; CASE STUDY OF KHARTOUM INTERNATIONAL

BY

OMER ALI MAHMOUD OBEID

(B. Sc (HONS.) ARCHITECTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING- SHARQ AL NEEL COLLEGE- KHARTOUM)

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree of M. Sc. in Environmental Studies

INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF KHARTOUM

JUNE 2004

ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ

(و ﻗﻞ رﺑﻲ زدﻧﻰ ﻋﻠﻤًﺎ)

(O my Lord! Increase me in knowledge)

Holy Quran, Taha (114)

"ﻻ ﻳﺰال اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﺎً ﻣﺎ ﻃﻠﺐ اﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻓﺎﺫا ﻇﻦ اﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺟﻬﻞ". ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ

DEDICATION

To my dear parents Ali and Maryam

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to my supervisor Dr. Osman Mirghani Mohamed Ali for his assistance, advice, time, effort, patience and his valuable remarks that made this research be done.

Special thanks are extended to the teaching staff at the Institute of Environmental Studies, the chief library Mr. Kamal and the secretary Ms. Doriyah for their efforts.

I am grateful to the director general of Khartoum International Airport Mr. Kamal Al Deen Yaghoub for his support and consideration. Thanks are extended to Khartoum International Airport staff particularly the information office especially Mrs. Maryam Sedeq for her assistance and help. Also special thanks are due to Mrs. Sameyah, Mrs. Ragaa, Mr. Ehab, Mr. Al sadeq, Mr. Hisham, the director of internal area Mr. Ahmed Mustafa and the air traffic controller Mr. Mohamed.

I would like to thank Ms. Sit Nour Mohamed, the Work Environment Hygiene Department Manager Federal Ministry of Health for her kind help and support.

The help I got from Mr. Salih Osman in analyzing the computer data at the Ministry of Science And Technology is highly appreciated.

I would like to thank my colleagues and friends at the Institute of Environmental Studies for their kind concern.

Finally I would like to thank my family Wafaa, Mohamed, Ahmed and Mahmoud for their kind enthusiasm and encouragement throughout the period of this research.

II ABSTRACT

The location of Khartoum International Airport (KIA) in central city, and the increasing of flight movement in the last years, have raised the attention that aircraft noise exists as a problem, and some of population that is living, working or studying around the airport is suffering from that.

In this research, the first one of its kind in Sudan, analysis and evaluation of aircraft from Khartoum International Airport (KIA) were done by taking measurements outside and inside the airport. A social questionnaire for the outside community and workers inside (KIA) was done. Measurement locations and population sample were selected randomly.

The maximum measurement of noise inside the airport was 119.2 dB, which should not exceed 90 dB, and the maximum measurement outside the airport was 117.1 dB, which should not exceed 75 dB. The average measurement for both inside and outside the airport was 102 dB which is rather high through 42 seconds of the aircraft movement. In the social survey, (88.3%) claimed that noise is a problem, (94.6%) claimed that it has increased, and (87.1%) supported removal of Khartoum Airport outside the city with significance found for both genders. In work environment survey (89.0%) mentioned noise is a problem in their work, and absence of medical examination health care system and use of ear protector by (100%).

The research results proved that aircraft noise pollution exists in both outside and inside (KIA) resulting in an uncomfortable environment for community and an unhealthy environment for work staff. The results of research were compared with other in Europe and Kampala Airport, Uganda.

The lack of legislation exists in the absence of noise pollution environmental law in The Environmental Health Act (1975). A recommendation to evaluate the buildings in relation to the environment under the “Concept of Environmental Engineering Buildings” (EEB) is attached which aims to perform a highly environmental engineering function that buildings can do. When Khartoum International Airport (KIA) is tested by the (EEB) concept, it revealed environmental and engineering problems.

اﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺪ

ﺇﻥ ﻤﻭﻗﻊ ﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻁﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺭﻜﺯ ﻤﺩﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻁﻭﻡ ﻭﻤﻊ ﺘﺯﺍﻴﺩ ﺤﺭﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻁﻴﺭﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ، ﺃﺩﻯ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺒﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺘﻠﻭﺙ ﺼﻭﺘﻲ ﺒﻀﻭﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺌﺭﺍﺕ ﻴﻌﺎﻨﻲ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺠﺯﺀ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻴﺴﻴﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻴﻥ ﻴﻘﻁﻨﻭﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻴﻌﻤﻠﻭﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻴﺩﺭﺴﻭﻥ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺎﺭ. ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻷﻭل ﻤﻥ ﻨﻭﻋﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﺩﺍﻥ، ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﻭﺘﻘﻴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺘﻲ ﻟﻠﻁﺎﺌﺭﺍﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻁﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻲ ﺘﻡ ﺒﺄﺨﺫ ﻗﻴﺎﺴﺎﺕ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻭﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﻭﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺨﺎﺭﺠﻪ ﻭﺁﺨﺭ ﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻪ. ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺭﺍﺀﺓ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ 119.2 ﺩﻴﺴﺒل ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺍﻻ ﺘﺯﻴﺩ ﻋﻥ 90 ﺩﻴﺴﺒل، ﻭﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺭﺍﺀﺓ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ 117.1 ﺩﻴﺴﺒل ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺍﻻ ﺘﺯﻴﺩ ﻋﻥ 75 ﺩﻴﺴﺒل. ﻤﺘﻭﺴﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻟﺩﺍﺨل ﻭﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺒﻠﻎ 102 ﺩﻴﺴﺒل ﻤﻊ ﻤﺘﻭﺴﻁ ﺯﻤﻥ ﺤﺭﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺌﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻭ 42 ﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ. ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ، (%88.3) ﺃﻜﺩﻭﺍ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻠﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺘﻲ، (94.6%) ﺃﻜﺩﻭﺍ ﺍﺯﺩﻴﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ، ﻭ (87.1%) ﺃﻴﺩﻭﺍ ﺘﺭﺤﻴل ﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻁﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻲ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻭﻗﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻨﺔ. ﻓﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل (89%) ﺃﻜﺩﻭﺍ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻠﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺘﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل، ﻤﻊ ﺍﻨﻌﺩﺍﻡ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻑ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻲ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﻭﺍﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺫﻥ ﺒﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺒﻠﻐﺕ (%100). ﺃﺜﺒﺘﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻠﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺘﻲ ﻟﻠﻁﺎﺌﺭﺍﺕ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﻭﺩﺍﺨﻠﻪ، ﻭﺒﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺭﻴﺤﺔ ﺨﺎﺭﺠﻪ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺼﺤﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻪ. ﺘﻤﺕ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻁﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﻜﺎﻤﺒﺎﻻ ﻓﻲ ﻴﻭﻏﻨﺩﺍ. ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻙ ﻨﻘﺹ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺤﻴﺙ ﻟﻡ ﻴﺫﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻠﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺘﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻲ (1975). ﺃﺭﻓﻕ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻗﺘﺭﺍﺡ ﺤﻭل ﺘﻘﻴﻴﻡ ﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻨﻲ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺘﺤﺕ "ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩﺴﻴﺔ"، ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻬﺩﻑ ﻷﺩﺍﺀ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﻫﻨﺩﺴﻴﺔ ﻴﻘﻭﻡ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ. ﻋﻨﺩ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻁﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻲ، ﺘﻡ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻤﺸﺎﻜل ﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻨﺩﺴﻴﺔ.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION 1.1. General ……………………………………………………. 1 1.2. Justification ……………………………………………….. 3 1.3. Objectives ………………………………………………… 3 1.4. Hypothesis ………………………………………………... 4

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Sound and Noise ………………………………………….. 5 2.2. Noise Measurements ………………………………...... 7 2.3. Environmental Effects of Noise ………………………….. 9 2.3.1. Effects of Noise on Buildings ……………………… 9 2.3.2. Effects of Noise on Wildlife, Animals and Birds ….. 10 2.3.3. Effects of Noise on People …………………………. 11 2.4. Aircraft Noise ……………………………………………. 24 2.4.1. Ways of Measuring Aircraft Noise ……………….... 25 2.4.2. Socio-Psychological Studies on Aircraft Noise …..... 28 2.5. Summary of The Literature Review ……………………… 32

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Greater Khartoum ………………………………………… 33 3.2. Khartoum International Airport ………………………….. 37 3.3. Site Analysis and Pass way ………………………………. 38 3.4. Sites of Sampling …………………………………………. 40 3.5. Noise Measurements ……………………………………… 45 3.6. Study Duration …………………………………………… 45 3.7. Questionnaires ……………………………………………. 45 3.8. Social and Work Questionnaires Analysis ……………….. 46

IV

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Information Results in (KIA) ……………………………. 47 4.1.1. Types of Airlines ………………………………….. 47 4.1.2. Types of Aircraft ………………………………….. 47 4.1.3. Number of Flights per Day and Night …………….. 47 4.2. Aircraft Results …………………….. 48 4.2.1. Outside (KIA) ……………………………………... 48 4.2.2. Within (KIA) ………………………………………. 49 4.3. Questionnaires ……………………………………………. 54 4.3.1. Outside (KIA) ……………………………………… 54 4.3.2. Within (KIA) ………………………………………. 78 4.4. Quality of Life ……………………………………………. 93 4.5. Concept of Environmental Engineering Buildings (EEB)... 95 4.5.1. Hypothesis …………………………………………. 95 4.5.2. Objectives ………………………………………….. 95 4.5.3. Parameters ………………………………………….. 96 4.5.4. Methods …………………………………………….. 97 4.5.5. Characteristics …………………………………….... 99 4.5.6. Advantages …………………………………………. 99 4.5.7. Disadvantages ………………………………………. 100 4.5.8. (EEB) Diagram ……………………………………... 100 4.5.9. Application …………………………………………. 101 4.6. Conclusion ………………………………………………… 102

CHAPTER IV

RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Aircraft As A System Concept ……………. 103 5.2. Recommendations ………………………………………… 104 5.2.1. For Society Outside (KIA) ………………………….. 104 5.2.2. For Workers Inside (KIA) …………………………... 105 5.3. Proposal for Further Studies ……………………………… 105

References …………………………………………………... 106- 110

Appendices

V LIST OF TABLES

TABLE (1) Site of Sampling Outside (KIA)…………………. 41

TABLE (2) Site of Sampling Inside (KIA)…………………… 43

TABLE (3) Measurements Outside (KIA)…………………… 50

TABLE (4) Measurements Within (KIA)……………………. 53

TABLE (5) Response to Increase In Noise ………………….. 55

TABLE (6) Response to Sleep Disturbance ..……………….. 57

TABLE (7) Response to Leisure Disturbance ...……………. 59

TABLE (8) Response to Noise as a Problem ………………. 61

TABLE (9) Response to House Vibration …..……………… 63

TABLE (10) Response to Time of Noise ……..……………. 65

TABLE (11) Opinion About Removal (KIA) .……………… 70

TABLE (12) Response to The Need For Noise Law .………. 72

TABLE (13) Response to Disturbance In Work Efficiency … 74

TABLE (14) Response to Interference With Conversation …. 76

TABLE (15) Response to Noise As a Problem ……….……... 81

TABLE (16) Response to Difficulty of Conversation ……….. 83

TABLE (17) Response to Disturbance In Work Efficiency …. 85

TABLE (18) Response to Decline In Hearing Ability………... 87

TABLE (19) Response to Extent of Decline …………………. 89

TABLE (20) Response to Medical Examination ………...... 91 VI

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE (1) Sudan Map ………………………………...... 35

FIGURE (2) Greater Khartoum ……………………………… 36

FIGURE (3) Sampling Sites Out and Within (KIA)………..... 44

FIGURE (4) Response to Increase In Noise …………...... 56

FIGURE (5) Response to sleep disturbance …………………. 58

FIGURE (6) Response to Leisure Disturbance …………...... 60

FIGURE (7) Response to Noise As a problem ………………. 62

FIGURE (8) Response to House vibration……………...... 63

FIGURE (9) Response to Time of Noise …………………….. 66

FIGURE (10) Opinion About Removal (KIA) ..……………… 71

FIGURE (11) Response to The Need For Noise Law ………... 73

FIGURE (12) Response to Disturbance In Work Efficiency …. 75

FIGURE (13) Response to Interference With Conversation …. 77

FIGURE (14) Response to Noise As a Problem ……………… 82

FIGURE (15) Response to Difficulty of Conversation ……….. 83

FIGURE (16) Response to Disturbance In Work Efficiency …. 86

FIGURE (17) Response to Decline In Hearing Ability ………. 88

FIGURE (18) Response to Extent of Decline ………………… 90

FIGURE (19) Response to Medical Examination ..…………… 92

VII

1.1 General

The environment is the matrix of physical, biological, and social circumstances surrounding man, and affecting his well being. It is the milieu in which he has lived for many hundred thousand years since his appearance on Earth. It is the sum total of his habitats, economy and society, and as such embraces not only his life support systems of air, water, food, and shelter, but also the multiplicity of provocative forces bearing down on him and affecting his health. The environment complex is in a continuous state of flux; it is ever changing (Lenihan, 1976).

Man’s internal environment is essentially constant, e.g., in haemostasis. Hormones and other physiological agencies act as regulating mechanisms to correct the disruptions in the internal environment resulting from external environment forces. Noise pollution is one of the external environmental factors affecting human health, and is a problem of urbanization.

Urban growth over the last two hundred years has been due to technological development, which has stimulated industrialization and increased the demand for labour in cities. Therefore, cities seemed to be attractive in them selves for people who hoped for a better life.

There are many definitions of urban areas, which with historical, cultural, and administrative differences among nations, are difficult to establish a common pattern. Most often a population of 5,000 is used as a size above which an area is called urban (Lowery, 1975).

Africa is the least urbanized continent but one where the rate of urbanization is among the highest. The rapid rate of urban growth is causing social and economic strains, some of which manifest themselves in environmental problems. An environmental problem has been defined as “either an inadequate supply of a resource essential to human health or urban production, or the presence of pathogens or toxic substance in the human environment, which can damage human health, or physical resources” (Website 9).

Some of environmental problems that occur at varying spatial scales from the homes through the neighbourhood, the city to the region include the crowded and cramped living conditions and the presence of pathogens in the human environment, the dangerous and unhealthy sites of some neighbourhoods, the irregular or non collection of garbage in some neighbourhoods, the disposal of toxic and hazardous waste, water, air, and noise pollution in areas in proximity to airports.

There are many causes or factors contributing to these problems. They include massive rural- urban migration, poor planning and ineffective development control, weak urban institutions, and inadequate financial resources (Website 9).

The human impacts of urbanization tend to be rather difficult to define and assess. The noise, air, and water pollution and psychological stresses caused by high density and a relative fast- passed environment are not easily to be quantified. Many of the effects are not particularly harmful on isolated contacts, but continued exposure may cause more serious problem.

Noise is considered as a type of man- made pollution. Noise is very much a feature of the last quarter of 20th century. It is inextricably linked with the ever- increasing use of modern society makes of motor vehicles, railways, jet aircrafts, and other forms of transport and industrial machines. For community, noise from industrial plants is less significant than from aircrafts and road traffic (Sutton, 1971). Building- site machinery, pneumatic drills, and tape recorders are other sources of noise, but they provide localized noise.

All these sources of noise pollution are a phenomenon of urbanization, which are encountered at any city of Khartoum size. From noise perspective, the noisiest source is that from aircraft. In practice, when a plane is passing over a noisy city, the noise of the aircraft will cover all other sources of noise in that city.

1.2 Justification of The Research Khartoum International Airport (KIA) is located in the centre of the Capital surrounded by residential areas, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, colleges, companies, and recreation areas. Airport location must be 30 km outside the city and not located in the central area (Hutchinson, 1974).

In recent years there has been a clear increase in flight numbers between Khartoum International Airport and other international airports, which means an increase in number and type of aircrafts that use Khartoum International Airport. Also, the numbers of internal flights have increased due to increased:

- Number of States - Number of population - Economic activities due to encouraged investment, especially in the petroleum sector. This has led to increased number of companies working in this field and other fields.

There is no scientific data pertaining to the term “aircraft noise pollution and environmental hazards”, related to airports in Sudan. Therefore, a research is needed to specify, in as exact terms as possible, the influence of noise on comfort, efficiency, health, and well being of urban areas including dwellers and hospitals.

1.3 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to assess the aircraft noise effect, and provide suggestions as solutions of remedial action and control. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to:

1- Assess the aircraft noise pollution, and the degree of the different aspects of the problem inside and around (KIA) at a radius of 6 kms from the tower

2- Assess the noise pollution intensity levels from aircrafts based on field measurements

3- Investigate the reaction of Khartoum citizen to the level of noise using a sociological questionnaire based on personal interviews

4- Assess the occupational safety for the workers inside (KIA) based on measurements and questionnaires

5- Compare and contrast (KIA) with other neighbouring and international airports in regards to noise level

6- Come up with recommendations to alleviate the impact of (KIA) noise pollution.

1.4 Hypothesis:

The thesis endeavours to consider certain hypotheses:

●The location of Khartoum International Airport (KIA) in the centre of the capital leads to a justifiable believe that, aircraft noise pollution as a problem, dose exist in central Khartoum city

●The impact of (KIA) noise pollution is not confined to the airport area only, but affects other areas round the airport

●Noise level impact of (KIA) is comparable to other international airports in Africa and Europe

2.1 Sounds and Noise

There are two kinds of existing waves, namely, mechanical and electromagnetic waves. Mechanical waves, such as sound waves, need a medium to travel through. On the other hand, electromagnetic waves, like those coming from the sun, do not need any medium as they travel freely in space. The different radiations and waves have properties and impacts on human-being and living organisms (Wassef, 1984).

Sound waves are longitudinal waves traveling through various media with speeds depending on the properties of that particular medium. The particles of the medium vibrate in a simple harmonic motion to produce density and pressure changes along the direction of the wave. This is in contrast to a transverse wave where the particles motion is perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation. The longitudinal displacements of individual molecules from their equilibrium positions result in a series of high and low pressure regions called condensations and rarefactions respectively (Wassef, 1984).

Noise is usually considered to be an unwanted sound perceived by a specific receiver, and hence the latter should be considered in controlling such a problem. The overall noise problem therefore involves not only the scientific and engineering aspects of noise generation, propagation, scattering and absorption, but also the psychological effects of noisiness and annoyance, physiological effects such as hearing damages, social considerations, economic considerations and legal aspects (Pfafflin, 1976).

Mohamed (1981), defined the term “noise” as any undesired sound. Noise is regarded as an important factor in determining the quality of the environment. The term “noise” covers all sound levels that can result in hearing impairment or being harmful to health and well-being.

Noise may be unwanted for a variety of reasons; causing , interfering with communication, causing loss of sleep, adverse effects on human physiology, or just plain annoyance. Noise pollution is the condition where noise has characteristics and duration injurious to public health and welfare, or which unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property in such areas as are affected by the noise (Salvato, 1982).

Noise is a rather subjective form of nuisance that correlates to its intensity and duration. The high-pitched scream of a may produce insomnia and psychoneurotic manifestations in people unfortunate enough to reside close to a modern airport, but may excite the imagination of the youthful adventure. Undue noise in factories impairs efficiency and performance and increases the liability to accidents. It has also been found that among groups of people living in towns who are particularly sensitive to low frequency vibrations, illnesses are produced which range from brain tumours to sickness (Lenihan, 1976).

Sound propagation is usually described in terms of small vibrations in the pressure above and below the atmospheric pressure that propagate with a speed of approximately 344 m/sec under normal atmospheric conditions (Pfafflin, 1976).

The speed of sound in air is given by:

C = 344 √ T/To m/sec Where: T = the temperature in ° K To = 293° K (approximately 70° F).

Lipscomb (1978), found that audible sound waves are produced by vibrating bodies – strings, air columns or plates and membranes. The human ear is sensitive to sound waves in the frequency range from about 20 to 20000 Hz, although the upper limit of the range decreases with advancing age. Ultrasonic range is 20000 Hz and above while infrasonic range is 20 Hz and below.

From a practical point of view, the mechanisms responsible for the generation of noise are of paramount importance, and certain parameters should be highlighted in order to find an engineering solution to noise pollution.

There are three basic sources of sound (Pfafflin, 1976):

i- a monopole source is the one that consists of a variation in mass flow into a region e.g. the baffled loud speaker in low frequencies. ii- a dipole source can be thought of as two monopoles near each other and vibrating out of phase e.g. an un-baffled loud speaker.

iii- a quadri-pole source is characterized by the absence of a dipole moment i.e. no net force is exerted on the medium. The concept of a quadri-pole is useful in the study of aerodynamics such as that generated by a exhaust.

2.2 Noise Measurements

Noise measurements – as described by (Pfafflin, 1976) – are usually carried out to:

i- gain an understanding of the mechanisms responsible for noise generation so that methods of engineering control can be applied ii- rate the sound field at various locations on a scale related to the Physiological or psychological effects of noise on human beings ii- rate the sound power output of a source, usually for future engineering calculations that will result in an estimate of the sound pressure produced by the source at a given location.

Noise measurements equipment selection is dependent upon the task to be performed. For an initial survey, a is adequate for rapid evaluation and identification of potential problem areas. To study and also to determine the characteristics of a noise problem area, a sound level meter, frequency analyzer and recorder are needed to determine sound pressure distribution with frequency and time. Sound level meter is used to measure the sound pressure level; it is the basic instrument for noise problem (Salvato, 1982).

It would seem relatively simple to build an electronic circuit whose sensitivity varies with frequency in the same way as that of the human’s ear. This has in fact been done and has resulted in three different internationally standardized characteristics termed the “A”, “B” and “C” weighting networks that are designed to approximate the equal loudness curves at low, medium and high sound pressure levels respectively (Julian, 1979).

Decibel (dB) is a dimensionless unit to express physical intensity or sound pressure level. The decibel is one-tenth of the bel, a unit using common logarithms named after Alexander Graham Bell. The starting or reference point for noise level measurement is 0 dBA, and coincides with the threshold of hearing for a young person with very good hearing, while the threshold of pain is 120 dBA (Salvato, 1982). Frequency of sound is the number of times a complete cycle of pressure variation occurs in one second, both an elevation and depression below atmospheric pressure. The frequency of a sound determines its pitch. Frequency is expressed in hertz (Hz), which is the metric unit for cycles per second (cps), (Salvato, 1982). The threshold of audibility varies according to both physical factors, such as the amplitude of the sound wave, and physiological factors such as the age of the hearer (Grandjean, 1976).

Intensity of a sound wave is the energy transferred per unit time (sec) through a unit area normal to the direction of propagation; it is commonly measured in w/m² or w/cm² (Slavato, 1982).

Loudness or amplitude of sound is the sound level or sound pressure level as perceived by an observer. The apparent loudness varies with the sound pressure and frequency of the sound; loudness is measured in phons (Salvato, 1982).

The problem of how long a noisy episode lasts is particularly important in relation to aircraft noise rather than that of railways. Whereas the former is constantly changing, the sound level from a railway train rises to maximum and than continues more or less the same throughout the passage of the train. In road traffic, again, the duration of the noise from each individual vehicle is of minor importance.

The disturbing effect of a noise closely depends on how frequent it occurs; lowering the average noise level can be canceled out if the come more frequent. Previous studies by (McKennell, 1963) and (Grandjean, 1976) showed that doubling the frequency of noise is equivalent to raising the noise level by about 3 – 4.5 dBA.

Hawel (1967), described the subjective assessment and individual sensitivity in relation to the following decisive parameters:

i- personality e.g. good or bad tempered ii- situation e.g. whether the person is at work, at leisure or asleep iii- occupation iv- special characteristics of the noise.

Thus, not only different people have different sensitivities to noise, but the same person can react quite differently to the same noise under different circumstances (Grandjean, 1976).

2.3 Environmental Effects of Noise

The human ear is in some ways the most remarkable organ in the human body, and the process that leads up to the stimulation of the auditory nerves shows in a very direct way the need for a sound grasp of basic physical principles in understanding problems related to biology and medicine.

The primary stimulus that gives rise to the sensation of hearing is a sound wave in air. The important range of frequencies lies between 20 c/s and 20,000 c/s, but the sensitivity of the ear is not uniform over the whole range. At a frequency of 1000 c/s, roughly one person in two needs an intensity level of 20 dB before they can detect the note; whereas at around 3,500 c/s, 10 dB is sufficient. This is known as the threshold of hearing and is seen to be very dependent on frequency. Only about 10% of the population can hear 0 dB sound, and then only in the frequency range of 2,000 – 4,000 c/s, which is the human ear sensitivity.

An intensity level of 0 dB corresponds to a maximum pressure of amplitude of 3x5¯5 Nm¯², and I small fluctuation is superimposed on a general atmospheric pressure of 105 Nm¯². The amplitude of vibration of the air molecules at 0 dB is less than the diameter of an atom (Burns, 1973).

2.3.1. Effect of Noise on Buildings

When a medium in which the noise starts to spread from the source is air, the noise is called airborne; when it starts with vibration within a structure, it is called a structure-borne. Airborne noise is produced by sources radiating directly to the air. The structure-borne noise occurs when wall, floor or other building elements are set into vibrations by direct mechanical contact with the source, such as mechanical equipment. The building material should be effective in reducing both types of noises entering the enclosures (Lipscomb, 1978).

Vibrations are the result of motion within the machining process. This motion naturally causes disturbance in the air, causing noise. These noise and vibrations are generally unwanted because of their significant effect on the environment.

The important features are the level measured in terms of the velocity and acceleration, and the frequency at which the vibration occurs; the closer the vibration occurs to the natural or resonant frequency of say the building structural elements causing building damage or person’s liver (motion sickness), the greater the effect will be. Environmental vibration affects buildings or causes disturbance to occupants of the buildings (Website 10).

Vibration in buildings caused by an outside source is not just a nuisance – it can dramatically affect the lifespan and maintenance requirements of the building by degrading the structural integrity of foundation, supporting members and curtain walls (Website 10).

2.3.2. Effect of Noise on Wildlife, Animals and Birds

The study of animal response to noise is a function of many variables including characteristics of the noise and duration, life history characteristics of the species, habitat type, season and current activity of the animal, sex and age, previous exposure and whether other physical stressors (e.g. drought) are present (Manci et al, 1988).

Physiological response; disturbance from aircraft noise ranges from mild such as increase in heart rate, to more damaging effects on metabolism and hormone balance. Long term exposure to noise can cause excessive stimulation to the nervous system and chronic stress that is harmful to health of wildlife species and their reproductive fitness (Fletcher, 1972).

Behavioral response; responses vary among species of animals and birds and among individuals of particular species. Variations in response may be due to temperament, sex, age, and prior experience with noise. Minor responses include heard-raising and body-shifting. More disturbed mammals will trot short distances; birds may walk around flapping wings. Panic and escape behavior results from more severe disturbances (National Park Services, 1994).

Behavioral and physiological responses have the potential to cause injury, energy loss (from movement away from noise source), decrease in food intake, habitat avoidance and abandonment, and reproductive losses (National Park Services, 1994). Studies have shown that when certain bird species are flushed from nests in response to noise, eggs are broken and young are exposed to injury and predators (Bunnell, et al., 1981). Young mammals have been trampled as adults attempt to flee from aircraft (Miller, 1974). Another study conducted by (Harrington, 1992), compared mortality rates of caribou calves exposed to over-flights to those not exposed; mortality rates were significantly greater in the exposed group. Milk release may have been inhibited in mothers disturbed by noise leaving calves malnourished (Website 4).

2.3.3. Effects of Noise on People

An infirmary that is particularly associated with noise is noise- deafness. It is brought on by exposure to loud noise for a long period, and depends upon the pitch of the sound. High-pitched noise is more injurious than low frequencies. Noise-deafness therefore almost invariably affects people who remain in close proximity to a source of noise, at their job, or on a firing range, or – a recent development – among musicians who play extremely loud music all the time (Grandjean, 1976).

Deafness, like poverty, stunts and deadens its victim. Noise loud enough to cause hearing loss is virtually everywhere today. When hearing loss occurs, it is in most cases gradual, becoming worse with time. The first awareness of the damage usually begins with the loss of occasional words in general conversation and with difficulty understanding speech heard on the telephone. As hearing damage continues, it can become quite significant and handicapping; and there is no cure. Hearing aids do not restore noise-damaged hearing, although they can be of limited help to some people (Website 3).

Almost everyone has had the experience of being temporarily “deafened” by loud noise. This deafness is not permanent, although it is often accompanied by ringing in the ears, and one can hear another person if he raises his voice. Likewise, normal hearing comes back within a few hours at most. This sort of partial hearing loss is called Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), (Bugliarello, 1976).

The type of hearing loss is any degree from partial to complete hearing loss. This loss, usually, is permanent and is not satisfactorily corrected by any devices such as, hearing aids. The loss is caused by the destruction of the delicate hair cells and their auditory nerve connections in exposure to loud noise, but prolonged exposure damages a larger amount of cells, and ultimately collapses the organ of Corti, which cause deafness (Bugliarello, et al, 1976).

There are two types of hearing loss: conductive and sensorineural. In conductive deafness, sound-pressure waves never reach the cochlea, most often as a consequence of a ruptured eardrum or a defect in the ossicles of the middle ear (Bugliarello, et al., 1976).

The three bones of the ear form a system of levers linked together, hammer pushing anvil-pushing stirrup. Working together, the bones amplify the force of sound vibrations. Taken together, the bones double, often triple the force of the vibrations reaching the eardrum (Bugliarello, et al., 1976).

Mitigation of potentially harmful amplification occurs via muscles of the middle ear. These muscles act as safety device protecting the ear against excessive vibrations from very loud noises, very much like an automatic damper or volume controller (Website 9).

When jarring sounds with their rapid vibrations strike the eardrum, the muscles twist the bones slightly, allowing the stirrup to rotate in a different direction. With this directional shift, less force is transmitted to the inner ear: less, not all (Bugliarello, et al., 1976).

The human ear is a delicate and fragile anatomical structure. On the other hand, it is a fairly powerful physical force. These muscles act quickly but not always; as in examples of when the ear catches the sound of gun being shot unexpectedly. The muscles of the ear were relaxed and were unprepared for such a blast; and consequently, damage was done (Website 1).

Conductive hearing loss can be minimized, even overcome, by use of the familiar hearing aids. The most common is worn over the mastoid bone behind the pinna. It picks up sound waves and transmits them through the skull to the cochlea (Website 1).

Sensorineural hearing loss, the most common one, occurs as a result of advancing age as well as exposure to loud noise. In both instances there is a disruption of the organ of Corti, which serves two functions: converting mechanical energy to electrical, and dispatching to the brain a coded version of the original sound with information about frequency, intensity and timbre. The hair cells of the organ of Corti send their electromechanical signals into the central nervous system, where the signals are picked up by thousands of auditory nerve fibers and transmitted to the brain. It is the decoding of all information that enables a person to distinguish the unique and separate sounds of a violin, and clarinet, even both of them are playing the same note (Website 1).

The organ of Corti, a gelatinous mass, is one of the best protected parts of the body, encased as it is within the cochlea which in turn is deeply embedded in the temporal bone, perhaps the hardest of the 206 bones (Bugliarello, et al., 1976). Nonetheless, loud noise can damage the hair cells and the auditory nerve, producing at times, depending on the type of noise, sudden and often total deafness (Website 1).

Sustained noise over a period of time can also engender sensorineural deafness in the form of gradual losses in hearing. Until a few years ago, sensorineural deafness could not be helped by hearing aids. However, with advances in electronic wizardry and miniaturization, devices for insertion into the auditory canal are available (Website 1).

People with partial deafness from exposure to noise do not necessarily live in a quieter world. The many sounds still audible to them are distorted in loudness, pitch, apparent location, or clarity. When exposed to a very loud noise, people with partial hearing loss may experience discomfort and pain. They also frequently suffer from – irritating ringing or roaring in the head (Website 3).

There is even further pain the hard-of-hearing person faces: the emotional anguish caused, perhaps unintentionally, by friends and associates who become less willing to be partners in conversations or companions in other activities. Indeed, the inability to converse normally makes it difficult for partially deaf to participate in lectures, meetings, parties, and other public gatherings. For a person with hearing loss, listening to television, radio, and the telephone – important activities of our lives – is difficult, if not impossible (Website 3).

As hearing diminishes, a severe sense of insulation can set in. The greater the hearing loss, the stronger the sense of being cut off from the rest of the world. What eventually may be lost is the ability to hear enough of the incidental sounds that maintain our feeling of being part of a living world. The emotional depression following such hearing loss is much the same, whether the impairment has been sudden or gradual (Website 3).

The idea that hearing loss is solely the result of noise is dangerously erroneous. Noise levels in many places, and in some of the transportation systems we use, are well above the levels believed to cause hearing damage over prolonged periods. As a rule, whenever we need to raise our voices to be heard, the background noise may be too loud and should be avoided. Therefore, noise can cause permanent hearing damage. People with hearing loss suffer discomfort social isolation. Hearing loss is not solely an occupational hazard (Website 3).

The Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) has set the danger level at 95 decibels (dB) and above, for four or more hours per day, as likely to induce permanent hearing impairment (Website 1).

Sleep is a restorative time of life, and a good night’s sleep is probably crucial to good health. But every day experience suggests that noise interferes with our sleep – in a number of ways. Noise can make it difficult to fall asleep, it can wake us, and it can cause shifts from deeper to lighter sleep stages. If the noise interference with sleep becomes a chronic problem, it may take its toll on health.

Human response to noise before and during sleep varies widely among age groups. The elderly and the sick are particularly sensitive to disruptive noise. Compared to young people, the elderly are more easily awakened by noise and, once awake, have more difficulty returning to sleep. As a group, the elderly require special protection from noises that interfere with their sleep.

Other age groups seem to be less affected by noise at bedtime and while asleep. But their apparent adjustment may simply be the result of failing to remember having awakened during the night. Sleep researchers have observed that their subjects often forget and underestimate the number of times they awaken during sleep. It may be that loud noises during the night continue to wake or rouse us when we sleep, but that as we become familiar with sounds, we return to sleep more rapidly. Factors other than age can influence our sleep. Studies suggest that the more frequent noise is, the less likely a sleeper is to respond (Website 3).

Disturbed sleep is a serious threat to one’s well-being, but individuals vary very widely in their reaction to noise when they are asleep. (Steinicke, 1957) found, in one experiment, that 10% of his research subjects woke to a noise of only 30 DIN-phon, whereas another 10% slept through a noise of 76 DIN-phon. At 45 DIN-phon, about half the subjects awoke. By taking recordings of the electrical activity of the brain on an electroencephalograph (EEG), one can demonstrate that low and medium noise levels of 55 – 80 dB have their effect on the depth of sleep, even though the person does not wake up. Although direct proof is still lacking, the possibility cannot be excluded that frequent noises below the level to cause waking may still interrupt deep sleep, or inhibit it altogether. Disturbance of this sort prevents sleep from having its restorative effect, and brings about chronic weariness, with all its consequent ill-effects on well-being, efficiency and liability to illness (Grandjean, 1976).

Disruption of sleep does not necessarily include awakening. Shifting in depth of sleep may be more frequent than awakening. For instance, recent studies have shown that shifts from deep to light sleep were more numerous because of noise, and that light sleep became lengthened at the expense of deep sleep (Website 3).

Studies have also been made of noise complaints and what kinds of annoyance led people to file them. Surveys taken in communities significantly affected by noise indicated that the interruption of rest, relaxation, and sleep was the underlying cause of many people complaints (Website 3).

Kenichi Ohsakas, a Yamato city official who keeps track of noise level, has been reported as saying “it just like living inside a subway car”. Yamato holds regular weekly take-off and landing exercises to keep its pilots’ skills honed, and night sessions are particularly important. Be that it may, the residents are unimpressed, cannot sleep, and prefer the training sessions to be moved elsewhere. But where else? No one wants them and their wretched noise (Website 1).

Airplane noise can be a much greater disturbance to sleep than other noises. Research indicates that near a major airport – Heathrow () – the number of people awakened by is about 50% greater than the number awakened by other noises (Holland, 1967).

While no one has yet shown that noise inflicts any measurable damage to the heart itself, a growing body of evidence strongly suggests a link between exposure to noise and the development of and aggravation of a number of heart disease problems. The explanation; noise causes stress and the body reacts with increased adrenaline, changes in heart rate, and elevated blood pressure.

Noise, however is only one of several environmental causes of stress. For this reason, researchers cannot say with confidence that noise alone caused the heart and circulatory problems they have observed. What they can point to is a statistical relationship apparent in several field and laboratory studies. In Sweden, several researchers have noted more cases of high blood pressure among workers exposed to high levels of noise. Some laboratory tests have produced observable physical changes. Similarly, a monkey subjected to a day-long tape recording of the normal street noises outside a hospital developed higher blood pressure and increased heart rate. In a test on humans, people subjected to moderately loud noise during different states of sleep-exhibited constriction on the outer blood vessels.

Because the danger of stress from noise is greater for those already suffering from heart disease, physicians frequently take measures to reduce the noise exposure of their patients. Dr. Samuel Rosen, Mt. Sinai Hospital, has pointed out “we have millions with heart disease, high blood pressure, and emotional illness who need protection from the additional stress of noise”. Therefore, noise may produce high blood pressure, faster heart rates, and increased adrenaline; noise may contribute to heart and circulatory disease (Website 3).

Noise of 75 dBA and upwards can cause narrowing of the blood vessels and hence raises the blood pressure. The respiratory system is even more sensitive, and reacts by breathing more rapidly. Other reactions that have been confirmed include increased metabolism, combined with slowing down of the action of the digestive system, and a rise in muscular tension. The effect of noise on the autonomic nervous system is the first part of the alarm system of the body, but if noise is excessive, they become a stress symptom (Grandjean, 1976).

Jansen (1959), has pointed that “loud noises once in a while probably cause no harm”. But chronic noise situations must be pathological. Constant exposure to noise is negative to your health.

In readiness for dangerous and harmful situations, our bodies make autonomic and unconscious responses to sudden or loud sounds.

Of course, most noise in our modern society does not signify such danger. However our bodies still react as if these sounds were always a threat or warning.

In effect, the body shifts gears. Blood pressure raises heart rate and breathing speed up, muscles tense, hormones are released into the bloodstream, and perspiration appears. These changes occur even during sleep.

The idea that people get used to noise is a myth. Even when we think we have become accustomed to noise, biological changes still take place inside us, preparing us for physical activity if necessary.

Noise does not have to be loud to bring these responses. Noise below the levels usually associated with hearing damage can cause regular and predictable changes in the body. The cumulative effects of noise on our bodies may be quite extensive. It may be that our bodies are kept in a near-constant condition of agitation. Researchers debate whether the body’s autonomic responses build on each other, leading to are called the “diseases of adaptation”. These diseases of stress include ulcers, asthma, high blood pressure, headaches, and colitis. From studies done on animals, researchers concluded that noise may be a risk factor I lowering people’s resistance to disease and infection. Noise can cause regular and predictable stress in the human body; people do not get used to noise – the body continues to react. Noise may aggravate existing disease (Website 3).

On a common-sense basis, one knows that loud noise has a detrimental effect on the performance of tasks and that for efficient study and concentration, the quieter the environment the better (Hobson, 1979).

Sustained noise-levels of up to 90 dBA seem not to affect muscular work, but jobs, which require speech comprehension, and monotonous jobs which nevertheless demand continuous alertness, show a greater number of errors, even though the amount of work turned out may remain the same.

In contrast, it is the general experience that exacting jobs, which involve creative mental activity, are impaired by noise. Recent research has shown that a great many office-workers were disturbed by noise if it rose to the range of 50 – 60 dBA (Grandjean, 1976).

One of the most troublesome effects of noise is to make it difficult to understand what people say. Various pieces of research have established that the average loudness of the speaking voice at a distance of one meter lies in the range of 60 – 65 dBA and that full comprehension of what is being said s possible only if the voice is about 10 dB louder than the background noise. If the latter is so loud that the voice must be raised above it this is additional strain for the listener as well as the speaker. If the hubbub is great that it cannot easily be overcome, then social communication, of which speech is a vital part, is hindered or even made impossible. (Borsky, 1961), was able to show that disturbance to conversation was the most reliable way of recognizing when the noise was creating a nuisance.

Loud noises also disturb the enjoyment of radio and television, which have important place in the pattern of most people’s leisure (Grandjean, 1976).

The question of how the environment affects memory performance has been widely studied. Several basic patterns have emerged. One is the obvious fact that if noise or other stimuli are intense enough to attract attention and specially if they are intense enough to cause discomfort, it is difficult to either encode new information in memory, or to recall old information. Another pattern is that people get used to certain stimuli that no longer attract attention; the memory interference goes away. Interference generally affects encoding more than retrieval (Website 2).

Another interesting phenomenon is called “state-dependant learning”. This refers to scientific findings that, it is generally easier to recall information if the environment you are in when you try to retrieve is similar to that in which you encoded the information in the first place (Website 2).

It has long been a moot point whether the various kinds of disturbance created by noise should be treated as mere annoyance, or as positively injurious to health. In extreme cases there is no difficulty; noise deafness is clearly damage to health, whereas interference with listening to radio or watching television is a mere annoyance. Usually, however, the circumstances are more complicated, the best example perhaps being disturbance of sleep.

An isolated instance of disturbed sleep from noise counts as an annoyance, but repeated sleepless nights are a serious loss of rest and recuperation which may have distinct medical consequences, and lead indirectly to loss of efficiency during the day.

A sharp distinction between annoyance and damage to health is therefore both false and unnecessary; false, because the borderline between the two must be drawn fairly arbitrarily; unnecessary, because annoyance is itself a disturbance of mental and social well-being, which can lead on to physical ill-health. If we take the definition of the World Health Organization that health is “complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of ill-health”, this in itself precludes any possibility of separating the two (Grandjean, 1976).

Mental illness as a direct result of noise has not yet been clearly proved, although (Jansen, 1959), found that men working under noisy conditions were increasingly impatient with one another. (Davis, 1968), who looked for symptoms of nervous disorders among the crew of an American aircraft carrier, found no evidence of this.

Wickrama, et al. (1969), have provided useful evidence for a link between noise and mental illness. In a retrospective, two-year study they demonstrated that significantly more people were admitted to psychiatric clinic from an area where aircraft noise was greatest, compared with people form outside this area who were otherwise comparable in age, gender and socioeconomic status. Commonest among admissions were old women living alone, who suffered particularly from nervous disorders and organic diseases of the brain. The authors did not conclude from their results that the aircraft noise was a direct cause of mental illness, but they regarded it as proved that noisy environment was one factor that was reflected in the admissions to mental hospitals.

Annoyance to people living near airports caused by the noise of jet take-offs and landing has become a psycho-physiological problem of enormous magnitude and complexity. Still a third escalation in aircraft noise will occur when comes into commercial operation (Website 1).

“The noise, the noise. I just couldn’t stand the noise”. Suicide note left by a desperate homeowner.

The most obvious price we pay for living in an overly noisy world is the annoyance we frequently experience. Perhaps because annoyance is so commonplace, we tend to take our daily doses of it for granted – not realizing that the irritability that sometimes surfaces can be a symptom of potentially more serious distress inside us. When noise becomes sufficiently loud or unpredictable, or if the stress imposed is great enough, our initial annoyance can become transformed into more extreme emotional responses and behavior. When this happens, our tempers flare and we may “fly off the handle” at the slightest provocation (Website 3).

Newspaper files and police records contain reports of incidents that point to noise as trigger of extreme behavior. Most people who cannot cope with noise direct their anger and frustration at others and become more argumentative and moody, though not necessarily violent. This noise-induced, anti-social behavior may be far more prevalent than we realize. Indeed noise can strain relations between individuals, cause people to be less tolerant of frustration and ambiguity, and make people less willing to help others. Although no one would say that noise by itself brings on mental illness, there is evidence that noise-related stress can aggravate already existing emotional disorders. Research in the United States and England points to higher rates of admission to psychiatric hospitals among people living close to airports (Website 3).

According to New Cornell University, a study was definitive proof that noise causes stress and is harmful to humans. The constant roar from jet aircraft can seriously affect the health and psychological well-being of children. The health problems resulting from chronic airport noise, including higher blood pressure and boosted levels of stress hormones may have lifelong effects (Lang, 1994).

Other studies looked at 217 third – and fourth – grade children in rural areas twenty two miles from Munich, Germany, before and after the opening of a new airport. About half the children live in an area under the flight path of the new international airport, the others, who were matched for age, parental jobs, family size and socioeconomic status, live in quiet areas. The children were tested for blood pressure, stress hormones levels and quality of life six months before the airport was completed as well as six and eighteen months after it was opened. The children in the chronic noise group experienced modest but significant increase in stress hormones (epinephrine, norepinephrine and cortisol) while the children in the quiet areas experienced no significant changes.

Eighteen months after the airport opened, the children exposed to the chronic aircraft noise also reported a significant decline in their quality of life.

Although the increase in blood pressure was modest in the children living under the flight path, they may predict a greater likelihood of having higher blood pressure throughout adulthood. There are indications that elevated blood pressure in children predicts higher blood pressure later in life (Lang, 1994).

Exposure to high levels of aircraft and can adversely affect reading ability n school-age children.

Maser, et al. (1978), reported that children who attended school beneath the Seattle – Tacoma airport flight paths showed a deficit on standardized tests of scholastic achievement compared to students in quiet schools.

Cohen (1969), reported that reading and math scores of third grade students in noise abated classrooms were higher than those in classrooms without that quality.

Green, et al. (1982), found that for all elementary schools in set boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, an additional 3.6% of the student in the noisiest schools read at least one year below grade level. The dose response relationship indicated that the percent reading below grade level increased as noise level increased. With indoor levels of 55 – 66 dB, concentration and the ability to pay attention, may well be difficult to nonexistent (Nunez, 1998).

Researchers working with children with hearing disorders are constantly reminded of the crucial importance of hearing to children. In the early years the child cannot learn to speak without special training if he has enough hearing loss to interfere effectively with the hearing of words in context (Bugliarello, et al., 1976).

Older students who attend schools near major New York airports had lower reading scores than did children in schools located further from the airport (Green, 1982).

Levels of noise, which do not interfere with the perception of speech by adults, may interfere significantly with the perception of speech by children as well as with the acquisition of speech, language, and language-related skills.

Good health includes the ability to function mentally as well as physically. This is especially true during growth and development.

Adults have worries about the effects of noise on children ever since the early 1900s when “quiet zones” were established around many of the nation’s schools. These protective areas were intended to increase educational efficiency by reducing the various levels of noise that were believed to interfere with children’s learning and even hamper their thinking ability.

Today’s worries are little changed from those of the past. Researches looking into the consequences of bringing up children in this less-than-quiet world have discovered that learning difficulties are likely byproducts of the noisy schools, play-areas, and homes in which our children grow up. Two primary concerns are with language development and reading ability.

Because they are just learning, children have more difficulty understanding language in the presence of noise than adults do. As a result, if children learn to speak and listen in a noisy environment, they may have great difficulty in developing such essential skills as distinguishing the sounds of speech. For example, against a background of noise, a child may confuse the sound of “v” in “very” with the “b” in “berry” and may not learn to tell them apart. Another symptom of this problem is the tendency to distort speech by dropping parts of words, especially their endings.

Reading ability also may be seriously impaired by noise. A study of reading scores of 54 youngsters, grades two through five, indicated that the noise levels in their four adjacent apartment buildings were detrimental to the children’s reading development. The influence of noise in the home was found to be more important than even the parent’s educational background, the number of children in the family, and the grades the youngsters were in. the longer the children had lived in the noisy environment, the more pronounced the reading impairment was.

Assuming a child arrives at school with language skills underdeveloped because of noisy home, will he or she fare any better at school? Again, the answer may depend on how noisy the classroom is. In Inglewood, California, the effects of aircraft noise on learning were so severe that several new and quieter schools had to be built. As a school official explained, the disruption of learning went beyond the time wasted waiting for noisy aircraft to pass over. Considerable time had to be spent after each flyover re-focusing students’ attention on what was being done before the interruption.

But the problem may be well beyond the capacity of the schools to correct. Children who live in noisy homes and play in noisy areas may never develop the ability to listen well enough to learn once they are of school age. To avoid this prospect, our concern for the health and welfare of the nation’s children must be broadened to address the total environment in which they grow up.

Therefore, noise may hinder the development of language skills in children and disrupts the educational process (Website 3).

There is ample evidence that environment has a role in shaping the physique, behavior and function of animals, including man, from conception and not merely from birth. The fetus is capable of perceiving sounds and responding to them by motor activity and cardiac rate change.

While still in its mother’s womb, the developing child is responsive to sounds in the mother’s environment. Particularly loud noises have been shown to stimulate the fetus directly, causing changes in heart rate. Related work has also demonstrated that, late in pregnancy, the fetus can respond to noise with bodily movements such as kicking.

Just as the fetus is not completely protected from environmental noise, the fetus is not fully protected from its mother’s response to stress, whether it is caused by noise or other factors. When her body reacts to noise, the physical changes she experiences may be transmitted to the fetus. And it is known that the fetus is capable of responding to some changes in the mother’s body of the type produced by emotion, noise, or other forms of stress.

In contrast to the most direct risk, this indirect fetal response may threaten fetal development if it occurs early in pregnancy. The most important period is about fourteen to sixty days after conception.

During this time, important development in the central nervous system and vital organs are taking place. Unfortunately, women are often unaware that they are pregnant for much of this period, and thus unlikely to make extra-precautions.

While very little research has addressed these questions, due to the difficulties of studying humans in this respect, certain suggestive human research has been done. A Japanese study of 1,000 births produced evidence of a high proportion of low-weight bodies in noisy areas. These birth weights were under 5 ½ pounds, the World Health Organization definition of pre-maturity. Low birth weights and noise were also associated with lower levels of certain hormones thought to affect fetal growth and to be a good indicator of protein production. The difference between the hormone levels of pregnant mothers in noisy versus quiet areas increases as birth approached.

Studies have also shown that stress causes constriction of the uterine blood vessels, which supply nutrients and oxygen to the developing body. Additional links between noise and birth defects have been noted in recent preliminary study on people living near a major airport. The abnormalities suggested included harelips, clefts palates, and defects in the spine.

Taken together, this information points to the possibility of serious effects of noise on the growth and development of the unborn child. While it cannot be said at what level maternal exposures to environmental noise are dangerous to the fetus, these findings do create some concern. It is known that extreme stress will certainly take a toll on the fetus, but, in the case of noise, it is not known how much is required to have an effect. Whatever the effect, the risk of even slight increase in birth defects is considerably disturbing. Therefore, the fetus is not fully protected from noise. Noise may threaten fetal development and has been linked to low birth weights (Website 3).

2.4 Aircraft Noise

Aircraft noise is louder during overcast and precipitation. However, the precipitation and cloud formations are not the cause. Winds, temperature and humidity in these systems affect noise, refracting it back to the ground.

Despite the perception and scientific knowledge confirming the increased noise during these events, there is no statistical difference between noise at airports during the described events and otherwise (website 5).

At Aircraft noise originates from both the propulsion system and the airframe. The former is the most important of the two and needs substantial measures of noise control before the airframe noise becomes a significant factor (Lipscomb, 1978).

Supersonic aircrafts travel beyond the sound speed barrier and cause sonic booms in the air as a result of transient change in pressure that takes place when the jet travels at a speed of 770 miles/hour at a low altitude. Sonic booms are generated at the bow and the tail of the jet shock waves (Gouma, 1987). (Golden, 1979) found that the take-off and landing noise varied from 76 – 134 and 67 – 117 respectively.

The disturbance evoked by noise depends on various factors; (Grandjean, 1976), listed the most important factors as:

i- the intensity of the sound or noise level ii- the subjective reaction to noise – an individual sensitivity. iii- the duration of the separate sound impulses iv- the frequency of the sound impulses

2.4.1. Ways of Measuring Aircraft Noise:

Grandjean (1976), described some global measuring indices for aircraft noise such as the Equivalent Daytime Disturbance, Composite Noise Rating and Number Index in Sweden, United States of America and Great Britain respectively. A comprehensive account on the Australian, South African, West German, French and Dutch methods was given, as well as the various methods used by the International Civil Aviation Organization such as the Effective Perceived Noise Level and the Weighted Equivalent Continuous Perceived Noise Level.

The Equivalent Daytime Disturbance (EDD) unit was worked out by Lundberg and takes into account the noise level and the frequency with which peaks of sound intensity appear, but not the duration of noise. The EDD number reflects the permitted number of aircraft movement per year. An EDD number of 50000 is regarded as the critical noise load that is allowed, and hence, any noise below this critical level is considered to be medically and socially acceptable. Lundberg suggested that the EDD numbers should take into account only the take-off and ignore the landing. However, this limitation does not seem sensible.

The Composite Noise Rating (CNR) was laid down in curves of equal noise i.e. noise contour sets. It helps estimate the noise load at every point in the vicinity of the airport, and takes into account the time of the day and the frequency of the aircraft movement Hence it was reckoned that doubling the number of aircraft movements was equivalent to raising the noise level by 3 PNdB. Adding together the PNdB value at any particular point and the appropriate correction factors yield the CNR value for each class of aircraft, as well as for all aircrafts together. CNR procedure does not lay down prescribed levels for particular zones, but on the other hand, it gives a clue to the likely reaction from the local inhabitants (Richter and Hoch, 1967). The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) is an American procedure worked out by (Bishop and Horonjeff, 1967), and is an expanded and improved version of CNR. The special characteristics of NEF procedure lies in its use of the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) in three distinguished zones A, B and C as per NEF values below 30, 30 to 40 and above 40 respectively. Data are analyzed using a land-utilization chart and the results are interpreted in terms of whether a special sound insulation is necessary or not, and if so, this measure must be included in the planning (Borsky, 1961).

The Equivalent Level of Sustained Noise – also known as Aequivalenter Daurschallpegel (Leq) – is a West German index that makes it possible to compare the disturbing effects of intermittent noises each of which lasts for a given time T. It is a mean value for the total amount of energy being radiated as noise. Doubling the number of aircraft movements raises the Leq by 3dB. Noise protection areas are envisaged in the neighborhood of civil and military airfields; an area is to be designated as a noise protection area if the equivalent level of sustained noise from aircraft exceeds 67 dBA. The noise protection area is further divided into two zones according to the noise level; protection zone I comprises the area in which the equivalent level of sustained noise exceeds 75 dBA, and protection zone II is all the rest. Throughout the noise protection area, no hospitals, nursing homes, old people’s homes, convalescent homes or schools should be built. No residential building should go in protection zone I, and only residential buildings with special sound insulation in protection zone II (Grandjean, 1976).

Roewer (1968) has put forward a further proposal for an anti-noise law, governing areas with an equivalent level of sustained noise of 62 – 80 dBA for military airfields and 62 – 77 dBA for all others. They are to be divided into four zones for which different uses are prescribed. Dwellings without special sound insulation are to be permitted only in zone I, which is 62 – 67 dBA for military fields, and 62 – 65 dBA for others.

Rylander and his colleagues (1972), proposed that assessment of the noise-load from aircraft should take into account only the peak noise- levels in dBA of the noisiest types of aircraft, and then only in places where there were more than 63 take-offs every 24 hours. In areas with fewer take-offs than that, the disturbance was very slight unless the peak noise-levels reach 90 dBA. In neither category of area was there any significant correlation between frequency of take-offs and amount of disturbance. On the other hand, the area with more than 63 take-offs in 24 hours showed a significant and linear correlation between the peak noise- levels in dBA and the amount of disturbance.

All the available methods have their advantages and disadvantages. The choice of a method should not be based primarily on its perfection as a technique but rather on how well the acoustic measurements compare with the results of socio-psychological research. Indice de classification R, and the British Noise and Number Index (NNI), come out best from this point of view. The British Noise and Number Index has been the longest in use, and in Swiss investigation, 1973, NNI-value showed the highest coefficient of correlation with the actual disturbance from noise:

NNI = L + 15 log N – 80 Where : L = average peak noise- level in PNdB N = number of flight past, or over head, during one day or one Night.

2.4.2. Socio-psychological Studies on Aircraft Noise

Research by Borsky in the U.S.A (1961)

The first psycho-sociological studies were made by (Borsky, 1961). He and his colleagues questioned a total of 2,300 people in an area with several airfields. He established the fact that the level of disturbance from the aircraft rose if:

i- more activities were disturbed by the noise ii- there was more anxiety about the possibility of aircraft crashing, or colliding in the air iii- the airport was thought to be of less importance, and the impression grew that the responsible authorities were not concerned about the welfare of people who lived and worked in the vicinity iv- other living conditions in the area were unsatisfactory v- people had no personal link with flying and air travel, the greater the sensitivity to other forms of noise vi- the person had already suffered aircraft noise over a long period.

The author could not trace any effect of age, gender, income level or education. Also he found that the best single criterion of interference from aircraft noise was its effect on speech comprehension, and for this purpose he devised the Speech Interference Level (SIL). This was calculated from the arithmetic mean of the sound-levels over the rang of frequencies 600 – 4,800 Hz, i.e. those frequencies most likely to interfere with human speech. Borsky specified the disturbance to speech comprehension as the number of seconds per hour during which a noise level of more than 60 dB – SIL prevailed. This level of noise is normally sufficient to interrupt a conversation that is being carried on with raised voices at a distance of a meter or so apart.

If the interference lasted for 80 seconds per hour, or more, then 80% of those questioned reported 4 – 5 incidents; if only 20 seconds per hour, then only 20%.

The surveys, conducted by Borsky provided a basis for the estimates of the reactions to be expected from populations exposed to various Composite Noise Ratings (CNR as) set out in “Land Use Planning

Relating to Aircraft Noise”. The specifications of the zones to be utilized for different types of building using the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) technique, also stemmed from these sociological studies.

English Studies at Heathrow

Mc Kennell (1961), carried out a socio-psychological study of aircraft noise within a radius of 10 miles around , near London, during which 1,909 people were questioned. While the questioning was going on, noise-levels were measured at 85 different points, so that it was possible for the first time to make direct comparison between exposure to noise and the annoyance arising from it.

Each person questioned was asked six test questioned, in order to establish the “degree of annoyance” (level of interference). The questions were progressive in the sense laid down by Guttman, i.e. that each successive question should be answered in the affirmative only if the answers to all preceding questions had also been “yes”. The six questions ran as follows: Did the noise of aircraft:

i- disturb you?; “not at all”; “a little”; “moderately”; “very much” ii- wake you from sleep? iii- disturb you when you were listening to radio or watching television? iv- make the house vibrate? v- interfere with conversation? vi- disturb you at some other activity?

Each positive answer scored one point, including question (i), which scored the same whether the reply was “none”, “a little”, “moderately” or “very much”. Hence the maximum score for each person questioned was six. It turned out that very few people listed any other forms of disturbance under question (vi), so scores of five and six were lumped together. Since a very good correlation exists between the Noise and Number Index (NNI) and the level of interference, this formula was used to calculate the increase in interference. However – and this is true for the French Survey, too – this close correlation is not valid for individual cases, but only for the average disturbance reported by any one group of people who are subjected to the same noise-level.

Furthermore, it appeared that scores of 0, 2, 3 and 4 points more or less coincided with the replies “not at all”, “a little”, “moderately”, and “very much” respectively, as they were given to question (i).

It must therefore be concluded at 30 NNI the disturbance is slight, at 40 NNI moderate and at 60 NNI very serious. By interpolation we arrive at the result that 50 NNI lies between “moderate” and “very serious” and is “heavy”.

Again it appeared that as soon as the aircraft noise rose to 48 NNI it became the predominant reason for wanting to move away from the area. When the aircraft noise reached 53 NNI the percentage of those questioned who found this a serious drawback to living in the neighborhood rose higher than that reached by any other cause of complaint at any time.

All the separate kinds of annoyance that are caused by aircraft noise (being startled, disturbed sleep, waking up, interference with leisure activities, interference on the television-screen, vibration of the building, and preventing conversation) become worse as the NNI increases, but not uniformly over the whole range, and not at the same rate for all the activities affected. Thus at 50 NNI, 70% of those questioned complained of interference with television, and with conversation, and of vibration of the building, whereas interference with leisure activities and disturbance of sleep affected only 60%, even at 60 NNI. Therefore, annoyance from noise reaches an unreasonable level in the range 50 – 60 NNI.

Another surprising thing is that even under the most noisy conditions no more than 68% voted the noise “very heavy”. It must be concluded that approximately 30% of he British people are to a great extent insensitive to noise. On the other hand about 10% of the people felt that they were disturbed by noise, even in quiet areas, so they must be regarded as highly sensitive. This last group also complained more about their unfavorable aspects of their living conditions.

Like Borsky (1961), the British authors also found that people who had already lived for a long time in the neighborhood showed no sign of becoming accustomed to the noise.

From the beginning the NNI was calculated for a 24 hours period. Sociological studies have shown that the annoyance reported is practically the same day and night, since fewer flights and lower noise- levels are offset by people’s greater sensitivity to noise at night.

The day-time and night-time annoyance were approximately equal if the NNI-values at night were 15 – 20 units lower than in the day-time.

French Research

The results of an extensive French sociological study, carried out in the vicinity of Orly, Le Bourget, Lyons and Marseilles airports, using, not the NNI, but the French Indice de Classification R. French authors have shown that the indice de Classification, like the Noise and Number Index, gives very good correlation between the noise-level and the disturbance created by it, ad both of these indices correlate much better with the degree of annoyance than do either the mean level of aircraft noise (in PNdB) or the number of aircraft movements (N), taken separately.

To arrive at the degree of annoyance, the French authors used five test questions. These were the same as those used in the British Survey.

The French recommend no residential building should be erected without special sound-insulation in any area where R exceeds 84 (roughly equivalent to 48 – 50 NNI). For R more than 84, there was special recommendation for the use of windows with extra sound insulation. In this context, the difference between the practice in France and in Switzerland is illustrated not so much by the existence of special windows, as by the fact that in areas in France where R equals 84 or more, 30% of the people actually make use of them, unless they also have air-conditioning. Hence 70% of those questioned would sooner put up with noise than give up natural ventilation from an open window.

A direct comparison between the results of the British and French research showed a good correlation. In addition, the French authors expressed two noteworthy comments: people who do not become accustomed to aircraft noise tend to find it more unpleasant the longer it goes on; and, adaptation is the more difficult, the louder the noise.

Dutch Research

Bitter (1955), questioned 1,000 persons in the vicinity of Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam, distributed among eight zones, six of them with 150 persons each, and the other two with only 50 each. The Dutch method of estimating disturbance from aircraft noise was used in this investigation.

The degree of annoyance was determined by the use of seven test questions, essentially the same as those used in the French and English Surveys, though of course now offering a maximum score of seven. In order to make their results comparable with those of other countries, the Dutch gave not only the mean nuisance score in absolute figures, but also the ratio between the level scored ad the maximum possible. This ratio was designed as the Relative Nuisance Score. Yet there are certain difficulties, as for example, that the percentage of the people questioned who possess a television set is only an estimate. The Dutch authors had already compared their survey of annoyance with the NNI-values, and found a correlation coefficient of 0.94. It was possible to make this comparison because the research was planned in such a way that measured noise-level could be expressed both in the Dutch units B and in NNI units.

The Dutch investigation further showed that the degree of annoyance was not lessened even if the people questioned had a special connection with flying, and this is a significant discrepancy between their work and that of Borsky.

The Dutch authors arrived at permissible level for residential areas of B equals 45, or approximately NNI equals 41, which is the limit of tolerance for about one-third of the population, though the majority still rate this level as only moderately annoying.

Research In Sudan

No scientific research was done before in Sudan and this is the first one about aircraft noise pollution.

2.5 Summary of The Literature Review

Aircraft noise pollution is a major problem worldwide. It has become a global phenomenon that attracted a special attention to its hazards over the past few decades.

The magnitude of the problem in Sudan remains uncertain. Thus, an important role of this prospective study in Khartoum International Airport (KIA) is to help document some evidence for our own local literature.

3.1 Greater Khartoum

Greater Khartoum, the Capital of Sudan, is made up of three towns (Khartoum, Omdurman, and Khartoum North) as shown in Fig. (1). The subject of this case study is in Khartoum which is located at the junction of the White Niles at latitude 15° 36′ N and longitude 32° 33′ E with altitude of 380 meters above sea level (Abd Elkarim, 1997), Fig. (2).

The climate of Khartoum is classified as “composite”. It has three main seasons hot/dry for four months of the year, from March to June. Warm/humid, for three months of the year, from July to September. Cool/dry, for five months of the year, from October to February.

For the hot/dry season, the mean maximum temperature is 40 ˚C, the highest is recorded in May, which is 41.9 ˚C, and the lowest is recorded in March, which is 36.8 ˚C. The mean minimum temperature is 24.6 ˚C, the highest is reached in June which is 27.3 ˚C, and the lowest is recorded in March is 20 ˚C. For the dry season, the mean relative humidity is 20%, the lowest mean is 16% recorded in April. The prevailing wind direction is from North in March, April and May with mean speed of 4 m/s. In June the prevailing wind direction is South Western with mean speed of 4 m/s. During the dry season the average rainfall is 4.45 mm.

For the warm/humid season, the mean maximum temperature is 38.26 ˚C. The highest mean is 39.1 ˚C recorded in September and lowest mean is 37.3 ˚C recorded in August. The mean minimum temperature is 25.73 ˚C, the highest is 26 ˚C recorded in September, and the lowest in August which is 25.3 ˚C. For the Warm/humid season, the mean relative humidity is 44%, the highest mean is 49% recorded in august, and the lowest is 40% recorded in September. The prevailing wind direction for the season is South Western with a mean speed of 3.87 m/s, during the humid season the average rainfall is 48.77 mm, the highest mean is recorded in August, which is 50.2mm.

For the cool/dry season, the mean maximum temperature is 34.2 ˚C, the highest mean is 39.3 ˚C recorded in October, and the lowest is 30.8 ˚C recorded in January. The mean minimum temperature is 19.24 ˚C, the highest is 26 ˚C recorded in October while the lowest is 15.5 ˚C recorded in January.

The mean relative humidity is 26.8% for the season, the highest is 30% recorded in December while the lowest is 22.1% recorded in February. The prevailing wind direction is from North with mean speed of 4 m/s. The average rainfall for the season is only 1.1 mm.

Fig. (1); Sudan Map

Source: (Survey Authority, Maps section, Republic of Sudan)

Fig. (2); Greater Khartoum

Source: (Survey Authority, Maps section, Republic of Sudan)

Scale: 1: 25.000

3.2 Khartoum International Airport (KIA)

The first idea to construct Khartoum Airport was in (1919), when the local authority put a land for that; then in (1925) this land was used as a military airport. In (1939) two runways were built and during the international ware these runways were maintained and a new area for each one was added.

Between (1951) and (1952), new asphalt layers were added to the runways; runway 18 – 36 and runway 23 – 0.5, also a new area was added to the Runway, Taxiway and Apron; that was the real start of Khartoum airport which included:

- Tower - Laslki office - Flight control center - Airport mayors - Engineers offices - Weather broadcast center - Flight companies: British, Italy, Ethiopia and Sudan - Halls: departures and arrivals

Proper development started in 1956 by extending the length of the runway 18 – 36. Passengers are increasing rapidly during the last three decades:

- In 1970 = 267,897 - In 1985 = 493,574 - In 1998 = 570,774

(KIA) is located in Khartoum city, 2.5 Km from the city-center and sited in the latitude 15° 35′ 25″ north, and longitude 32° 33′ 11″. The total area is 4.899.798 m², and 38.594 m asl.

The airport is divided into three main zones:

1/Runway and Internal areas 2/Halls 3/External parking.

The aircraft movement areas are:

1-Runway: One runway with length of 4200 m and width of 60 m, covered by asphalt; the wind direction is from north to south 18 – 36. Length of runway depends on prevailing weather, topography, altitude, temperature, environmental restrictions, aircraft types and weight expected to operate from airport. Modern aircraft can usually land and take off with cross wind up to krots; light aircraft seriously could be affected by wind. Utilizations aim should be for airport is usable by all aircraft for minimum 79% of them.

2-Roads: The first and second one with the length of 250 m for each one and width of 23 m with the same quality of asphalt, the third one is equal to them in width and asphalt quality, but differs in length which is 300 m.

3-Aircraft Parking: The aircraft parking length is 1000 m and width of 104 m. The height is 1261 above the sea level. The maximum capacity of aircraft oil station about 67,120 gallons transported from the main store to the station by pipes, then by trucks to aircraft.

(KIA) is classified as an international civil airport that serves both internal and external flights (Master Plan, 2000).

3.3 Site Analysis and Pass way

(KIA) is barred from the North side by Khartoum International Fair street (12 m), which separates (KIA) from the Blue Nile and Burri Bridge which links Khartoum with Khartoum North that embraces hospitals, kindergartens, schools, and mosques in residential areas which include Kober, Al Amlak, Kafori, Al Izba, and Helat Kouko, and Khartoum North Industrial Area.

From the East side, there is Ebaid Khatem road (20 m) which separates (KIA) from attached residential areas which include Burri, Nasser, Al Riyad, and Al Safa where schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and mosques are found.

From the South side, there is Al Mashtal street (8 m), which separates (KIA) from commercial area, college, and health clinic, also recreation area that embraces The Green Space, Al Riyad Park, and Child City. Residential areas include Arkaweit, Al Sahafa, and Arkaweit Al Mamoraa where kindergartens, schools, hospitals, and mosques are found.

From the West side, there is Africa street (15 m) which separates (KIA) from commercial area, hospitals, colleges, clubs, and residential areas that include Al Ammarat, Al Zihoor, Khartoum 2, and Hai Al Mattar where schools, kindergartens, hospitals, mosques, and charges are found.

Services are available, water pipes, electric and telephone cables, also transportations are found in all directions around (KIA), restaurants, rent cars, and hotels, and that due to existence of (KIA) in the center of the capital. Therefore, from site analysis the finding is that:

•The East and West sides are attached immediately near the (KIA) boundary. All flights are linked strongly by three elements: Aircraft- Airport- Pass way. From (KIA) location and due to wind direction, the runway orientation is North- South direction. Therefore, from the pass way analysis the finding is that:

•In most seasons, Landing is operating from South; therefore aircrafts are immediately passing over large residential areas like Al Sahafa, and Arkaweit.

•In most seasons, Takeoff is operating from the North; therefore aircrafts are passing immediately over large residential areas like Kober, and Kafori.

3.4 Sites of Sampling

A cyclic of 6 km around (KIA) from its tower is to cover the movement direction and the flow of aircraft takeoff and landing operations. The area is considered as residential area including commercial centers, recreation areas, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, clubs, mosques, and charges. Thirty-seven locations were selected outside (KIA) in a random manner and not equal in distance from the tower in the fourth directions Northern sampling sites (Nss), Eastern sampling sites

(Ess), Southern sampling sites (Sss), and Western sampling sites (Wss) to compare later between them as shown in Table (1), and eight locations inside (KIA) selected randomly as shown in Table (2). Fig. (3) has shown both outside and inside measurement locations.

Table (1); Sites of Sampling Outside (KIA)

Sampling Sub Site Distance Description Sites in km * (Nss) 1 Kober Cycle 2.10 Road 2 Al Itifag Backer 2.25 Commercial 3 Kafori, Junction 9/6 2.62 Road 4 Pamsi Factory 2.65 Commercial 5 Kober/ Kafori Junction 2.4 Road 6 Central Prison 2.08 Corporation 7 Kober Market 2.32 Commercial 8 Sega Factory 4.63 Commercial 9 Kafori, Junction 11/9 2.4 Road 10 Kober Transport 2.5 Public Area Station 11 Shandi Transport 2.03 Public Area Station 12 Coca Cola Factory 2.9 Commercial 13 Al Izba Area 4.65 Residential 14 Ali Almarghani 2.8 Spiritual Mosque 15 Kober Mental Hospital 2.48 Health Center 16 Al Shifa Factory 2.88 Commercial 17 Kafori, Mid Block 9 2.7 Residential 18 Al Taieb Saeed School 2.6 Educational 19 Al Tagwa Mosque 2.1 Spiritual 20 Sabar Factory 3.0 Commercial 21 Mid Burri Bridge 1.7 Road 22 Healt Kouko Area 2.72 Residential 23 Kafori Block 9 Mosque 2.6 Spiritual 24 Kafori, Junction 9/8 2.92 Road 25 Kafori, Kindergarten 9 2.5 Educational 26 Cinema Kober 2.07 Leisure 27 Al Gamaa Clinic 1.13 Health Center

** (Wss)

1 Asheri Ice-cream 2.7 Commercial 2 Al Atiba Hospital 4.3 Health Center 3 Al Faisal Hospital 1.1 Health Center *** (Ess)

1 City Car 2.2 Commercial 2 Al Sheta Transport 4.3 Public Area 3 Burri Cycle 1.1 Road **** (Sss) 1 Hawasha Hospital 2.5 Health Center 2 Academic College 2.2 Educational 3 Kenana Company 3.1 Commercial 4 Dar Al Bayatra Club 3.4 Leisure

* (Nss) : Northern Sampling Sites ** (Wss) : Western Sapling Sites *** (Ess) : Eastern Sampling Sites **** (Sss) : Southern Sampling Sites.

Table (2); Sites of Sampling Inside (KIA)

Location Sub Site Distance in km Description A Engineering Office 0.80 Officers B Information 0.42 Officers Department C Local Hall 1.20 Visitors D Northern Run Way 0.25 Inspectors E Airport Main Mosque 0.75 All F Mid Run Way 1.10 Inspectors G Southern Run Way 0.83 Inspectors H Departure Hall 0.30 Visitors

Fig. (3); Sampling Sites Out and Within (KIA)

Source: (Survey Authority, Maps section, Republic of Sudan)

3.5 Noise Measurements

Noise Level Meter was used for noise measurements. Sound Level Meter, Type 2236, operating with a 15-volt battery, its range from 65 dBC up to 130 dBC, therefore, no back ground noise taken in all measurements. The height was 1.25 m above the ground during ordinary stable whether.

Thirty-seven readings were outside (KIA), while eight readings were inside, therefore the total sum of readings were 45.

3.6 Study Duration

The study was carried out within the period (07.00 Am- 11.00 Pm), and (11.00 Pm- 07.00 Am), during day and night. It started in thirty January, then from March the twenty-seven up to ten of April 2003, except the 5th of April because of dusty weather, and finished on fourteen of April, to cover both summer and winter timing season. All samples were done randomly, with minimum one reading per day and maximum five readings per day, to cover both out and inside (KIA). All readings have taken the location, time, duration of movements, type of operation (take off or landing), and peak of noise; also types of aircraft and airlines were taken in the study.

3.7 Questionnaires

Two types of questionnaires were designed. The social questionnaire was designed to assess the reaction of population within area of 6 km around (KIA) in the fourth directions where the same area was measured by monitoring device, also to obtain public opinion regarding the quality of noise intensity level at time of interview. The social survey started in the thirty January and ended in the mid of May, the number of questions were seventeen, and the total social questionnaire was 351, which in turn was divided and collected by personal interview that covering houses, hospitals, schools, offices, commercial centers, colleges, mosques, clubs, and public areas. All locations and personnel were chosen randomly.

The Work Environment questionnaire was designed to assess the reaction of workers inside (KIA), also to obtain workers opinion regarding the work environment and their suggestions. Measurements were taken inside (KIA) by the same monitoring device. The work questionnaire started on twenty-nine of January and ended on sixteen of February; the total questions were twenty-one, and the total work environment questionnaire was 110, which was divided and collected by The Civil Aviation Ministry. Therefore, the total sum of work and social environment questionnaire in this case study was 461.

3.8 Social and Work Questionnaires Analysis

The analysis of social and work environment questionnaire data was done using statistical analysis computer programmer, Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS), and the Chi_square was used to find the significant probability.

4.1 Informations Results in (KIA)

4.1.1 Types of Airlines

There are many types of airlines that use Khartoum International Airport (KIA), which embraces local and international companies. The international airlines are:

1/Kenya 2/Sudan 3/Saudi Arabia 4/Suriya 5/Qutar 6/Gulf 7/Emairate 8/Ethiopia 9/Egypt 10/Lufthanza 11/Yemen 12/Libya 13/Jordon 14/By Air British.

Also there are fourteen local companies for internal flights; data was available only for international flights (Information Office).

4.1.2 Types of Aircrafts

According to types of airlines, there are different types of aircrafts:

1/B737 2/YAK42 3/A300 4/B727 5/A330 6/B757 7/AB300 8/AB320 9/AB340 10/AB330

4.1.3 Number of Flights Per Day and Night

From the Civil Aviation International Flights Schedule, there are 178 flights per week, the maximum that found were 30 flights per 24 hours, the minimum that found were 21 flights per 24 hours, therefore the average number of flights per 24 hours is 26.

The average number of flights during day between (07.00 h- 23.00 h) is 17, while the average number of flights during night between (23.00 h- 07.00 h) is 9.

4.2 Aircraft Noise Measurement Results

4.2.1 Outside (KIA)

Measurements outside (KIA) were in the range of 70.1 dBC up to 117.1 dBC. The minimum reading found in the Northern studying sites (Nss) was through take off operation, with duration of 30 seconds, at afternoon time, and the type was B757. The maximum reading found in the Southern studying sites (Sss), through landing operation, with duration of 48 seconds, at night, and the type was AB340.

In the (Nss), the range of readings was between 70.1 dBC up to 108.7 dBC. The minimum one was through take off operation, with duration of 30 seconds, at afternoon time, and the type was B757. The maximum one was through take off operation, with duration of 47 seconds, at morning time, and the type was AB300.

In the (Ess), the range of readings was between 77.5 dBC up to 115.5 dBC. The minimum reading was through take off operation, with duration of 35 seconds, at afternoon time, and the type was B727. The maximum reading was through landing operation, with duration of 45 seconds, at afternoon time, and the type was AB300.

In the (Sss), the range of readings was between 96.9 dBC up to 117.1 dBC. The minimum reading was through landing operation, with duration of 41 seconds, at night time, and the type was A300. The maximum reading was through landing operation, with duration of 48 seconds, at night time, and the type was AB340.

In the (Wss), the range of readings was between 88.9 dBC up to 107.8 dBC. The minimum reading was through landing operation, with duration of 39 seconds, at night time, and the type was B737. The maximum reading was through landing operation, with duration of 47 seconds, at night time, and the type was A300.

The average reading outside (KIA) was 94 dBC during day and night, in both take off and landing operations, with average duration of 39 seconds of aircraft movement for both operations.

The outside reading for take off operation was in the range of: 70.1 dBC with the type of B757 up to 108.7 dBC and the type was AB300. The outside reading for landing operation was in the range of: 88.9 dBC with the type of B737 up to 117.1 dBC and the type was AB340. The range of 70s dBC was (13.5%), 80s dBC was (10.8%), 90s was (43.3%), and 100s was (32.4%) which about the quarter of outside measurement. (67.5%) of the readings found during the pm timing zone, and (32.5%) found during am timing zone, Table (3).

4.2.2 Within (KIA)

Measurements inside (KIA) were between 101.4 dBC up to 119.2 dBC. The minimum reading was in the West direction, through take off operation, with duration of 40 seconds, at afternoon time, and the type was B727. The maximum reading was in the South direction, through landing operation, with duration of 48 seconds, at night time, and the aircraft was local.

The average reading inside (KIA) was 110 dBC during day and night, in both take off and landing operations, with average duration of 44 seconds of aircraft movement for both operations.

The inside reading for take off operation was in the range of: 101.4 dBC with type of B727 up to 105.6 dBC and the aircraft was local. The inside reading for landing operation was in the range of: 103.2 dBC with the type of AB320 up to 119.2 dBC and the aircraft was local.

All the readings inside (KIA) were above 100 dBC, therefore, the all were in the range of 100s, also all readings found during the pm timing zone, Table (4).

Therefore, the sum of both outside and inside readings through take off and landing operations were between 70.1 dBC up to 119.2 dBC, the average was 102 dBC with average duration 42 seconds of aircraft movement.

Table (3); Measurements Outside (KIA)

Location Description Time Peak Duration Operation Type No. in dBC in Seconds 1 City Car, Al 3:15 115 45 Landing AB300 Riyad pm dBC 2 Burri Cycle 3:45 105.1 42 Take off AB300 pm 3 Kober 4:20 102.3 39 Take off B737 Cycle pm 4 Alitifag 10:25 94.3 36 Take off A300 Backer am 5 Alsheta 4:00 77.5 35 Take off B727 Station pm 6 Kafori 1:55 89.0 32 Take off AB300 junction 9/6 pm 7 Hawasha 9:30 117.1 48 Landing AB340 Hospital pm 8 Pamsi 4:30 97.3 37 Take off SD/ Factory pm B737 9 Academic 8:55 102.9 42 Take off B/737 College pm 10 Kober/ 11:10 98.8 37 Take off _ Kafori am junction 11 Central 11:25 97.4 35 Take off _ Prison am 12 Kober 12:00 102.6 42 Take off _ Market pm 13 Kenana 8:47 96.9 41 Landing A300 Company pm 14 Asheri Ice- 9:10 88.9 39 Landing SD/ cream pm B737

15 Sega 8:38 88.0 38 Take off AB300 Factory am

16 Kafori, 3:05 95.1 35 Take off _ junction am 9/11 17 Kober 10:00 108.7 47 Take off AB300 Station am 18 Shandi 3:40 85.1 47 Take off AB330 Station pm 19 Coca Cola 10:10 94.6 36 Take off _ Factory am 20 Alizba area 9:55 70.2 32 Take off A300 am 21 Dar 10:20 109.4 44 Landing B727 Albayatra pm Club 22 Ali 6:15 70.1 30 Take off B757 Almirghani pm Mosque 23 Kober 1:15 98.8 37 Landing AB330 Mental pm Hospital 24 Alshifa 2:40 99.3 43 Landing _ Factory pm 25 Kafori, mid 2:55 96.2 38 Landing _ block 9 pm 26 Alatiba 12:20 105.4 48 Landing A300 Hospital am 27 Ataieb 10:25 94.2 34 Take off B727 Saeed am School 28 Altagwa 11:05 94.3 37 Take off _ Mosque am 29 Sabar 12:38 73.0 32 Take off B737 Factory pm 30 Mid Burri 1:15 77.9 31 Take off A300 Bridge pm 31 Helat 11:15 94.7 31 Take off _ Kouko area am

32 Kafori 1:50 103.4 40 Take off A300 Mosque pm

33 Kafori, 5:45 98.2 39 Take off B757 junction 9/8 pm 34 Kafori, 11.20 105.1 40 Take off A300 Kindergart- am en block 9 35 Cinema 1:30 98.7 38 Take off AB300 Kober pm 36 Algamaa 12:55 95.8 34 Take off B727 Clinic pm 37 Alfaisal 11:00 107.8 47 Landing A300 Hospital am

(-): Data was not available for internal flights; therefore, the type of aircraft is not available.

SD/B737: The Sudanese aircraft readings that crashed later near Port Sudan International Airport.

Table (4); Measurements within (KIA)

Location Description Time Peak Duration Operation Type No. in in dBC Seconds A Engineering 12:55 103.2 45 Landing AB320 Office pm B Information 1:15 101.4 40 Take off B727 Department pm C Local Hall 4:30 105.5 47 Landing SD/ pm B737 D Northern 7:25 103.8 48 Take off AB340 Runway pm E Airport Main 10:15 104.3 42 Take off AB340 Mosque pm F Mid Runway 10:35 105.6 41 Take off _ pm G Southern 10:45 119.2 48 Landing _ Runway pm H Departure 10:55 102.2 43 Take off _ Hall pm

(-): Data was not available for internal flights; therefore, the type of aircraft is not available.

SD/B737: The Sudanese aircraft readings that crashed later near Port Sudan International Airport.

4.3 Questionnaires

4.3.1 Outside (KIA)

In social questionnaire for community opinion, from all population interviewed, those in the Southern sampling sites (Sss) were found to have the higher percentage by (34.2%) for both genders, followed by the eastern sampling sites (Ess) by (30.7%), then the Western sampling sites (Wss) by (19.4%), and the Northern sampling sites (Nss) by (15.7%).

The males number were 188 which is (53.6%), and female’s number were 163 which is (46.4%), the total number were 351. The highest age group was found in the range between 18 up to 29 years old, males number was 83 which is (44.1%), and females number was 121 which is (74.2%), the total percentage for 18 up to 29 years old group for both genders was (58.1%) from the sample, followed by the age group between 30 up to 39 years old (22.2%), then the age group between 40 up to 49 years old (12.6%), then the age group between 50 up to 59 (4.0%), and finally the age group 60 + (3.1%).

The highest education status (65.8%) was university for both genders, males was (58.5%) from their sample, and females was (74.2%) from their sample; the second education status was post graduate (18.8%) for both genders, then high school (11.7%), and primary school (3.7%). A high correlation between age group and education status was found.

The highest occupation status (42.5%) was student for both genders in the (Sss), followed by officers (18.2%), then business (11.7%). Obvious relationship between age group, education status, and occupation status was found.

The working area was Khartoum State for all interviewed people that embrace Khartoum, Omdurman, and Khartoum North. Population resident in Khartoum State was (96.0%), where as (4.0%) was not. The highest range found for the years of residence was over ten years for both genders, the total was (65.2%), followed by the range between one up to five years (20.8%), then the range between six up to ten years (14.0%).

Table (5); Response to increase in noise

Noise is increased Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 47 4 51 % of Total 25.0% 2.1% 27.1% East Count 63 1 64 % of Total 33.5% .5% 34.0% West Count 34 2 36 % of Total 18.1% 1.1% 19.1% North Count 35 2 37 % of Total 18.6% 1.1% 19.7% Total Count 179 9 188 % of Total 95.2% 4.8% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 63 6 69 % of Total 38.7% 3.7% 42.3% East Count 43 1 44 % of Total 26.4% .6% 27.0% West Count 30 2 32 % of Total 18.4% 1.2% 19.6% North Count 17 1 18 % of Total 10.4% .6% 11.0% Total Count 153 10 163 % of Total 93.9% 6.1% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 2.583a 3 .461 Likelihood Ratio 2.915 3 .405 Linear-by-Linear Association .069 1 .794 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 1.937b 3 .586 Likelihood Ratio 2.194 3 .533 Linear-by-Linear Association .375 1 .540 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.72. b. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.10.

Fig. (4) (A); Response to increase in noise

Male 70

60

50

40

30

20 Noise is increased Count

10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (4) (B); Response to increase in noise

Female 70

60

50

40

30

20 Noise is increased Count 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (6); Response to sleep disturbance

Wake from sleep Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 37 14 51 % of Total 19.7% 7.4% 27.1% East Count 45 19 64 % of Total 23.9% 10.1% 34.0% West Count 35 1 36 % of Total 18.6% .5% 19.1% North Count 29 8 37 % of Total 15.4% 4.3% 19.7% Total Count 146 42 188 % of Total 77.7% 22.3% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 28 41 69 % of Total 17.2% 25.2% 42.3% East Count 37 7 44 % of Total 22.7% 4.3% 27.0% West Count 27 5 32 % of Total 16.6% 3.1% 19.6% North Count 13 5 18 % of Total 8.0% 3.1% 11.0% Total Count 105 58 163 % of Total 64.4% 35.6% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 10.711a 3 .013 Likelihood Ratio 14.159 3 .003 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.745 1 .098 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 30.574b 3 .000 Likelihood Ratio 31.463 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 16.483 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.04. b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.40.

Fig. (5) (A); Response to sleep disturbance

Male 50

40

30

20

Count Wake from sleep 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (5) (B); Response to sleep disturbance

Female 50

40

30

20

Wake from sleep 10 Count Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (7); Response to leisure disturbance

Leisure activities Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 44 7 51 % of Total 23.4% 3.7% 27.1% East Count 51 13 64 % of Total 27.1% 6.9% 34.0% West Count 35 1 36 % of Total 18.6% .5% 19.1% North Count 31 6 37 % of Total 16.5% 3.2% 19.7% Total Count 161 27 188 % of Total 85.6% 14.4% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 53 16 69 % of Total 32.5% 9.8% 42.3% East Count 41 3 44 % of Total 25.2% 1.8% 27.0% West Count 30 2 32 % of Total 18.4% 1.2% 19.6% North Count 15 3 18 % of Total 9.2% 1.8% 11.0% Total Count 139 24 163 % of Total 85.3% 14.7% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 5.891a 3 .117 Likelihood Ratio 7.379 3 .061 Linear-by-Linear Association .229 1 .633 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 8.012b 3 .046 Likelihood Ratio 8.412 3 .038 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.822 1 .093 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.17. b. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.65.

Fig. (6) (A); Response to leisure disturbance

Male 60

50

40

30

20 Leisure activities 10 Count Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (6) (B); Response to leisure disturbance

Female 60

50

40

30

20 Count Leisure activities 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (8); Response to noise as a problem

Noise is a problem Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 46 5 51 % of Total 24.5% 2.7% 27.1% East Count 63 1 64 % of Total 33.5% .5% 34.0% West Count 35 1 36 % of Total 18.6% .5% 19.1% North Count 36 1 37 % of Total 19.1% .5% 19.7% Total Count 180 8 188 % of Total 95.7% 4.3% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 53 16 69 % of Total 32.5% 9.8% 42.3% East Count 43 1 44 % of Total 26.4% .6% 27.0% West Count 31 1 32 % of Total 19.0% .6% 19.6% North Count 17 1 18 % of Total 10.4% .6% 11.0% Total Count 144 19 163 % of Total 88.3% 11.7% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 5.405a 3 .144 Likelihood Ratio 4.814 3 .186 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.294 1 .130 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 15.586b 3 .001 Likelihood Ratio 16.465 3 .001 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.260 1 .002 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.53. b. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.10.

Fig. (7) (A); Response to noise as a problem

Male 70

60

50

40

30

20 Noise is a problem Count 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (7) (B); Response to noise as a problem

Female 60

50

40

30

20 Noise is a problem 10 Count Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (9); Response to house vibration

House vibrate Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 42 9 51 % of Total 22.3% 4.8% 27.1% East Count 46 18 64 % of Total 24.5% 9.6% 34.0% West Count 33 3 36 % of Total 17.6% 1.6% 19.1% North Count 31 6 37 % of Total 16.5% 3.2% 19.7% Total Count 152 36 188 % of Total 80.9% 19.1% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 41 28 69 % of Total 25.2% 17.2% 42.3% East Count 38 6 44 % of Total 23.3% 3.7% 27.0% West Count 27 5 32 % of Total 16.6% 3.1% 19.6% North Count 15 3 18 % of Total 9.2% 1.8% 11.0% Total Count 121 42 163 % of Total 74.2% 25.8% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 6.330a 3 .097 Likelihood Ratio 6.597 3 .086 Linear-by-Linear Association .833 1 .361 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 13.800b 3 .003 Likelihood Ratio 13.818 3 .003 Linear-by-Linear Association 8.419 1 .004 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.89. b. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.64.

Fig. (8) (A); Response to house vibration

Male 50

40

30

20

House vibrate 10 Count Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (8) (B); Response to house vibration

Female 50

40

30

20

House vibrate 10 Count Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (10); Response to time of Noise

Time of Noise Gender Morning Evening Total Male Direction South Count 41 10 51 % of Total 21.8% 5.3% 27.1% East Count 13 51 64 % of Total 6.9% 27.1% 34.0% West Count 2 34 36 % of Total 1.1% 18.1% 19.1% North Count 4 33 37 % of Total 2.1% 17.6% 19.7% Total Count 60 128 188 % of Total 31.9% 68.1% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 59 10 69 % of Total 36.2% 6.1% 42.3% East Count 8 36 44 % of Total 4.9% 22.1% 27.0% West Count 4 28 32 % of Total 2.5% 17.2% 19.6% North Count 2 16 18 % of Total 1.2% 9.8% 11.0% Total Count 73 90 163 % of Total 44.8% 55.2% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 78.217a 3 .000 Likelihood Ratio 79.581 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 52.504 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 80.608b 3 .000 Likelihood Ratio 88.689 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 59.373 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.49. b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.06.

Fig. (9) (A); Response to time of noise

Male 60

50

40

30

20

Count Time of Noise 10 Morning

0 Evening South East West North

Direction

Fig. (9) (B); Response to time of noise

Female 70

60

50

40

30

20 Time of Noise

Count 10 Morning

0 Evening South East West North

Direction

(33.5%) of people in the (Ess) from males claimed that noise is increased, while (2.1%) in the (Sss) mentioned no. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (38.7%), while (3.7%) mentioned no. The total claimed was (94.6%), while (5.4%) mentioned no. For both genders no statistical significance was shown, Table (5), Fig. (4).

(23.9%) of people in the (Ess) from males claimed that noise wakes from sleep, while (10.1%) mentioned no. Females in the (Ess) claimed by (22.7%), while (25.2%) in the (Sss) mentioned no. The total claimed was (71.5%), while the total mentioned no was (28.5%). No significant found for both genders, Table (6), Fig. (5). This result supports the wide variation in sleep-noise relationship found by Steinicke (1957).

In the (Ess) area (27.1%) of the males claimed that noise disturbs listening to radio, watching television, or leisure activities, while (6.9%) mentioned no. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (32.5%), while (9.8%) mentioned no. The total claimed was (85.5%), while (14.5%) mentioned no. Significance found only for females in the (Sss), and that agreed with the highest reading of aircraft noise measurement, Table (7), Fig. (6).

The most noisy disturbance load found in the (Sss) area was very much for both genders by (41.0%), also that agreed with the highest reading that found, followed by moderate (39.6%), then a little (16.0%), and finally not at all (3.4%).

The highest by (33.5%) in the (Ess) from males claimed that noise is a problem, while (2.7%) in the (Sss) mentioned no. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (32.5%), while (9.8%) mentioned no. The total claimed was (88.3%), while (11.7%) mentioned no. Significance found only for females in the (Sss) and that agreed with the highest reading, Table (8), Fig. (7).

(24.5%) in the (Ess) area from males claimed noise makes house vibrate, while (9.6%) mentioned no. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (25.2%), while (17.2%) no. The total claimed was (74.2%), while (25.8%) mentioned no. Significance found only for males, and that agreed with the highest reading in the (Sss), Table (9), Fig. (8).

The highest by (21.8%) in (Sss) from males claimed noise bothers during the morning, while (27.1%) in the (Ess) mentioned during the evening. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (36.2%) during the morning, while (22.1%) in the (Ess) mentioned during the evening. The total claimed during the morning was (44.8%), while (55.2%) mentioned during the evening. Significance found for both gender, and that conceive with the highest reading. Due to the fact that the study area in the (Sss) was just closed to The Academic College students who are studying during the morning, and no residential area was covered in that direction, therefore, in residential areas the highest by (27.1%) in the (Ess) from males claimed during evening, and (22.1%) also in the (Ess) for females claimed during the evening, and this agrees completely with the answers of both genders about noise wake from sleep in the (Ess) direction, Table (10), Fig. (9).

(20.2%) in the (Sss) from males claimed that they could move away from (KIA), while (21.3%) mentioned no in the (Ess). Females in the (Sss) claimed by (16.6%), while (25.8%) mentioned no. The total claimed was (54.1%), while (45.9%) mentioned no. This result correlates well with the English Study at Heathrow carried out by Mc Kennell (1961) (NNI = 48.5 and 48 respectively).

The highest cause found to move away from (KIA) was due to aircraft noise pollution (79.5%), and then followed by accidents (6.8%), which people seriously were worried about and raised the attention strongly. Famous accidents recorded in residential areas around (KIA): in (1966) an aircraft (Dakota) fell in Al Ammarat at the western side where the pilot died; in (1960) a British Airways aircraft was coming from Adan in Yemen fell in street no. 1 at Al Ammarat; also in Ebaid Khatem road in Arkaweit at the eastern side; also in Al Shegalah in Al Hag Yousif at the northern side, and another one was coming from Jeddah in The Blue Nile at the northern side.

(33.5%) in the (Ess) from males supported the removal of (KIA), while (3.2%) mentioned no in the (Wss). Females in the (Sss) claimed by (31.3%), while (11.0) mentioned no. The total claimed was (87.1%), while (12.9%) mentioned no. Significance found for both genders, and that agreed for males with wake from sleep, and correlates for females with the highest reading that revealed noise was a problem, Table (11), Fig (10).

(30.6%) in the (Ess) from males claimed that there is a need for noise pollution law, while (3.4%) mentioned no in the (Wss). Females in the (Sss) claimed by (37.4%), while (4.9%) mentioned no. The total claimed was (93.3%), while (6.7%) mentioned no. Significance found only for males Table (12), Fig. (11). This result reflects the need for urgent discipline to be applied in parallel with the international standardized law.

(28.7%) in the (Ess) from males claimed that noise disturbs work efficiency or concentration at study, while (5.3%) mentioned no. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (35.0%), while (7.4%) mentioned no. The total claimed was (87.7%), while (13.3%) mentioned no. Although this result was not statistically significant, it reflects the need for noise pollution law and, perhaps, removal of (KIA), Table (13), Fig. (12).

(20.7%) in the (Sss) from males claimed that noise interferes with conversation, while (21.3%) in the (Ess) mentioned no. Females in the (Sss) claimed by (32.5%), while (11.7%) in the (Ess) mentioned no. The total claimed was (73.2%), while (26.7%) mentioned no. Significance was found for both genders, this agrees with the highest reading, disturbance of listening to radio, watching television, or leisure activities, and disturbance load which found very much, Table (14), Fig. (13).

From all interviewed people, the most type of aircraft that annoys was (Boeing) by (57.2%) especially B737, followed by that mentioned (All) by (14.4%), and then (Antinove) by (9.8%). From measurement readings, the most annoying type was AB340, followed by AB300, and then B727, AB300, A300, and A300 was the sixth high reading. That could be due to the general social culture of Boeing B737 is the most annoying one, which was prohibited of using international airports like Heathrow, until engine has been modified. Also an important point that was found in readings deals with SD/ B737 which crashed lately near Port Sudan International Airport, had recorded the minimum reading in landing operation (88.9) dBC.

Table (11); Opinion about removal (KIA)

Remove Airport Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 46 5 51 % of Total 24.5% 2.7% 27.1% East Count 63 1 64 % of Total 33.5% .5% 34.0% West Count 30 6 36 % of Total 16.0% 3.2% 19.1% North Count 35 2 37 % of Total 18.6% 1.1% 19.7% Total Count 174 14 188 % of Total 92.6% 7.4% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 51 18 69 % of Total 31.3% 11.0% 42.3% East Count 43 1 44 % of Total 26.4% .6% 27.0% West Count 31 1 32 % of Total 19.0% .6% 19.6% North Count 17 1 18 % of Total 10.4% .6% 11.0% Total Count 142 21 163 % of Total 87.1% 12.9% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 8.290a 3 .040 Likelihood Ratio 8.637 3 .035 Linear-by-Linear Association .025 1 .876 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 18.708b 3 .000 Likelihood Ratio 19.861 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 11.320 1 .001 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.68. b. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.32.

Fig. (10) (A); Opinion about removal (KIA)

Male 70

60

50

40

30

20 Remove (KIA) Count 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (10) (B); Opinion about removal (KIA) Female 60

50

40

30

20

Count Remove (KIA) 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (12); Response to the need for noise law

Noise Law Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 46 5 51 % of Total 22.3% 2.4% 24.8% East Count 63 1 64 % of Total 30.6% .5% 31.1% West Count 29 7 36 % of Total 14.1% 3.4% 17.5% North Count 53 2 55 % of Total 25.7% 1.0% 26.7% Total Count 191 15 206 % of Total 92.7% 7.3% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 61 8 69 % of Total 37.4% 4.9% 42.3% East Count 43 1 44 % of Total 26.4% .6% 27.0% West Count 31 1 32 % of Total 19.0% .6% 19.6% North Count 17 1 18 % of Total 10.4% .6% 11.0% Total Count 152 11 163 % of Total 93.3% 6.7% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 12.552a 3 .006 Likelihood Ratio 11.806 3 .008 Linear-by-Linear Association .047 1 .828 N of Valid Cases 206 female Pearson Chi-Square 4.684b 3 .196 Likelihood Ratio 4.871 3 .182 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.221 1 .136 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.62. b. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.21.

Fig. (11) (A); Response to the need for noise law

Male 70

60

50

40

30

20 Noise Law

Count 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (11) (B); Response to the need for noise law

Female 70

60

50

40

30

20 Noise Law

Count 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (13); Response to disturbance in work efficiency

Your work Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 42 9 51 % of Total 22.3% 4.8% 27.1% East Count 54 10 64 % of Total 28.7% 5.3% 34.0% West Count 31 5 36 % of Total 16.5% 2.7% 19.1% North Count 33 4 37 % of Total 17.6% 2.1% 19.7% Total Count 160 28 188 % of Total 85.1% 14.9% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 57 12 69 % of Total 35.0% 7.4% 42.3% East Count 39 5 44 % of Total 23.9% 3.1% 27.0% West Count 30 2 32 % of Total 18.4% 1.2% 19.6% North Count 17 1 18 % of Total 10.4% .6% 11.0% Total Count 143 20 163 % of Total 87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square .847a 3 .838 Likelihood Ratio .876 3 .831 Linear-by-Linear Association .831 1 .362 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 3.546b 3 .315 Likelihood Ratio 3.755 3 .289 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.312 1 .069 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.36. b. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.21.

Fig. (12) (A); Response to disturbance in work efficiency

Male 60

50

40

30

20 Count Work efficiency 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Fig. (12) (B); Response to disturbance in work efficiency

Female 60

50

40

30

20 Count Work efficiency 10 Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

Table (14); Response to interference with conversation

Interfere Conversation Gender Yes No Total Male Direction South Count 39 12 51 % of Total 20.7% 6.4% 27.1% East Count 24 40 64 % of Total 12.8% 21.3% 34.0% West Count 35 1 36 % of Total 18.6% .5% 19.1% North Count 34 3 37 % of Total 18.1% 1.6% 19.7% Total Count 132 56 188 % of Total 70.2% 29.8% 100.0% Female Direction South Count 53 16 69 % of Total 32.5% 9.8% 42.3% East Count 25 19 44 % of Total 15.3% 11.7% 27.0% West Count 30 2 32 % of Total 18.4% 1.2% 19.6% North Count 17 1 18 % of Total 10.4% .6% 11.0% Total Count 125 38 163 % of Total 76.7% 23.3% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Gender Value df (2-sided) male Pearson Chi-Square 54.573a 3 .000 Likelihood Ratio 58.710 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 11.196 1 .001 N of Valid Cases 188 female Pearson Chi-Square 18.102b 3 .000 Likelihood Ratio 19.432 3 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.449 1 .035 N of Valid Cases 163 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.72. b. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.20.

Fig. (13) (A); Response to interference with conversation

Male 50

40

30

20 Interference with conversation 10 Count Yes

0 No South East West Nort h Direction

Fig. (13) (B); Response to interference with conversation

Female 60

50

40

30

20 Interference with Count 10 conversation Yes

0 No South East West North

Direction

4.3.2 Within (KIA)

In work environment questionnaire for workers opinion, the males number was 66 which is (60%), and female’s number was 44 which is (40%), the total number was 110. The highest age group was found in the range between 30 up to 39 years old by (48.5%) for males, and the range between 18 up to 29 years old by (54.5%) for females.

The highest education status was university for both genders by (63.6%) for males, and (86.4%) for females, the total university was (72.7%) from the sample, followed by high school (18.2%). A strong relationship between age group and education status was found.

The highest occupation was engineer by (36.4%) for males, and (54.5%) for females, the total was (43.6%) from the sample, followed by officers by (21.9%). Obvious relationship between age group, education status, and occupation status is found.

The highest years in job for males was over ten years by (39.4%), and (63.6%) for females was the range between one up to five years. Therefore, males’ exposure time to noise pollution is longer than females.

The highest by (75.8%) for males is working normal hours, and by (91.0%) for females, the total normal hours work was (81.9%), while (18.1%) for shift work. This means that exposure time to noise pollution is regularly for both genders of (KIA) working staff.

The highest working hours per day was found in the range between six up to twelve by (97.0%) for males, and (86.3%) for females, the total was (92.7%), and then followed by (7.3%) for the range between one up to six hours. Therefore, most workers in (KIA) work between six and twelve hours per day.

(54.5%) males and (34.5%) females claimed that noise was a problem; the total claimed for both genders was (89.0%) while (11.0%) mentioned no. No significant was shown, Table (15), Fig (14).

(22.4%) males and (26.5%) females claimed that the rate of noise is a bit noisy; the total claimed was (49.0%). The highest by (38.8%) from males mentioned that the rate of noise is too noisy, and (12.5%) for females, the total was (51.0%). Significance found for both genders.

The highest by (43.6%) from males claimed that they found difficulty in conversation, and (32.8%) for females, the total claimed was (76.4%). The highest by (16.4%) from males mentioned no, and (7.2%) for females, the total mentioned no was (23.6%). No statistical significant was shown, Table (16), Fig. (15). This result contrasts with Brosky’s statement (1961), that disturbance to conversation was the most reliable way of recognizing when the noise was creating a nuisance. However, the modest NNI of only 48.5 in (KIA) may explain the discrepancy between the two results. The important point is that workers in the air traffic control in the run way were talking very loudly.

(27.3%) from males claimed that their work efficiency has been affected, and (7.2%) for females, the total claimed was (34.5%). By (32.7%) from males mentioned no, and (32.8%) for females, the total mentioned no was (65.5%), Table (17), Fig. (16). Although no statistical significant was shown, this result of average 110 dBC contrasts with Grandjean’s finding (1976), that noise above 60 dBA disturbed office- working efficiency. Also (KIA) staff kindergarten is located in the new building of Sudan airways that could affect their learning efficiency and studying concentration.

As for the hearing ability, (32.7%) males and (21.8%) females claimed that their hearing ability has declined, the total claimed was (54.5%). By (27.3%) males and (18.2%) females mentioned no, the total mentioned no was (45.5%). No statistical significant was shown, Table (18), Fig. (17). The most declines were little by (50.0%) for males, and (50.0%) moderate for females. The highest decline for both genders was little by (48.0%), followed by moderate (40.0%), then much (12.0%), Table (19), Fig. (18). This result contrasts to the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) which has set the danger level at 95 dB and above, for four or more hours per day, as likely to induce permanent hearing impairment (Website 1).

(20.0%) males claimed that they have medical examination and (3.6%) for females, the total claimed was (23.6%). The highest by (40.0%) from males mentioned no, and (36.4%) for females, the total mentioned no was (76.4%). Statistical significance was shown for both, Table (20), Fig. (19). However, the results showed that all the workers who have had medical examination were not subjected to periodic follow up later on.

(30.9%) males and (30.0%) females claimed that they feel pain or headache, the total claimed was (61.8%). By (29.1%) from males mentioned no, and (9.1%) for females, the mentioned no was (38.2%). Statistical significance was shown only for females. This correlates with absence of medical examination for (KIA) staff in the health care system, no ear protector use, and this might have a relationship with the rate of noise perception that was significant for both genders.

(12.1%) from males claimed that they know a colleague who suffered from noise and (4.5%) for females, the total claimed was (9.1%). The highest by (87.9%) from males mentioned no, and (95.5%) for females, the total mentioned no was (90.9%). Positive answers referred predominantly to those working in the Runway, where two of them fell dead during their work from January 2000 up to June 2003; an average of one death in the runway staff every one and a half year.

The (KIA) staff suggestions concentrated in the use of ear protectors, removal of offices away from the runway, use of sound insulation in buildings, stopping of noisy aircraft using (KIA), payment advance, removal of (KIA) outside the city not less than 50 Km and not more than 70 Km, minimization of working hours to less than eight hours per day, and periodic medical examination especially for hearing ability.

Table (15); Response to noise as a problem

Gender Male Female Total Noise problem Yes Count 60 38 98 % of Total 54.5% 34.5% 89.1% No Count 6 6 12 % of Total 5.5% 5.5% 10.9% Total Count 66 44 110 % of Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .561b 1 .454 Continuity Correctiona .191 1 .662 Likelihood Ratio .551 1 .458 Fisher's Exact Test .538 .327 Linear-by-Linear .556 1 .456 Association N of Valid Cases 110 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.80.

Fig. (14); Response to noise as a problem

70

60

50

40

30

20 Gender

10 Count Male

0 Female Yes No

Noise is a problem in your work

Table (16); Response to difficulty of conversation

Gender Male Female Total Difficulty of conversation Yes Count 48 36 84 % of Total 43.6% 32.7% 76.4% No Count 18 8 26 % of Total 16.4% 7.3% 23.6% Total Count 66 44 110 % of Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.209b 1 .272 Continuity Correction a .758 1 .384 Likelihood Ratio 1.237 1 .266 Fisher's Exact Test .361 .193 Linear-by-Linear 1.198 1 .274 Association N of Valid Cases 110 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.40.

Fig. (15); Response to difficulty of conversation

60

50

40

30

20

Gender 10 Count Male

0 Female Yes No

Difficulty of conversation

Table (17); Response to disturbance in work efficiency

Gender Male Female Total Your work efficiency Yes Count 30 8 38 is affected % of Total 27.3% 7.3% 34.5% No Count 36 36 72 % of Total 32.7% 32.7% 65.5% Total Count 66 44 110 % of Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.684b 1 .003 Continuity Correction a 7.520 1 .006 Likelihood Ratio 9.136 1 .003 Fisher's Exact Test .004 .003 Linear-by-Linear 8.605 1 .003 Association N of Valid Cases 110 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.20.

Fig. (16); Response to disturbance in work efficiency

40

30

20

10 Gender

Count Male

0 Female Yes No

Your work efficiency is affected

Table (18); Response to decline in hearing ability

Gender Male Female Total Your hearing is Yes Count 36 24 60 declined % of Total 32.7% 21.8% 54.5% No Count 30 20 50 % of Total 27.3% 18.2% 45.5% Total Count 66 44 110 % of Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square .000b 1 1.000 Continuity Correction a .000 1 1.000 Likelihood Ratio .000 1 1.000 Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .578 Linear-by-Linear .000 1 1.000 Association N of Valid Cases 110 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.00.

Fig. (17); Response to decline in hearing ability

40

30

20

Gender

Count Male

10 Female Yes No

Your hearing ability is declined

Table (19); Response to extent of decline

Gender Male Female Total Extent of Little Count 18 10 28 decline % of Total 30.0% 16.7% 46.7% Moderate Count 12 12 24 % of Total 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% Much Count 6 2 8 % of Total 10.0% 3.3% 13.3% Total Count 36 24 60 % of Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.964a 2 .375 Likelihood Ratio 1.995 2 .369 Linear-by-Linear .000 1 1.000 Association N of Valid Cases 60 a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.20.

Fig. (18); Response to extent of decline

20

10

Gender

Count Male

0 Female Little Moderate Much

Extent of decline

Table (20); Response to medical examination

Gender Male Female Total Medical Yes Count 22 4 26 examination % of Total 19.0% 3.4% 22.4% No Count 24 40 64 % of Total 20.7% 34.5% 55.2% Not periodic Count 22 4 26 % of Total 19.0% 3.4% 22.4% Total Count 68 48 116 % of Total 58.6% 41.4% 100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 26.255a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 28.015 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear .000 1 1.000 Association N of Valid Cases 116 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.76.

Fig. (19); Response to medical examination

50

40

30

20

10 Gender

Count Male

0 Female Yes No Not periodic

Medical examination

4.4 Quality of Life

The worker, who is on night shift and sleeps in the daytime under conditions of high noise level, suffers from a very bad environment (Gunn, 1978). Unhealthy environment in the work place due to noise pollution arising from inadequate protection of workers from noise could cause hearing loss. The average of measurement readings inside (KIA) is 110 dBC, and from the permissible steady level noise exposure for work environment hygiene (Hassan, 1996), should not exceed twenty-six minutes per day.

Unhealthy home is paralleled by an equally unhealthy environment, and polluted environment by noise will reflect in home, therefore noise pollution spreads through the environment in various scales from small unit in the city up to large one in the whole city.

Polluted land site is not just due to solid waste or near solid waste dumps, but embraces the areas with high levels of noise pollution such as in proximity to airports (Website 9).

Noise from (KIA) pollutes residential areas, hospitals, kindergartens, schools, colleges, offices, markets, industrial areas, recreation areas, mosques, and churches. That agreed with the readings outside (KIA), the finding of the higher ten readings and their locations, which were above 102.9 dBC. Three readings found at hospital in front door, and the higher reading outside (KIA) found at a hospital in front door. Two readings found at education buildings, colleges and kindergartens. Two readings found at leisure activities. Two readings found at traffic junction. One reading found at a residential area.

(KIA) impact is not confined to the noise pollution; it could affect the quality of life of a wide population. (Lenihan, 1976), mentioned hat noise affect hormones, the body working to regulate the disturbance (immunity disturbance), and could lead to exposure to viruses and bacteria. Thus, the city of Khartoum could suffer from the “City Genetic Syndrome”; a part of the population would have their bodies’ continuously fighting to adopt themselves to noise disruption.

Noise pollution is one of the problems in large cities; the sources of noise pollution include highway traffic, industrial, and airports. In some cases, desirable maximum levels of outside noise (65 decibels) are exceeded. In Port Harcourt, measurements of aircraft noise excess of 80

decibels were recorded. The major cause of the problem is the lack of regulations and institutions to check noise pollution (Website 9).

In this case study, the reading numbers twelve from the highest one, found above 102 dBC that coincides with the average at the community measurement, which exceeds the standard level of noise exposure 80 dBC in one hour per day (Gouma, 1987). It has been observed that the major cause of airport noise pollution is the lack of consideration given to noise pollution and human health aspects when formulating and assessing airport project.

Noise pollution from (KIA) is not the only environmental hazard; air pollution reported (Master Plan, 2000), hazard of aircraft crashing over the city, possibility of fire, and vibration is observed. Also (KIA) location occupies a large area in central city, this leads to traffic jam, which also produces noise pollution, air pollution, and traffic accidents. Therefore, a clear relationship between (KIA) location and aircraft noise pollution does exist, and it is not safe to locate all these environmental hazards in central city; land use and zones of protection were not found in the city planning.

In Europe, Heathrow Airport (England) which is located 25 Km west of London (Website 8), and Charles de Gaulle (France) which is located 23 Km north east of Paris near the village of Roissy, all results lead to conclusion that aircraft noise pollution affects population around those areas (Appendix-4: p12), (Website 6). On the other hand, in Africa, Entebbe Airport (Uganda) which is located 30 Km from Kampala at the end of Entebbe Peninsular is given as an example of a non noisy source for population (Website 7).

The (KIA) location affects the appearance and type of Khartoum city buildings, where Civil Aviation Laws prevent higher buildings (more than ten floors), as a result the city is expanding horizontally.

The proposed site for the new airport in the southern Khartoum city between Madani and Khartoum State is the most suitable location which may serve all the country more than the other two locations in Al Hag Yousif and near Aljaili (Khartoum North) where residential areas are extending. Finally coming up with the concept of “Environmental Engineering Buildings” (EEB) that can be applied at any scale of buildings, (KIA) is tested in brief by the (EEB) concept.

4.5 Concept of Environmental Engineering Buildings (EEB)

4.5.1 Hypothesis

All buildings can affect and be affected by the environment; the aim of this concept is to connect buildings with the environment in order to perform a highly environmental engineering function for community and users of these buildings.

Physical urban environment is that what created by Man, which has positive and negative aspects, therefore, connection of buildings with the environment is to play a positive role in the whole environment, and solve the negative aspects to reach a safe environment. The (EEB) concept tends to assume that; the maximum 1/10 of population in a city can use a building in one hour, and that is for human safety.

The (EEB) concept can be applied to all buildings with potential environmental hazards, e.g. gas oil stations, military camps, electro- thermal power stations, airports and underground metro tunnels or any type of built environment. Any kind of pollution that affects the environment can destroy Man.

4.5.2 Objectives

The objectives of this concept are to:

1- Test the buildings in the environment

2- Increase safety and decrease environmental hazards

3- Improve the environment to have equilibrium status

4- Give suggestion for investigation that could be developed in future

5- Identify a link between engineering and environment

6- Bridge the gap between different disciplines of science in holistic approach.

4.5.3 Parameters

A/ Environmental Parameters

1/Air Pollution

This is one of the main elements of environmental pollution that spread across the world. Polluted air from a chamber at small factory in small city could participate with Ozone depletion or other environmental problems around the world, miss-management from a factory could result in death for thousands of people as that what happened in London (1959), and similar accidents are recorded in other big cities.

2/Water Pollution

Polluted water inside the building could be a serious environmental hazard, e.g. source of insects, and affects deep water. Also could be more serious when spreads outside the building, e.g. sewage from a building running through a city, or untreated water dumping in a river, and that could spread across countries, or by condensation in clouds and move to another place.

3/Noise Pollution

Noise pollution from a building could damage health or human activities for users and community; the noise that is absorbed by the environment changes and harms the quality of life; it is a serious environmental hazard.

4/Waves

Any type of waves that radiates (heat, radiation, energy), vibrates (shaking) or reflects (light) from a building internally or externally to other neighbors could have serious environmental damage for users and community.

5/Waste

Solid, liquid, chemical, atomic, and medical wastes are environmental hazards that could affect human health. Waste management can be very effectively applied to solve waste environmental problems. 6/Pathoganic

This embraces all kind of pathogens (viruses, bacteria, parasites) that could be found inside a building and could spread across the world (e.g. SARS), also biological terrorism hazards that need special consideration to deal with.

7/Fire

One of the most dangerous environmental hazards, e.g. explosion in a building could kill all of the users at that time and multiplicity of the population around it.

B/ Engineering Parameters

Three engineering parameters in this part consist of three sections: location is the main one (land use), design (theorem of design), and materials (construction method) that used to construct the building.

4.5.4 Method

Seven environmental parameters and three for engineering perform the concept of Environmental Engineering Buildings (EEB). Environmental hazards occur at the level of Man resulting from a building created by him- self that threaten the environment which embraces all living (plants, birds, fishes, animals) and non-living things (water, sand, and uncountable environment), therefore Man is an objective measure for these hazards and risks that affect the whole environment.

The seven parameters are performed to test the actual situation inside the building for users, and outside for community. The weight of users is 7% as maximum safety by giving one degree for each, while 70% for community by giving ten degrees for each.

The total weight of both applies in the equation:

I + O = 77 ------A

Where: I: weight inside O: weight outside

The three parameters performed to test the actual situation of the building are: i- Location of building; is it matching with the land use? To determine whether the location is appropriate or not, test several factors, e.g. climate (temperature, rain, flood, hurricanes), geology (soil, earthquake), geography (topography), weight 18% ii- Design of building; is it comfortable for the users internally? Ventilation, lighting, entrance, circulation direction, distribution and control points, vertical circulation, emergency doors. Is it suitable for community externally? Type of landscape? Weight 3% iii- Material of building: is it the suitable element? Weight 2% (details in Appendix- 3 (A)).

The total weight applies in the equation:

L + D + M = 23 ------B

Where: L : Location D: Design M: Material

The total of A and B applies in the final equation:

A + B =N

Where: N ≥ 83

Any value less than 83 needs action to solve environmental or engineering problems to reduce environmental hazards that could occur. The value above 83 could be classified as Environmental Engineering Building (EEB).

A schedule of seventeen answers of acceptable and un acceptable applies before the equation to determine the degrees, and that is performed by specialist in that field; therefore ten specialists of different disciplines are needed to determine the degrees. In every acceptable inside there is one degree, while zero for un acceptable. Ten degrees for acceptable outside, while zero for un acceptable. Eighteen degrees for acceptable in location, while zero for un acceptable. Three degrees for acceptable in design, while zero for un acceptable. Two degrees for acceptable in material, while zero for un acceptable (Appendix- 3 (B)).

In the main section outside, no more than one zero is permissible. In the main section i.e. location, design and material, again no more than one zero is permissible. On the other hand i.e. in the inside section no more than two zeros are permissible, e.g. If three zeros are found in the inside section, no need to apply the equation because environmental hazards do exist in this case.

4.5.5 Characteristics

This concept is characterized by:

1/ Permit 1/10 of population in a city as users of a building in one hour

2/ Can be applied in both urban and rural areas, e.g. a small city of 5000, all population can use a stadium, but environmental hazards are not predictable.

3/ Protect the environment from a hazard that could be caused by a building

4/ Full degrees for all parameters, but zero degree for location does not comply with the (EEB) concept, and that to protect the building itself and users to perform a highly environmental engineering function, e.g. natural environmental hazard (flood, earthquake, hurricanes).

4.5.6 Advantages

1/ Reduce environmental disasters

2/ Increase social interaction

3/ Improve environmental regulations

4/ Create a working team of different disciplines to evaluate the situation of any building from different points of view.

4.5.7 Disadvantages

1/ It could be costly in some cases, although it is cost effective

2/ Implementation could be difficult in some areas with limited resources.

4.5.8 (EEB) Diagram

Project concept

Human health and Pre-feasibility social well-being

Sound environment Feasibility

Evaluation Environmental - Project - (EEB) design engineering

Implementation (EEB) test

4.5.9 Application

To test this concept in Khartoum International Airport (KIA), and from the previous results of this study, noise is found in part (A) – inside and outside – therefore zero degree is given for both inside and outside. For part (B) – location, design, and material – location of (KIA) is not appropriate; therefore, zero degree is given for the location section (land use). All the other parameters have full degrees, and apply in the equation:

A + B = N ( ≥ 83 )

But,

66+5 =71 ( < 83 )

∴ N < 83

Therefore, (KIA) has a location as well as a noise problem (inside and outside). It needs to solve its environmental hazards and engineering problem to have a highly environmental engineering function and safe environment.

4.6 Conclusion

In conclusion the location of (KIA) is not the proper site, and noise is a problem for residents and workers inside. Impact of aircraft noise pollution was found in work and community environment:

Maximum reading inside (KIA): 119.2 db (versus 90 db internationally as hearing damage)

Maximum reading outside (KIA): 117.1 db (versus 75 db internationally as damage of autonomic nervous system) (Grandjean, 1976) and confirmed by (Salvato, 1982).

Impact of aircraft noise pollution on the residents around (KIA) is represented by the fact that (88.3%) claimed that noise is a problem, (94.6%) claimed that it has increased, and (87.1%) supported removal of Khartoum International Airport (KIA) outside the city with significance found for both genders. Within (KIA), workers suffer from noise pollution by (89.0%), with feel of pain or headache by (61.8%), and with absence of medical check up system and ear protector by (100%). Even cases of death reported in the run way of (KIA) were attributed to high noise.

5.1 Aircraft Noise Control As A system Concept

Protection of the public health and welfare from aircraft noise is accomplished most effectively by exercising four noise-control options taken together as a system:

1/ Source control, consisting of the application of basic design principles or special hardware to the engine airframe combination, which will minimize the generation and radiation of noise.

2/ Path control, consisting of the application of flight procedures that will minimize the generation and propagation of noise.

3/ Receiver control, consisting of the application of procedures such as restrictions on the type and use of aircraft at the airport, which will minimize community noise exposure.

4/ Land-use control, consisting of the development or modification of airport surrounding for maximum noise-compatible usage.

In general, the primary approach for noise abatement is to attempt to control noise at the source to the extent that aircraft would be acceptable for operations at all airports and en route. And in principle, aircraft noise can be controlled extensively at the source by massive implementation of technology (Lipscomb, 1978).

Technology provides the means for dealing with environmental pollution and degradation that could be affectively applied to solve such environmental problems.

The very important action for jet aircraft engine is to develop the basic working process to minimize the noise, and with proper design the environmental acceptability of such process can be greatly enhanced, therefore, the entire operation is more environmentally friendly.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 For Society Outside (KIA)

It’s crucial that the government should provide the necessary support for sustainable development in terms of legislation, which must be backed by strong administration procedures and supported by environmental control capabilities and must promote the integration of the environmental considerations into the planning of development policies.

Noise Pollution Environmental Law should come up urgently in Health Act; noise pollution should be checked for community and working environment by executive body, like Ministry of Health, and this is a human right.

1- Remove (KIA) to another location outside the city, and prevent any plan of residential area in a distance of 30 Km

2- Prevent flights during night, from 11:00 pm up to 05:00 am

3- Prevent noisy aircrafts to use (KIA)

4- Develop aircraft engine

5- Establish Noise Pollution Environmental Law, Health Act

6- Create monitoring sites around (KIA)

7- Create health care emergency units around (KIA).

8- Pay special consideration for aircraft noise pollution and human health aspects in the new airports projects, and future airports plans in the country

9- Give special consideration for land- use and zones of protection in city planning. 5.2.2 For Workers Inside (KIA)

Inside airport, workers need special concern in occupational health, where hearing loss has been documented (Salvato, 1982). The following are recommendations for work environment hygiene:

1- Use ear protector for all the staff inside (KIA) especially the runway staff.

2- Use sound insulation inside the buildings

3- Perform periodic medical examination on workers

4- Remove (KIA) Staff Kindergarten, which is inside the airport to another location outside

5- Arrange workshops and training courses for (KIA) staff on environmental awareness about aircrafts noise pollution and other environmental hazards.

5.3 Proposal for Further Studies

1- Psychological effects of aircraft noise pollution on population and patients in hospitals around (KIA)

2- Effects of aircraft noise on buildings in relation to distance and height

3- Effect of aircraft noise on domestic animals

4- Khartoum International Airport Environmental Hazards.

1/ Abd Alkraim, R., 1997. Environmental Evaluation of Third Class Housing in Khartoum. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Khartoum. Page: 177

2/ Bishop, D. E., and Horonjeff, R. D., 1967. Proceures For Developing Noise Exposure Forecast Areas For Aircraft Flight Operations Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. Van Nuys, California, Under Contract FA-WA-1705, August

3/ Bitter, C., and Van Weeren, P., 1955. Sound Nuisance and Sound Insulation In Blocks of Dwellings. The Hague: Research Institute For Public Health Engineering TNO. Report No. 24

4/ Borsky, P. N., 1961. Community Reaction To Aircraft Noise: Part II Data On Community Studies and Their Interpretation. WADD Tech. Rep. 60- 689 (II). (Mc Gregor and Werner Inc. Dayton, Ohio)

5/ Bugliarello, G., 1976. The Impact of Noise Pollution. New York

6/ Bunnell, F. L., Dunbar, D., Koza, L. and G. Ryder, 1981. Effects of disturbance on the productivity and numbers of white pelicans in British Colombia-observations and models. Coloial Waterbirds 4:2-11

7/ Burns, W., 1973. Noise and Man. 2nd ed., London

8/ Civil Aviation Authority, Master Plan, 2000. Khartoum International Airport, Information Office

9/ Cohen, A., 1969. Effects of noise on psychological State In W. Ward and J. Fricke, Noise as a public health hazard Washington: American Speech Hearing Association

10/ Davis, H., 1968. Auditory and Non- Auditory Effects of High- Intensity Noise. Cited in: W. Burns, Noise and Man (London: John Murray)

11/ Fletcher, H., 1972. Speech and Hearing in Communication, Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1953. Noise Control Center, Wymondkam, Leicestershire, U. K. Personal

12/ Golden, J., Ouellette, R., Saari, S., and Cheremisinoff, P., 1979. Environmental Impact Data Book. By Ann Arober Science Publishers, Inc. Pages: 505, 519

13/ Grandjean, E., and Gilgen, A., 1976. Environmental Factors In Urban Planning. Taylor and Francis Ltd- London. Pages: 72- 83

14/ Gouma, M. A., 1987. Noise Pollution and Ultrasonic. Dar Al Rateb- Lebanon. Pages: 20, 21

15/ Green; Pasternack: and Shore, 1982. Effect of Aircraft Noise on Reading Ability of School Aged Children. Arch. Ebviron. Health. Vol. 37 (1) 24-31

16/ Gunn, A., 1978. Habitat: Human Settlements in an Urban Age. University of British Columbia, Canada. Robert Maxwell, M. C. Pergamon Press Inc.

17/ Green, 1982. New York University. Institute of Environmental Medicine

18/ Hassan, H., 1996. Environmental Noise Pollution in Work Environmet; Case Study: Khartoum Textile Factory. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Khartoum

19/ Harrigton F. H. and A. M. Veitch, 1992. Calving success of woodland cariban exposed to low-level jet flighter over flights. Arctic 45:213-218.

20/ Hawel, W., 1967. Untersuchungen eines Bezugssystems fur die Psychologische Schall- Bewertung. Arbeitswissenschaft, 6, 50- 53

21/ Hobson, W., 1979. The Theory and Practice of Public Health. Fifth Edition, New York Toronto. Page: 126

22/ Holland, 1967. Public Relation For Buffalo Airport, Personal Communication. Wegman Production Inc.

23/ Hutchinson, B. G., 1974. Principle of Urban Transport System Planning. Scripta Book Company

24/ Jansen, G., 1959. Zur Entstehung Vegetativer Funktionsstorungen durch Larm. Arch. Gewerbepath. Gewerbehyg., 17, 238- 261 25/ Julian, B. O., 1979. Fundamental of Industrial Hygiene. Second Edition, Editor- in- Chief, National Safety Council Chicago, U.S.A.

26/ Lang, S., 1994. Cornell University. Cornell Science News: Aircraft noise harms children

27/ Lenihan, J. and Fletcher, w., 1976. Environmental and Man, Health and The Environment, Glasgow- England By: Blackie and Son limited. Volume: 3, Pages: 1, 22

28/ Lipscomb, D., and Taylor, A., 1978 Noise Control, Hand Book of Principles and Practices, Litton Education Publishing, Inc. Pages: 12, 13, 14, 15, 206, 135

29/ Lowery, J. H., 1975. World City Growth. By: Edward Arnold Ltd. Page: 1

30/ Manci, K. M., Gladwin, D. n., Villella, R. and M. G. Gavendish, 1988. Effects of aircraft Noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. U. S. Fish and wildlife service. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO NERC- 88/29.88pp.

31/ Maser, et al, 1978. Effects of Intrusive Sound on Classroom Behavior: Data from successful lawsuit. San Francisco

32/ Mc Kennell, A. C., 1963. Airport Noise Annoyance around London (Heathrow) Airport (London: Central Office of Information), Social Survey 337, London

33/ Mc Kennell, A. G., 1961. Aircraft Noise Annoyance Arround London (Heathrow) Airport (London: General Central of Information) Social Survey 337, London

34/ Miller, F. L and E. Broughton, 1974. Calfmortality on the calving grounds of Kaminuriak caribou during 1970. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series No. 26, Canada, Ottawa.

35/ Mohamed, S. H., 1981. Traffic Air and Noise Pollution In central Khartoum City Area. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Khartoum. Pages: 10, 23 36/ National Park Service, 1994. Report to Congress, report on effects of aircraft over flights on the National Park System

37/ Nunez, D. G., 1998. Californianiversity, Irvine. Student Paper

38/ Pafflin, J. and Ziegler, E. N., 1976. Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering, Gordon and Breach Science, New York- USA, Volume: 2 (N- Z). Pages : 601, 602, 603

39/ Richter, G., and Hoch, R., 1967. Les problems du bruit autor des aeroports et les moyens de sa reduction Communication presentee au 8e Congres International Aeronautique, Paris 29- 31 mai 1967 : societe Nationale d’ Etude et de construction de Moteurs d’ Aviation 40/ Roewers, H., 1968. Ein Flugplatzbereichsgesetz als Vorschlag zur losung des ween, Stadtebau und Raumplanung DV 9 (Koln- Mulheim 1968)

41/ Ryland, R., Sorensen, S., and Kajland, A., 1972. Annoyance Reaction From Aircraft Noise Exposure. F. Sound Vibr. 242, 419- 444

42/ Salvato, J. A., 1982. Environmental Engineering and Sanitation John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Pages: 658, 665, 665, 659, 660

43/ Steinicke, G., 1957. Die wirkung von larm auf den Schlaf des Menschen. Forschungsbericht Nr. 416 des wirtschafts- Und Verkehrsministeriums des landes Nordrhein- Westfalen (Koln/ Oplanden : westdeutscher verlag)

44/ Sutton, P., 1971. Noise and Community. Annals of Occupation Hygiene. Page: 2

45/ Wassef, R. K., 1984. Physics and Environment, New Forntiers in Physics. Dar Al Nashar- Egypt. Page: 166

46/ Website 1: www.darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/s98/nunez/noise/html

47/ Website 2: www.minduploading.org/mu-news.html

48/ Website 3: www.nonoise.org/library/epahlth.htm

49/ Website 4: www.nonoise.org/library/fctsheet/wildlife.htm

50/ Website 5: www.noise.org/news/just.htm

51/ Website 6: www.paris.org/accueil/airport

52/ Website 7: www.thetravelsite.com/dests/dgafrica/guganda/airport.html

53/ Website 8: www.travel.epicurious.com/maps/airportguides/eur/index.ssf?londonhrw. html

54/ Website 9: www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80918e/80918eog.htm

55/ Website 10: www.wilrep.com/building.html

56/ Wickrama, I. Abrook, M. F., Gattoni, F. E. G, and Herridge, C. F., 1969. Mental Hospital admission and Aircraft Noise. Lancet, 13, December.

Appendix- 1 Questionnaire (A) Social Questionnaire

Social Survey Questionnaire Format For Aircraft Noise Pollution From (KIA) In Khartoum City a) Date:...... b) Time: ...... c) Location: ......

1/ Name:...... 2/ Age: ...... 3/ Gender: (Male), (Female) 4/ Education: ...... 5/ Occupation: ...... 6/ Working area? ...... 7/ Are you resident of Khartoum? (Yes), (No) 8/ If yes, for how long? (1-5 Yrs), (6-10 Yrs), (+ 10 Yrs) 9/ Do you consider the aircraft noise has increased in Khartoum over the past four years? (Yes), (No) 10/ Do you consider the aircraft noise pollution is a problem in Khartoum? (Yes), (No) 11/ Did the noise of aircraft: a) Disturb you? (Not at all) (A little) (Moderately) (Very much) b) When does noise bother you most? (Morning), (Evening) c) Wake you from sleep? (Yes), (No) . d) Disturb you when you were listing to Radio, watching Television or Leisure activities? (Yes), (No) e) Make the house vibrate? (Yes), (No) f) Interfere with conversation? (Yes), (No) 12/ If you are suffer from (K I A), Do you want to move away? (Yes), (No) 13/ If yes, why? ……………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………... 14/ Do you consider it is better to remove (K I A), from its present location? (Yes), (No) 15/ Did the noise of aircraft disturb your work efficiency or your concentration at study? (Yes), (No) 16/ Do you considered that there is a need for noise pollution law to control the noise in Sudan? (Yes), (No) 17/ What type of aircraft annoys you most? ………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………

(B) Work Environment Questionnaire

Work Environment Survey Format For Aircraft Noise Pollution At (K I A) a) Date:...... b) Time: ......

I/Name: …………………………… 2/ Age: ...... 3/ Gender: (Male), (Female) 4/ Education:…………………… 5/ Occupation: ...... 6/ Years in job? ...... 7/ Type of work? a) Normal hours b) Shifts 8/ Number of working hours per day? ...... 9/ Do you consider there is a noise problem in your working environment? (Yes), (No) 10/ If yes, how do you rate it? a) A bit noisy b) Too noisy 11/ Do you find difficulty in conversing with other during noise of aircraft? (Yes), (No) 12/ Has your work efficiency been affected? (Yes), (No) 13/ Do you feel that your hearing ability has been in decline? (Yes), (No) 14/ If yes, to what extent? a) Little b) Moderate c) Much 15/ Do you have medical examination for your hearing and general health? (Yes), (No) 16/ If yes, it is: a)Periodic b) Not periodic 17/ Do you use ear protection? (Yes), (No) 18/ Do you feel any pain or headache or other symptoms? (Yes), (No) 19/ Do you know any of your colleagues who have suffered from noise impact? (Yes), (No) 20/ If yes, when and how? ………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………… 21/ Do you have any suggestions about aircraft noise? ………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………….

Appendix- 2

Results

Social Questionnaire Results

Direction, Gender, and Age Cross tabulation

Gender Age Male Female Total 18-29 Direction North Count 9 6 15 % of Total 4.4% 2.9% 7.4% East Count 21 27 48 % of Total 10.3% 13.2% 23.5% West Count 9 19 28 % of Total 4.4% 9.3% 13.7% South Count 44 69 113 % of Total 21.6% 33.8% 55.4% Total Count 83 121 204 % of Total 40.7% 59.3% 100.0% 30-39 Direction North Count 14 6 20 % of Total 17.9% 7.7% 25.6% East Count 24 9 33 % of Total 30.8% 11.5% 42.3% West Count 16 7 23 % of Total 20.5% 9.0% 29.5% South Count 2 2 % of Total 2.6% 2.6% Total Count 56 22 78 % of Total 71.8% 28.2% 100.0% 40-49 Direction North Count 8 3 11 % of Total 18.6% 7.0% 25.6% East Count 14 6 20 % of Total 32.6% 14.0% 46.5% West Count 4 4 8 % of Total 9.3% 9.3% 18.6% South Count 4 4 % of Total 9.3% 9.3% Total Count 30 13 43 % of Total 69.8% 30.2% 100.0% 50-59 Direction North Count 1 1 2 % of Total 6.7% 6.7% 13.3% East Count 4 1 5 % of Total 26.7% 6.7% 33.3% West Count 5 2 7 % of Total 33.3% 13.3% 46.7% South Count 1 1 % of Total 6.7% 6.7% Total Count 11 4 15 % of Total 73.3% 26.7% 100.0% 60 Direction North Count 5 2 7 % of Total 45.5% 18.2% 63.6% East Count 1 1 2 % of Total 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% West Count 2 2 % of Total 18.2% 18.2% Total Count 8 3 11 % of Total 72.7% 27.3% 100.0%

Age: 18-29

80

60

40

20 Gender Count Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Age: 30-39

30

20

10 Gender

Count Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Age: 40-49 16

14

12

10

8

6 Count 4 Gender

2 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Age: 50-59 6

5

4

3

2 Count Gender 1 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Age: 60+ 6

5

4

3

2 Count Gender 1 Male

0 Female North East West

Direction

Direction, Gender, and Education Cross tabulation

Gender Education Male Female Total Primary Direction North Count 2 2 4 % of Total 15.4% 15.4% 30.8% East Count 3 3 % of Total 23.1% 23.1% West Count 5 5 % of Total 38.5% 38.5% South Count 1 1 % of Total 7.7% 7.7% Total Count 8 5 13 % of Total 61.5% 38.5% 100.0% High School Direction North Count 8 5 13 % of Total 19.5% 12.2% 31.7% East Count 14 6 20 % of Total 34.1% 14.6% 48.8% West Count 3 3 6 % of Total 7.3% 7.3% 14.6% South Count 2 2 % of Total 4.9% 4.9% Total Count 27 14 41 % of Total 65.9% 34.1% 100.0% University Direction North Count 16 8 24 % of Total 6.9% 3.5% 10.4% East Count 30 25 55 % of Total 13.0% 10.8% 23.8% West Count 17 20 37 % of Total 7.4% 8.7% 16.0% South Count 47 68 115 % of Total 20.3% 29.4% 49.8% Total Count 110 121 231 % of Total 47.6% 52.4% 100.0% Post Graduate Direction North Count 11 3 14 % of Total 16.7% 4.5% 21.2% East Count 20 10 30 % of Total 30.3% 15.2% 45.5% West Count 11 9 20 % of Total 16.7% 13.6% 30.3% South Count 1 1 2 % of Total 1.5% 1.5% 3.0% Total Count 43 23 66 % of Total 65.2% 34.8% 100.0%

Education: Primary

6

5

4

3

2 Gender

1 Count Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Education: High School

16

14

12

10

8

6

4 Gender Count 2 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Education: University 80

70

60

50

40

30

20 Gender Count 10 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Education: Post Graduate

30

20

10 Gender

Count Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Direction, Gender, and Occupation Cross tabulation Gender Occupation Male Female Total Not Direction North Count 1 1 % of Total 20.0% 20.0% East Count 3 3 % of Total 60.0% 60.0% West Count 1 1 % of Total 20.0% 20.0% Total Count 1 4 5 % of Total 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% Student Direction North Count 3 3 6 % of Total 2.0% 2.0% 4.1% East Count 11 12 23 % of Total 7.4% 8.1% 15.5% West Count 3 9 12 % of Total 2.0% 6.1% 8.1% South Count 43 64 107 % of Total 29.1% 43.2% 72.3% Total Count 60 88 148 % of Total 40.5% 59.5% 100.0% Worker Direction North Count 3 1 4 % of Total 18.8% 6.3% 25.0% East Count 5 5 % of Total 31.3% 31.3% West Count 4 1 5 % of Total 25.0% 6.3% 31.3% South Count 2 2 % of Total 12.5% 12.5% Total Count 12 4 16 % of Total 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Officer Direction North Count 9 3 12 % of Total 14.5% 4.8% 19.4% East Count 16 11 27 % of Total 25.8% 17.7% 43.5% West Count 10 8 18 % of Total 16.1% 12.9% 29.0% South Count 5 5 % of Total 8.1% 8.1% Total Count 40 22 62 % of Total 64.5% 35.5% 100.0% Engineer Direction North Count 6 2 8 % of Total 17.1% 5.7% 22.9% East Count 7 5 12 % of Total 20.0% 14.3% 34.3% West Count 8 5 13 % of Total 22.9% 14.3% 37.1% South Count 1 1 2 % of Total 2.9% 2.9% 5.7% Total Count 22 13 35 % of Total 62.9% 37.1% 100.0% Doctor Direction North Count 5 5 % of Total 22.7% 22.7% East Count 7 3 10 % of Total 31.8% 13.6% 45.5% West Count 3 3 6 % of Total 13.6% 13.6% 27.3% South Count 1 1 % of Total 4.5% 4.5% Total Count 15 7 22 % of Total 68.2% 31.8% 100.0% Business Direction North Count 10 10 % of Total 24.4% 24.4% East Count 18 18 % of Total 43.9% 43.9% West Count 8 2 10 % of Total 19.5% 4.9% 24.4% South Count 2 1 3 % of Total 4.9% 2.4% 7.3% Total Count 38 3 41 % of Total 92.7% 7.3% 100.0% House wife Direction North Count 9 9 % of Total 40.9% 40.9% East Count 10 10 % of Total 45.5% 45.5% West Count 3 3 % of Total 13.6% 13.6% Total Count 22 22 % of Total 100.0% 100.0%

Occupation: Not 3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

Count Gender 1.0 Male

.5 Female North East West

Direction

Occupation: Student 70

60

50

40

30

20 Count Gender

10 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Occupation: Worker 6

5

4

3

2 Gender Count 1 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Occupation: Officer 18

16

14

12

10

8

6 Gender Count 4

2 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Occupation: Engineer 10

8

6

4

Count Gender 2 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Occupation: Doctor 8

7

6

5

4

3

Count 2 Gender

1 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Occupation: Business

20

10

Count Gender

Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Occupation: House wife

12

10

8

6

4 Count

2 North East West

Direction

Table showing the number and gender of respondents residing in Khartoum Gender Resident Male Female Total

Yes Direction North Count 36 17 53

% of Total 10.7% 5.0% 15.7%

East Count 64 44 108

% of Total 19.0% 13.1% 32.0%

West Count 35 32 67

% of Total 10.4% 9.5% 19.9%

South Count 48 61 109

% of Total 14.2% 18.1% 32.3%

Total Count 183 154 337

% of Total 54.3% 45.7% 100.0%

No Direction North Count 1 1 2

% of Total 7.1% 7.1% 14.3%

West Count 1 1

% of Total 7.1% 7.1%

South Count 3 8 11

% of Total 21.4% 57.1% 78.6%

Total Count 5 9 14

% of Total 35.7% 64.3% 100.0%

Resident

70

60

50

40

30 Count Gender 20 Male

10 Female North East West South

Direction

Not Resident

10

8

6

4

Gender Count 2 Male

0 Female North West South

Direction

Direction, Gender, and Resident Years Cross tabulation

Gender Resident years Male Female Total 1-5 years Direction North Coun 2 2 4 %t of 2.7% 2.7 5.5% Eas CounTotal 6 % 4 1 t %t of 8.2% 5.5 13.7%0 West CounTotal 4 % 2 6 %t of 5.5% 2.7 8.2% South CounTotal 22 % 31 5 %t of 30.1% 42.5% 72.6%3 Total CountTotal 34 39 7 % of Total 46.6% 53.4% 100.0%3 6-10 years Direction North Count 3 1 4 % of Total 6.1% 2.0 8.2% Eas Count 10 % 6 1 t % of Total 20.4% 12.2% 32.7%6 West Count 6 7 1 % of Total 12.2% 14.3% 26.5%3 South Count 5 11 1 % of Total 10.2% 22.4% 32.7%6 Total Count 24 25 4 % of Total 49.0% 51.0% 100.0%9 10+years Direction North Count 32 15 4 % of Total 14.0% 6.6 20.5%7 Eas Count 48 % 34 8 t % of Total 21.0% 14.8% 35.8%2 West Count 26 23 4 % of Total 11.4% 10.0% 21.4%9 South Count 24 27 5 % of Total 10.5% 11.8% 22.3%1 Total Count 130 99 229 % of Total 56.8% 43.2% 100.0%

Resident years: 1-5 Years 40

30

20

Count 10 Gender

Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Resident years: 6-10 Years 12

10

8

6

4 Count Gender 2 Male

0 Female North East West South

Direction

Resident years: 10+ Years 50

40

30

20 Gender Count Male

10 Female North East West South

Direction

Appendix- 3

(A) (EEB) Engineering Details

(1) Location [18.0%]

1/ Land use ---- (12%) 1- Planning 2% 2- Culture 2% 3- Social 2% 4- History 2% 5- Policy 2% 6- Law 2%

2/ Climate ---- (2%)

3/ Geology ---- (2%)

4/ Geography ---- (1%)

5/ Economy ---- (1%)

(2) Design [3.0%]

1/ Internally ---- (2%) 1- Harmony {0.2%} i- Shape 0.1% ii- Height 0.1% 2- Areas {0.4%} i- Spaces 0.3% ii- Core doors 0.1% 3- Orientation {o.4%} i- Ventilation 0.2% ii- Lighting o.2% 4- Circulation and Safety {1.0 %} i- Entrance o.1% ii- Direction o.1% ii- Control 0.1% iv- Vertical 0.2% v- Emergency 0.5%

2/ Externally ---- (1.0%) 1- Roof 0.1% 2- Elevation 0.6% 3- Land escape 0.3%

(3) Material [2.0%]

1/ Structure element ---- (1.2%) 2/ Doors and windows ---- (0.3%) 3/ Safety equipments ---- (0.5%)

(B) (EEB) Table

No. Parameter Acceptable Un Factors Acceptable 1 Air 1 0 2 Water 1 0 3 Noise 0 1 Inside 4 Wave 1 0 Environmental 5 Waste 1 0 Factors 6 Pathogenic 1 0 7 Fire 1 0

8 Air 10 0 9 Water 10 0 10 Noise 0 10 Outside 11 Wave 10 0 Environmental 12 Waste 10 0 Factors 13 Pathogenic 10 0 14 Fire 10 0

15 Location 0 18 Engineering 16 Design 3 0 Factors 17 Material 2 0 Total 71 29

71 < 83 ∴ Not acceptable.

Appendix- 4

Plates

Plate (1): Sound Level Meter, Type 2236, used for measurements.

Plate (2): An aircraft in landing position. Note its short distance from land, though not yet within (KIA) boundary.

Plate (3): An aircraft towards landing. Note the vehicles below.

Plate (4): An aircraft flying low over a hospital on the left.

Plate (5): An aircraft just after take off from (KIA).

Plate (6): The absence of high building south of (KIA) allows aircrafts to fly very low on landing causing higher noise.

Plate (7): An aircraft in take off operation.

Plate (8): An aircraft over the southern (KIA) boundary in landing operation.

Plate (9): Protestors in London (Feb. 2004), protesting against the implementation of a proposed regulation that permits night flights.

Appendix-5

The Sound in Holy Quran Reality of Sound

The sound by its all physical characteristics which play very important role in our life in conversation, watching television, listening to radio or nice music tone, could be a cause of disaster and source of death. From Holy Quran, telling a story in the past that sound was used as a punishment by causing death for a group of population in limited area, The Moon (31): “Lo! We sent upon them one Shout, and they became as the dry twigs (rejected by) the builder of a cattle-fold”. "إﻧﺎ أرﺳﻠﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺻﻴﺤﺔ واﺣﺪﻩ ﻓﻜﺎﻧﻮا آﻬﺸﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻈﺮ".

Luqman who was attributed as a wisdom man, was advising his son by giving him guides in how to live and deal in a polite manner. One of these guides which also for us in the present time is to speak in quiet voice not in a loud sound, Luqman (68): “Be modest in thy bearing and subdue thy voice” "و اﻗﺼﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﻴﻚ و اﻏﻀﺾ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻮﺗﻚ"

Every living thing has a life span; also the Earth has a limited time, as a result life of Man. The life will be ended by means of sound through a loud sound cover all the world to kill all living things except few, Al Zoomor (68): “And the trumpet is blown, and all who are in the heavens and all who are in the earth swoon away, save him whom Allah willeth. Then it is blown a second time, and behold then standing waiting” "و ﻧﻔﺦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺼﻮر ﻓﺼﻌﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻤﺎوات و اﻷرض إﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺎء اﷲ ﺛﻢ ﻧﻔﺦ ﻓﻴﻪ أﺧﺮي ﻓﺈﺫا هﻢ ﻗﻴﺎم ﻳﻨﻈﺮون".

Therefore, the end of life will be by Shout in terms of noise pollution. This deal with this research in noise definition: Noise is undesired or unwanted sound. Also comply with the (EEB) hypothesis concept: Any kind of pollution that affects the environment can destroy Man. The amazing point is that: As sound will end this life; also will begin a new life on the other day!