PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Assessment of the impact of changes in noise exposure at an
expanding airport by means of the multiple item aircraft noise
annoyance scale (MIAS)
Dirk SCHRECKENBERG1; Rainer GUSKI2; Julia HAUBRICH1; Jan SPILSKI312
3

ZEUS GmbH, Germany

Ruhr University Bochum, Germany

Technical University Kaiserslautern, Germany

ABSTRACTThe Multiple Item Noise Annoyance Scale (MIAS) measures noise annoyance as a multidimensional concept
including (1) the experience of an often repeated noise-related disturbance and the behavioural response to it,(2) an emotional/attitudinal response to the sound and its disturbing impact, (3) the perception of control of
the noise situation. MIAS consists of seven items including the 5-point ICBEN noise annoyance scale and the
sub-dimensions ‘noise disturbances’ and ‘lack of coping capacity’, each consisting of three items. Its
psychometric properties are investigated for aircraft, road, and railway noise annoyance. In this study, we
analyse changes in values of the sub-dimensions of MIAS for aircraft noise annoyance before and after the
opening of a new runway and the implementation of a night curfew in communities around Frankfurt Airport.
Previous studies have shown evidence of a shift in exposure-response relationships for annoyance in situations of changes in noise exposure (change effect). With the assessment of MIAS and its components, it canbe identified whether the change effect is more pronounced in the ‘disturbance’ component of annoyance orin the lack of capacity to cope with the (new) noise situation. This improves the understanding of annoyancein situations of changes in noise exposure.
Keywords: Aircraft noise annoyance, change effect, MIAS, ICBEN, NORAH

1. INTRODUCTION
Noise annoyance is a complex psychological response to noise. According to Guski and colleagues(1) noise annoyance comprises three elements: (i) the experience of an often repeated noise-related
disturbance and the behavioural response to it, (ii) an emotional/attitudinal response to the sound andits disturbing impact, (iii) the perception of control of the noise situation. The Multiple Item Noise
Annoyance Scale (MIAS) developed originally for the measurement of aircraft noise annoyance (2)aims at measuring the components of noise annoyance as defined by (1). MIAS consists of seven items
including the 5-point ICBEN noise annoyance scale (3) and the sub-dimensions (factors) ‘noise
disturbances’ (F1) and ‘lack of coping capacity’ (F2), each consisting of three items. Its psychometricproperties are investigated for aircraft, road, and railway noise annoyance (2). MIAS was found to bea reliable, valid theory-driven measure to assess annoyance due to transportation noise.
In this contribution, it is investigated to what extent the detailed assessment of aircraft noise annoyance with MIAS is able to improve the understanding of changes in noise annoyance before and afteran airport expansion. This is analysed with longitudinal survey data of the German NORAH study(Noise-related annoyance, cognition, and health) before (in 2011) and after (in 2012) the opening of
the 4 th new runway at Frankfurt Airport and implementation of a night flight curfew which both took
place in October 2011 (4). These interventions together with further operational noise abatement
measures and a sound insulation program have led and still lead to both increase and reductions inaircraft noise exposure in different communities around the airport. This, probably, leaves the development of the individual aircraft noise exposure situation unclear (unpredictable) to individual residents.
1

schreckenberg@zeusgmbh.de; haubrich@zeusgmbh.derainer.guski@rub.de3
jan.spilski@sowi.uni-kl.de2353

Previous studies have shown evidence of a shift in exposure-response relationships for annoyancein situations of changes in noise exposure (5–7), the so-called 'change effect' or excess in response.
There is no evidence of a full adaptation to the new situation months or years followed by a change innoise exposure. Brown and van Kamp (6) discuss different explanations for the change effect. According to them, no accepted and evidence-based view on a single mechanism for the explanation of thechange effect could be identified. Some explanations could be rejected due to insufficient evidence.
The remaining plausible explanations fall into three categories: (1) changes in factors modifying theexposure-response relationship in the context of noise exposure changes, (2) methodological artefactof a different criterion for the use of the annoyance response scale in steady-state versus changing
exposure situations and/or at different levels of noise exposure, and (3) retention of coping strategies
after a change in exposure.
The third category of explanations for the change effect goes back to Raw and Griffiths (8), who
studied the impact of changes in road traffic noise on noise responses. Although they found asignificant change effect (excess) also on interferences, this effect was less evident than for the
judgments of annoyance or dissatisfaction. In their model Raw and Griffiths postulate that, when thenoise exposure changes, the coping behaviour partly retains and does not fully change to those
appropriate for the new exposure situation. They explain the absence of adaptation in annoyance witha rapid process of (de-)sensitization to the (less) aversive component of the sound after the change in
exposure. Raw and Griffiths argue that both, the judgment of the interfering effects of noise and of theaversive components of the sound are included in the annoyance ratings. That is, any change in coping
behaviour would "chronically lag behind sensitization" ((8), p. 52) which hampers the adaptation of
annoyance judgments to the new exposure situation.
Whether a sensitization to the sound itself or the perception of loss of control or capacity to copewith the noise is responsible for the partial retention of coping behaviour or both, is unclear. At least,
perceived control (or coping capacity) is an important contributor (9) to or, following (1), even anelement of noise annoyance. In particular, in a situation of increasing or unclear development of noise
exposure, it is likely that the perception of (loss of) control makes it difficult or even impossible('learned helplessness') (10) to change the coping behaviour appropriate to the new exposure situation.
Therefore, it can be hypothesized that in a region around an expanding airport with several activities
and dynamics leading to increases or decreases in aircraft noise exposure for residents of the airport
region (a) a change effect in aircraft noise annoyance occurs, i.e. an excess response following thedirection of the change in exposure, (b) which, according to (8), is less strong for the disturbancecomponent of annoyance as assessed with MIAS and (c) stronger for the MIAS factor of (lack of)coping capacity.

2. PROCEDURE, METHODS
2.1 Study design, sampling
For the analysis, longitudinal data of the NORAH study was used. The survey was conducted in2011 prior to the opening of the 4 th new runway at Frankfurt Airport and implementation of a nightflight curfew in October 2011. One follow-up was carried out the year after, in 2012. A third survey
wave (not analysed further here) was conducted in 2013. Residents living in residential areas withinthe "envelope” of the 40 dB contours of the continuous aircraft sound levels for daytime (L Aeq,06-22h)
and night-time (L Aeq,22-06h) were included in the study. A random stratified sample was drawn from theregional population registries in 2011, stratified by continuous aircraft sound level classes (2.5 dBclasses of the maximum of L Aeq,06-22h and L Aeq,22-06h) and by predicted change in aircraft noise exposurefor 2020 in relation to the aircraft noise exposure in 2007 (increase in L Aeq,24h > 2 dB, decrease in
L Aeq,24h > 2 dB, change within the range of ± 2 dB). The survey was carried out as telephone interviews
and optionally as an online survey with the same questionnaire. For this, the sample data was linked tocontact information (phone numbers, email addresses) from telephone databases.
2.2 Assessment of aircraft noise exposure
The aircraft noise exposure was modelled for 12 months from October 2010 to September 2011 forthe first survey wave and from October 2011 to September 2012 for the survey wave in 2012 according
to the German calculation model AzB 2008 (11). Radar track information of flight movements in these
periods was used as input data for the modelling. Details of the acoustic modelling of the aircraft noise
exposure for all parts of the NORAH study are described in (12).

354

2.3 Assessment of MIAS and its elements
With the Multiple Item Annoyance Scale (MIAS) noise annoyance (here: aircraft noise annoyance)
is assessed as a hierarchical higher order score including the factors F1 'Disturbances due to aircraft
noise', F2 'Lack of coping capacity' and a direct, self-reported annoyance judgment. MIAS is developed ex-post based on the NORAH survey data collected in 2013 (2).
In the longitudinal survey, aircraft noise annoyance referring to the period of the past 12 months
prior to the interview was assessed by means of the standardized 5-point verbal annoyance scale from1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely annoyed or disturbed) as recommended by the International Commission
on the Biological Effects of Noise (3), the ICBEN annoyance scale. Furthermore, disturbances ofactivities concerning among others communication (talk or phone call, listening to radio or watchingTV) and recovery, concentration were assessed with a 5-point rating scale similar to the ICBEN scale(not at all [1] to extremely [5] disturbed). These disturbance ratings form the MIAS factor F1'Disturbances'. The factor F2 'Lack of coping capacity' consists of three items asking the respondents
to judge statements referring to the perceived ability to protect themselves against noise, to close thewindows when it is too loud or to feel at the mercy of the noise. The statements were rated by means ofa 5-point scale from 1 (agree not) to 5 (agree strongly). The components of MIAS F1, F2, and the
ICBEN annoyance item were summarized to the MIAS score using weights for the contributing items
as identified in a confirmatory factor analysis of the 2013 data (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Confirmatory factor analysis of the MIAS score for aircraft noise annoyance as measured in the
NORAH panel sample at Frankfurt Airport in 2013 (n = 3508). The numbers between MIAS, the factors F1,F2 and the items are factor loadings. Source: (2).

3. RESULTS
3.1 Descriptive statistics
A total of 3508 subjects participated in all waves of the longitudinal survey from 2011 to 2013. For
this study, after deleting cases with missing items the sample size is n = 3459 (53.6 % female; 46.4 %male). In the first measurement (2011), age ranged from 18 to 96 years (M = 52.5, SD = 14.5). Aircraft
noise exposure in terms of the day-evening-night level L den was for all but one between 39.2 and 65.2
dB in 2011 and between 37.9 and 63.6 dB in 2012. In one further case, the aircraft noise exposure
increased from Lden = 61.4 dB in 2011 to L den = 74.8 dB in 2012. Descriptive statistics for MIAS and its
sub-dimensions in the total sample are depicted in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the mean L den for aircraft sound in area groups of change in L den after the opening of
the new runway (2012) versus before (2011). On average, Lden decreased about 3 dB (2 to 7 dB; SD =0.8) in the 'decrease > 2dB' group and increased about 3 dB (2 to 13 dB; SD = 1.3 ) in the 'increase > 2
dB' group. The changes in L den varied (as defined) between -2 to +2 dB (M = -0.4; SD = 1.0) in thegroup 'no change ± 2 dB'.

355

Table 1 – Descriptive statistics for MIAS and its sub-dimensions assessed before (2011) and after (2012)
the 4th runway opening at Frankfurt Airport
Variables

N

M

Year

SD

Min

Max

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

MIAS

3459

12.23

12.32

5.02

5.18

4.44

4.44

22.18

22.18

Annoyance (ICBEN)

3459

3.31

3.41

1.32

1.29

1.00

1.00

5.00

5.00

F1 Disturbances

3459

6.55

6.58

3.47

3.54

2.74

2.74

13.71

13.71

F2 Lack of coping capacity

3459

6.48

6.46

2.48

2.58

2.00

2.00

9.99

9.99

Lden

3459

51.89

51.30

6.20

6.43

39.20

37.90

65.20

74.80

Note. N = number; Min = minimum; Max = maximum; M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation

Table 2 – Change in Lden (aircraft) in dB at Frankfurt Airport after the opening of the new runway (2012) vs.
before (2011) in area groups of change (decrease, no change, increase in Lden > 2 dB)
Groups of change in Lden

Lden (2011)

Lden (2012)2012 versus 2011

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Min

Max

n = 630

53.0

7.6

49.8

7.7

-3.2

0.8

-7.3

-2.1

No change ± 2 dB n = 2518

51.6

6.0

51.1

6.0

-0.4

1.0

-2.0

+2.0

Increase > 2 dB

n = 311

52.3

3.8

55.7

4.5

3.4

1.3

+2.1

+13.4

Total

N = 3459

51.9

6.2

51.3

6.4

-0.6

1.9

-7.3

+13.4

Decrease > 2 dB

Change in Lden (dB) 2012 vs. 2011

Note. N, n = number; M = arithmetic mean; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum

3.2 Correlations between MIAS, its sub-dimensions and the Lden
Table 3 presents the correlations between MIAS and its sub-dimensions as well as the correlationsof these response variables with Lden. The correlations were calculated separately for the assessments
in 2011, before the opening of the new runway at Frankfurt Airport and in the year 2012, after the
opening of the runway. It turns out that the relationships are quite stable over time. In both years ,MIAS correlates strongest with the disturbance factor F1 (r > 0.92) and somewhat lower in a similar
range with the single ICBEN annoyance item and with the factor of lack of coping capacity F2 (r >0.82). With r > 0.50, F1 shows the highest correlation coefficients with aircraft noise exposure ( Lden)among the aircraft noise response variables. With correlations coefficients of 0.46 > r > 0.48, MIAS
and the ICBEN annoyance item correlate with L den in a similar range.
Table 3 – Correlation r between aircraft noise responses MIAS and its sub-dimensions and Lden – before(2011) and after (2012) opening of the 4th runway at Frankfurt Airport
MIAS dimensions
MIAS
Annoyance (ICBEN)
F1 Disturbances

Annoyance (ICBEN)

F1

F2

beforeafter

beforeafter

beforeafter

before

after

0.823

0.845

0.924

0.930

0.838

0.864

0.464

0.483

0.719

0.747

0.587

0.650

0.476

0.465

0.594

0.641

0.502

0.512

0.243

0.306

F2 Lack of coping capacity
Note. N = 3459; p < .001 for all correlation coefficients

356

Lden

3.3

Exposure-response relationship for aircraft noise annoyance (MIAS) and its compo-

nents) before and after changes in aircraft noise exposure at Frankfurt Airport
For MIAS and its components, Figures 2 and 3 show the results of the exposure-response analyses
before and after changes in aircraft noise exposure at Frankfurt Airport. The results refer to thepercentage of persons highly annoyed (%HA), highly disturbed (%HD), and perceiving high lack of
coping capacity (%HLC). Response scores above a cut-off of 72% of the response scale indicate HA,HD, and HLC, respectively (13). The results can be summarized as follows:%HA due to aircraft noise is lower when assessed with MIAS than with the single 5-point ICBEN
item. This is because the percentage of persons reporting high responses to the MIAS factors F2 'Lackof coping capacity and, in particular, F1 'Disturbances' are lower than the percentage of those
self-assessing their aircraft noise annoyance with the ICBEN annoyance item.
Differences between the curves of responses in 2012 compared to the respective ones from 2011indicate change effects. Change effects are less pronounced in the 'no change' group (i.e., in areas withchanges in Lden < 2 dB) and strongest in the condition of changes of Lden > 2 dB. Change effects
in %HA differ dependent on the annoyance assessment: For aircraft noise annoyance self-assessedwith the ICBEN annoyance item a change effect occurs in all areas and in both directions. That is, inthe condition of a decrease in L den after the opening of the new runway the %HA curve based on theassessments with the ICBEN item in 2012 is lower to the curve of the 2011 assessments, in thecondition of no change above 2 dB L den the %HA curve is marginal and in the condition of an increase
above 2 dB strongly shifted up compared to the respective 2011 curve. When %HA is based on the
MIAS assessment, no significant change effect can be found in areas with a decrease in L den, but still amarginal effect in 'no change' areas and a stronger effect in areas with an increase in L den above 2 dB.
In line with this, compared to the curves of the 2011 assessments the %HD curves (factor F1) of
2012 remain stable in the 'decrease' and 'no change' areas, but is shifted up in 'increase' areas, inparticular in those with aircraft sound exposure Lden < 60 dB. Similar, in 'decrease' areas the %HLC
curves of 2011 and 2012 are almost the same. In 'no change' areas the %HLC curve of 2012 is marginal
above the 2011 curve, particularly in areas with L den > 55 dB, whereas in particular in 'increase' areas
above 50 dB in Lden the 2012 curve of %HLC is shifted up compared to the 2011 curve.
In areas with an increase in aircraft sound exposure, the change effect decreases with increasing
sound exposure for %HD and increases for %HLC.
Change in Lden before/after new (4th) runway opening at Frankfurt Airport
Decrease > 2 dB (n = 630)

No change ± 2 dB (n = 2518)

Increase > 2 dB (n = 311)

Note. Blue/red curves: percentage (%) highly annoyed as assessed with MIAS (blue) and ICBEN item (red); violet:% highly disturbed; green: % perceiving high lack of control; dashed: assessments of 2011; solid: assessments of 2012.
For better readability, limits of the 95% confidence intervals are not shown. All responses refer to aircraft noise.

Figure 2 – Summary of exposure response relationships for MIAS and its components against Lden in groupsof changes in aircraft sound (Lden) in 2012 after the opening of the new runway.

357

Change in Lden before/after new (4th) runway opening at Frankfurt Airport
Decrease > 2 dB (n = 630)

No change ± 2 dB (n = 2518)

Increase > 2 dB (n = 311)

%HA – MIAS

%HA – single 5-point ICBEN aircraft noise annoyance%HD – F1 'Disturbances'%HLC – F2 'Lack of coping capacity'

Note. Blue/red dashed curves: % highly annoyed as assessed with MIAS (blue) and ICBEN item (red) in 2011; violet,
dashed: % highly disturbed, 2011; green, dashed: % perceiving high lack of control, 2011; grey: respective assessments in 2012. Thin curves: lower/upper limits of the 95% confidence interval. All responses refer to aircraft noise.

Figure 3 – Exposure response relationships and 95% confidence intervals for MIAS and its components
against Lden in groups of changes in aircraft sound (Lden) in 2012 after the opening of the new runway.

358

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSWith longitudinal data of a sample of 3459 participants of the NORAH study at Frankfurt Airport it
was analysed whether the assessment of aircraft noise annoyance before (2011) and after (2012) majorchanges at the airport (opening of a new runway, implementation of a night flight ban) with the hierarchical higher order multiple item annoyance score (MIAS) improves the understanding of the change
effect (excess response) in aircraft noise annoyance. The sum score MIAS comprises the factors F1'Disturbances due to aircraft noise', F2 'Lack of coping capacity and the single 5-point ICBEN
annoyance item. The results indicate a change effect in terms of a shift in the exposure -response curves
after the change in exposure (2012) compared to the situation before (2011) in particular in are as withan increase in aircraft sound exposure of more than 2 dB in L den.
This is in line with previous studies. For example, Breugelmans et al. (14) showed that after the
opening of the 6 th runway at Schiphol Airport a change effect in annoyance occurred in the group ofresidents that suffered from an increase in aircraft sound exposure (L den). No change effect was observed at Schiphol Airport in groups of a decrease or no change in Lden.
In this study, the change effect is higher for aircraft noise annoyance as assessed with the single
5-point ICBEN item compared to the annoyance assessment by means of the MIAS score. There is low
evidence of a change effect, particularly for the 'disturbance' part of MIAS, whereas, at least in areas
with no change or an increase in aircraft noise exposure, a change effect is observed in the factor 'lackof coping capacity', which increases with increasing degrees of aircraft noise exposure.
A previous analysis of the NORAH panel data (4) had already shown that in the 'increase' condition
the change in aircraft noise annoyance as assessed with the ICBEN item is not explained by changes inaircraft sound level after the opening of the new runway and that, instead, annoyance changes are
predicted by coping capacity and attitudes and expectations regarding air traffic.
In line with this, there is evidence from the NORAH study that the trust that authorities would
endeavour to minimise the aircraft noise annoyance and aircraft noise annoyance are reciprocallyrelated to each other, but that the effect size of the path from 'trust in authority' to the annoyancejudgment one year later is higher in the change period of 2011/2012 than in the steady-state period
afterwards 2012/2013 (15). Furthermore, it could be shown that the aircraft noise exposure and much
more the residual change in aircraft noise exposure 2012 compared to 2011 have an impact on mental
health-related quality of life (HQoL) beyond noise-specific responses (16). In addition, the attitudes
and mental HQoL (as assessed with the Short Form Health Survey SF-8) correlate higher with thefactor F2 'Lack of coping capacity' than with F1 'Disturbances (Table 5).
Table 5 – Correlations r of MIAS and its sub-dimensions with trust in authority and mental HQoL (MCS)
assessed before (2011) and after (2012) the 4th runway opening at Frankfurt Airport
MIAS
Year

Annoyance (ICBEN)

F1

F2

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

2011

2012

Trust in authority-0.449-0.464-0.382-0.430-0.370-0.382-0.434-0.451

MCS – mental HQoL

-0.291-0.328-0.180-0.254-0.249-0.288-0.300-0.316Note. For all correlation coefficients p < .001; n = 3420-3459. MCS = SF8 mental component summary.

Altogether, this indicates that, in particular when the aircraft noise exposure increased, thisthreatens the perceived control and the trust in others perceived as responsible for improving or at least
not worsening one's own residential situation and this, again, seem to have an impact on individual's
well-being in general. This might explain the change effect even when it is not or less observed in
disturbances of activities due to aircraft noise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is part of the conceptual and methodological work of the WPs 2 and 3 of the EU project
ANIMA (Aviation Noise Impact Management through Novel Approaches). ANIMA has received
funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No 769627. For this study, data of the research project NORAH (Noise-Related Annoyance,359

Cognition, and Health) was used. NORAH was commissioned by the Environment & Community
Center / Forum Airport & Region, Kelsterbach, Germany.

REFERENCES
1. Guski R, Felscher-Suhr U, Schuemer R. The concept of noise annoyance: How international experts see
it. J Sound Vibration 1999; 223(4):513–27.
2. Schreckenberg D, Belke C, Spilski J. The development of a Multiple-Item Annoyance Scale (MIAS) for
transportation noise annoyance. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(5).
3. Fields JM, Jong RG de, Gjestland T, Flindell IH, Job RFS, Kurra S et al. Standardized general-purpose
noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: Research and a recommendation. J Sound Vibration 2001; 242(4):641–79.
4. Schreckenberg D, Belke C, Faulbaum F, Guski R, Möhler UM, Spilski J. Effects of aircraft noise on
annoyance and sleep disturbances before and after expansion of Frankfurt Airport – results of theNORAH study WP 1 ' Annoyance and quality of life '. Proc INTER-NOISE 2016; Hamburg, Germany
2016.
5. Brown AL, van Kamp I. Response to a change in transport noise exposure: a review of evidence of achange effect. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 125(5):3018–29.
6. Brown AL, van Kamp I. Response to a change in transport noise exposure: Competing explanations ofchange effects. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 125(2):905-14.
7. Brown AL, van Kamp I. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic
Review of Transport Noise Interventions and Their Impacts on Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health
2017; 14(8).
8. Raw GJ, Griffiths ID. Subjective response to changes in road traffic noise: A model. J Sound Vibration
1990; 141(1):43–54.
9. Stallen PJM. A theoretical framework for environmental noise annoyance. Noise Health 1999; 1(3):69.
10. Hatfield J, Job RS, Hede AJ, Carter NL, Peploe P, Taylor R et al. Human response to environmental
noise: The role of perceived control. Int J Behav Med 2002; 9(4):341–59.
11. FlugLSV. Erste Verordnung über die Datenerfassung und das Berechnungsverfahren für die Festsetzung
von Lärmschutzbereichen vom 27. Dezember 2008.: Anlage 2: Anleitung zur Berechnung von
Lärmschutzbereichen (AzB). Bundesanzeiger 2008; 195a:2.
12. Möhler U, Liepert M, Mühlbacher M, Beronius A, Nunberger M, Braunstein G, Gillé M, Schaal J,
Bartel R. Erfassung der Verkehrsgeräuschexposition (Estimation of transportation noise exposure). In
Gemeinnützige Umwelthaus gGmbH (Hg.), NORAH (Noise related annoyance cognition and health):
Verkehrslärmwirkungen im Flughafenumfeld (Impact of transportation noise in communities around an
airport) (Vol. 2). Kelsterbach, Germany: Umwelthaus gGmbH; 2015. Available fromhttps://www.norah-studie.de//en/publications.html?file=files/norah-studie.de/Downloads/NORAH_Bd2_Akustik_Endbericht.PDF.
13. Miedema HME, Vos H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am
1998; 104: 3432-45.
14. Breugelmans O, Houthuijs D, van Kamp I, Stellato R, van Wiechen C, Doornbos G. Longitudinal effects of a sudden change in aircraft noise exposure on annoyance and sleep disturbance around
Amsterdam airport. Proc ICA 2007; Istanbul, Turkey 2007.
15. Schreckenberg D, Benz S, Kuhlmann J, Conrady M, Felscher-Suhr U. Attitudes towards authorities andaircraft noise annoyance. Sensitivity analyses on the relationship between non-acoustical factors andannoyance. Proc ICBEN 2017, June 18-22, 2017: Zurich, Switzerland 2017.
16. Schreckenberg D, Benz S, Belke C, Möhler U, Guski R. The relationship between aircraft sound levels,noise annoyance and mental well-being: An analysis of moderated mediation. Proc ICBEN 2017, June
18-22, 2017: Zurich, Switzerland 2017.

360