Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /apacoust

Noise mitigation action plan of Pisa civil and military airportand its effects on people exposure

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.0200003-682X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: ARPAT – Environmental Regional Agency of Tuscany,Dept. of Lucca, Via Vallisneri 6, Lucca, Italy. Tel.: +39 3293807766.

E-mail addresses: gaetano.licitra@arpat.toscana.it (G. Licitra),paolo.gagliardi@unisi.it (P. Gagliardi), fredianelli@df.unipi.it (L. Fredianelli),duccio.simonetti@arpat.toscana.it (D. Simonetti).

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action plan of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposurAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

Gaetano Licitra a,b,⇑, Paolo Gagliardi c, Luca Fredianelli d, Duccio Simonetti e

a ARPAT – Environmental Regional Agency of Tuscany, Dept. of Lucca, Via Vallisneri 6, Lucca, Italyb IPCF–CNR Uos, Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa, Italyc Department of Physics, University of Siena, Via Roma 56, 53100 Siena, Italyd Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Largo B. Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italye ARPAT – Environmental Regional Agency of Tuscany, Dept. of Pisa, Via V. Veneto 27, Pisa, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 October 2013Received in revised form 11 February 2014Accepted 12 February 2014Available online xxxx

Keywords:Aircraft noiseEnvironmental noiseDirective 2002/49/EUNoise action plansNoise mapping

a b s t r a c t

The ‘‘Galileo Galilei’’ airport is a civil and military airport quite close to central Pisa. Although the airportbrings benefits in terms of tourism and different types of income, the air traffic growth exacerbates theexposition to aircraft noise. This could significantly affect public health. To this day, a small number ofstudies takes into account the standard indicators of Europe by considering noise emission data for mil-itary aircrafts. We estimated the noise impact produced by the airport and we evaluated the relatedexposed population by using the Integrated Noise Model (INM). The noise power levels of both commer-cial and military flights have been considered as an input to the model. Predicted levels were validated bymeans of a noise-monitoring network. A new tracking system (AirNav Radar) that captures AutomaticIdentification System (AIS) signals emitted by each aircraft has been used to emulate takeoff and landingprocedures. This improves the accuracy of the input to the model. We simulated noise maps for presentand future scenarios, including those following the application of noise reduction measures. For each sit-uation, we also estimated the exposure of the population and the percentages of highly annoyed andhighly sleep disturbed people. We show the utility of AIS data and their specific elaboration to drawup noise abatement measures in order to reduce the noise impact on population and allow the airportdevelopment.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Acoustical emission and air pollution are environmental factorsthat can make the difference to health and the quality of life. Manyauthors have studied the relationship between possible citizenrisks and the distance from airports to residential areas [1–3]. Itis also well known that exposure to certain noise levels increasesthe onset of diseases affecting cardiovascular system [4,5], mentalhealth [6], learning and cognitive ability in children [7,8], endo-crine system [9] and immune system [10]. Prolonged exposure tonoise is also indicated as a cause of irritability, lack of sleep,fatigue, headache, decrease in performance and annoyance [1].

Socio-acoustical surveys [11] have shown that aircrafts are themost disturbing noise sources among the transport infrastructures

and their noise can lead to severe conflict with people living in theareas surrounding airports.

There is a clear need of solutions that can quantify the aircraftnoise of an airport and reduce it [12,13]. The reduction of noiseis essential when the airport needs to be expanded.

The airport ‘‘G. Galilei’’ of Pisa will soon have 50,000 flights peryear, the threshold set by the European Noise Directive 49/2002[14] to realize the strategic noise mapping and the noise actionplan, which includes strategies to be implemented for mitigation.The authorities of Pisa have already approved the zoning of thesurrounding area and have suggested some interventions and pro-cedures for noise abatement [15,16].

The airport is a military one that is open to civilian traffic. It islocated quite close to the city. Thus, one of the possible expansionplans is the relocation of the most impacted residential area.

The airport uses a continuous monitoring system to measurethe noise produced by the flights. The monitoring system is com-posed of four fixed sound level metres. The radar tracks are notprovided. These would be essential for the proper identificationof trajectories [17] and for noise abatement procedures. These con-

e. Appl

Fig. 1. Pisa International Airport (source: www.onacrew.com).

Fig. 2. Statistics of flights by type of aircraft.

2 G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

strain the takeoff procedures and the directions of use of therunways.

We have compensated the lack of radar tracks by using a newmethod of trajectories reconstruction, which consists of the useof a flight tracking system installed near the airport (AirNav Radar).This tool uses AIS signals and gives second by second updates onflight number, aircraft registration, altitude, speed, heading andreal-time flight tracking.

The extension of the runways is another intervention plannedto reduce the noise impact that originates from the north side ofthe airport. This area is the most disturbed and suffers from theincreasing number of flights. In the following, we list some solu-tions that could mitigate the problem but cannot be applied: (a) al-

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

ways using the direction towards the south, (b) building a newrunway and (c) changing the orientation of the existing ones.

Since the airport wants to increase the number of flights, it isnecessary to perform an evaluation of the mitigation actions al-ready planned and undertake the design of new actions. This mustbe done by selecting the aircraft authorized to land and a carefulplanning of flights during the night.

In this paper, we analyse the potential environmental andhealth consequences produced by the various noise mitigationmeasures planned for the airport of Pisa.

We considered the possible actual and future alternative sce-narios, by considering numerical modelling. This includes theinfrastructure changes and the new departure procedures. The

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 3. Departure tracks and its dispersions for civil and military aircrafts.

G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

increase in the average number of daily movements is also takeninto account.

2. Case study: Pisa International Airport

This section provides a brief description of ‘‘Galileo Galilei’’ PisaInternational Airport from a physical and environmental point ofview.

The solutions for noise mitigation that are in place are outlined.We also sketch the solutions that are planned.

2.1. Description of the airport

The ‘‘Galileo Galilei’’ is a military airport open to civilian traffic.It was built in 1911 and, it is located on the southern side of Pisa(2 km away). The Italian Air Force runs the runways, the ControlTower, the radio aids for navigation and the radar.

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

.The airport has two parallel runways 04R-22L (the main one)and 04L-22R (the secondary) with a northeast-southwest orienta-tion (see Table 1), with the facilities located north of them (Fig. 1).The surrounding areas are residential ones from west to northeastand mainly agricultural with sporadic houses in the other directions.

2.2. Management of airport noise

The environmental impact in the areas surrounding an airport,especially noise, is mainly determined by three factors:

� Number of flights and type of aircrafts.� Configuration of the runways and their method of operation.� Procedures for departure and landing.

A fleet composed of different types of aircraft operates at the ‘‘G.Galilei’’, but about 2/3 of the total number of commercial flights are

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 4. Airport noise zoning at Pisa: zone A (LVA < 65 dB(A)); zone B (65 dB(A) < LVA < 75 dB(A)) and zone C (LVA > 75 dB(A)).

Fig. 5. The barriers installed between the apron and the nearest residential area.

4 G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

carried out by the American Boeing 737-800 (B738) and theEuropean Airbus A320-211 (A320) and Airbus A319-131 (A319).These aircrafts produce most of the total noise (Fig. 2).

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

Most of the time the operations of taking-off and landing takeplace at the main runway 04R-22L. The secondary 04L-22R,with <1% of the total annual movements, is primarily used for

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Table 1Runways physical characteristics.

NR RWYdesignation

QFU Dimension of RWY(m)

Strength and surface ofRWY

THRcoordinates

THR ELEV, MAX TDZ ELEV of precision APCHRWY

04L 035� 2488 � 45 SIWL 45 43�40033.690 0N 1 FT/NILASPH 010�22058.690 0E

22R 215� 2488 � 45 SIWL 45 43�41038.220 0N 5 FT/NILASPH 010�24005.260 0E

04R 035� 2993 � 46 LCN 90 43�40026.910 0N 3 FT/NILCONC/ASPH 010�23003.560 0E

22L 215� 2993 � 46 LCN 90 43�41034.150 0N 6 FT/NILCONC/ASPH 010�24012.940 0E

Fig. 6. Typical B738 ICAO A departure procedure from Pisa Airport: 3D flight profile and 2D profile elevation.

Table 2Mean difference between measured and simulated noise for each of the principalaircrafts.

Aircraftmodel

ðSELmeas � SELsimÞ no AIS(dB(A))

ðSELmeas � SELsimÞ with AIS(dB(A))

B738 3.0 1.7A320 3.8 1.5A319 6.0 1.6

G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

taxing. This often leads to an overuse of the main departure trackand an increase of takeoffs towards the city. The established direc-tion for departures on 04R-22L is SW [18], but more than 50% ofthe takeoffs start from 04R (e.g. NE direction) because the airspacein SW direction is occupied by landings.

The Italian Air Force that uses this runway for official operationsor for training flights increases the traffic on the main runway. Themilitary aviation in Pisa uses mainly two aircraft models: the C-130 J Super Hercules and C-27 J Spartan. About 20% of the totalaverage daily movements can be attributed to these two planes,whose special noise emission makes them non-negligible in thecalculation of the total noise produced by the infrastructure.

Both military and civil aviation use the same runway, but theyuse different departure trajectories (Fig. 3), leading to an expansionof the highly populated areas subjected to aircraft noise.

The development of the airport infrastructure cannot be sepa-rated from the management of the territory and the respect of na-tional regulatory limits. Those requirements have been defined

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

starting from the airport noise zoning of 2012 (Fig. 4), where thebuffer zones are identified as a function of the national noise met-ric LVA (a noise indicator equal to the DNL but with the referenceperiod 23:00–6:00 and 6:00–23:00) [15]. The verification of thecompatibility of the territory with noise limits was performed byRegional Agency for Environmental Protection of Tuscany (ARPAT)

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 7. Departure flight profiles data of all the aircrafts from AirNav Radar Box (a), average departure profiles (red line) and standard deviation vs. INM ICAO A departureprofiles (green line) for B738 (b), A320 (c) and A319 (d). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of thisarticle.)

6 G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

with the Integrated Noise Model (INM), previously validated bymeans of a noise monitoring system [19].

The noise monitoring system consists of four units, one locatedto the south of the runway and the other three to the north alongthe projection on the ground of the trajectories (Fig. 4). Noise dataare acquired continuously and are sent to the central system forthe storage and processing that can be done via web by techni-cians. These can query the system on correlations of acousticevents and flights. The radar tracks are not provided.

According to the European Directive 2002/30/EC [20] the basicconcept for noise management is the ‘‘balanced approach’’, thatgoes through the exploration of four principal elements [21,22]:(a) reduction of noise at source; (b) noise abatement operationalprocedures; (c) land use planning and management; (d) operatingrestrictions on aircraft.

Noise control over the years led the airport to apply and plansome noise reduction measures that can be allocated on the afore-mentioned categories as Netjasov [23] suggests. Among them, themost remarkable ones are described below.

1 APU is a device on an aircraft that provides energy for functions other thanpropulsion.

2.2.1. Noise mitigation measures adopted2.2.1.1. Ground restrictions. The run up engine of civilian aircraft issubject to previous clearance and performing it on civil apron isabsolutely forbidden. The area where the run up is allowed is the

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

intersection ‘‘A’’ between runways 04L and 04R and only in day-time. The Auxiliary Power Unit1 (APU) must not be held in the apronand the engines can run no longer than the time that is necessary forexecution of start up procedure before the departure. Within safetylimits, thrust reverse performances must be minimized at everylanding.

2.2.1.2. Barriers. In 2003 and 2007, ARPAT performed two measure-ments campaigns. The noise evaluation results were used to buildtwo new acoustic barriers next to the apron (Fig. 5). This area is themost affected when the noise produced by the ground movementsof the aircrafts is considered. Initially the barriers have mitigatedthis problem, but nowadays the increasing number of flights hasgiven rise to new problems, confirmed by the violations of thelaw limits. The solution that the airport company is consideringis the purchase of the entire area by the airport. This would avoidcivilians getting noise.

2.2.2. Noise mitigation measures in progress2.2.2.1. Structural changes. In two years, a new ‘‘AA’’ connection be-tween the runway heads 04L and 04R will be built south of the

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 8. The future lengthening of the runways.

Table 3Energetic averages of the SEL measured in the period before the new takeoff procedure (2011) and differences with the six scenarios.

Control Unit Aircraft Model

Measurements [dB(A)] INM Difference with 2011 [dB(A)]

2011 2013 2013 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

1 B738 96.6 95.3 95.1 �1.5 �4.5 �3.0 �2.6 �6.3 �6.01 A320 94.8 93.1 93.1 �1.7 �5.6 �3.6 �3.2 �7.2 �6.91 A319 94.3 92.9 92.3 �2.0 �5.8 �3.8 �3.4 �7.7 �7.4

G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

runways, resulting in advance of takeoffs of about 260 m. Thisshould allow the reduction of noise in areas to the north and thehandling of an increased number of flights per year.

2.2.2.2. Noise abatement operational procedures. A new noise-abate-ment departure procedure (ICAO A) has been applied since 2013.

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

This requires the aircraft to take off more steeply thus reducingthe noise impact on the city.

3. Methodology: A new aircraft noise estimation

The geometry of a flight track can be deduced from standardprocedures published in aeronautical charts but generally the use

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 9. Noise impact produced by commercial and military aircrafts in 2011 (a and b) and 2013 (c and d) (Lden and Lnight).

8 G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

of radar data to model both the trajectory and the vertical profile ofdeparture and approach is recommended. For this purpose, an ade-quate modelling of the flight tracks is essential for accurate noiseestimation [24].

In the case of Pisa Airport, radar data is not available because ofmilitary concerns. Consequently, a new method that generatesmore realistic flight paths of the aircrafts has been conceived. Thisis introduced in the next paragraph.

3.1. AIS signals

The new method consists of using a cheap flight tracking sys-tem recently installed near the airport (AirNav Radar) as a replace-ment for the non-availability of radar tracks. This tool gives secondby second updates on flight number, aircraft registration, altitude,speed, heading and real-time flight tracking. Thus, all these piecesof information have been considered for the reconstruction andimplementation of the 3D flight paths (Fig. 6) that are the trajecto-ries (with the relative dispersion) and the longitudinal departureprofiles.

It is possible to improve the model outputs consequence of theuse of AIS signals by considering a random sample of flights over acontrol unit and comparing the average of the differences betweenmeasured (SELmeas) and simulated noise levels (SELsim).

With the new system, the mean difference between measuredand simulated noise for each of the principal aircrafts is signifi-cantly reduced, as shown in Table 2.

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

3.2. INM noise modelling

The solutions for noise mitigation, already operational orplanned, were not considered in the simulations of aircraft noisecurrently existing in Pisa.

This section describes the implementation of these action plansthat are included in the calculation model INM. The various condi-tions of exposure that we have analysed consist of numerical mod-elling of possible scenarios. These are used to determine the bestsolutions for noise abatement. We studied the effect produced bythe use of takeoff procedure ICAO A and the scenario in which anew ‘‘AA’’ connection between the runways 04L and 04R will berealized.

3.2.1. Variation in the takeoff proceduresWe needed to know the profiles of departure to see if the new

procedure ICAO A improves the noise impact and if the various air-lines companies respect it. To this ending the following has beendone: (1) filter the output of the tracking system; (2) calculate/ob-serve the takeoff point of each aircraft; (3) determine the bestdeparture profile to be implemented in INM; (4) preliminary vali-date the model.

More precisely, the abnormal output data of the tracking sys-tem that was generated by momentary malfunctions (Fig. 7a)was detected with an algorithm. Afterwards we gradually recon-structed the profiles of takeoff for various aircraft from the startof the takeoff roll point and we calculated the average departureprofile for each type of aircraft.

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 9 (continued)

G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

We validated the model by comparing the measurements offlights with the ICAO A in April 2013 and the takeoffs simulatedwith INM. The simulation uses the actual flight profile recon-structed from AirNav Radar Box. We have considered only thetakeoffs in the direction of the city. These must be detected bythe monitoring system that is located in the north side. Our analy-sis is based on three type of aircraft (B738, A320, A319). These arethe most commonly used.

The average profiles (i.e. the altitude reached by aircrafts as afunction of distance from the VHF Omni Directional Radio Range(VOR) ground station2) and their relative dispersions (standarddeviation) that we have obtained for the aircrafts mentioned aboveare in Fig. 7b–d. A comparison between the ICAO A procedure trulyfollowed by the aircraft (red line) and the ICAO A procedure of INM(green line) is also shown.

We have implemented the average profiles (red lines) in INMand the simulated noise produced by each type of aircraft. Theircomparison with the control unit measures points out that an aver-age departure profile is not representative for the real acoustic sit-uation. It is worth mentioning that the real departure profiles donot correspond to the theoretical ICAO A. This is stored in theINM database in terms of distance and altitude. Then, separatelyfor B738, A320 and A319, we used as an input to the model thedeparture profile of the flight, which has the simulated noise more

2 VOR is a type of short-range radio navigation system for aircraft. In the case ofPisa Airport, the VOR ground station is situated close to the runway 04R.

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

similar to the energetic average of the noise measured. For all theother type of aircraft, we used the departure and arrival profilesprovided by the software.

3.2.2. Structural changesThis change will produce the following effects: (i) a lengthening

of the runways of about 400 or 260 m; (ii) a setback of the takeoffpoint (northbound); (iii) the anticipation of the descent on landingfor aircraft coming from the south. One of the possible structuralvariations of the runways and its redesign in the model is pre-sented in Fig. 8. The reference scenario represents a typical averageday of 2011 and considers both the civilian and the military flights.

4. Results and discussion

We first verified the improvements that the action plans wouldhave on the noise impact produced by the airport. To do this, wesimulated the average SEL measured by the nearest control unitat north (number 1 in Fig. 4) for the aircraft B738, A320 andA319 in the following scenarios:

� Scenario 1: Current departure procedure.� Scenario 2: ICAO A procedure (INM).� Scenario 3: 400 m of setback of the departure profile with cur-

rent procedure.� Scenario 4: 260 m of setback of the departure profile with cur-

rent procedure.

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 10. Noise impact produced by commercial and military aircrafts in 2011 and 2021 (Lden (a) and Lnight (b)).

Fig. 11. HA and HSD distribution per noise zones: a comparison between 2011 and 2013 scenarios (Lden (a) and Lnight (b)).

10 G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

� Scenario 5: 400 m of setback of the departure profile with ICAOA procedure (INM).� Scenario 6: 260 m of setback of the departure profile with ICAO

A procedure (INM).

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

We compared the energetic averages of the SEL measured in theperiod before the new takeoff procedure with the simulations ofthe single event for each type of aircraft and for each noise abate-ment solution presented above (Table 3).

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

Fig. 12. Distribution of highly annoyed people. Daytime (Lden).

Fig. 13. Distribution of highly sleep-disturbed people. Nighttime (Lnight).

G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 11

The noise reduction for the individual flights is currentlybetween 1.5 and 2 dB(A) of SEL, but it could increase to 6.3–7.7 dB(A) when the ICAO A procedure is properly applied and therunways are moved backward of 400 m.

We determined the noise impact considering also the other air-craft operating at the airport.

The noise maps resulting from the simulations for the years2011 and 2013, separated for daytime (Lden) and nighttime (Lnight),are shown in Fig. 9. The noise contours in the north of the citychange in the two annual scenarios. The noise contours differ inthe takeoff profiles and do not differ in the number of movements.

The actual departure procedure generates a decrease of noise inthe current scenario with respect to the old one (both in the case ofdaytime and nighttime), with a narrowing of the areas within thenoise contours and a consequent reduction of noise exposure.

4.1. Future scenario

We have also studied the benefits that would occur in a fewyears if the solutions that are most effective in terms of noise im-pact reduction were applied that are: 400 m of lengthening of therunways and the theoretical ICAO A procedure introduced in INM.

We supposed the average operating conditions of the airport in2021 considering only the increase of the movements calculatedfrom the trend of growth: about 41% more than the current move-ments. The number of military flights is assumed to be unchangedsince it was not possible to estimate their long-term variations.

The simulation results (Fig. 10), when compared to the scenarioof 2011, show that the application of the ICAO A (INM) and the re-treat of the runways would oppose to the more flights restrainingthe increasing noise impact. Indeed, the area subtended by thenoise contours 55–60 dB(A) of Lden and 45–50 dB(A) of Lnight wouldbecome narrower. It follows that, despite the number of daily

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

operations that would be greater, the impact would remain con-stant or even lower to the north when compared with the refer-ence scenario.

4.2. Population exposure and estimate of the health effects

To quantify the overall exposure of the population affected byairport noise, we applied a parameter that takes into account thenumber of people living in the area inscribed by the noise contourspreviously simulated. This parameter is the number of residentsper civic number in 2008.

The statistical analysis of the data collected allowed us to iden-tify the distribution of the exposed population as a function of thenoise classes for each scenario and the variation of the noise indi-cator used. The results, as suggested by the European Directive2002/49/EC, were used to determine the causal relationships be-tween the level of exposure to noise and the level of individualannoyance and/or sleep disturbance.

We estimated the health impact of noise pollution caused byPisa Airport starting from dose–effect curves for %HA (highly an-noyed) and %HSD (highly sleep disturbed) [11,25,26], which sum-marizes the trend of the population highly disturbed as afunction of aircraft noise in terms of Lden and Lnight.

From 2011 to 2013 (Fig. 9) the number of HA people during thedaytime is unchanged or increased for levels below 55 dB(A) ofLden, but it decreased for exposure levels above 55 dB(A)(Fig. 11). This trend does not vary during the night period, wherethe decrease in the number of HSD people starts from 45 dB(A)of Lnight.

Considering all the solutions applied to the various scenarios,the best reduction (almost 50%) in the number of HA and HSD(Figs. 12 and 13) is for the scenario 5 that also brings the improve-ments that produce the greatest noise reduction.

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl

12 G. Licitra et al. / Applied Acoustics xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

5. Conclusions

The airport of Pisa needed to extend the level of knowledge ofits noise impact on the territory. With a modelling tool (INM) wehave simulated the different emission scenarios and we have cal-culated the noise impact on the territory and on population usingdata from the control unit and from the new flight tracking system.We used this to rebuild the takeoff and landing 3D profiles in thecalculation model and the statistical analysis showed a significantimprovement in the accuracy of the output.

We dedicated a specific study on military aircraft, never in-cluded so far in similar calculations in Italy and we consideredtheir significant contribution to the noise resulted from the partic-ular emission of the two major military aircraft, from their low-altitude overflights and from their different routes of takeoff.

Before outlining the results, we performed a deep analysis and asubsequent refinement of the model inputs, which allowed us toimprove the accuracy of the result, as shown by comparison withthe measurements. A fundamental role among the inputs comesfrom the takeoff and landing profiles, essential for reliability, andto the noise measurements of the monitoring system.

The produced noise maps show how the impact of the airport issignificant on the population, because the infrastructure lies on theedge of the town and is almost completely embedded in a residen-tial environment.

We simulated the current and the future scenario where a con-nection between the existing tracks and the takeoff proceduresafter diversification (ICAO A it) will be realized.

For all the situations examined, we also estimated the percent-age of population exposed to noise levels produced by aircraftmovements. This assessment was made based on different noiseindicators and we were able to quantify the social impact of thephenomenon considering the increase or decrease in the numberof people exposed for each scenario. We related these data to itshealth effects using specific dose–effect curves.

The results show that the proposed mitigation measures wouldcontribute to reduce the noise impact on population and would al-low the future development of the airport.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank SAT (Tuscan Airport Society) and par-ticularly Pietro Sammataro for data and cooperation provided. Aspecial acknowledgement goes to Prof. José Luis Cueto Ancela (Uni-versity of Cadiz) for helpful suggestions in order to improve thispaper.

References

[1] Passchier-Vermeer Willy, Passchier Wim F. Noise exposure and public health.Environ Health Perspect 2000;108(suppl 1):123.

Please cite this article in press as: Licitra G et al. Noise mitigation action planAcoust (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.02.020

[2] Franssen EAM et al. Aircraft noise around a large international airport and itsimpact on general health and medication use. Occup Environ Med2004;61(5):405–13.

[3] Eriksson Charlotta et al. Aircraft noise and incidence of hypertension.Epidemiology 2007;18(6):716–21.

[4] Babisch W. Chronic noise as a risk factor for myocardial infarction. The NaRoMistudy Major technical report WaBoLu-Hefte, UMWELTBUNDDESAMT ed.,2004.

[5] Leon Bluhm G et al. Road traffic noise and hypertension. Occup Environ Med2007;64(2):122–6.

[6] Lercher P et al. Ambient neighbourhood noise and children’s mental health.Occup Eviron Med 2002;59:380–6.

[7] Hygge S. Noise exposure and cognitive performance: children and the elderlyas possible risk groups. Sweden, WHO Report Brussels: University of Gävle;2003.

[8] Stansfeld SA et al. RANCH study team. Aircraft and road traffic noise andchildren’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet2005;365(9475):1942–9.

[9] Spiegel K et al. Levels are dependent on sleep duration: relationships withsympathovagal balance, carbohydrate regulation, cortisol, and thyrotropin. JClin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:5762–71.

[10] Maschke C et al. Epidemiological examinations to the influence of noise stresson the immune system and the emergence of arteriosclerosis. Berlin: RobertKoch-Institut; 2002.

[11] Miedema Henk ME, Henk Vos. Exposure-response relationships fortransportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3432.

[12] Arafa Mustafa H, Osman TA, Abdel-Latif Ibrahim A. Noise assessment andmitigation schemes for Hurghada airport. Appl Acoust 2007;68(11):1373–85.

[13] Vogiatzis Konstantinos. An assessment of airport environmental noise actionplans with some financial aspects: the case of Athens international‘‘Eleftherios Venizelos’’. Int J Acoust Vib 2012;17(4):181–90.

[14] European Commission. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management ofenvironmental noise. Official Journal of the European, Communities L189 of18.2002, 2002. p. 12–25.

[15] D.M. del 31 ottobre 1997. Metodologia di misura del rumore aeroportuale. G.U.n. 267 del 15.11.1997.

[16] Decreto Ministeriale 29 Novembre 2000. Criteri per la predisposizione da partedelle società e degli enti gestori dei servizi pubblici di trasporto o delle relativeinfrastrutture, dei piani degli interventi di contenimento e abbattimento delrumore, (G.U.R.I. n. 285 del 6/12/2000).

[17] Zacharias, Frank-Christian. Derivation of substitute flight routes formFANAMOS radar scanning. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON congress andconference proceedings. vol. 3. Institute of Noise, Control Engineering; 2010.

[18] http://www.enav.it/portal/page/portal/PortaleENAV/Home/AIP.[19] Licitra G, Farnetani A. Validation of provisional noise model INM 6.0b at Pisa G.

Galilei International Airport. In: 17th International Congress on Acoustics ICARoma 2–7 settembre 2001, Volume III su CD ROM ISBN 88- 88387-02-1.

[20] European Commission. Directive 2002/30/EC of the European parliament andof the council on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to theintroduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports.Official J L 2002; 85: 28.

[21] ICAO. Resolutions adopted at the 33rd session of the assembly provisionaledition. In: International civil aviation organization, Montreal, Canada, 2001.

[22] ACI. Airports and environmental legislation. Airport Council International,Brussels, Belgium, 2004.

[23] Netjasov Fedja. Contemporary measures for noise reduction in airportsurroundings. Appl Acoust 2012;73(10):1076–85.

[24] Krebs W, Pluss S. Processing of radar data to describe flight geometries foraircraft noise calculation according to AzB. Acta Acust U Acust2010;96(6):1134–7.

[25] Miedema Henk ME, Passchier-Vermeer W, Vos H. Elements for a positionpaper on night-time transportation noise and sleep disturbance. TNO Inro2003.

[26] European Commission. Position paper on dose effect relationships for nighttime noise. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European,Communities, 2004. p. 30.

of Pisa civil and military airport and its effects on people exposure. Appl