Picture-Frustration Test to Assess Environmental Attitudes of Residents Exposed to Aircraft Noise from Hanoi Noi Bai International Airport
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Using the Picture-Frustration Test to Assess Environmental Attitudes of Residents Living Near Hanoi Noi Bai International Airport
In this paper, the authors conduct a series of socio-acoustic surveys around the Noi Bai International Airport, revealing different levels of noise annoyance responses in the surveyed sites. To clarify this discrepancy and to explore people’s true feelings, the Picture-Frustration test was conducted to assess attitudes toward the airport, aircraft noise, living environment, and awareness of environmental protection in the communities around the airport. In total, 321 responses were obtained. The results showed a significant variation in attitudes toward the airport and natural environment among residents in different areas. Urban residents preferred natural environment to those living in rural and mixed sites, who desired harmony between nature and life convenience. Residents in rural sites raised more complaints about aircraft noise effects on sleep than those in the other sites. The attitudes of the participants varied depending on the exposure noise levels.
The topic covered by its manuscript was really interesting and novel. I am really interested in the sort of works at the intersections between physical environments and human interactions. After I read this, I can recommend for publication in some way but only once the following suggestions are covered. These help to improve the quality of this work:
- The introduction must be better contextualized. There is a very reduced number of references to relevant studies that can partially focus in the same topic. I can give you some potential ideas that you could include:
- According to the results, “Urban residents preferred natural environment to those living in rural and mixed sites, who desired harmony between nature and life convenience. Residents in rural sites raised more complaints about aircraft noise effects on sleep than those in the other sites”. This conclusion seems quite evident in some way. But it is not so evident, if you consider how the land use/cover relate with the tolerance to noise. For example, how areas with high/low building density and high/low residential use behave with noise. What is the influence or built volumes/areas over this. Some studies parametrize the shape of the city by using street based metrics to characterize urban typologies. You should add some reference to relevant studies in this sense.
- Also related with the precious point, the use of technologies like LIDAR (aka laser scanning or airborne laser systems) allows the generation of 3D models for acoustic/noise modelling. It is particularly interesting to add some reference to studies about LIDAR technology (especially in relation with density analysis) and Generation of visually aesthetic and detailed 3D models by using laser scanning and digital photogrammetry.
- Some studies work in sentiment analysis using Twitter or social networks such for example “Twitter sentiment in New York City parks as measure of well-being”. This kind of works have a scope similar to the presented in your manuscript. What is the advantage of your method?
- Your results are based in a questionnaire. However, the problem behind surveys is that the answers can be too subjective, exaggerated or too biased. A proposal for future is to use naturalistic methods like the ones used in traffic studies for measuring the driving behavior of people under different circumstances. I strongly recommend you check and review some studies related to mapping of driving behavior based on naturalistic driving data, which could give you some additional insights for future.
- The number of references is too low for a scientific paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is a very interesting contribution to the methodology for evaluating the annoyance perceived by people living in the vicinity of large airports. It demonstrates how the application of Picture-Frustration test can provide valuable additional information to determine the degree of acceptance of airports by these people. The information obtained regarding the differences in the results between the traditional questionnaires and the P-F tests is also important.
The article is well structured and provides a wealth of valuable data, as well as a detailed interpretation of the research results.
From my point of view there are some aspects that would improve the clarity of the paper and allow readers to better interpret the results obtained. These aspects are mentioned below:
It would be convenient to improve the format of some of the figures and tables:
- The definition in Figures 1 and 2 is very poor. It would be convenient to produce other sharper figures.
- With respect to Figure 3, the caption should briefly describe all the items represented. For example, it does not indicate what the percentages mean on both sides of the bar charts, nor is it indicated why some data is marked in red. Furthermore, in this figure the different elements are not correctly aligned, and some texts are cut off.
- Some of the tables are difficult to read. For example, Table 7 is divided into 2 parts.
In the analysis of Cartoon 1, on page 7, the strange result of A5 is not analyzed or mentioned. Taking into account that there are only 5 participants in that location, can the data from this site be considered representative of the inhabitants of that area?
In view of Figure 4.a, the statement “In summary, the comparison result suggests that participants’ negative attitudes toward the airport between the P-F test and the questionnaire are not significantly different” does not seem very well supported. Probably eliminating the strange result of A5 would improve the coincidence between the curves obtained with the questionnaire and with the P-F Test.
Regarding Section 3.5 It should be assessed whether the results of the 3 studies are comparable due to social differences between the participants. In previous studies, only inhabitants who live in cities have participated in the surveys, and in this study only 28 of the 321 responses come from people who live in urban environments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting, the methodological approach is quite innovative in the context of environmental noise perception studies.
I think the title should be slightly revised to include mentions to noise exposure or alike, because it is probably the amin focus of this work.
In the Introduction, probably some more literature review about the P-F test should be provided: where it has been previously used, what are the benefits compared to other protocols/methods, etc. (references/bibliography on this aspect seem to be missing).
The quality of Figure 1 should be greatly enhanced, as it is not very legible. Regarding this figure, it would probably be interesting to overlap a layer with the noise map for the NBIA area (this should be available from research materials or local authorities?) to see what would be the theoretical exposure for the sites A1-A13. Lden info is actually presented in Table 2 but it would be able to visualize it here already?
For the chi-square test (lines 266-268), please report results in APA standardized format if possible.
Something is wrong with the formatting of Figure 3. Also, graphic quality not optimal here and it should be improved.
In the discussion section, I think it would be appropriate to compare the exposures observed here in the context of the WHO recommendations (World Health Organization, 2018) and elaborate on this aspect. While this is published by European Office, data is coming from all continents, so it is meaningful for other regions of the world too.
World Health Organization. (2018). Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
