–10 years from 89 schools around London Heathrow, Amsterdam Schiphol, and Madrid Barajas airports found exposure–response associations between aircraft noise and poorer reading comprehension and poorer recognition memory, after taking social position and road traffic noise, into account. In the limited space available here, it is only possible to discuss some of the central epidemiological field studies forming the empirical basis of these conclusions. There is also an increasing evidence base which suggests that children exposed to chronic aircraft noise at school have poorer performance on standardized achievement tests, compared with children who are not exposed to aircraft noise. Recent reviews of how noise, and in particular aircraft noise, affect children’s learning have concluded that aircraft noise exposure at school or at home is associated with children having poorer reading and memory skills. There is, however, evidence to suggest that complainants do not represent a cross-section of the population at large, both in terms of their demographic characteristics and their annoyance.Ĭhronic aircraft noise exposure and children’s learning Rather than monitoring the number of callers, which may be distorted by repeat callers, this approach should preferably be based on the number of individual complainants and the number of specific issues or incidents that cause complaints. Relatively few studies have utilized complaints databases to investigate whether complaints are related to long-term annoyance as measured using social surveys. Annoyance and complaints are different phenomena, the first being a privately held opinion, and the latter being an overt action. Complaints seem to be triggered by unusual events (e.g., louder than normal unusual aircraft ground track or altitude) and operational changes (changes in runway usage or flight tracks). Many airports receive and log complaints as a part of their noise monitoring and community outreach efforts. Therefore, the authors did not try to suggest specific limit values, but rather pointed to existing exposure–response functions and recommendations of international organizations.Ĭomplaints and their relationship to noise and noise effects Noise effects depend, among others, on housing structure and cultural values, and legislation and limit values accordingly differ considerably between contracting states. This white paper constitutes a consensus among its authors, who have considerable experience in noise effects research, and is based on input from an international expert panel workshop held on February 10 in Alexandria, VA, USA. The efforts of the Noise Panel were directed at assessing the current state of the science and provide contracting states with a brief overview of the impacts of aircraft noise on communities. They derive so-called exposure–response functions that allow health impact assessments and, therefore, inform political decision-making. Noise effects researchers have an important advisory role. Aircraft noise discussions can be very emotional, and politicians and legislators often struggle to define limit values that both protect the population against the adverse effects of aircraft noise but do not restrict the positive societal effects of air traffic.