Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160

Complaints caused by aircraft operations: an assessment of

annoyance by noise level and time of day
Ken Humea,*, Martin Gregga, Callum Thomasb, Daniela Terranovab
a
Department of Biological Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD, UK
b
Department of Environmental & Geographical Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester, M1 5GD, UK

Abstract

The impact of aircraft movements on the local community surrounding an international airport was investigated using airport
data on complaints, noise monitoring, aircraft flight paths and movements to assess annoyance due to noise level and time-of-day.
As predicted, the louder the noise the more complaints were generated, with twice the complaints per movement at 110–114 PNdB
compared with 74–79 PNdB.
The hourly patterns in flight frequency and complaints were clearly distinct. Calculations of the complaints per aircraft movement
for each hour of the day showed a striking 24 h pattern with night flights (23.00–06.00) causing on average nearly five times more
complaints than the rest of the day (06.00–23.00). The time of the greatest propensity to complain about aircraft noise was between
01.00 and 02.00 and the lowest between 08.00 and 09.00.
The circadian pattern in sensitivity to aircraft noise could be used to inform the development of airport operations and flight
movements to minimize community disturbance.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aircraft noise; Community complaints; Annoyance

1. Introduction the growth in air traffic (DETR, 1997). At the same

There are increasing pressures on the environment
due to the growth of the transport industry in developed
and developing countries. Over the last decade the
aviation industry has undergone rapid growth and this is
predicted to continue for the foreseeable future at 5–7%
per annum (Airbus Industries, 1997). The disturbance
caused by aircraft noise is the single most important
environmental issue to affect the growth of airports in
Europe (Berglund and Lindvall, 1995). Noise-related
operational controls and limits have already signifi-
cantly constrained the growth of some major European
airports (ICAO, 1993). This limit on growth prevents
airports from meeting the demand for air travel in the
region they serve and reduces the benefits to the local
economy which would have accrued (Goodwin, 1993;
Button and Verhoef, 1998). Aircraft noise technology is
improving; however, these benefits are being offset by
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-247-1221/1234; fax:+44-
161-247-6325.
E-mail address: k.i.hume@mmu.ac.uk (K. Hume).
time, residents of communities near airports are becom-
ing more sensitive to issues such as noise disturbance
(Moss et al., 1997; Fidell et al., 2002) and have
increasing expectations in regard to the quality-of-life.
The problem of aircraft noise disturbance involves a
complex interaction of a number of physical, biological,
psychological and sociological processes (Schultz, 1978).
The relevant physical factors can be divided into those
associated with the noise generation, e.g. aircraft type,
operation and noise level. Such data are automatically
collected at major airports using sophisticated compu-
ter-based monitoring systems (Thomas, 1995). These
systems can track aircraft movements and associated
noise production. In addition, most major airports
operate complaint services to gather information about
the disturbance caused by their operations to neigh-
bouring communities. This information is used to refine
or restrict operations so as to minimize disturbance and
thereby facilitate growth. Community complaint data
can feature prominently in public inquiries associated
with planning applications for major airport develop-
ments. Therefore, a need exists to assess this data

0969-6997/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00079-0
154 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160
scientifically to support decision-making by Govern-
ment, planning authorities and airport operators.
However, there has been apparently little effort to
explore complaint data scientifically. The present
authors consider that a well-structured complaints
system operating in parallel with a computerized noise
monitoring system can provide useful data to explore
the relationship between aircraft noise and community
annoyance.
In this study, we combine airport data on complaints
and noise monitoring to explore two important aspects
of annoyance due to aircraft noise, time-of-day when the
event occurred and the noise level of the aircraft
involved. Therefore, this paper aims to separate general
non-specific annoyance from specific aircraft-noise-
event (ANE) responses and then investigate:
* the relationship between complaints and aircraft
noise level, and
* the influence of time-of-day on the propensity to
complain.
2. Method
The data used in this study were collected from
Manchester Airport, the third busiest airport in the
United Kingdom. There were two 6-month periods of
study: July–December 1998 (when all complaints about
aircraft movements were investigated) and July–December
1999 (when specific ANE complaints were studied in
more depth).
2.1. Complaints Information
The Airport has a Community Relations Department
that deals with complaints via surface mail, E-mail, a
dedicated phone line during office hours and an answer
phone at other times. The complaints data processed by
the Community Relations Department were initially
coded for a variety of factors including:
* Nature of complaint: (a) specific noise disturbance;
(b) off-track concern (i.e., aircraft believed to be in
the wrong place in relation to the complainant’s
residence and agreed flight path) as judged by the
sound and/or sight of the aircraft; (c) odour from
aircraft emissions; or (d) a general complaint about
aircraft operations usually involving noise.
* Time-of-day and date of the disturbance.
* The postcode and gender of the complainant.
For the 1998 study all complaints including noise, off-
track, odour and general were logged and analysed. The
primary aim of the 1998 analysis was to investigate
possible causes of complaint and how complaints varied
over the 24 h day in comparison to the hourly variation
in flight frequency. The complaint data used in the 1999
study were all specific noise complaints which were
directly compared to recorded noise levels from the
Airport’s monitoring system.
2.2. Noise information
Manchester Airport operates a computerized Aircraft
Noise and Track Information System (MANTIS).
MANTIS has links to nine remote noise monitors
situated at strategic locations in the local community
surrounding the airfield that can be used to describe the
local noise climate or the noise made by individual
aircraft movements. Five of these monitors are situated
3.5 nautical miles from the start of the ‘take-off roll’
along the departure and arrival routes. The readings
from these monitors are used to assess the outdoor noise
levels on departure and arrival and routinely used to
determine whether the aircraft is operating within the
noise limits for that particular time of day and impose
penalties upon aircraft which exceed locally agreed
limits. The other four monitors record the noise on the
airfield and in nearby densely populated areas. Each
noise reading on MANTIS was expressed as a maximum
long-term average noise level, LAeq (LAmax)—the
maximum value of continuous steady sound during an
aircraft flyover. For the purpose of this study, noise
levels were analysed using perceived noise decibels
(PNdB). (For conversion from LAeq to PNdB, 13 is
added to the LAmax value.)
In this way, every individual aircraft movement could
be associated with an approximation of the noise
generated in the community. Aircraft movements that
led to a complaint were compared to the noise readings
to obtain a noise level for that particular ANE. All
aircraft movements (arrivals and departures) with
associated information about aircraft type, airline,
route, destination, time and date were logged onto this
system.
2.3. Data processing
The noise level of individual aircraft movements and
the number of movements for each hour of the 24 h
day/night cycle were compared with information on
complaints for all sources of complaint in the 1998 data
and complaints referring to specific aircraft noise events
in the 1999 data. All aircraft movements which caused a
specific complaint between July and December 1999
were retrieved from MANTIS and analysed system-
atically. Noise readings were taken from the noise
monitor nearest to the complainant’s residence. There
was some limitation on determining the noise level
because of the restricted number and location of the
fixed monitors. However, the distribution of the
 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160
monitors around the Airport allowed a reasonable
approximation of the noise climate around the airfield.
3. Results
During the two study periods there was a total of 2
667 complaints relating to 190,000 aircraft movements
or 14 complaints/1000 movements. Therefore, the vast
majority of aircraft movements did not generate a
complaint to the Airport. The main cause of complaint
was that specific aircraft were too noisy (41%) followed
by non-specific concern about the level of aircraft noise
(31%) and aircraft perceived as being ‘off-track’, as
judged by the sound and/or sight of the aircraft (29%).
Problems concerning ‘emissions/odour’ barely registered
with only one complaint during the study period.
3.1. Noise levels for complaints
Five hundred and seventy-five noise complaints were
received in the 1999 study with slightly more males
(54%) than females (46%) complaining. It was only
possible to match about half (291) of the noise
complaints with specific aircraft noise readings. This
arose because many of the noise complaints did not refer
directly to an individual aircraft and therefore a specific
noise reading could not be assigned. Also, in order to be
reasonably sure that the noise data matched the flight in
question, a criterion was set whereby an aircraft
movement had to correspond to within 710 min of
the reported time of the noise event to be accepted for
analysis. In addition, there were some infrequent
problems with the noise monitors so that not all noise
events were recorded for comparison with complaints.
90
80
70
60
Number
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
75
80
85
90
95
-7
-8
-8
-9
-9
9
Out-door noise levels (PNdB)
Fig. 1. Frequency distribution of noise complaints and aircraft movements for various noise levels causing complaint.
155
The complaint threshold, i.e., the lowest level of
outdoor aircraft noise which ‘triggered’ a complaint,
was 75.4 PNdB while the average outdoor noise level for
a complaint was 96.9 PNdB. Considering only the
movements where complaints were received, Fig. 1
shows the distribution of aircraft movements and
corresponding complaint data for various noise levels.
The frequency of the various noise levels and complaints
produced by the aircraft movements approximates to a
normal distribution with a slight skew to the right.
There was a large volume of complaints around
96.6 PNdB due to the large number of aircraft that
generated this noise level. As the noise level increased, so
did the number of complaints per movement. This is
indicated by the number of noise complaints becoming
relatively larger than the number of movements. This
can be more readily observed if the mean number of
noise complaints is plotted against the rising noise level,
as shown in Fig. 2.
The mean complaints per movement were calculated
by dividing the number of complaints by the number of
movements causing complaint at that noise level. As one
might predict, the higher the noise level the more
complaints were generated—there were twice the relative
number of complaints with an ANE at 110–114 PNdB
compared to 75–79 PNdB—with the biggest rise in re-
lative complaint frequency occurring between 100–104
and 105–109 PNdB. However, there were comparatively
few flights at these higher noise levels.
3.2. Time-of-day, complaints and flight frequency
The pattern of total complaints in 1998 and flight
frequencies at various times-of-day were similar to the
pattern of specific ANE in the 1999 data, as Fig. 3
Noise Complaints
Movements
10
11
11
12
12
0-
5-
0-
5-
0-
5-
10
10
11
11
12
12
156 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160

2.50

2.00

Mean number of complaints for

movements causing complaint
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
75

80

85

90

95

10

10

11

11
-7

-8

-9

-9

0-

5-

0-

5-
89
9

10

1
04

14

19
9
Out-door noise level (PNdB)
Fig. 2. Mean number of noise complaints per movement causing complaint for various noise levels.

70 14000

Complaints
Aircraft movements
60 12000

50 10000

Number of aircraft movements

Number of complaints

40 8000

30 6000

20 4000

10 2000

0 0
00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0-
00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5

:5
9

Time of day
Fig. 3. Specific noise complaints and number of aircraft movements for each hour of the day.
 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160
shows. The number of aircraft movements per hour and
the number of complaints per hour reveals a complex
relationship across the 24 h period. Manchester Airport
in common with many other airports operates a ‘Night
Noise Policy’ which restricts the types and numbers of
aircraft which can take-off and land between 23.00 and
07.00, with noisier Chapter 2 aircraft only allowed to
land after 06.30. In addition, the Airport operates a
‘Noise Penalty Scheme’, the limits of which are lower at
night (100 PNdB) than in the day (105 PNdB) to
encourage airlines to operate quieter aircraft and pilots
to fly more quietly, particularly at night. Therefore, the
number of aircraft movements remains low at night
between the hours of 23:30 and 06.00 when there are
very few scheduled departures and arrivals and the
majority of traffic is due to charter flights. Following the
night restriction period, the flight frequency rises rapidly
between 06.00 and 09.00 with the departure of many
European business flights and the arrival of transatlantic
flights. There is a similar peak in aircraft movements
between 17:00 and 18:59 which coincides with the return
arrival of many of the European business flights.
3.3. Complaints per movement
A general assumption could be made that the number
of complaints was directly related to the number of
aircraft movements. However, Fig. 3 reveals a lack of
such a direct relationship between the daily pattern
of complaints and movements, with the largest peak in
complaints occurring between 11:00 and 12:59 which
does not correspond to a peak in the number of aircraft
movements.
In order to gain a clearer picture of noise disturbance
due to aircraft movements at different times of day,
there was a need to control for the large variation in the
number of movements per hour. This was achieved by
dividing the number of complaints for each hour by the
number of movements in that hour to provide the
‘complaints per movement’ metric. The complaints per
movement represents a sensitivity scale: when the
number of complaints per movement is high, it
represents a high level of annoyance since each move-
ment is generating a large number of complaints. As
Fig. 4 shows, the annoyance caused by aircraft noise
was greatest between 00:00 and 05:59 as there are a high
number of complaints per movement, peaking between
01:00 and 01:59, with every 1000 movements on average
generating 33 complaints. After 06:00, the number of
complaints per movement falls to 2 per 1000 movements
and remains below 5 per 1000 throughout most of the
remaining day. There is one secondary peak at
lunchtime between 12:00–12:59 at 7 per 1000. The mean
value for complaints per 1000 movements was 14
between 23.00 and 06.00 compared with 3 for the rest
of the day. The tolerance towards aircraft is lowest
157
between 00:00 and 05:59 and one could assume that this
is when people become the most annoyed when
disturbed. These 6 h are the main time for normal sleep.
4. Discussion
Aircraft noise was the overwhelming cause of com-
munity complaint received by Manchester Airport
during the study period, agreeing with earlier reports
(Thomas, 1995). Noise associated with specific aircraft
movements was the main problem while the general
annoyance of aircraft noise was a frequent concern and
noise figured prominently in ‘off-track’ complaints.
Loud noise can be heard during both day or night and
indoors and out, so it could be considered that it is the
only stressor associated with airport operations that
could be meaningfully assessed over a 24 h period.
However, it is important to emphasise that, similar to
earlier reports (cf. Thomas, 1995), the number of
complaints concern only a very small fraction of the
total number of movements that occurred in the period
of the study.
4.1. Complaint and annoyance related to noise level
The results demonstrated a clear and positive
relationship between noise level and complaints. This
would be predicted as at higher noise levels more
individuals in the nosiest areas would reach their
‘threshold of coping’ with the nuisance and feel the
need to complain. As with all potential stressors, there
are large individual differences in response to noise and
the personal threshold for being sufficiently annoyed to
complain directly to the Airport would vary consider-
ably (Job, 1996).
Complaining can be considered as part of a coping
mechanism to a stress situation which provides an index
of annoyance. However, many factors (e.g., assertive-
ness) come into play to determine who is annoyed and if
that annoyance finds expression as a complaint to the
Airport. It is quite likely that many individuals are
disturbed by aircraft noise but choose to cope by direct
action by, installing or improving sound insulation or
taking on a positive mental attitude after balancing the
disturbance with positive benefits of the Airport being
nearby. A social survey undertaken by Hume and
Thomas (1993) indicated that many individuals cope
or ‘put-up-with’ the disturbance, rather than complain,
because they assumed that their complaint would not
significantly change the Airport’s operations.
Thomas (1995) noted a number of cases of serial
complainers who seem to be more active when there is
increased sensitivity, e.g., during the planning period for
a proposed second runway or after an aircraft crash.
Therefore, opinions of a particular person or group
158 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160

35

30

Complaints per 1000 movements

25

20

15

10

0
00

01 -00

02 -01

03 02

04 -03

05 -04

06 -05

07 0 6

08 -07

09 -08

10 -09

11 -10

12 -11

13 -12

14 13

15 -14

16 -15

17 -16

18 -17

19 -18

20 -19

21 -20

22 -21

23 -22
:0

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59

:0 :59
0

0-

0-

0-

0-
23
:5
9
Time of day
Fig. 4. Specific noise complaints (per 1000 movements) for each hour of the day.

could bias the results by complaining frequently. The
present study does not take into account multiple
complainers but there were indications in the data that
a few individuals were frequent complainers, suggesting
that this should be the focus of a more detailed future
study. However, a preliminary analysis of serial
complainers (Hume et al., 2002) suggests they do not
influence the main findings of the study reported here.
Despite the difficulties of understanding the motiva-
tion behind complaints, they are recorded and used to
help determine planning applications that can have
major financial, environmental and social consequences.
Complaint statistics are frequently considered during
the planning process to expand an existing or build a
new airport. Noise-related operational controls and
limits have already significantly constrained the growth
of some major European airports (ICAO, 1993). It is a
difficult challenge to arrive at a balance between the
‘good’ an airport development does in terms of
transport, travel, increased commerce and employment
for a region, and the ‘bad’ environmental and putative
health effects of noise disturbance, increased road traffic
and loss of green field sites.
There is no current universally accepted threshold
noise level for the production of a community response
to noise, due to there being many characteristics to the
noise, situational factors, and a wide individual varia-
tion in sensitivity to noise (Job, 1996). However, there
are many locally negotiated agreements to help over-
come community noise problems, such as sound
insulation grant schemes. It is well known that
individual and community reaction to aircraft and
environmental noise is not fully explained by acoustic
variables and there has been an inability of acoustic
variables, on their own, to predict self reported
annoyance satisfactorily (Fidell, 1999; Fidell et al.,
2002). It is also a reasonable assumption to make that
levels of complaint would be different from different
airports because of, e.g., differences in the efficacy of
systems used to log complaints, different levels of
community awareness, cultural and socioeconomic
differences, the local track record of air/ground acci-
dents and the relationship of local communities with the
airport.
4.2. Time-of-day of complaints
Consideration of the raw data of the hourly number
of movements and complaints (Fig. 3) revealed some
features worthy of comment. Firstly, the lack of a direct
relationship between flight frequency and complaint
level could, in part, be explained by a negative relation-
ship between complaining about an ANE and how busy
individuals are, which could distract the subject’s
attention away from aircraft noise. For example, during
the morning ‘rush’ period, people are busy getting-up
and off to work which results in low complaint rates
despite a high increase in air movements. Residents may
 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160
then be less busy in late morning and lunch time which
could explain the diurnal peak from 11:00 to 12:59.
However, such a relationship does not hold for the
evening when one would suggest individuals are not so
busy partaking of rest and relaxation. This last result
was contrary to expectations as the level of annoyance
with noise disturbance in the evening has been reported
as being only second to the disturbance at night (Hume
and Thomas, 1993).
A very distinct pattern emerged when the distribution
of complaints to specific ANEs over the 24 h period in
terms of complaints per movement were analysed. A
highly significant night-time sensitivity was revealed
which showed that the mean complaints per movement
was considerably greater than for the rest of the day.
This clear circadian variation in complaining should not
be too surprising as it has been clearly established that
most physiological, psychological and behavioural
variables express circadian variability as a result of
‘internal clocks’ (Moore-Ede and Sulzman, 1982).
It could have been predicted that aircraft noise in the
late evening/night when we are trying to go to sleep,
during sleep and in the early morning before we wish to
be awakened are times that generate the most com-
plaints because it is a reasonable expectation that
individuals in their own homes could expect to be
allowed a ‘good nights sleep’ without the intrusion of
loud external noise. The increased tendency to complain
about night flights would be even more apparent if the
‘night noise policy’ was not in operation as this does
reduce the noise load during the night.
The complaint pattern at night revealed in Fig. 4
could be explained by the nightly sleep stage profile and
that the threshold for sleep disturbance is, in part,
determined by the sleep stage. In the early hours of
sleep, there is a predominance of ‘stage 3’ and ‘stage 4’
slow wave sleep (SWS) with the highest arousal thresh-
old. An awakening from SWS can be the most
distressing out of all the sleep stages with subjects
experiencing high levels of confusion. During this period
there are a high number of complaints per movement.
Residents awoken by aircraft noise would experience
more distress by awakening from SWS which could
contribute to increased annoyance and therefore a
greater number of complaints. As the night progresses,
the amount of time spent in SWS decreases and the
second half of sleep is predominated by REM and ‘stage
2’ sleep which, despite having a lower threshold for
disturbance, could produce less confusion, distress and
annoyance on arousal (Hume et al., 1998).
5. Conclusion
The impact of aircraft movements on the local
community surrounding an international airport has
159
been investigated using data on complaints, noise
monitoring, aircraft flight paths and movements to
assess annoyance due to noise level and time-of-day. As
predicted, the louder the noise the more complaints were
generated. In this context, complaints are seen to reflect
the tangible result of annoyance. It has been stated that
annoyance is one of the basic causes of psychological
stress reactions and noise per se may also directly cause
stress. The causality can be reversed as stress can lead to
annoyance reactions (Kryter, 1985). An unanswered
question is why individuals differ in their responsiveness
to environmental stressors (Winneke and Neuf, 1996).
There are no environmental stressors without vulnerable
people, all of whom can react in a different way during
stress. It may be that personal agendas and resources
influence whether individuals experience stress or not,
although the condition of the environment strongly
influences the stress response. A complex interaction
exists between annoyance and stress in noise-affected
residents living near airports. If an individual is already
stressed, they may find an aircraft disturbance more
annoying and therefore more likely to lodge a com-
plaint. The work reported here indicates that complaints
depend in part not only on the noise level but also the
time of day that the noise occurred.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Manchester Airport
for access to data and provision of office facilities and
the staff of the Community Relations Department for
their help and support in gathering and analysing these
data.
References
Airbus Industries, 1997. Global market forces 1997–2016. Airbus
Industries, Blagna, France.
Berglund, B., Lindvall, T. (Eds.), 1995. Community Noise. Archive of
the Centre for Sensory Research—Stockholm 2(1), 86–104.
Button, K., Verhoef, E., 1998. Transport at the edge of mobility and
sustainability. In: Button, K., Nijkamp, P., Priemus, H. (Eds.),
Transport Networks in Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
DETR, 1997. Decision letter on the proposed second runway at
Manchester Airport. PNW/5082/219/23. Government Office for
the North West, Manchester.
Fidell, S., 1999. Assessment of the effectiveness of aircraft noise
regulation. Noise & Health 3, 17–25.
Fidell, S., Silvati, L., Haboly, E., 2002. Social survey of community
response to a step change in aircraft noise exposure. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 111 (1), 200–209.
Goodwin, P., 1993. Efficiency and the environment: possibilities of a
green-gold coalition. In: Banister, D., Button, K. (Eds.) Transport,
the Environment and Sustainable Development. Spon, London.
Hume, K.I., Thomas, C.S., 1993. Sleep disturbance due to aircraft
noise at a rapidly expanding airport (Manchester Airport). In:
Vallet, M. (Ed.), Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 2,
563–567. INRETS, Paris.
160 K. Hume et al. / Journal of Air Transport Management 9 (2003) 153–160
Hume, K.I., Van, F., Watson, A., 1998. Age and gender differences
in home based sleep recordings. Journal of Sleep Research 7,
85–94.
Hume, K., Terranova, D., Thomas, C., 2002. Complaints and
annoyance caused by aircraft operations: Temporal patterns and
individual bias. Noise and Health 4 (15), 45–55.
ICAO, 1993. International standards and recommended practices–
environmental protection. Annex 16, Vol. II Noise, 3rd Edition.
International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal.
Job, R.F.S., 1996. The influence of subjective reactions to noise on
health effects of noise. Environment International 22 (1), 93–104.
Kryter, K.D., 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man. Academic Press,
Orlando.
Moore-Ede, M., Sulzman, F., Fuller C., 1982. The Clocks that Time
Us. Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
Moss, D., Warnaby, G., Sykes, S., Thomas, C.S., 1997. Manchester
airport’s second runway campaign: the boundary spanning role of
public relations in managing environmental organisational inter-
action. Journal of Communication Management 2 (4), 320–334.
Schultz, T.J., 1978. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance.
Journal of the Acoustics. Society of America 64, 377–405.
Thomas, C.S., 1995. Noise related to airport operations: Community
impacts. In: Tunstall-Pedoe, N., Raper, D., Holden, J. (Eds.),
Airports and the Environment—Liabilities and Social Responsi-
bilities. Proceedings of International Conference, Manchester
Airport, July, Thomas Telford, London.
Winneke, G., Neuf, M., Steinheider, B., 1996. Separating the impact of
exposure and personality in annoyance response to environmental
stressors, particularly odours. Environment International 22 (1),
73–81.