NOISE: ATTITUDES AND ACTION
A Quantitative Analysis of a Public Opinion Survey of Spokane
County Citizens on the Problem of Destructive Sound*
by
William D. Perdue, Ph.D.
Ralph Coates, M.A.
Center for Social Research
Eastern Washington University
Technical Assistance and Support Provided by
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
*This is a technical report designed to inform and direct noise
planning professionals. A preliminary report entitled "The Oppression
of Noise" was released in May, 1979. The latter report was designed
to inform interested parties as to the descriptive results of the sur-
vey ,
August, 1979
-------
<=w?6yv7
Typing services provided by
Dee Hilt
Medical Lake, Washington
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Recommendations i
Introduction 1
Cross-Tabulation: The Chi Square 9
Measure of Significance
Survey Findings: City/County Comparisons 12
Survey Findings: City/Valley/Rurban 27
Comparisons
Survey Findings: Intracity Comparisons 36
Nonparametric Correlations 47
Survey Findings: Ordinal Measurement 49
of Association
Bibliography 70
Addendum 1: "Analysis Schema/Spokane 71
Attitudinal Survey"
Addendum II: Glossary 75
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Noise Control Support
Programs formulated and conducted at the local level are typically
thought to be a response to the public need. However, few programs have
the support of a scientific survey designed to secure a representative
view of the voting population. This survey leaves no doubt that a com-
munity noise control program for Spokane County has broad-based public
support. Spokane County citizens overwhelmingly favor various courses
of action to reduce the problem of destructive sound. Such include
efforts to quiet noise sources, planning and zoning, building codes, cur-
fews, fines, barriers, traffic planning and public information campaigns
(see preliminary report, page 19). A majority of Spokane County citizens
further believe that the problem of noise control is the responsibility
of local government. A majority also favors a noise control program in
concept and declare a willingness to pay additional taxes in support
thereof (see preliminary report, page 18, and technical report, pages 25,
34, 44 and 69). The planning and implementation of a community noise
control program constitutes a responsible reaction to a real problem.
2. A Public Information Campaign
While this survey demonstrates a public sensitivity to the problem of
destructive sound, it also underscores important gaps in public knowledge.
i
-------
To be specific, many respondents report becoming "accustomed" to noise
(see preliminary report, page 15). Though this is no doubt true, inasmuch
as one may "learn to tolerate" noise, simply developing with exposure to
increasing noise a higher threshold of noise annoyance does not lessen the
subtle and continuing assault on health and well-being. Other gaps in
knowledge center specifically on the question of personal and health
effects (see technical report, pages 17-19, 29-31, 39-41, 62 and 64).
Given the support for a public information campaign (see above) it appears
prudent to mount a noise awareness effort. Such a campaign should mini-
mally include information on the increasing severity of noise in the
physical sense (decibel increase over time) together with the relationship
between destructive sound and health/well-being. The public should also
be informed as to research findings which demonstrate that noise annoyance
tolerance provides no immunity from harm and further that noise is
connected with aggression and a decline in helping behavior. Finally, a
range of possible noise reduction options should be explored.
3. Policy Implications
Public officials whose offices bear certain responsibility for plan-
ning and programs relating to noise sources (planning, zoning, traffic
control, construction permits, etc.) should benefit from a careful reading
of both the preliminary and the technical reports related to this public
opinion survey. In addition to the issue of noise control, a vast array
of other evaluative input from the citizenry which has important policy
implications is to be found. Unlike the information gathered by means of
public meetings, newspaper accounts or spontaneous contact with officials,
the findings of a survey are representative of the specific population in
question. A survey insures that registered opinion is not simply that of
a special interest group.
ii
-------
It is possible here to point up only a very few findings which
should stimulate more careful reading. As detailed on page 16 of the
preliminary report, the major sources of noise pollution in Spokane
County are motorcycles, pets/animals and traffic. The crosstabulations
section of the technical report demonstrates that such sources are
critical for all examined geographical areas. The crosstabulations
section also shows specifically which particular noise sources are most
problematic for different areas. (For example, both the Northwest and
Northeast areas of the City of Spokane seem affected in important ways
by jet aircraft noise. ) A careful study of this section of the technical
report whould provide something in the way of an initial response to the
"where do we start" question which is basic to planning.
Another finding which bears on noise control planning can be found
on page 15 of the preliminary report. The period of greatest noise
annoyance is in the evening from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., followed closely by
the night period from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise reduction attempts due to
practical necessity might be directed at these priority times of greatest
annoyance (at least in the early stages of a control program).
A. Methodological Issues
As indicated in the technical report, noise annoyance for some
respondents appears at odds with the noise levels in the environment.
This is especially true for older respondents who live in the Central area
of the City of Spokane. Further, such a disparity was confirmed by a
number of interviewers who noted that certain respondents claimed destruc-
tive sound not to be a problem, even though both interviewer and respondent
were forced to raise their voices significantly above conversational level
in order to conduct the interview. Such observations, together with others
iii
-------
contained in the technical report, confirm the necessity of audiometric
testing. The measurement of hearing loss should join the measurement of
the physical and attitudinal dimensions of noise pollution as a vital
component of this urgent problem. Later analysis might combine audio-
metric, physical and attitudinal data within a multiple regression
equation.
Other methodological points might be made in abundance. A few of
these which appear important follow:
1. Given the increasingly urbanized nature of many counties, it might
be argued that noise control will be defined at a county rather than a
city level as was the case in the Spokane Survey. Accordingly, a change
in the unit of analysis (city to county) for the measurement of salient
dimensions of the noise problem should be considered.
2. Given the realities of surveys, an alternative to cluster sam-
pling should be available. In those cases where a master list of
registered voters is available, a computer generated sample of the
addresses of such persons may be considered suitable. Such a sampling
procedure has the disadvantage of excluding addresses of those not regis-
tered to vote from consideration. However, in Spokane County sane seventy
percent of the adult population (18 and over) were registered. Given the
fact that many households have registered and nonregistered respondents
"living under the same roof, the rate of exclusion would be less than
thirty percent. The advantages of the registered voter lists are several.
a) Registered voters are considered at the local level as more poli-
tically "active" than those who do not register. Thus, their opinions
might well carry more "weight" with local government.
b) Census block maps, virtually a prerequisite for cluster sampling,
iv
-------
are not available for all areas in which noise control may be an import-
ant environmental and political issue.
c) Registered voter lists are purged more frequently than census
block maps are corrected.
d) Updating census block maps, together with the intricate proce-
dures of cluster sampling, requires a high level of funding, staffing
and survey expertise. Such complexities make a "cookbook" approach diffi-
cult to realize.
3. Statistical "modeling" concerns involve the designation of pre-
dictive variables. Certain results of the Spokane Survey are important
in this respect. Specifically, the rating of noise control correlates
highly with the rating of the quality of schools (.19), police protection
(.21), fire protection (.13), garbage collection (.16), hospital services
(.09), street maintenance (.16), sewage services (.19) and general pollu-
tion control (.41). Further, noise severity correlates with traffic
congestion (.28), polluted water (.16), crime (.19), run-down neighborhoods
(.23), unclean air (.22) and inadequate parking (.18). Such correlations
suggest that the perception of noise control and noise severity are pre-
dictive of the rating of other public services and other important aspects
of the quality of life. In short, given inadequacies in noise conorol one
can predict the existence of inadequacies in other public services. Given
noise severity, one can predict the existence of other major problems. As
destructive sound goes, so goes the quality of life.
v
-------
INTRODUCTION
In May of 1979, a report entitled "The Oppression of Noise"
detailed the descriptive statistical results of a public opinion survey.
The survey was administered to a random scientific sample of those
households of Spokane County in which at least one member was registered
to vote as of June, 1978. Citizen viewpoint on the problem of destruc-
tive sound, together with specific measures of support for a coranunity
based noise control program, are analyzed further in this report. The
initial report contains some brief development of the sociological
nature of urban life and the emerging problem of destructive sound. It
further contains sections on methodology, respondent demographics, the
descriptive findings and a copy of the questionnaire employed in this
survey. Accordingly, the preliminary report should be considered a
necessary supplementary document to be read in conjunction with this
report.
The "Community Environment Questionnaire" (Addendum III in the pre-
liminary report) was developed by Wyle REsearch Laboratories, El Segundo,
California, and the Institute for Social Science Research at the Univer-
sity of California at Los Angeles. The questionnaire is a comprehensive
instrument touching on a variety of topics of concern to local govern-
ment. Respondents are asked their opinion on a range of services in
addition to environmental concerns. However, the major thrust of the
questionnaire centers around attitudes and actions related to noise. The
1
-------
2
instrument was modified for use in Spokane County. Trained older
Americans served as interviewers and secured the cooperation of 761
citizens in the summer of 1978.
Wyle Laboratories and UCLA had also developed a suggested research
design specifying the division of a population area (presumably a city)
into as many as sixteen "noise zones." The selection of respondents
was to be determined through a cluster sample whereby randomly selected
blocks within noise zones, and in turn randomly selected residences
within selected blocks, would be targeted for interview. However, as
is frequently the case with research designs, the assumptions of the
design do not necessarily correspond with local realities. (That Wyle
recognized such is clearly evident form a careful reading of their
design manual.)
In Spokane, the impetus for the survey on noise came first from a
joint city-county committee charged to recommend a course of action to
city and county government. (At the time of this report, the Spokane
Quiet Community Program is centered in the Spokane County Health
District.) Thus the population to be sampled was county-wide. The
Wyle/UCLA design assumed a city-only population. This difference is
critical because the sampling procedure for the acticudinal survey is
built upon the assumption of the availability of census block maps not
ordinarily available for smaller cities, towns and rural areas.
Further, the suggested design called for the division of the population
area (the entirety of Spokane County) into "noise zones." Such a pro-
cedure, if done with reasonable accuracy, would have greatly exceeded
the level of funding available for this phase of the survey. The
requirement would have been to partition numerous small towns and rural
-------
3
areas as well as the City of Spokane. Thus for reasons of methodology
and pragmatism, an alternative design was developed. However, this
design is not without its compensations. It can be used in any circum-
stance where census block maps, other materials necessary to determine
noise zones, and/or a high level of funding do not exist. Further, the
construction of a sample by means of a computer generated random sample
of registered voters is a relatively simple and inexpensive procedure,
easily executed by noise planning personnel who have no advanced train-
ing in sample design. Lists of registered voters are commonly available
and tend to be much more current than census block data. The rapid
population transition in modern societies requires updated population
information. Survey professionals must remember that population
mobility means that addresses cease to exist while others are "born" in
a dynamic fashion.
It was possible to provide a physical/geographic dimension to the
present design. This was done by the designation of areas within the
city and throughout the county in accordance with demographic, social,
political and economic criteria. Such a division involved simple carto-
graphical procedures. Maps of the city and county were first secured.
Each was divided into "cells" and each cell was labeled. The later com-
bination of cells in accordance with salient criteria yielded areas of
evident interest to those involved in Spokane local government as well
as of general importance to a wider audience of noise professionals.
Cells were combined to permit the comparison of the city population with
that of the county. Cells were also arranged to allow the comparison of
the city population, that of the densely populated Spokane Valley (a
county area), and the remaining rurban (small town and rural) area.
-------
4
Finally, the city proper was divided into four regions: the Northwest,
bounded by Mission Street to the south and Division to the east; the
Northeast, bounded by Mission to the south and Division to the west;
the Central, bounded by Mission to the north and 14th to the south; and
the South Hill, bounded by 14th to the north. In addition to providing
locational areas of significance, each of these areas contains a
sufficient number of respondents to allow generalization with reasonable
confidence to the population. Generalization to an area or zone which
contains only a few sample households is a risky procedure at best.
Given some understanding of the rationale for random sampling
(refer also to preliminary report), mention should be made of the salient
questions which together comprise the direction for the analysis schema
developed for the survey data (see Addendum I). These are as follows:
1. To what extent do the residents of Spokane County
consider noise pollution problematic?
2. What are the perceived effects (social, psychologi-
cal, health, etc.) attributed to noise pollution?
3. What are the major perceived sources of noise
pollution?
4. What particular personal courses of action, if any,
have been undertaken in response to the noise
problem?
5. Precisely where does the responsibility lie for the
control of noise?
6. To what extent does the population support community
efforts to reduce noise pollution? At what coat to
themselves? And, what specific actions?
7. What are the demographic and housing characteristics
of survey respondents?
8. Do people residing in different areas of the county
and city differ as regards attitudes on noise?
-------
5
9. To what extent do differences in social position
(age, race, occupation, etc.) and housing character-
istics impact attitudes on noise?
10. In what ways are the perceptions of the noise
problem, personal actions to reduce noise pollution,
support for community action to reduce pollution and
other salient variables interrelated?
Given the identification of the cardinal questions, the analysis
follows in a logical manner. The first seven questions can be
answered for the county as a whole by means of a descriptive statis-
tics SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) program used
to analyze the survey results. The output of this "frequencies" pro-
gram is the basis for the first report mentioned before. However, the
statistical analysis required for answering the final three questions
is somewhat more involved and requires a more substantial investment
of computer time. Question number eight above seeks to establish the
impact of residence in geographical area on noise related attitudes.
Such requires the execution of an SPSS crosstabulation subprogram
("crosstabs"). This program output crosstabulates selected geographi-
cal areas with each item on the questionnaire. Questions nine and ten,
dealing with the relationships between social-demographic and the
general attitudinal variables, require the employment of a bivariate
correlation program ("nonpar corr") which provides a correlation matrix
for all items in the questionnaire. The crosstabulation analysis
necessitates a cell combination procedure which yields salient geograhi-
cal areas. The correlation program requires the recoding and trans-
formation of certain variables so that all were at least ordinal level
measures. (For a definition of important statistical and methodological
terms, see Addendum II.)
-------
6
This particular report will therefore seek to address where the
noise problem is found among Spokane County citizens, where its effects
are most severe, and where people are most likely to have taken
personal action or seem willing to support community action to control
the problem of destructive sound.
As detailed forthwith, data is presented in two distinct forms:
1) In order to compare and contrast different geographical units
(such as the City of Spokane and the County of Spokane), numbers and
percentages are presented in tables. Such tables indicate the number
and percentage of a geographically defined group who hold a particular
view concerning the subject at hand. The tables also include test stat-
istics which indicate whether the percentage of respondents in one group
which give a particular response to a question is (statistically) signif-
icantly larger or smaller than the percentage in another group giving
the same answer. Test statistics enable us to say with a certain degree
of confidence whether differences are "real" or whether differences of
the magnitude at hand might simply be a result of "chance." The teat
statistics for this report are termed "Z-scores" and "chi squares."
To illustrate, the survey data indicates that significantly more
county residents than Spokane (city) residents find that "quiet" is one
of the things they like about their immediate living area (see Table 1,
page 13). When asked to identify three things particularly liked about
where they lived, only 27.1% of the city residents mentioned "quiet"
while 32.2% of the non-city residents valued the absence of destructive
sound. The difference between such percentages (5.1%) appears signifi-
cant. However, as the entire adult population of Spokane County was
not interviewd, the possibility of some sampling error exists. (Given
-------
7
the size of the sample, 761 adults, and its random nature, the error is
both random and minimal.)
To be certain that county and city residents do in fact repre~
sent different statistical populations, a test statistic to compare the
two percentages is computed. In this case, the Z-score is 3-78, which
is significant at the .00 level. To interpret, there is less than one
chance in one hundred that a difference of this magnitude between city
and county dwellers on the value of "quiet" is due merely to chance.
For the entire population of Spokane County, therefore, city residents
are significantly less likely (in a statistical sense) to identify quiet
as something they value in their neighborhoods. More frequently, the
test statistic employed is a "chi square," which is explained in some
detail later.
2) In order to compare different social categories (demographics),
tables are presented which show the correlations between such variables.
Correlations indicate the strength and direction of a relationship
between characteristics which "vary" and for which the measurement of
such variance is possible. (For example, income and education are
variables.) By strength of a relationship, one refers to the magnitude
of a correlation. To the same extent that the value approaches sero,
one approaches "no relationship." By direction of the relationship, one
refers to the fact that characteristics may vary in positive or negative
fashion. A positive relationship means that as one variable increases
in magnitude, so does the other. A negative relationship means that as
one variable increases, the other decreases. The range for correlations
runs from +1 to -1. In the field of social statistics, correlation
coefficients seldom approach unity. Correlation thus addresses the
-------
8
question, do certain characteristics vary together, and if so, in what
direction?
With the correlation coefficient, the reader will find an indica-
tor of the level of significance of the association. Such a measure
of significance indicates whether a given correlation coefficient is of
significant magnitude to justify the conclusion that the variables are
related. If the test of significance yields a value of .50, this means
that fifty time out of one hundred the correlation in question could be
due to chance. In order to achieve a high level of confidence, only
correlations which are significant at the .05 level (five times ill one
hundred, the relationship would be due to chance) or below are con-
sidered. Through careful examination of the correlation coefficients
and the associated tests of significance, it is possible to determine
whether social-demographic characteristics are related to salient atti-
tudes and behaviors having to do with destructive sound.
As an example, it appears logical to argue that those deprived of
sleep by noise would tend to take action to deal with the noise
problem. The correlations detailed in Table 40 confirm this suspicion.
The correlation between sleep interference and closing doors and windows
to block noise is .40. This is a relatively strong positive correlation
which indicates that noise interference with sleep and noise avoidance
through window closing vary together and in the same direction. An
example of a negative relationship may be extracted from the correlation
between living in a neighborhood rated "quiet" by respondents and clos-
ing windows and doors. The correlation of -.17 means that these items
vary together but in the opposite direction. For both examples, the
level of significance is reported at .00, which interpreted means that
-------
9
an association of this magnitude would occur by chance less than one
time in a hundred.
The text of the report which follows is presented in a question
and answer format. A deliberate attempt is made to simplify the find-
ings, analysis and statistical language in order to insure understanding
by a wide professional body.
CROSS-TABULATION: THE CHI SQUARE
MEASURE OF SIGNIFICANCE
Some of the data yielded by the "Survey on Environmental Quality"
is nominal level. This means that the data can be categorized or
labeled as distinctive but there is no inherent quality of rank order
(ordinal) or exact difference of degree (interval) for specific char-
acteristics. In this section of the report, the independent variable
is the area of the city or county or some subdivision of the two. It
is obvious that such represents an important classification as noise
problems may be more severe in the city than in the county, or more
severe in certain areas of the city or county as opposed to others.
However, there is no logical or mathematical sense to the argument that
one is somehow "greater" than the other (as would be the case if we were
dealing with upper, middle and lower socioeconomic class). As there is
no way to "rank" (ordinal level) this variable, it follows that there
can logically be no exact degree of difference involved (interval level).
In order to inquire as to the possible relationship between area
and the various attitudinal dimensions of the noise problem, it is
poss'Me to crosstabulate these >itical variables. Some se~se of
cros :abula'.f r can be bad simt . by loo* over Se tabl appearing
-------
below. In all cases, the area variable is arranged vertically on the
left margin and other variables (dependent) are arranged across the
top Such an arrangement produces a "cell" of "frequencies" which
provides a beginning step to discovering whether there is or is not a
relationship between the two variables in question.
A simple example should make the above discussion clear. Suppose
one is interested in determining whether or not a particular die from
a pair of dice is loaded. It might be wise to begin by throwing the
die a number of times. Each time it comes to a stop, we note what num-
ber comes up and we record it. At the end of, say, one hundred throws,
we will have six "categories." These are the numbers one to six. Each
time the die stops, one of the categories will be marked. Each mark is
a frequency. If the die is honest, each side should have the same
chance of coming up as another. However, one cannot expect the freq-
uencies to be exact. If one side comes up only one time in a hundred
and another fifty times in a hundred, we might suspect something. This
is because the statistical probability for any one side is (rounded)
.167 (1/6). However, the expected outcome (sixteen or seventeen times
per hundred per side) differs drastically from the observed outcome (one
per hundred for one side, fifty per hundred for another, and different
frequencies between these extremes for the remaining four numerical
categories). The chi square test of significance is a statistical oper-
ation which allows us to say (within certain limits of confidence)
whether the probability of such an outcome (one and fifty per hundred)
could be due simply to chance, if 8uch an outcome is not likely due to
chance, the conclusion can be made that the die is loaded.
-------
11
The chi square test assumes a nominal (classified or labeled) level
of measurement. Just as there are no ordinal or interval properties
involved in the die categories (one through six), there are no such
properties for the geographical areas. Even though the nature of the
cross-tabulations presented here is much more complex than the nature
of the "die" example, the logic of comparing expected frequencies with
observed frequencies remains the same. Chi square is a statistical
measure of the difference between observed and expected frequencies.
The formula for chi square is as follows:
„2 _ _ (fo - fe)^
A. — *2
fe
Where: ^
X = chi square
= sum
fo = observed frequencies
fe = expected frequencies
To put the formula into words, chi square is obtained by first sub-
tracting the expected frequency of a given occurrence from the observed
frequency for each cell and squaring that difference. This figure is
divided by the expected frequency (number of cases in each cell) for
standardization purposes. The sum of the difference Bquared divided by
fe is the value of chi square. The larger the difference, the greater
the value for chi square and the greater the likelihood of statistical
probability. In the tables which follow, this statistical operation
(for chi square) is performed by computer following the "crosstabs"
program of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). In
all cases, we are simply asking whether the difference in frequencies
due to area for a particular dependent variable is sufficient to state
at a particular level of confidence that there is a relationship between
-------
12
area and that specific dependent variable. The tables that follow
demonstrate that perceptions and attitudes centering on noise vary in
a statistically significant way as a consequence of where one lives.
They also provide information as to those localities where certain
aspects of the noise problem (as well as other matters of concern to
local government) are more (or less) severe.
SURVEY FINDINGS: CITY/COUNTY COMPARISONS
1. IS THE PERCEPTION OF A NOISE PROBLEM MORE FREQUENTLY FOUND AMONG
CITY RESIDENTS THAN COUNTY RESIDENTS?
An analysis of the survey data clearly reveals that the noise
problem is perceived more frequently in the city. However, city resi-
dents are not consistently more annoyed by noise. To explain, a signi-
ficantly larger percentage of people residing outside the city limits of
Spokane answer that "quiet" is one of the things they particularly like
about the area in which they live. As Table 1 shows, twenty-seven percent
of the city respondents volunteered "quiet" as a neighborhood or area
asset. The corresponding statistic for county dwellers was thirty-two
percent. This response difference is significant at the .00 level,
which means that fever than one time in a hundred would such a differ-
ence (5.1%) be due to chance.
In a related finding, Table 2 shows a significantly larger percent-
age of city respondents (24.0%) than county respondents (16.2%)
volunteered "noise" as an answer to an open-ended question requiring
the specification of problems in the area.
Another finding bearing on this question can be extracted from
Table 3. Respondents living in the city are significantly more likely
to answer that noise is an "extremely," "quite" or "moderately" severe
problem than their counterparts living in the county.
-------
13
TABLE 1
City/County Comparisons
Preference for Quiet of Area
Number and percent of adult residents in Spokane City and in the rest
of Spokane County who mention "quiet" as a response to the question,
"Now thinking about your area, what three things do you particularly
like about this area, that is, within a few blocks of here?"
RESPONSES
Do
Not
Area
Mention '
'Quiet"
Mention "Quiet"
Row
Total
City of Spokane
N
=
118
N
= 318
N
436
Col
%
=
53.2
Col
%
= 59.2
Col
%
=
57.4
Row
%
=
27.1
Row
%
= 72.9
Row
%
as
100.0
County of Spokane
N
=
104
N
= 219
N
s
323
Col
%
=
46.8
Col
%
= 40.8
Col
Z
s=
42.6
Row
%
S3
32.2
Row
%
= 67.8
Row
%
*
100.0
Column Total
N
=
222
N
= 537
N
s
759
Col
%
=
100.0
Col
X
= 100.0
Col
Z
s
100.0
Row
%
=
29.2
Row
%
= 70.8
Row
Z
s
100.0
Z-Score =3.78 Significance ¦ .00
TABLE 2
City/County Comparisons
Noise Problem in Area
Number and percent of adult residents in Spokane City and in the rest of
Spokane County who mention "noise in response to the question, "What are
the three most important problems facing the residents of your area
today?"
RESPONSES
Do Not
Area Mention "Noise" Mention "Noise" Row Total
City of Spokane
N
£=
92
N
as
291
N
at
383
Col
Z
AS
65.2
Col Z
as
53.5
Col Z
¦
55.9
Row
Z
=
24.0
Row Z
a*
76.0
Row Z
m
100.0
County of Spokane
N
=
49
N
BS
253
N
St
302
Col
Z
s
34.8
Col Z
=
46.5
Col Z
SB
44.1
Row
%
-s
16.2
Row Z
xt
83.8
Row Z
100.0
Column Total
N
=
141
N
s
544
N
m
685
Col
Z
=
100.0
Col Z
K
100.0
Col Z
3
100.0
Row
z
*
20.5
Row Z
=
79.4
Row Z
m
100.0
Z-Score * 17.6
Significance ¦ .00
-------
14
TABLE 3
City/County Comparisons
Severity of Noise Problem in Area
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "No," or "Yes" and "Not very severe," "Moderately
Severe," "Quite severe," or "Extremely severe" to the following ques-
tions: "As 1 read the following list, would you tell me whether any of
these are problems here in this area? Please answer 'Yee' or 'No.'"
"Noise?" and (for each "Yes") "How severe a problem is (noise)?"
Not A Not Very
Moderately
Quite
Extremely
Row
Area
Problem
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of Spokane
225
46
98
47
19
435
51.7
10.6
22.5
10.8
4.4
57.3
53.1
53.5
64.1
69.1
67.9
29.6
6.1
12.9
6.2
2.5
County of
199
40
55
21
9
324
Spokane
61.4
12.3
17.0
6.5
2.8
42.7
46.9
46.5
35.9
30.9
32.1
26.2
5.3
7.2
2.8
1.2
Column Total
424
86
153
68
28
759
55.9
11.3
20.2
9.0
3.7
100.0
Raw Chi Square
» 11.62597
Significance ¦
.0204
Though the residents of the city are more troubled by the noise
problem than those outside, the increasing population density and "urban
like" growth associated increasingly with county areas cannot be ignored.
Although statistical analysis emphasizes the differences in numbers, it
should not be overlooked that the absense of a "quiet" response to ques-
tion three together with a specification of "noise1' to question four
frequently appears for county dwellers. This argument should be extended
by noting that, although city residents are more aware as a group of the
problem of noise, they are not consistently more likely to be annoyed than
are county residents. The word "annoyed" was defined by the interviewer
for the respondent to mean "to be disturbed, stressed or upset by the
-------
15
TABLE 4
City/County Comparisons
Quietness of Area
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "Very Quiet,"
"Quiet,
" "Noise,"
and "Very Noisy" to
the following question: "Please
tell me
how quiet
or noisy you consider
this area to be?"
Area Very Noisy
Noisy
Quiet
Very Quiet Row Total
i
2
3
4
City of Spokane 20
117
249
51
437
4.6
26.8
57.0
11.7
57.4
74.1
65.4
55.7
47.2
2. 6
15.4
32.7
6.7
County of Spokane 7
62
198
57
324
2.2
19.1
61.1
17.6
42.6
25.9
34.6
44.3
52.8
.9
8.1
26.0
7.5
Column Total 27
179
447
108
761
3.5
23.5
58.7
14.2
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 12.81413
Significance
=¦= .0051
repeated occurrence of noise."
It is a
deliberately strong term
Pro-
portionately fewer county residents perceive noise as a problem. However,
those who do are often just as annoyed by it (see Tables 4 and 5).
2. ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE MORE LIKELY THAN COUNTY RESIDENTS
TO PERCEIVE NOISE AS INTERFERING WITH THEIR LIVES, HEALTH AND WELL-
BEING?
The survey findings which bear on this question should be considered
in conjunction with the discussion related to question one above. Certain
of the responses to be examined at this juncture underscore the importance
of bringing the county into noise planning arrangements. Destructive
sound is not confined within the city limits.
Respondents to the survey were asked to judge the degree to which
noise interferes with a variety of life activities. City residents were
-------
TABLE 5
City/County Comparisons
Overall Annoyance With Noise
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane County who respond "Tremen-
dously Annoyed," "Highly Annoyed," "Considerably Annoyed," "Medium Annoyed," "Partially Annoyed," "A
Little Annoyed," or "Not At All Annoyed" to the following question: "Please tell me which one of these
best describes how annoyed you are by noise in this area?"
Tremendously Highly Considerably Medium Partially A Little Not At All Row
Area
Annoyed
1
Annoyed
2
Annoyed
3
Annoyed
4
Annoyed
5
Annoyed
6
Annoyed
7
Total
City of Spokane
9
19
67
60
71
121
90
437
2.1
4.3
15.3
13.7
16.2
27.7
20.6
57.4
40.9
50.0
73.6
57.7
54.2
64.7
47.9
1.2
2.5
8.8
7.9
9.3
15.9
11.8
County of Spokane
13
19
24
44
60
66
98
324
4.0
5.9
7.4
13.6
18.5
20.4
30.2
42.6
59.1
50.0
26.4
42.3
45.8
35.3
52.1
1.7
2.5
3.2
5.8
7.9
8.7
12.9
Column Total
22
2.9
38
5.0
91
12.0
104
13.7
131
17.2
187
24.6
188
24.7
761
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 24,71373 Significance = .0004
Ov
-------
17
not significantly more likely to report that noise interfered with their
sleep.
TABLE 6
City/County Comparisons
Noise Interference With Sleep
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "No" or "Yes" and "Always Interferes," "Frequently
Interferes," "Sometimes Interferes," "Rarely Interferes" or "Does Not
Interfere" to the following questions: "Does noise interfere with any
of the following activities? Please answer 'Yes' or 'No,'" and (for
each "Yes") "How often does it interfere with (sleeping)?"
Does Not
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Row
Area
Interfere
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of
280
25
68
59
5
437
Spokane
64.1
5.7
15.6
13.5
1.1
57.4
55.6
61.0
56.2
70.2
45.5
36.8
3.3
8.9
7.8
.7
County of
224
16
53
25
6
324
Spokane
69.1
4.9
16.4
7.7
1.9
42.6
44.4
39.0
43.8
29.8
54.5
29.4
2.1
7.0
3.3
,8
Column
504
41
121
84
11
761
Total
66.2
5.4
15.9
11.0
1.4
100.0
Raw Chi Square » 7.29169 Significance " ,1213
City residents were significantly more likely, however, to identify
noise as more frequently a source of interference with conversation, lis-
tening to the radio or watching television.
In a reversal of form, county residents were more likely than their
city counterparts to indicate that noise affects their general physical
and emotional health. Such findings are detailed below in Table 8-
Finally, there is no significant difference between city and county
residents on the question of the frequency with which noise is seen as a
cause of irritability. Table 9 shows that 46.3% (202 out of 436) of the
-------
18
TABLE 7
City/County Comparisons
Noise Interference With Conversation, TV Watching and Radio Listening
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "No" or "Yes" and "Always Interferes," "Frequently Inter-
feres," "Sometimes Interferes," "Rarely Interferes" or "Does Not Interfere"
to the following questions: "Does noise interfere with any of the following
activities? Please answer 'Yes' or 'No,'" and (for each "Yes") "How often
does it interfere with (conversation, TV watching and radio listening)?"
Does Not
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Row
Area
Interfere
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of
275
22
82
46
11
436
Spokane
63.1
5.0
18.8
10.6
2.5
57.4
52.7
53.7
67.2
73.0
100.0
36.2
2.9
10.8
6.1
1.4
County of
247
19
40
17
0
323
Spokane
76.5
5.9
12.4
5.3
.0
42.6
47.3
46.3
32.8
27.0
.0
32.5
2.5
5.3
2.2
.0
Column
522
41
122
63
11
759
Total
68.8
5.4
16.1
8.3
1.4
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 24.24356 Significance ¦ .0001
TABLE 8
City/County Comparisons
Effects of Noise on General Health
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "Yes," "No" or "Maybe" to the following question: "Gener-
ally speaking, do you think noise affects your physical or emotional health
and well-being?"
Area
No
Maybe
Yes
Row Total
1
2
3
City of Spokane
257
46
133
436
58.9
10.6
30.5
57.4
59.5
68.7
51.2
33.9
6.1
17.5
County of Spokane
175
21
127
323
54.2
6.5
39.3
42.6
40.5
31.3
48.8
23.1
2.8
16.7
Column Total
432
67
260
759
56.9
8.8
34.3
100.0
Raw Chi Square ¦ 8.39424 Significance ¦ .0150
-------
19
city dwellers found that noise never made them irritable, while 46.6%
(151 out of 324) of the county residents offered the same response.
TABLE 9
City/County Comparisons
Effects of Noise on Irritability
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "No," or "Yes" and "All the Time," "Frequently," "Some
times," "Rarely," or "Never" to the following questions: "Does noise
affect your health in any of the following ways? Please answer 'Yes* or
'No,"' and (for each "Yes") "How often does this noise cause (irritabil-
ity)?"
All the
Row
Area
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Time
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of Spokane
202
52
121
50
11
436
46.3
11.9
27.8
11.5
2.5
57.4
57.2
64.2
56.0
53.8
64.7
26.6
6.8
15.9
6.6
1.4
County of Spokane
151
29
95
43
6
324
46.6
9.0
29.3
13.3
1.9
42.6
42.8
35.8
44.0
46.2
35.3
19.9
3.8
12.5
5.7
.8
Column Total
353
81
216
93
17
760
46.4
10.7
28.4
12.2
2.2
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 2.57694 Significance «* . 6j09
3. ARE CITY/COUNTY DIFFERENCES RELATED TO PERSONAL ACTION, PUBLIC ACTION,
OR WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY EFFORTS DESIGNED TO RESOLVE TR5
NOISE PROBLEM?
The tables which follow in this section demonstrate that whether one
lives in the city of county may be related to actions taken to resolve
the noise problem or support for a local noise control program. Table 10
demonstrates that the population of city dwellers does differ from the
population of county dwellers in that area of personal action requiring,
closing doors and windows in response to noise. The former are signifi-
cantly more likely to take this course of action than the latter.
-------
20
TABLE 10
City/County Comparisons
Actions Taken to Reduce Noise - Closing Doors and Windows
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who report "closing doors or windows" to reduce noise in the house.
ACTION TAKEN
Close
Do Not Close
Area
Doors
and Windows
Doors and Windows
Row Total
City of Spokane
N =
223
214
437
Row
% =
51.0
49.0
100.0
Col
% =
61.6
53.6
57.4
County of Spokane
N =
139
185
324
Row
% =
42.9
57.1
100.0
Col
% =
38.4
46.4
42.6
Column Total
N =
362
399
761
Row
% =
47.6
52.4
100.0
Col
% =
100.0
100.0
100.0
Z = 19.3 Significance Level * .00
TABLE 11
City/County Comparisons
Actions taken to Deal With Noise - Mask Noise With Noise
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who report "turning on or turning up radio, TV or stereo to mask
noise."
ACTION TAKEN
Turn On or Do Not Turn On Or
Turn Up Noise Turn Up Noise Row Total
City of Spokane
N
s
82
355
437
Row
%
a
18.8
71.2
100.0
Col
%
=
68.9
55.3
57.4
County of Spokane
N
s
37
287
324
Row
%
=
11.4
88.6
100.0
Col
X
=
31.1
44.7
42.6
Column Total
N
=
119
642
761
Row
%
=
15.6
84.4
100.0
Col
%
=
100.0
100.0
100.0
Z = 22.8 Significance Level " .00
-------
21
In a separate and distinct sphere of action, city respondents were
significantly more likely to use noise to mask noise. Though some
sources of noise (stereo, TV, radio, etc.) may be defined as more
pleasurable than others, it does not follow that they are necessarily
less damaging (see preliminary report).
Table 12 reveals that only 41.0% of city dwellers reported taking
no action with regard to a list of possible responses to the noise
problem. However, 50.6% of the county residents responded in like
fashion. Thus county residents are significantly less likely to have
taken some form of personal action to resolve a noise problem.
TABLE 12
City/County Comparisons
No Actions Taken in Household to Control Noise
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who have not taken action within the household to cope with noise.
ACTION TAKEN
One Or
Area More Actions No Action Row Total
City of Spokane
N
22
258
179
437
Row
%
=
59.0
41.0
100.0
Col
%
s
61.7
52.2
57.4
County of Spokane
N
9
160
164
324
Row
%
S 1
49.4
50.6
100.0
Col
%
*
38.3
47.8
42.6
Column Total
N
=
418
343
761
Row
%
as
54.9
45.1
100.0
Col
%
ss
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: "No Action" is a residual category. Respondents stated they had
done "none of these," meaning they had not soundproofed; closed doors or
windows; used radio, TV, etc., to mask noise; worn earplugs; changed
sleeping quarters; or considered moving.
Z - 19.3
Significance Level * .00
-------
22
Two questionnaire items can be cited to show whether county and city
residents differ with regard to public action. Table 13 shows that city
residents were significantly more likely to have complained to a neigh-
bor .
TABLE 13
City/County Comparisons
Complain to Neighbor About Noise
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who have complained to a neighbor about noise.
ACTION TAKEN
Complained To
Did Not
Area
Neighbor
Complain
Row Total
City of Spokane
N
=
96
341
437
Row
%
=
22.0
78.0
100.0
Col
%
64.9
55.6
57.4
County of Spokane
N
S£
52
272
324
Row
%
«
16.0
84.0
100.0
Col
%
s
35.1
44.4
42.6
Column Total
N
s
148
613
761
Row
%
19.4
80.6
100.0
Col
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
Z = 17.6 Significance Level » .DO
Though less common, public complaint often takes the nature of a con-
tact with officials. City residents are again more apt to exercise this
avenue of protest, and the difference between 13.5% and 9.92 (3.6X) for
city and county residents respectively is statistically significant.
That is, with regard to the variable of official complaint, eotm^y and
city dwellers represent different statistical populations. This inter-
pretation is offered at the .00 level of confidence.
Perhaps the most significant political attitudes touched upon by this
survey are reported in the collective response to questions nineteen and
twenty on the "community environment" instrument. Question nineteen
-------
23
TABLE 14
City/County Comparisons
Complain to Official About Noise
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who have complained to an official about noise.
ACTION TAKEN
Complained to
Did Not
Area
Official
Complain
Row Total
City of Spokane
N
=
59
378
437
Row
%
=
13.5
86.5
100.0
Col
%
-
64.8
56.4
57.4
County of Spokane
N
as
32
292
324
Row
%
=
9.9
90.1
100.0
Col
%
=
35.2
43.6
42.6
Column Total
N
=
91
670
761
Row
%
=
12.0
88.0
100.0
Col
%
=
100.0
100.0
100.0
Z = 17.6 Significance Level m .00
probes the advisability of having a local community program to reduce
noise which would be funded by the community. Respondents living in
the City of Spokane were slightly more willing to support such a pro-
gram than those living in the county (55.6% to 53.3% yes). However,
this difference is not statistically significant. It appears that s
majority of citizens, whether in the city or the county, favor s noise
control program.
The findings stemming from the response to question nineteen. *re
consistent with the pattern emerging from question twenty. This ques-
tion inquires as to willingness to pay additional taxes in support of a
noise control program. The support for a noise control program for
both city and county is represented by a majority "willing to pay" for
both groups. However, the support is stronger in the city. (Witness,
for example, that only 39.0% of those in the city responded they would
-------
24
TABLE 15
City/County Comparisons
Support Community Noise Control Program
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane
County who respond "Yes" or "No" to the following question: "Do you
think this community should have a noise control program to specifically
work on reducing noise levels? This program would be funded by the
community."
Area
No
Yes
Row Total
1
2
City of Spokane
194
243
437
44.4
55.6
57.7
56.4
58.7
25.6
32.1
County of Spokane
150
171
321
46.7
53.3
42.3
43.6
41.3
19.8
22.6
Column Total
344
414
758
45.4
54.6
100.0
Corrected Chi Square = .31844 Significance ¦ .5725
pay nothing in additional taxes, while 47.8% of those in the county
responded in like fashion. The difference (8.8%) is statistically sig-
nificant .
4. HOW DO CITY AND COUNTY RESIDENTS DIFFER WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTI-
FICATION OF NOISE SOURCES?
Table 17 presents the compiled responses to the question: "As I read
the Following list of noise sources, tell me how annoyed you are by each
noise source in this area." The numbers and precentages appearing here
represent a combination of the "tremendously," "highly," and "consider-
ably" annoyed categories to form a single "greatly" annoyed category.
This combined category is the basis for comparison between city and
county. For city residents, 29.5% are greatly annoyed by motorcycles,
24.5% by pets and animals, and 21.7% by jet airplanes. For county resi-
-------
TABLE 16
City/County Comparisons
Support Tax Increase for Noise Control Program
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City and in the rest of Spokane County who respond "More
than $2.50 per person," "$2.50 per person," "$1.00 per person," "$.50 per person," "$.25 per per-
son," "$.10 per person," or "Would Not Pay Any Extra Taxes" to the following question: "Keeping
in mind your present level of taxes, how much in additional taxes would you be willing to pay on
a yearly basis for a noise control program?"
Area
Would
Not Pay
0
$0.10 Per
Person
1
$0.25 Per
Person
2
$0.50 Per
Person
3
$1.00 Per
Person
4
$2.50 Per
Person
5
More Than
$2.50
6
Row
Total
City of
169
48
31
39
84
53
9
433
Spokane
39.0
11.1
7.2
9.0
19.4
12.2
2.1
57.5
52.5
63.2
55.4
67.2
63.6
61.6
39.1
22.4
6.4
4.1
5.2
11.2
7.0
1.2
County of
153
28
25
19
48
33
14
320
Spokane
47.8
8.8
7.8
5.9
15.0
10.3
4.4
42.5
47.5
36.8
44.6
32.8
36.4
38.4
60.9
20.3
3.7
3.3
2.5
6.4
4.4
1.9
Column Total
322
42.8
76
10.1
56
7.4
58
7.7
132
17.5
86
11.4
23
3.1
753
100.0
Raw Chi Square « 12.47739 Significance = .0521
N5
-------
TABLE 17
City/County Comparisons
Noise Sources Found "Greatly Annoying"*: Number and Percent of Respondents
CITY
COUNTY
SIGNIFICANCE**
Noise Source
Number and Percent
"Greatly Annoyed"
by Noise From This
Source **
(N) (% of 437)
Number and Perceat
"Greatly Annoyed"
by Noise From This
Source**
(N) (% of 324)
1) Traffic
66
15.1
34
10.5
City Worse (at .04)
2) Motorcycles
129
29.5
80
24.8
No Difference (at .24)
3) Trucks
43
9.8
28
8.6
No Difference (at .12)
4) Buses
12
2.7
5
1.5
City Worse (at .02)
5) Automobiles
56
12.8
22
6.8
City Worse (at .02)
6) Highways or Freeways
8
1.8
17
5.2
County Worse (at .02)
7) Recreational Vehicles
6
1,4
9
2.8
County Worse (at .00)
8) Garbage Trucks
9
2.1
1
0.3
City Worse (at .03)
9) Emergency Vehicles
23
5.3
14
4.3
No Difference (at .14)
10) Entertainment Centers
8
1.8
2
0.6
No Difference (at .60)
11) Pets/Animals
107
24.5
72
22.2
City Worse (at .03)
12) Neighbors' Homes
31
7.1
7
2.2
City Worse (at .02)
13) Lawnmowers
5
1.1
2
0.6
No difference (at .63)
14) Jet Airplanes
95
21.7
16
4.9
City Worse (at .00)
15) Small Airplanes
3
0.6
7
2.2
No Difference (at .40)
16) Trains
3
0.6
16
4.9
County Worse (at .00)
17) Construction Noise
3
0.6
8
2.5
No Difference (at .29)
18) Commercial or Industrial
3
0.6
5
1.5
No Difference (at .23)
Equipment
* The category "Greatly Annoyed" represents the sum of the following responses: tremendously, highly
and considerably annoyed.
** Levels of significance are computed from tabular data which include each of the following
responses: "Tremendously," "Highly," "Considerably," "Medium," "Partially," "A Little," and "Not
at All" Annoyed. Numbers in parentheses are levels of significance using chi square test.
-------
27
dents, the three sources of great annoyance most frequently mentioned
are motorcycles (24.8%), pets/animals (22.2%) and traffic (10.5%).
Thus the noise sources of great annoyance identified most frequently
by both city and county residents are motorcycles and pets/animals.
The significance column of Table 17 indicates the nature of the
statistical difference between city and county residents. Somewhat
predictably, those in the city find noise from traffic, buses, auto-
mobiles, garbage trucks, pets/animals and jet airplanes greatly annoy-
ing more frequently than county dwellers. The differences in the per-
ception of airplane noise is accounted for in Spokane County in that
the city is something of a sound buffer between Spokane International
Airport and Fairchild Air Force Base to the west and the densely popu-
lated Spokane Valley (adjacent to the City of Spokane) to the east.
The responses were not uniform, however. County residents find noise
from highways or freeways, recreational vehicles and trains greatly
annoying more frequently than city dwellers. With regard to all of these
noise sources, the difference between city and county respondents are
statistically significant. That is to say that we are confident that the
two groups represent different populations at the levels of confidence
noted in the significance column.
SURVEY FINDINGS:
CITY/VALLEY/RURBAN COMPARISONS
The questions which follow represent a logical extension of the
Spokane survey design. Although of political importance to consider
both city and county residents, it is obvious that parts of Spokane
County (exclusive of Spokane City) differ in public opinion concerning
-------
28
noise. Accordingly, certain questions are here analyzed which concern
the differences among respondents from Spokane, the Spokane Valley and
the citizens polled who live in the remainder (rurban) areas of the
county.
5. HOW DO CITY, VALLEY AND RURBAN RESPONDENTS DIFFER IN THEIR PERCEPTION
OF THE NOISE PROBLEM?
By dividing the county into "valley" and "rurban," one is able to
pinpoint with greater accuracy the nature of the attitudes related to
destructive sound. As detailed in Table 18, the noise problem is consid-
ered most severe in the City of Spokane. Of some interest is the fact
TABLE 18
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Severity of Noise Problem
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the
rest of Spokane County who respond "No," or "Yes" and "Not very severe,"
"Moderately severe," "Quite severe," or "Extremely severe" to the follow-
ing questions: "As I read the following list, would you tell me whether
any of these are problems here in this area? Please answer 'Yes' or
'No.'" "Noise?" and (for each "Yes") "How severe a problem is (noise)?"
Not A
Not Very
Moderately
Quite
Extremely
Row
Area
Problem
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of Spokane
225
46
98
47
19
435
51.7
10.6
22.5
10.8
4.4
57.3
53.1
53.5
64.1
69.1
67.9
29.6
6.1
12.9
6.2
2.5
Spokane Valley
119
20
26
10
6
181
65.7
11.0
14.4
5.5
3.3
23.8
28.1
23.3
17.0
14.7
21.4
15.7
2.6
3.4
1.3
.8
Rurban County
80
20
29
11
3
143
55.9
14.0
20.3
7.7
2.1
18.8
18.9
23.3
19.0
16.2
10.7
10.5
2.6
3.8
1.4
.4
Column Total
424
86
153
68
28
759
55.9
11.3
20.2
9.0
3.7
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 15.73393 Significance - .0464
-------
25
that the rurban areas follow in perception of noise severity whereas the
valley ranks last. These differences are significant at less than the
.05 level and should be kept in mind as the reader continues throughout
this section.
6. HOW DO CITY, VALLEY AND RURBAN RESPONDENTS DIFFER IN THEIR PERCEPTION
OF NOISE IMPACT ON DAILY LIFE?
Question 10a probes the effect noise has on sleeping. Table 19
details the pattern of response to this question. Although there is
some difference in the perception of effect when related to these politi-
cal/geographical areas, that difference is not statistically significant.
TABLE 19
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Noise Interference With Sleep
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the
rest of Spokane County who respond "No," or "Yes" and "Always Interferes,"
"Frequently Interferes," "Sometimes Interferes," "Rarely Interferes" or
"Does Not Interfere" to the following question: "Does noise interfere
with any of the following activities? Please answer 'Yes' or 'No,*" and
(for each "Yes") "How often does it interfere with (sleeping)?"
Does Not
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Row
Area
Interfere
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of
280
25
68
59
5
437
Spokane
64.1
5.7
15.6
13.5
1.1
57.4
55.6
61.0
56.2
70.2
45.5
36.8
3.3
8.9
7.8
.7
Spokane
122
7
30
18
4
181
Valley
67.4
3.9
16.6
9.9
2.2
23.8
24.2
17.1
24.8
21.4
36.4
16.0
.9
3.9
2.4
.5
Rurban
102
9
23
7
2
143
County
71.3
6.3
16.1
4.9
1.4
18.8
20.2
22.0
19.0
8.3
18.2
13.4
1.2
3.0
.9
.3
Column
504
41
121
84
11
761
Total
66.2
5.4
15.9
11.0
1.4
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 10.57177
Significance ¦« .2272
-------
30
Noise interference may also be perceived to impact conversation, TV
watching and radio listening. This particular question was answered
differently by respondents. Those living in the City of Spokane reported
the highest degree of interference, followed by the rurban county
respondents and last by those living in the valley. These differences
are statistically significant.
TABLE 20
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Noise interference With Conversation, TV Watching and Radio Listening
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the
rest of Spokane County who respond "No," or "Yes" and "Always Interferes,"
"Frequently Interferes," "Sometimes Interferes," "Rarely Interferes" or
"Does Not Interfere" to the following questions: "Does noise interfere
with any of the following activities? Please answer 'Yes' or 'No,'" and
(for each "Yes") "How often does it interfere with (conversation, TV
watching and radio listening)?"
Does Not
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Row
Area
Interfere
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of
275
22
82
46
11
436
Spokane
63.1
5.0
18.8
10.6
2.5
57.4
52.7
53.7
67.2
73.0
100.0
36.2
2.9
10.8
6.1
1.4
Spokane
151
4
16
10
0
181
Valley
83.4
2.2
8.8
5.5
.0
23,8
28.9
9.8
13.1
15.9
.0
19.9
.5
2.1
1.3
.0
Rurban
96
15
24
7
0
142
County
67.6
10.6
16.9
4.9
.0
13.7
18.4
36.6
19.7
11.1
.0
12.6
2.0
3.2
.9
.0
Column
522
41
122
63
11
759
Total
68.8
5.4
16.1
8.3
1.4
100,0
Raw Chi Square = 40.66946 Significance " .0000
Noise was perceived more frequently as a source of irritation than as
interfering with sleeping and conversation/TV/radio. However, the differ-
-------
31
ences between city, valley and rurban respondents were not statistically
significant.
TABLE 21
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Effects of Noise on Irritability
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the
rest of Spokane County who respond "No," or "Yes" and "All the Time,"
"Frequently," "Sometimes," "Rarely," or "Never" to the following ques-
tions: "Does noise affect your health in any of the following ways?
Please answer 'Yes' or 'No,'" and (for each "Yes") "How often does this
noise cause (irritability)?"
All the
Row
Area
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Time
Total
1
2
3
4
5
City of Spokane
202
52
121
50
11
436
46.3
11.9
27.8
11.5
2.5
57.4
57.2
64.2
56.0
53.8
64.7
26.6
6.8
15.9
6.6
1.4
Spokane Valley
80
14
56
26
5
181
44.2
7.7
30.9
14.4
2.8
23.8
22.7
17.3
25.9
28.0
29.4
10.5
1.8
7.4
3.4
.7
Rurban County
71
15
39
17
1
143
49.7
10.5
27.3
11.9
.7
18.8
20.1
18.5
18.1
18.3
5.9
9.3
2.0
5.1
2.2
.1
Column Total
353
81
216
93
17
760
46.4
10.7
28.4
12.2
2.2
100.0
Raw Chi Square ="= 5.95526 Significance - .6522
7. HOW DO CITY, VALLEY AND RURBAN RESPONDENTS DIFFER IN THEIR ACTIONS
TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOISE PROBLEM?
Table 22 presents an analysis of the data gathered in response to ques-
tion 15 on the instrument which sets forth a series of possible actions
related to the reduction of noise in the home. This particular table com-
bines affirmative responses into the category "One or More Actions" to
compare such to the "None of These" or "No Action" category. Again, the
independent variable is place of residence (city/valley/rurban). City
-------
32
residents were most active (59.0%, one or more actions), followed at a
distance by rurban dwellers (50.3%) and, last again, those living in the
valley (48.6%). The chi square test of significance yields a value of
7.124, which is significant at the .05 level.
TABLE 22
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
No Actions Taken in Household to Control Noise
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the
rest of Spokane County who have not taken action within the household to
cope with noise.
ACTION TAKEN
One or
Area More Actions No Action Row Total
City of Spokane
N
=
258
179
437
Row
%
=
59.0
41.0
100.0
Col
%
=
61.7
52.2
57.4
Spokane Valley
N
=
88
93
181
Row
%
K
48.6
51.4
100.0
Col
%
3=
21.1
27.1
23.8
Rurban County
N
—
72
71
143
Row
%
50.3
49.7
100.0
Col
%
=
17.2
20.7
18.8
Column Totals
N
ss
418
343
761
Row
%
=
54.9
45.1
100.0
Col
%
=
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: "No Action" is a residual category. Respondents stated they had
done "none of these," meaning they had not soundproofed; closed doors or
windows; used radio, TV, etc., to mask noise; worn earplugs; changed
sleeping quarters; or considered moving.
Chi Square = 7.124 Significance Level * .05
Respondents living in these areas were also questioned as to their
support for a community noise program. (County residents were to define
community in the sense of "county.") Although the City of Spokane and
the Spokane Valley residents were more strongly in favor of such a pro-
gram than those living in the rurban areas, a majority of each favored a
-------
33
local noise control program. As Table 23 makes clear, there is no signi-
ficant difference among these groups with regard to this support question.
TABLE 23
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Community Should Have Noise Control Program
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the
rest of Spokane County who respond "No" or "Yes" to the following ques-
tion: "Do you think this community should have a noise control program
to specifically work on reducing noise levels? This program would be
funded by the community."
Area
No
Yes
Row Total
1
2
City of Spokane
194
243
437
44.4
55.6
57.7
56.4
58.7
25.6
32.1
Spokane Valley
80
99
179
44.7
55.3
23.6
23.3
23.9
10.6
13.1
Rurban County
70
72
142
49.3
50.7
18.7
20.3
17.4
9.2
9.5
Column Total
344
414
758
45.4
54.6
100.0
Raw Chi Square * 1.08407 Significance ¦ .5816
The taxation question is broken down in the following table. In this
case it is evident that the area of least support (in terms of taxation)
for a local noise control program is in the Spokane Valley. The results
indicate that 61.0% of the city respondents indicated some level of addi-
tional support. The corresponding percentage for the rurban citizens was
54.4. Of those respondents living in the valley, 48.9% indicated they
were willing to pay anything in additional taxes to control the problem of
destructive sound. Taken in their entirety, the differences for the range
of taxation options ("$0.10" to "more than $2.50" per person) are not
-------
TABLE 24
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Support Tax Increase for Noise Control Program
Number and percent of adults in Spokane City, Spokane Valley and in the rest of Spokane County who
respond "More than $2.50 per person," "$2.50 per person," "$1.00 per person," "$.50 per person,"
"$.25 per person," "$.10 per person," or "Would not pay any extra taxes" to the following question:
"Keeping in mind your present level of taxes, how much in additional taxes would you be willing to
pay on a yearly basis for a noise control program?"
Would
$0.10 Per
$0.25 Per
$0.50 Per
$1.00 Per
$2.50 Per
More Than
Row
Area
Not Pay
Person
Person
Person
Person
Person
$2.50
Total
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
City of Spokane
169
48
31
39
84
53
9
433
39.0
11.1
7.2
9.0
19.4
12.2
2.1
57.5
52.5
63.2
55.4
67.2
63.6
61.6
39.1
22.4
6.4
4.1
5.2
11.2
7.0
1.2
Spokane Valley
92
16
13
9
29
15
6
180
51.1
8.9
7.2
5.0
16.1
8.3
3.3
23.9
28.6
21.1
23.2
15.5
22.0
17.4
26.1
12.2
2.1
1.7
1.2
3.9
2.0
.8
Rurban County
61
12
12
10
19
18
8
140
43.6
8.6
8.6
7.1
13.6
12.9
5.7
18.6
18.9
15.8
21.4
17.2
14.4
20.9
34.8
8.1
1.6
1.6
1.3
2.5
2.4
1.1
Column Total
322
76
56
58
132
86
23
753
42.8
10.1
7.4
7.7
17.5
11.4
3.1
100.0
Raw Chi Square ¦ 17.35677
Significance = .1367
w
-------
35
statistically significant. However, taken in conjunction with the other
findings, it should be stressed that this particular result should be
given serious consideration. Though the level of confidence is only
.1367 (which means if one held that the populations of city, valley and
rurban were in fact different, he or she would be wrong some fourteen
times out of a hundred), this statistical precaution should not be a
reason for ignoring an emerging conclusion. This conclusion will be
examined shortly.
8. HOW DO CITY, VALLEY AND RURBAN RESPONDENTS DIFFER IN THEIR IDENTIFI-
CATION OF SPECIFIC NOISE SOURCES FOUND GREATLY ANNOYING?
There remains one final concern related to the differences in noise
attitudes among city, valley and rurban respondents. Those in our sample
were asked to indicate the extent to which they were annoyed by specific
noise sources. The following table represents a comparison of these
areas by means of a residual "greatly annoyed" category (see footnote to
Table 25). An analysis of the responses makes clear that the city resi-
dents consider traffic, motorcycles, buses, pet/animals and jet airplanes
the most annoying sources of noise pollution. For valley residents, the
most annoying sources are highways and freeways, pets and animals, and
trains. Rurban dwellers are most severely impacted (in terms of percep-
tion) by motorcycles, highways and freeways, and recreational vehicles.
SURVEY FINDINGS: INTRACITY COMPARISONS
A part of the Spokane County survey design involves the making of
intracity comparisons. As defined earlier, the City of Spokane was
divided into several areas: Northwest, Northeast, Central and South Hill.
The tables which follow allow the reader to compare and contrast these
-------
TABLE 25
City/Valley/Rurban County Comparisons
Noise Sources Found "Greatly Annoying"*: Number and Percent of Respondents
CITY VALLEY RURBAN SIGNIFICANCE**
Number and Percent Number and Percent Number and Percent
"Greatly Annoyed" "Greatly Annoyed" "Greatly Annoyed"
(N) (% of 437) (N) (% of 181) (N) (% of 143)
1) Traffic
66
15.1
19
10.5
15
10.5
City Worst (at .02)
2) Motorcycles
129
29.5
38
21.0
42
29.4
Valley Best (at .08)
3) Trucks
43
9.8
15
8.3
13
9.1
No Difference (at .48)
4) Buses
12
2.7
2
1.1
3
2.1
City Worst (at .04)
5) Automobiles
56
12.8
14
7.7
8
5.6
No Difference (at .11)
6) Highways & Freeways
8
1.8
10
5.5
7
4.9
V and R Worst (at .05)
7) Recreational Vehicles
6
1.4
4
2.2
5
3.5
Rurban Worst (at .00)
8) Garbage Trucks
9
2.1
0
0.0
1
0.7
No Difference (at .18)
9) Emergency Vehicles
23
5.3
8
4.4
6
4.2
No Difference (at .42)
10) Entertainment Centers
8
1.8
1
0.6
1
0.7
No Difference (at .13)
11) Pets/Animals
107
24.5
45
24.9
27
18.9
Rurban Best (at .08)
12) Neighbors' Homes
31
7.1
5
2,8
2
1.4
No Difference (at .21)
13) Lawnmower s
5
1.1
2
1.1
0
0.0
No Difference (at .92)
14) Jet Airplanes
95
21.7
3
1.7
13
9.1
City Worst (at ,00)
15) Small Airplanes
3
0.6
6
3.3
1
0.7
No Difference (at .37)
16) Trains
3
0.6
14
7.7
2
1.4
Valley Worst (at .00)
17) Construction Noise
3
0.6
6
3.3
2
1.4
No Difference (at .20)
18) Commercial or Indus-
3
0.6
3
1.7
2
1.4
No Difference (at .38)
trial Equipment
* The category "Greatly Annoyed" represents the sum of the following responses: tremendously, highly
and considerably annoyed.
** Levels of significance are computed from tabular data which include each of the following responses:
"Tremendously," "Highly," "Considerably," "Medium," "Partially," "A Little," and "Not at Ail"
Annoyed. Numbers in parentheses are levels of significance using chi square test.
-------
37
different regions of the city on the basis of selected survey items.
These items bear on intracity differences in perceived severity, effects,
actions and noise sources.
9. HOW DO RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF SPOKANE CITY DIFFER IN THEIR
PERCEPTION OF THE SEVERITY OF THE NOISE PROBLEM?
As Table 26 shows, the area variable is important in the determination
of the perception of the noise problem. The cross-tabulation matrix yields
a raw chi square of 28.9 with 12 degrees of freedom, which is significant
TABLE 26
Intracity Comparisons
Differences in Severity of Noise Problem
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who respond
"No" or "Yes" and "Not very severe," "Moderately severe," "Quite severe,"
or "Extremely severe" to the following question: "How severe a problem is
(noise)?"
Not A
Not Very
Moderately
Quite
Extremely
Row
Area
Problem
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Northwest Spokane
73
17
36
18
10
154
47.4
11.0
23.4
11.7
6.5
35.4
32.4
37.0
36.7
38.3
52.6
16.8
3.9
8.3
4.1
2.3
Northeast Spokane
51
9
20
15
9
104
49.0
8.7
19.2
14.4
8.7
23.9
22.7
19.6
20.4
31.9
47.4
11.7
2.1
4.6
3.4
2.1
Central Spokane
33
10
24
8
0
75
44.0
13.3
32.0
10.7
.0
17.2
14.7
21.7
24.5
17.0
.0
7.6
2.3
5.5
1.8
.0
South Spokane
68
10
18
6
0
102
66.7
9.8
17.6
5.9
.0
23.4
30.2
21.7
18.4
12.8
.0
18.6
2.3
4.1
1.4
.0
Column Total
225
46
98
47
19
435
51.7
10.6
22.5
10.8
4.4
100.0
Raw Chi square » *8.93548 Significance - .0040
-------
38
at the .004 level. This means that the magnitude of difference is so
great that with a sample of this size such a result would be found in
only four cases out of one thousand due to chance alone. We are confi-
dent, therefore, that the noise problem in the South Hill area of Spokane
is perceived as significantly less severe than in other areas. Given the
more affluent nature of this region, together with the air traffic
patterns over the Northwest and Northeast areas and the obvious noise
liabilities of life in the central city, such results are consistent
with other findings in this survey.
10. HOW DO RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF SPOKANE CITY DIFFER WITH
REGARD TO PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF NOISE?
There are three measures of effect which show significant differences
among those regions which are the basis for our intracity comparisons.
The first has to do with perceived effect on sleep. As Table 27 clearly
demonstrates, the South Hill area respondents are much more apt to report
that noise does not interfere with their sleep. To be specific, 76.0% of
those from this area report their sleep is not impacted by noise, com-
pared with corresponding percentages of 59.1% for the Northwest, 61.3% for
the Central and 61.5% for the Northeast areas of the city. Such differ-
ences are significant at less than the .04 level of confidence due to the
South Hill response.
The same comparisons yield significant difference with regard to
perceived noise interference with conversation, TV watching and radio
listening. Once again, residents of the South Hill area report (84.6%)
that noise does not interfere with such life activities. Such should be
compared with the response from the Northwest area, where only 46.4%
report that noise is not a problem in terms of this particular effect.
-------
39
TABLE 27
Intracity Comparisons
Noise Interference With Sleep
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who
respond "Always interferes," "Frequently interferes," "Sometimes inter-
feres," "Rarely interferes" or "Does not interfere" to the following
question: "How often does noise interfere with (sleeping)?"
Does Not
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Row
Area
Interfere
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Northwest
91
16
26
19
2
154
Spokane
59.1
10.4
16.9
12.3
1.3
35.2
32.5
64.0
38.2
32.2
40.0
20.8
3.7
5.9
4.3
.5
Northeast
64
2
16
20
2
104
Spokane
61.5
1.9
15.4
19.2
1.9
23.8
22.9
8.0
23.5
33.9
40.0
14.6
.5
3.7
4.6
.5
Central
46
2
15
11
1
75
Spokane
61.3
2.7
20.0
14.7
1.3
CM
r-*
H
16.4
8.0
22.1
18.6
20.0
10.5
.5
3.4
2.5
.2
South
79
5
11
9
0
104
Spokane
76.0
4.8
10.6
8.7
.0
23.8
28.2
20.0
16.2
15.3
.0
18.1
1.1
2.5
2.1
.0
Column
280
25
68
59
5
437
Total
64.1
5.7
15.6
13.5
1.1
100.0
Raw Chi Square — 22.09765 Significance ¦ .0364
The final measure of effect examined in this report concerns noise
and irritability. This specific measure of effect yields slightly different
results. In this case, the residents of the South Hill area trail those
living in the central city (53.4% to 58.7%, respectively) in reporting that
noise never makes them irritable. The corresponding percentages for the
Northwest and Northeast areas are 40.3% and 39.4%, respectively.
The sum total of these measures of effect favor the South Hill area in
terms of perceived impact of noise pollution on health and well-being.
-------
40
TABLE 28
Intracity Comparisons
Noise Interference With Conversation, TV Watching and Radio Listening
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who respond
"Always interferes," "Frequently interferes," "Sometimes interferes,"
"Rarely interferes" or "Does not interfere" to the following question:
"How often does noise interfere with (conversation, TV watching and radio
listening)?"
Does Not
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Always
Row
Area
Interfere
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Interferes
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Northwest
71
13
38
24
7
153
Spokane
46.4
8.5
24.8
15.7
4.6
35.1
25.8
59.1
46.3
52.2
63.6
16.3
3.0
8.7
5.5
1.6
Northeast
69
3
14
15
3
104
Spokane
66.3
2.9
13.5
14.4
2.9
23.9
25.1
13.6
17.1
32.6
27.3
15.8
.7
3.2
3.4
.7
Central
47
5
16
6
1
75
Spokane
62.7
6.7
21.3
8.0
1.3
17.2
17.1
22.7
19.5
13.0
9.1
10.8
1.1
3.7
1.4
.2
South
88
1
14
1
0
104
Spokane
84.6
1.0
13.5
1.0
.0
23.9
32.0
4.5
17.1
2.2
.0
20.2
.2
3.2
.2
.0
Column
275
22
82
46
11
436
Total
63.1
5.0
18.8
10.6
2.5
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 49.82825 Significance * .0000
11. HOW DO RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF SPOKANE CITY DIFFER WITH
REGARD TO COURSES OF ACTION TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO NOISE POLLUTION?
One way of answering the question of action is to center on those
behaviors conducted within the household to cope with noise. Table 30 is
compiled from data collected in response to a questionnaire item which asks
respondents to report which of a number of designated actions have been
taken in the household to reduce noise. As is clearly evident, there is
no significant difference among intracity areas with respect to household
-------
41
TABLE 29
Intracity Comparisons
Effects of Noise on Irritability
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who respond
"All the time," "Frequently"Sometimes," "Rarely" or "Never" to the
following question: "How often does this noise cause (irritability)?"
All the
Area
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Frequently
Time
Total
1
2
3
4
5
Northwest Spokane
62
19
47
20
6
154
40.3
12.3
30.5
13.0
3.9
35.3
30.7
36.5
38.8
40.0
54.5
14.2
4.4
10.8
4.6
1.4
Northeast Spokane
41
9
29
21
4
104
39.4
8.7
27.9
20.2
3.8
23.9
20.3
17.3
24.0
42.0
36.4
9.4
2.1
6.7
4.8
.9
Central Spokane
44
10
15
6
0
75
58.7
13.3
20.0
8.0
.0
17.2
21.8
19.2
12.4
12.0
.0
10.1
2.3
3.4
1.4
.0
South Spokane
55
14
30
3
1
103
53.4
13.6
29.1
2.9
1.0
23.6
27.2
26.9
24.8
6.0
9.1
12.6
3.2
6.9
.7
.2
Column Total
202
52
121
50
11
436
46.3
11.9
27.8
11.5
2.5
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 28.63107 Significance ¦ .0045
actions when those who have taken one or more actions are compared with those
who have taken no action. However, it should be noted in passing that the
residents of the South Hill area do lead in this form of activism. These
results, however, can clearly be due to chance.
One of the most significant measures of effect centers on support for
a community noise program. As Table 31 makes clear, support is strongest in
the Northeast area (65.4%) and, again, on the South Hill (59.6%). Support
is weakest in the Central (49.3%) and Northwest areas (49.4%). These
-------
42
differences are significant at less than the .04 level.
TABLE 30
Intracity Comparisons
No Actions Taken in the Household to Control Noise
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who have
not taken action within the household to cope with noise.
ACTION TAKEN
One or
Area
More Actions
No Action
Row Total
Northwest Spokane
N
=
60
94
154
Row
%
m
39.0
61.0
100.0
Col
%
=
33.5
36.4
35.2
Northeast Spokane
N
ss
39
65
104
Row
%
=
37.5
62.5
100.0
Col
%
ss
21.8
25.2
23.8
Central Spokane
N
=
30
45
75
Row
%
=
40.0
60.0
100.0
Col
X
ss
10.8
17.4
17.2
South Spokane
N
50
54
104
Row
%
=
48.1
51.9
100.0
Col
%
—
27.9
20.9
23.8
Column Total
N
=
179
258
437
Row
%
s:
41.0
59.0
100.0
Col
%
as
100.0
100.0
100.0
Note: "No Action" is a residual category. Respondents stated they had
done "none of these," meaning they had not soundproofed; closed doors ox
windows; used radio, TV, etc., to mask noise; worn earplugs; changed
sleeping quarters; or considered moving.
Chi Square = 2.968 Significance Level * .50
Perhaps the most important indication of public support for noise
control centers on willingness to increase personal taxation to pay for
a local program. Table 32 indicates that the Northwest area residents
least willing to pay additional taxes (50.3% "no"). The Northeast resi-
dents follow (41.3% "no"). Then come those living in the Central area
(38.7%). Finally, those residents in the South Hill area are most will-
-------
43
TABLE 31
Intracity Comparisons
Support Community Noise Control Program
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who
respond "Yes" or "No" to the following question: "Do you think this
community should have a noise control program to specifically work on
reducing noise levels? This program would be funded by the community."
Area
No
Yes
Row Total
1
2
Northwest Spokane
78
76
154
50.6
49.4
35.2
40.2
31.3
17.8
17.4
Northeast Spokane
36
68
104
34.6
65.4
23.8
18.6
28.0
8.2
15.6
Central Spokane
38
37
75
50.7
49.3
17.2
19.6
15.2
8.7
8.5
South Spokane
42
62
104
40.4
59.6
23.8
21.6
25.5
9.6
14.2
Column Total
194
243
437
44.4
55.6
100.0
Raw Chi Square = 8.34222 Significance - .0394
ing to pay additional taxes (only 19.8% "no").
At this point, it is necessary to pause to further interpret the
results of the "action" component of the survey. While the problem of
noise appears most severe (in terms of public opinion) in the northern
areas of Spokane, the residents of the South Hill are more likely to
support a program and to pay for it through increased taxes. Both North-
west and Northeast residents are more likely than Central and South Hill
residents to perceive noise as a greater problem. However, those in the
-------
TABLE 32
Intracity Comparisons
Support Tax Increase For Noise Control Program
Number and percent of adults in different areas of Spokane City who respond "More than $2.50 per person,"
"$2.50 per person," "$1.00 per person," "$.50 per person," "$.25 per person," "$.10 per person" or "Would
not pay any extra taxes" to the following question: "Keeping in mind your present level of taxes, how
much in additional taxes would you be willing to pay on a yearly basis for a noise control program?"
Would
$0.10 Per
$0.25 Per
$0.50 Per
$1.00 Per
$2.50 Per
More than
Row
Area
Not Pay
Person
Person
Person
Person
Person
$2.50
Total
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Northwest Spokane
77
12
9
10
20
22
3
153
50.3
7.8
5.9
6.5
13.1
14.4
2.0
35.3
45.6
25.0
29.9
25.6
23.8
41.5
33.3
17.8
2.8
2.1
2.3
4.6
5.1
.7
Northwest Spokane
43
14
4
5
29
8
1
104
41.3
13.5
3.8
4.8
27.9
7.7
1.0
24.0
25.4
29.2
12.9
12.8
34.5
15.1
11.1
9.9
3.2
.9
1.2
6.7
1.8
.2
Central Spokane
29
5
11
11
13
4
2
75
38.7
6.7
14.7
14.7
17.3
5.3
2.7
17.3
17.2
10.4
35.5
28.2
15.5
7.5
22.2
6.7
1.2
2.5
2.5
3.0
.9
.5
South Spokane
20
17
7
13
22
19
3
101
19.8
16.8
6.9
12.9
21.8
18.8
3.0
23.3
11.8
35.4
22.6
33.3
26.2
35.8
33.3
4.6
3.9
1.6
3.0
5.1
4.4
.7
Column Total
169
48
31
39
84
53
9
433
39.0
11.1
7.2
9.0
19.4
12.2
2.1
100.0
.o
.£•
Raw Chi Square * 53.73501
Significance = .0000
-------
45
Northwest are least supportive of both a program in concept and addi-
tional tax. Northeast respondents indicate a greater measure of support
in concept but such does not carry through to dollar support. South
Hill residents seem even more strongly supportive of a noise control
program with regard to taxes than they are in concept (59.6% to 80.2%,
respectively).
Other parts of the survey on noise pollution shed some possible
light on the above results. First of all, residents of the northern
regions report, as the next table demonstrates, a higher degree of
annoyance to jet aircraft. It might well be that such residents are
skeptical of the potential a local program of noise control has to
manage this particular source. Also, support for local programs is
often associated with higher education, income and occupational status,
as the following section of the report indicates. Given the nature of
the South Hill population (high on these specific variables), it follows
that a willingness to support a program through taxation would be found
more frequently in this area.
12. HOW DO RESPONDENTS FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF SPOKANE CITY DIFFER
WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCES IN THE SPECIFIC NOISE SOURCES FOUND
MOST ANNOYING?
As the following table demonstrates, there are a number of signifi-
cant differences in the degree of annoyance associated with particular
noise sources among intracity regions. A number of the highlights of
this table are worthy of special notation. First of all, traffic is a
noise source which is greatly annoying in the Northeast (23.12), followed
by the Northwest (17.5%). The corresponding percentage for the Central
area is 8.0% and for the South Hill, 8.7%. This spread is statistically
significant and indicates that traffic control planning related to noise
-------
TABLE 33
Intracity Comparisons
Noise Sources Found "Greatly Annoying"*: Number and Percent of Respondents
NORTHWEST
NORTHEAST
CENTRAL
SOUTH
HILL
SIGNIFICANCE**
Noise Source
(N)
% of
154
(N)
% of
104
(N)
% of
75
(N)
% of
104
1) Traffic
27
17.5
24
23.1
6
8.0
9
8.7
NE
& NW Worse (.04)
2) Motorcycles
45
29.2
37
35.6
20
26. 7
27
26.0
No
Difference (.38)
3) Trucks
13
8.4
17
16.3
6
8.0
7
6.7
No
Difference (.21)
4) Buses
7
4.5
1
1.0
2
2.7
2
1.9
No
Difference (.68)
5) Automobiles
26
9.0
21
20.2
5
6.7
4
3.8
NE
& NW Worse (.01)
6) Highways & Freeways
4
2.6
2
1.9
1
1.3
1
1.0
NW
Worse (.06)
7) Recreational Vehicles
1
0.7
3
2.9
1
1.3
1
1.0
NE
Worse (.06)
8) Garbage Trucks
2
1.3
5
4.8
1
1.3
1
1.0
NE
Worse (.09)
9) Emergency Vehicles
11
7.1
3
2.9
8
10.7
1
1.0
NW
& C Worse (.03)
10) Entertainment Centers
2
1.3
0
0.0
5
6.7
1
1.0
No
Di fference (.14)
11) Pets/Animals
38
24.7
31
29.8
13
17.3
25
24.0
No
Difference (.86)
12) Neighbors' Homes
9
5.8
9
8.7
6
8.0
7
6.7
No
Difference (.09)
13) Lawnmowers
1
0.7
1
1.0
0
0.0
3
2.9
No
Difference (.61)
14) Jet Airplanes
48
31.2
33
31.7
12
16.0
2
1.9
NW
& NE Worse (.00)
15) Small Airplanes
1
0.7
1
1.0
1
1.3
0
0.0
No
Difference (.54)
16) Trains
0
0.0
1
1.0
1
1.3
1
1.0
NW
Best (.03)
17) Construction Noise
0
0.0
2
1.9
0
0.0
1
1.0
No
Difference (.26)
18) Conmercian and Indus-
0
0.0
2
1.9
0
0.0
1
1.0
NE
Worse (.08)
trial Equipment
* The category "Greatly Annoyed" represents the sum of the following responses: tremendously, highly
and considerably annoyed.
** Levels of significance are computed from tabular data which include each of the following responses:
"Tremendously," "Highly," "Considerably," "Medium," "Partially," "A Little," and "Not at All"
Annoyed. Numbers in parentheses are levels of significance using chi square test.
¦p»
-------
47
abatement is more a problem in the northern areas. Although there is
no significant difference among city areas with regard to motorcycle
noise annoyance, this is because this is perceived to be an important
problem in every area. The same statement can be made with regard to
pets and animals. Perhaps the most significant finding presented in
response to this questionnaire item centers with jet aircraft noise
annoyance. To be specific, 31.7% of Northeast area respondents and
31.2% of those interviewed in the Northwest report great annoyance
associated with this noise source. The figure for the Central area is
16.0% and for the South Hill, a tiny 1.9%. Despite the problems of
jurisdiction, it is evident that any serious attempt to control noise
pollution for the residents of Northwest and Northeast Spokane must
involve a consideration of aircraft contribution to destructive sound.
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
The crosstabulations above yield a chi square value enabling the
reader to determine the significance of the differences in important
dependent variables which can be attributed to area (the independent or
"causal" variable). As indicated earlier, chi square statistical analy-
sis assumes a nominal level of measurement. There is no way to attach a
"greater or lesser" value to areas (such as the county and city). How-
ever, various social-demographic characteristics (such as education,
occupation and income), as well as noise related attitudes, represent at
least an ordinal level of measurement which allows a "ranking" on the
basis of "greater than or lesser than." More importantly, variables 8uch
as building orientation and building capacity can be theoretically
assumed to have an inherent ordinality with regard to noise. For example,
-------
48
homes near the street can be assumed to be "noisier" than homes located
farther away. Although some variables such as age and education may be
thought of as having "interval" level measurement properties, such is
not the case for all salient variables. Thus, the most parsimonious
and complete analysis may be done by means of a statistical procedure
geared to ordinal level correlations. Accordingly, the "Spearman's rho"
measure of association for ranks was chosen.
While a number of interpretations may be made, rho is basically a
product moment correlation between the ranks for two variables. The
formula for the computation of rho is as follows:
2
6 S3 (J
Pg (Spearman's rho) = 1 - ^
n(n2-i)
til
where d^ is the difference between the A rank and the B rank for the i
unit, and N is the number of units ranked.
The value of rho = 1 when the sum of squared differences between
ranks is 0, in other words when the rankings are identical. The value of
rho = -1 when the sum of the squared differences between the ranks is
maximal, in other words when the two rankings are in perfect reverse
order. The value of rho is 0 when the sum of the squared differences
o
between ranks is precisely N(N - l)/6. Such a precise value may be
impossible when the number of units ranked (N) is small. However, unless
the N is small, Spearman's rho can be very close to zero when there is no
relationship between the two variables.
Thus, the correlations dealt with in the section which follows are
those yielded by a Spearman's rho measure of association for ranked data.
-------
49
The rho value reflects the degree to which two sets of numbers are simi-
larly arrayed (positive) or oppositely arrayed (negative). The value of
rho is also subjected to a test of significance which enables the reader
to judge the level of confidence by which a particular relationship may
be thought to exist in the population in question. In other words, given
a confidence level of .05, for a significance test (usually a form of
"t") performed on a specific rho value, the interpretation would assume
the following form. Fewer than five times in one hundred would a rho
value of this particular magnitude be found by chance. Therefore, we
reject the hypothesis (null) that P = 0 in the population. To reject
s
the null hypothesis is to say that, within the statistical limits indi-
cated by the confidence level, there is a real relationship (not due to^
chance) between the variables in question.
SURVEY FINDINGS:
ORDINAL MEASUREMENT OF ASSOCIATION
13. WHAT ARE THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NOISE RELATED ATTITUDES EXPRESSED
IN RESPONSE TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS AND NOISE RELATED ATTITUDES
EXPRESSED IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC CLOSED-ENDED QUESTIONS?
At the onset of the survey, interviewers asked respondents to describe
generally what they liked (Question 3) and what they saw as problems
(Question 4) in their neighborhoods. Later they were asked specifically
about the severity of the noise problem in their neighborhood (Question
5c), how quiet or noisy their neighborhood was (Question 8) and the degree
to which they were annoyed with noise (Question 9). Taken together, the
responses to these questions provide some indication of the internal con~
sistency of the survey responses. To be clear, people's responses about
noise to open-ended questions should be correlated significantly with their
responses to specific probes about noise problems.
-------
50
The correlations presented in Table 34 indicate that people who
volunteer "quiet" as one of the two or three things they like about their
neighborhood are unlikely to say that noise is a problem in their area
(-.10). Those who mention quiet are further unlikely to say that noise
is a severe problem when asked specifically about noise (-.26) or to
indicate that they are annoyed with noise (-.09). Conversely, those who
volunteer that one asset of the neighborhood is "quiet" also tend to rate
the neighborhood as quiet (.33). Those who volunteer that a problem in
their area is noise are more likely to say that the noise problem is
severe (.42) and they are annoyed with noise (.30), but do not rank their
neighborhood as quiet (-.27). The severity of the noise problem, as
expected, is highly and negatively associated with the rating of the
quietness of the neighborhood (-.58) and highly and positively associated
with noise annoyance (.55). Also predictably, noise annoyance is strongly
and negatively associated with rating the quietness of the neighborhood
(-.49). All of the above relationships are statistically significant,
meaning that a rho of the values presented in the table would occur by
chance less than one in a hundred (or in one case, only one in a
hundred) times.
The associations above are hardly surprising. However, such demon-
strations of the predictably true serve as an indicator of the consistency
of survey responses and the worth of the data collected. Further, it is
important to note methodologically that open-ended responses on neighbor-
hood assets and liabilities \o correlate with specific questions on noise
pollution. Accordingly, the \finding that noise is a problem is not simply
a consequence of asking people specifically about destructive sound.
Moreover, noise annoyance is associated with the perception of noise as a
-------
TABLE 34
Relationships Between Attitudinal Measures of Noise/Quiet
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
22
Like
Quiet
34
Noise
Problem
£>£
Noise
Severity
Quiet
Rating
91
Noise
Annoyance
- 0 Like Area * Corr =
^ Quiet ** Sig -
q ^ Area Noise Corr =
Problem Sig =
-.10
(.00)
_ Severity of Corr =
^ Noise Problem Sig =
-.26
(.00)
.42
(.00)
g Rating of Corr ®
^ Quiet Sig =
.33
(.00)
-.27
(.00)
-.58
(.00)
q Annoyance Corr =
With Noise Sig =
-.09
(.01)
.30
(.00)
.55
(.00)
-.49
(.00)
Question 3:
Question 4:
Question 5c:
Question 8:
Question 9:
Now, thinking of your area, what three things do you particularly like about this area;
that is, within a few blocks of here.
What are the three most important problems facing the residents of your area today"?
Would you say that noise is a problem? (If yes, then ask) How severe a problem is noise?
(Extremely severe, quite severe, moderately severe, not very severe, don't know.)
Please tell me how quiet or noise you consider this area to be (very quiet, quiet, noisy,
very noisy).
Please tell me which one these best describes how annoyed you are by noise in thi6 area
(tremendously, highly, considerably, medium, partially, a little, not at all).
* Correlations are Spearman's rho; see page 48 in this report for explanation.
** "Sig" indicates the level of significance; see page 9.
-------
52
problem. This is yet another indicator of the consistency of the
instrument and the survey data collection. Finally, the correlations
involving open-ended or "volunteered" responses to "general" questions,
while statistically significant, explain much less of the variance than
the correlations stemming from specific questions on noise. This is a
consequence of the form of the question response. Open-ended responses
to general questions quite expectedly produce a lower frequency of any
specific response than do questions which ask people to consider the
existence or severity of a particular neighborhood fault.
14. WHAT ARE THE SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING VARIABLES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SALIENT DIMENSIONS OF THE NOISE PROBLEM?
In a general sense, the survey results reveal that the noise problem
impacts all segments of the population. While there are some statisti-
cally significant relationships between certain social-demographic
variables and dimensions of the noise problem the general picture which
emerges is one of insignificant difference. The strongest relationship
is between income and the rating of quiet in the neighborhood (.20).
Higher income people do perceive their neighborhoods to be quieter but
they are not less annoyed with the noise that does exist. As Table 35
clearly indicates, noise is a general problem.
Specifically, the data analysis shows that the respondent's concept
of personal health is not related to noise perception. There is perhaps
some small relationship between perceptions of health and the rating of
quietness for the neighborhood (.07). Such does not mean there is no
such relationship in reality, however. There is a difference between
perception and a material or objective condition. Noise as a stressor
most definitely damages one's health.
-------
TABLE 35
Attitudinal Measures of Noise/Quiet and Housing Characteristics
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
HOUSING
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Attitudinal
Measures of
Noise/Quiet
Health
Age
Education
•w
C
-------
54
The results also show that age is generally unrelated to attitudinal
measures of noise/quiet. Due to the fact that the elderly are often
economically disadvantaged and that poor neighborhoods are often noise
neighborhoods, one might expect a positive relationship between noise
perception and age. However, it is vital to note that our survey demon-
strates that there is a positive correlation (.52) significant at the
.001 level between age and length of time in a particular neighborhood.
Such introduces the possibility of two perhaps interlocking conditions.
First, given the fact that noise produces hearing loss over the years, it
is quite possible that older persons simply do not hear as well and do
not perceive noise pollution to the extent they otherwise would. Second,
the possibility of noise habituation must be considered. As the physical
degree of noise measured in decibels goes up, the psychological threshold
for noise annoyance also may increase. Both of these central conditions
bear on the relationship between age and the perception of noise problems.
Such considerations lead to a recommendation that those living in neigh-
borhoods where the physical measurements show a high degree of noise
pollution and who do not perceive noise to be a problem should be given
tests for hearing loss. Such introduces a third and critical dimension to
the modeling employed by EPA to assist in the development of local strat-
egies to control destructive sound. The physical reality of noise along
with the attitudinal aspects of the question have been recognized. We
recommend that the vital question of hearing acuity now be considered.
The question of noise habituation can be addressed only indirectly
by means of this survey. However, there are two items on the question-
naire which appear conceptually related to the social-psychological
threshold of noise perception and annoyance. Question one inquires as to
-------
55
the length of time the respondent has lived at his or her current
address or within a few blocks thereof. Question fourteen inquires as
to the extent to which the respondent has become accustomed to noise.
The logic of considering such inquiries as possible indicators of noise
habituation is straightforward. It is indeed possible that long-term
residents of a neighborhood which might rank high in the physical
measurement of noise are less sensitive to the problem. Those reporting
becoming "accustomed" to noise may be saying noise no longer affects
them as they have "learned to live with it."
Though no definitive conclusions can be drawn, some of the correla-
tions between these "habituation" indicators and salient dimensions of
noise attitudes are suggestive. To be specific, length of residence is
positively associated with a quiet rating for the neighborhood (.07) and
negatively associated with sleep interference (-.08), rest interference
(-.08) and general impact on health (-.11). The extent to which one is
accustomed with noise is negatively associated with the perception of a
noise problem (-.14), noise severity (-.17) and noise annoyance (-.25).
"Accustomed" is further positively associated with a quiet rating (.11).
The possibility that those who have "learned to live with noise" tend
to define their neighborhoods as quiet can best be approached through
multivariate analysis which includes attitudinal, physical and hearing
loss measures.
Education and employment status are generally unrelated to the per-
ception of noise problems in the neighborhood. The well-educated as well
as the less well educated, the employed as well as the unemployed, the
retired and the household worker do not differ significantly on attitud-
inal measures of noise/quiet. On the other hand, as would be expected
-------
56
given the relationship between noise perception and income (.20), higher
occupational status is positively associated with neighborhoods per-
ceived as quiet. Occupation is significantly associated with the rating
of the severity of the noise problem (-.09) and with the rating of quiet
in the neighborhood (.11).
Race and sex are not related to the perception of a noise problem.
However, there is a positive correlation between home ownership and
liking the quiet of the neighborhood (.09) and giving the neighborhood
a quiet rating (.10). Such suggests that rental neighborhoods are
generally perceived as noisier than those in which residents are buying
their homes. People with large households are somewhat more likely to
perceive their neighborhoods as quiet (.08).
An examination of Table 35 also reveals that building capacity is
not significantly related to the perception of a noise problem. As one
might expect, homes and apartments located closer to the street are per-
ceived by their occupants as noisier. Building orientation correlates
positively with the quiet rating (.10) and negatively with the severity
of the noise problem (-.08). With regard to building construction,
masonry housing is slightly associated with a decreased noise problem.
The perceived severity of noise'is associated with living in a wood frame
building (.07) and the perception of a quiet neighborhood is negatively
associated with wood frame construction (.07). Such rho values are signi'
\
ficant at only the .06 and .07 levels, respectively, but are highlighted
here because of possible relevance for building codes which might address
the question of noise pollution.
-------
57
15. IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOISE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER NEIGHBOR-
HOOD PROBLEMS AND WITH A LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC SERVICES?
Generally, people living in neighborhoods perceived as noisy are
more likely than others to identify other problems such as traffic,
polluted water, crime, rundown neighborhoods, unclean air, inadequate
parking and lack of low income housing. A careful reading of Table 36
reveals a large number of correlations between items, correlations which
tend to be quite strong.
Neighborhoods which are not plagued by noise are more unlikely to
have other problems. "Quiet" as an open-ended response to item three
on the questionnaire is negatively associated with traffic (-.16,
polluted water (-.07), crime (-.11), rundown neighborhood (-.08) and
parking problems (-.09). Consistently, a quiet rating for the neighbor-
hood (question eight) is negatively associated with traffic (-.28),
polluted water (-.09), crime (-.18), rundown neighborhoods (-.20), unclean
air (-.17), inadequate parking (-.21) and inadequate low income housing
(-.07).
Conversely, noise represents one component of a constellation of
factors which impact in detrimental fashion the quality of life in
affected neighborhoods. Correlations between the items indicating noise
severity (question 5c) and noise annoyance (question nine) on the one
hand, and other neighborhood problems are expectedly high. They range
downward from noise severity and traffic (.28), noise severity and run-
down neighborhoods (.23) and noise severity and unclean air (.23). Once
again, it is apparent that the automobile emerges as a central problem
not only in terms of noise pollution but in other environmental areas as
well.
-------
TABLE 36
Relationships Between Attitudinal Measures of Noise/Quiet
and Other Neighborhood Problems
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
COMMUNITY PROBLEMS
Attitudinal Measures
of Noise/Quiet
Traffic
Polluted
Water
Crime
Rundown
Neighborhood
1
Unclean Air
Parking
Inadequate Low
Income Housing
Q 3 Like Quiet * g?rr
** Sig =
-.16
(.00)
-.07
(.05)
-.11
(.00)
-.08
(.03)
-.06
(.10)
-.09
(.01)
-.07
(.07)
Q 4 Noise Problem 2°rr
Sig =
.05
(.17)
-.00
(.96)
.07
(.05)
.06
(.10)
.07
(.06)
.02
(.51)
-.04
(.28)
Q 5c Noise Severity Si" ¦
.28
(.00)
.16
(.00)
.19
(.00)
.23
(.00)
.23
(.00)
.18
(.00)
.04
(.30)
_ 0 „ . _ . Corr *
Q 8 Quiet Rating _
-.28
(.00)
-.09
(.02)
-.18
(.00)
-.20
(.00)
-.17
(.00)
-.21
(.00)
-.07
(.05)
Q 9 Noise Annoyance g?" _
.18
(.00)
.11
(.00)
.16
(.00)
.17
(.00)
.18
(.00)
.14
(.00)
.05 |
(.15)
Questions 3, 4, 5c, 8 and 9: Refer to Table 34
* Correlations are Spearman's rho; see page 48 in this report for explanation.
** "Sig" indicates the level of significance; see page 9.
-------
59
16. WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PERCEPTION OF A NOISE PROBLEM
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE RATED ADEQUACY OF LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES?
A major and important finding is that perception of a noise problem
is consistently associated with the opinion that Spokane County noise
control is inadequate. Those who volunteer (question 3) that quiet is a
neighborhood asset, and those who specifically rate their neighborhood
as quiet (question eight), are more likely to rate noise control highly
(.23 and .53, respectively). Those who volunteer that one of the things
they like least about their neighborhood (question four) is noise, those
who rate the noise problem as severe (question five) and those most
annoyed with noise (question eight) are more likely to find the noise
control program inadequate (-.32, -.62 and -.46, respectively). These
are some of the highest correlations in the data set.
Correlations between ratings of other public services and salient
attitudinal dimensions of noise/quiet are less consistent and smaller.
However, it is vital to note the relationships between attitudinal
measures of noise/quiet and the rating of general pollution control are
also strong. To be specific, general pollution control (question 6j)
correlates positively and significantly with the open—ended response to
question three, indicating an appreciation of neighborhood quietness (.09)
and the specific rating of quiet on close-ended question eight (.23). The
same item correlates negatively and significantly with the open-ended
response indicating a neighborhood noise problem (-.09), the rating of
noise severity (-.23) and noise annoyance (-.18). Thus attitudinal
measures of noise/quiet are not only important predictors of satisfaction/
dissatisfaction with noise control, they are also good predictors of the
evaluation of general pollution control.
-------
TABLE 37
Relationships Between Attitudinal Measures of Noise/Quiet
and Adequacy of Local Public Services
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES
Attitudinal
Measures of
Noise/Quiet
School
Police
Fire
Recreational
Facilities
1 . .. _
Garbage
Health
Facilities
Public Transit
Street
Maintenance
Sewage and
Drainage
General Pollution
Control
^ Noise Control
_ - Like * Corr =
Quiet ** Sig =
.01
(.77)
.02
(.65)
.01
(.69)
-.05
(.17)
.07
(.08)
-.03
(.39)
-.05
(.17)
-.01
(.74)
.04
(.31)
.09
(.02)
.23
(.00)
^ Noise Corr ¦
Problem Sig *
-.09
(.02)
.01
(.69)
-.02
(.60)
-.03
(.49)
-.05
(.17)
.04
(.23)
.01
(.82)
.01
(.87)
.01
(.78)
-.09
(.01)
-.32
(.00)
5 Noise Corr ¦
Severity Sig ¦
-.14
(.00)
-.06
(.09)
-.09
(.02)
-.04
(.28)
-.07
(.06)
-.06
(.12)
.08
(.04)
-.04
(.30)
-.07
(.04)
-.23
(.00)
-.62
(.00)
g Quiet Corr -
Rating Sig ¦
.16
(.00)
.07
(.06)
.02
(.55)
.07
(.06)
.12
(.00)
.07
(.05)
-.05
(.20)
.08
(.03)
.10
(.01)
.23
(.00)
.53
(.00)
_ ^ Noise Corr "
" Annoyance Sig «
-.10
(.01)
-.00
(.91)
-.03
(.43)
-.09
(.02)
-.06
(.12)
.00
(.96)
.02
(.61)
-.09
(.01)
-.07
(.06)
-.18
(.00)
46
(.00)
Questions 3, 4, 5c, 8 and 9: Refer to Table 34
* Correlations are Spearman'8 rho; see page 48 in this report for explanation.
** "Sig" indicates the level of significance; see page 9.
-------
61
17. ARE THOSE WHO FIND NOISE INTERFERING WITH THEIR DAILY ACTIVITIES
AND THOSE WHO FIND NOISE AFFECTING THEIR HEALTH MOST LIKELY TO
PERCEIVE NOISE AS A PROBLEM AND BE ANNOYED BY IT?
All of those questions which ascertain whether or not noise inter-
feres with daily activities such as sleeping, conversing, watching TV,
reading and resting are associated with the perception of and annoyance
with noise. Correlations range from .11 (between interference with con-
versation/watching TV/listening to the radio and liking the neighborhood
because it is quiet) to .51 (between having sleep interrupted by noise
and noise annoyance).
Relationships between health impairment attributed to noise and the
perception of a noise problem are also strongly significant in a general
sense. The relationship between attitudinal measures of noise/quiet and
irritability are significant and important for all items. Irritability
is associated negatively with the quiet response to open-ended question
three (-.10), positively with the noise response to open-ended question
four (.19), positively with noise severity (.32), negatively with a quiet
rating (-.28) and positively with noise annoyance (.36). Similar find-
ings hold for the relationship between the attitudinal measure and the
perception of tiredness as well as general health, though these are not
as strong. Critically, our respondents do not seem to perceive <» relation-
ship between noise and hearing loss and between noise and the aggravation
of existing health problems. Such underscores the need not only for
increased public awareness but perhaps for selective audionetric testing
(see recoinnendations at the beginning of this report).
18. WHAT ARE THE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL-DEMOGRAPHIC/
HOUSING VARIABLES AND PERCEIVED NOISE EFFECTS ON DAILY LIFE AND
HEALTH?
If one examines the relationships between the most commonly mentioned
-------
TABLE 38
Relationships Between Attitudinal Measures of Noise/Quiet
and Perceived Effects of Noise on Daily Life and Health
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
INTERFERENCE WITH DAILY LIFE
Attitudinal
Measures of
Noise/Quiet
1
1
10a Sleep
Conversation
and Listening
10c Reading
lOd Rest
-. General
Health
13a Headache
13b Tiredness
13c Irritability
13d Hearing
Existing
Health Problem
. Like *Corr *
Quiet **Sig ¦
-.19
(.00)
-.11
(.00)
-.10
(.01)
-.12
(.00)
-.06
(.11)
-.01
(.80)
-.11
(.00)
-.10
(.01)
-.01
(.73)
.05
(.17)
, Noise Corr ¦
^ Problem Sig »
.23
(.00)
.20
(.00)
.12
(.00)
.23
(.00)
.08
(.02)
.00
(.91)
.11
(.00)
.19
(.00)
.03
(.39)
.02
(.51)
Noise Corr ¦
05 c
x Severity Sig ¦
.48
(.00)
.40
(.00)
.30
(.00)
.44
(.00)
.19
(.00)
.11
(.00)
.23
(.00)
.32
(.00)
.05
(.14)
.03
(.42)
Quiet Corr =
^ Rating Sig -
-.47
(.00)
-.34
(.00)
-.29
(.00)
-.43
(.00)
-.14
(.00)
-.10
(.01)
-.22
(.00)
-.28
(.00)
-.02
(.66)
-.00
(.99)
g Noise Corr ¦
Annoyance Sig *
.51
(.00)
.41
(.00)
.35
(.00)
.49
(.00)
.13
(.00)
.13
(.00)
.24
(.00)
.36
(.00)
.01
(.80)
.01
(.70)
EFFECTS ON HEALTH
Questions 3, 4, 5c, 8 and 9: Refer to Table 34
* Correlations are Spearman's rho; see page 48 in this report for explanation.
** "Sig" indicates the level of significance; see page 9.
-------
63
noise effects and social-demographic characteristics of the population,
the finding is that certain segments are somewhat more affected by noise
problems. As with the relationships between population characteristics
and perception of a noise problem, associations are not overwhelmingly
strong. This again indicates that the problem of destructive sound cuts
across social boundary lines. Again, this does not mean that lower income
people necessarily live in areas where the physical readings of noise are
no higher than those for upper income area. We deal here with the per-
ception of a noise problem, not its material reality.
One's reported health status is not significantly correlated with
the perceived effect of noise on sleep, conversation/etc., general health
or irritability. This supports the conclusion that the less healthy do
not judge themselves more adversely affected by noise than others whose
health is better.
Age is significantly and negatively correlated with interference
with sleep (-.15, significant at the .00 level), general ill effect on
health due to noise (-.13, at .00) and noise production of irritability
(-.12, at .00). Contrary to expectation, the aged are less bothered by
noise than are younger adults. The implications of such age-specific
findings for further research have been discussed earlier.
Those with higher education are somewhat more likely to answer that
noise negatively affects their general health (.08, at the .03 level).
Those who are employed are more likely to say that noise interferes
with their sleep (-.08 at .04) and that noise has an adverse effect on
their general health (-.12 at .00) than are homemakers, students, the
unemployed and the retired.
People in owner, professional and managerial categories are less
likely than people in other occupations to say that noise interferes
-------
TABLE 39
Relationships Between Demographic and Housing Characteristics
of the Population and Perceived Effects of Noise on Daily Lives and Health
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Noise
Effects
_ Health
Status
22 Age
23 Education
e
t.
O 3
r-» U
a. m
e «
W w
<
CM
1—*
(0
P
O
• H
4J
a) co
9- 3
3 4J
O <0
O AJ
O w
-------
65
with sleep (-.08 at .05) or with conversations/TV/ radio (-.11 at .00).
Income and race are not significantly associated with indicators of
the effects of noise on health or daily activities.
Home owners are slightly less likely to find that noise interferes
with sleep (-.07) or with conversation/TV/radio (-.07) than are renters.
Home ownership may include the ownership of an apartment or Condominium
(coded as "3") or house (coded as "4").
People residing in households with a larger number of persons are
somewhat more likely to define noise as producing irritability (.10).
Women are slightly more likely than men to find noise irritating
(.09).
Building capacity does not appear related to either noise interfer-
ence with daily activities or deleterious impact on health.
The distance of the dwelling from the street (building orientation)
is negatively associated with noise interference with conversations/TV/
radio (-.13). In other words, the greater the distance of the dwelling
from the street, the less the perception of interference.
Finally, people living in wood frame homes are more likely than
those dwelling in masonry homes to perceive noise as interfering with
their sleep (.09) and with conversation/TV/radio (.08) and producing a
state of irritability (.11).
19. ARE THOSE MOST PERCEPTIVE OF THE PROBLEM OF DESTRUCTIVE SOUND MORE
LIKELY TO HAVE TAKEN PERSONAL NOISE REDUCTION ACTIONS OR TO SUPPORT
«COMMUNITY NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS?
The analysis uncovers consistent and relatively strong evidence to
support the argument that there is an association between the perception
of a noise problem and personal action/support. Further, those who
define noise as having a deleterious effect on health and daily activities
-------
66
tend to have taken actions within their households to avoid or reduce
noise, to have complained to a neighbor or to an official and to support
a community noise program. The telling proof is that support among the
noise-affected is also related significantly to a willingness to see
personal taxes increased.
Those respondents who have volunteered (question three) that one of
the things they like about their neighborhoods is the "quiet" are less
likely than other respondents to have acted. The relevant correlations
are: closed doors and windows to block out sound (-.17), masking noise
(-.12), complained to a neighbor (-.07), complained to an official (-.07).
Such respondents are rather more likely to have taken no action in the home
at all (.21). Further, those who offer quiet as an asset in their neigh-
borhood are no more or less likely to support a community noise control
program than those who do not report "quiet."
Similarly, those respondents who rate in response to a close-ended
question (question eight) their neighborhoods are quiet are less likely to
have taken action within the home (-.28 to .39) or to have complained
about noise to a neighbor (-.18) or official (-.16). In addition, those
who rate their neighborhoods as quiet are less likely than those who rate
the neighborhoods as noisy to support a community noise control program
(-.16).
It is ironic that there is no positive relationship between the per-
ception of a quiet neighborhood and noise control programs. In other
words, support for noise control does not increase as a function of per-
ceived quiet. When noise becomes a perceived problem and is perceived to
interfere with daily activities, support for a noise control program is
forthcoming. However, "cure" is often much more difficult and costly than
-------
TABLE 40
Relationships Between Attitudinal Measures of Noise/Quiet Together With Perceived Effects on
Daily Activities and Health and People's Actions to Cope With Noise
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
ACTIONS TAKEN
Perceptions of
and Effects of
Noise
WITHIN
HOUSEHOLD
COMPLAINTS
SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY ACTION
Close
Doors, Etc,
(15b)
Turn Up
Noise
(15c)
No
Action
Cl5g)
To
Neighbor
(16a)
To
Official
(16b)
Support For
Community Program
(19)
Support Increased
Personal Taxes
(20)
,(#) * Corr =
** Sig =
-.17
-.12
.21
-.07
-.07
.01
-.03
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.04)
(.06)
(.71)
(.35)
Q4 °?rr =
* Sig =
.19
.14
-.20
.10
.12
.16
.10
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.01)
(.00)
(.00)
(.01)
Corr •
05 c „.
x Sig =
.40
.29
-.43
.19
.20
.23
.18
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
* sr:
-.37
-.28
.39
-.18
-.16
-.16
-.07
(.00)
{.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.07)
r:
.42
.23
-.44
.20
.22
.21
.16
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
«10a Si" -
.40
(.00)
.24
(.00)
-.40
(.00)
.24
(.00)
.19
(.00)
.17
(.00)
.09
(.01)
s-r:
.27
.37
-.32
.14
.14
.10
.06
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.01)
(.02)
sr:
.16
.15
-.17
.15
.13
.22
.11
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
sr:
.34
.24
-.38
.24
.19
.16
.09
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.01)
(#) Questions 3, 4, 5c, 8 and 9: Refer to Table 34
Questions 10a, 10b, 12 and 13c: Refer to Table 38
~Correlations are Spearman's rho; see page 48 in this report for explanation.
** "Sig" indicates the level of significance; see page 9.
-------
68
prevention. Rational planning for the future must be valued over
desparate attempts at after-the-fact amelioration.
As the correlations presented in Table AO indicatej those who volun-
teer that noise is one of the problems in the neighborhood, those who
rank noise as a severe problem, those who are most annoyed with noise,
those whose daily activities and health are perceived as impacted are the
"makers" and "shakers" in terms of action/support. The public opinion on
noise appears to some extent to be a consequence of whose ox is gored.
(One hastens to add that many individuals who value quiet do support a
program and increased personal taxes. The statistical analysis, of course,
centers on overall trends.)
20. WHICH SEGMENTS OF THE SPOKANE POPULATION ARE MOST LIKELY TO SUPPORT A
COMMUNITY NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM?
Conceptual support for a community noise control program iB spread
throughout the community. Generally, there is no significant relationship
between the social-demographic variables and verbal affirmation. The one
slight deviation from the rule involves the age variable, with the young
tending toward greater support than older citizens (-.07).
Financial support introduces more significant associations, however.
Those willing to increase personal taxes to pay for a program are more
likely to be younger adults (-.12), better educated (.19), employed (-.09)
and holders of higher status occupations (.08).
-------
TABLE 41
Relationships Between Population Characteristics (Demographics)
and Support for a Community Noise Control Program
NONPARAMETRIC CORRELATIONS
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Support For
Community Action
Q22 Age
Q23 Education
024A ^P10)™511*
Status
n„cA Occupational
Status
Q26 Income
Q27 Race
Ownership
0_o Household
Size
B1 Sex
Q19
Support Community
Noise Program
* Corr -
Sig
-.07
(.06)
.03
(.36)
-.05
(.22)
-.00
(.93)
-.04
(.32)
.01
(.71)
.02
(.67)
-.03
(.35)
.06
(.08)
Q20
Support Increased
Personal Taxes
For Noise Control
Corr ¦
Sig -
-.12
(.00)
.19
(.00)
-.09
(.02)
.11
(.00)
.08
(.03)
.01
(.80)
.03
(.39)
-.05
(.17)
.03
(.35)
* Correlations are Spearman's rho; see page 48 in this report for explanation.
** "Sig" indicates the level of significance; see page 9.
-------
Blalock, Hubert M.
1972
Dial, 0. Eugene
1968
Gray, Louis
1973
Hays, William L.
1963
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Social Statistics. New York. McGraw Hill.
Computer Programming and Statistics for Basic
Research. New York. American Book Company.
"Nonparametric Statistics." Unpublished mimeo-
graph series for advanced inferential statistics.
Pullman. Washington State University.
Statistics. New York. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Siegel, Sidney
1956
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York. McGraw Hill.
-------
71
ADDENDUM I
ANALYSIS SCHEMA/SPOKANE ATTITUDINAL SURVEY
This document constitutes a response to the analysis schema proposed
by Computer Science Corporation, Falls Church, Virginia, for the Spokane
County Attitudinal Survey on the problem of noise abatement.
We consider the salient questions which together comprise the direc-
tion for the analysis to be as follows:
1) To what extent do the residents of Spokane County consider
noise pollution problematic?
2) What are the perceived effects (social, psychological,
health, etc.) attributed to noise pollution?
3) What are the major perceived sources of noise pollution?
4) What particular personal courses of action, if any, have
been undertaken in response to the noise problem?
5) Precisely where does the responsibility lie for the con-
trol of noise?
6) To what extent does the population support community
efforts to reduce noise pollution? At what cost to them-
selves? And, what specific actions?
7) What are the demographic and housing characteristics of
survey respondents?
8) Do people residing in different areas of the county and
city differ as regards attitudes on noise?
9) To what extent do differences in social position (age,
race, occupation, etc.) impact attitudes and behaviors
related to the noise issue?
10) In what ways are the perceptions of the noise problem,
personal actions to reduce noise pollution, and support
for community action to reduce pollution and other salient
variables interrelated?
Given the identification of the cardinal questions, the analysis logi'
cally follows:
1) A descriptive statistics SPSS program ("frequencies")
should be executed for each item on the questionnaire.
Please compute for each item — Mean, Standard Error,
-------
72
Median, Mode, Standard Deviation, Variance, Kurtosis,
Skewness, Range, Minimum, Maximum. The output from this
program will answer for Che county as a whole questions
one through seven above.
2) A crosstabulation subprogram ("crosstabs") should be
executed for each item on the questionnaire. This pro-
gram output will answer question eight above. Of
critical importance are the following comparisons of
geographical "areas."
a) City of Spokane/County of Spokane (city deleted) =
SPOCIT/SPOCOUN
b) City of Spokane/Spokane Valley/Rural County
(northern and Southern) = SPOCIT/VAL/RURAL
c) Northwest Spokane City/Northeast Spokane City/
Central Spokane City/South Spokane City = NWSPOCIT/
NESPOCIT/CENSPOCIT/SOUSPOCIT
d) Suburban areas of Spokane County adjacent to City/
Rural and Small Town areas of Spokane County =
SUBSPOCOUN/RURBANCOUN
This comparison requires running four separate cross-
tabs. IT IS VITAL TO NOTE THAT THE 64 "AREAS" FOR THE
SPOKANE SURVEY ARE DEFINED IN COLUMNS 11, 12 AND 13 ON
CARD NUMBER 1 FOR EACH CASE. THESE 64 AREAS MUST BE
RECOMBINED IN ORDER TO FORM SIGNIFICANT SOCIO-POLITICAL
UNITS AS FOLLOWS:
SPOCIT =011 through 044
SPOCOUN =111 through 344
VAL = 111 through 144
RURAL =211 through 344
NWSPOCIT =011 through 014
NESPOCIT =021 through 024
CENSPOCIT = 031, 032, 041, 042
SOUSPOCIT = 033, 034, 043, 044
SUBSPOCOUN =111 through 121, 123 through 143, 343
RURBANCOUN = 122, 144, 311 through 342, 344
3) A bivariate correlation program ("nonpar corr") should
be executed to provide a correlation matrix for all
-------
73
items in the questionnaire (questions 1 through 29 and
Bl through B6). This program output is relevant for
resolving questions nine and ten. A FIRST STEP IN THIS
PROGRAM INVOLVES THE RECODING AND TRANSFORMATIONS OF
CERTAIN VARIABLES SO THAT ALL ARE AT LEAST ORDINAL LEVEL
MEASURES. "MISSING DATA" AND "DON'T KNOW" CODES MUST BE
EXCLUDED FROM THE ANALYSIS. THE FOLLOWING RECODES ARE
NEEDED ONLY FOR THIS SUBPROGRAM.
a) To begin, a variable "quiet" is to be created from
the three responses to question three (What do you
particularly like about this area?) If the code for
any of the three responses is "14" (quiet), code as
"1." Otherwise, code as "0."
b) Further, a variable "noise" is to be created from
the responses to question four (most important prob-
lems). If the code for any of the three responses
equals "301" (noise), code as "1." Otherwise, code
as "0."
c) Then recode answers to question 20 so that "7" (no
taxes) becomes "0."
d) Finally, recode answers to questions 25 and 25A so
that:
00, 01, 02 and 15 become 99, missing data
03, 04 and 11 become 05
05 and 06 become 04
07 becomes 03
08 and 09 become 02
10, 12, 13 and 14 become 01
Given the magnitude of data, a virtually infinite number of opera-
tions might be performed. However, these three programs will provide a
wealth of relationships which bear on the questions posed at the onset
of this document.
The major advantages of this computer agenda are three:
1) Bivariate correlations are suggested herein as a method
of determining the direction and strength of relation-
ships. Such are more straightforward, less ambiguous
to interpret, and often less expensive than crosstabu-
lation.
2) There are major advantages in utilizing the recombined
geographic areas defined herein rather than simply
defining the sixteen sections of Spokane County as
-------
a) All of the combinations we suggest are more clearly
important as social-political units.
b) Each combination has a number of respondents of
sufficient size to yield some confidence in the
statistical validity of our comparisons.
c) There is reason to expect variation in noise percep-
tion based on industrial, transportation and density
factors associated with these combinations.
Finally, we believe that this analysis schema will pro-
vide information on relationships among all variables
and sets of variables. This makes it less likely that
computer work will need to be done or redone to answer a
later question raised by EPA or local government.
-------
75
ADDENDUM II
GLOSSARY
CHI SQUARE
A nominal scale test of significance which is obtained
by first taking the square of the difference between
the observed (real) and expected frequencies (those
that would occur if there were no effect due to the
independent variable) for each cell in a crosstabula-
tion table. The resulting figure is divided by the
expected number of cases (frequencies) in each cell in
order to standardize it. The sum of this operation
for all cells is the value of chi square.
DESCRIPTIVE
STATISTICS
A means of summarizing or reducing data to provide
some clear sense of what a body of data shows.
INDEPENDENT
AND DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
Though a philosophical debate rages on the issue of
causality, the independent variable is that particu-
lar variable to which change in a particular outcome
(dependent variable) can be attributed. An indepen-
dent variable is thus explanatory in that it accounts
for change in the dependent variable.
INFERENTIAL
(INDUCTIVE)
STATISTICS
LEVEL OF
MEASUREMENT
Those statistical operations which allow for infer-
ring the properties of a population on the basis of
known sample results.
Social science variables have distinguishing scale
properties which in turn logically determine the par-
ticular statistical operations which may be performed.
The most basic level is referred to as the nominal
scale. Nominal scale variables mean that measurement
is essentially a matter of classification or labeling
only. Such a level of measurement means that one can
compare certain categories (say, different cultural
groups) with regard to whatever an important theoreti-
cal question might dictate (say, political action).
Ordinal scale is a level of measurement which allows
one to rank a variable along a continuum in terras of
"greater than or lesser than." For example, social
class may be thought of in ordinal terms; that is,
upper, middle and lower. Interval scale is a level of
measurement which allows one to make distinction in
-------
76
N0NPARAMETR1C
TESTS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
RANDOM SAMPLE
SAMPLE SIZE:
POPULATION
ESTIMATE
terms of the specific values of a variable. With
interval level data, one is able not merely to
rank but to indicate precise distances between
variable properties. For example, income is inter-
val in nature as orie may make precise distinctions
of degree in terms of a definite and common
standard (dollars, marks, yen, etc.). The use of
a particular mathematical or statistical model
presupposes that a certain level of measurement
has been attained. The cumulative property of
scales means that if ordinal scale measurement can
be assumed, ordinal and nominal statistics can be
employed. If interval measurement can be assumed,
not only- interval but ordinal and nominal statis-
tics can be employed. This is critical as there
may exist theoretical and practical reasons for
using lower level statistics.
A large category of tests (including Spearman's
rho) which do not require the assumption of a
particular form (for example, normality) of the
population. Nonparametric tests do not require
interval level data.
A sample which technically provides each individual
or combination of individuals in the population an
equivalent probability of being included.
Perhaps the most frequently encountered question
posed to survey professionals is "how large does a
sample need to be in order to generalize the
results to a population?" One must assume first of
all that the sample is random. Sample size can
then be determined in accordance with the level of
statistical confidence desired by those directing a
survey. Resolving the question of minimum sample
size begins with an understanding of the normal dis-
tribution which is represented by the well known
bell-shaped curve. By use of the normal distribu-
tion, it can be shown that for large samples
Read: Ninty-five percent of the area under the
normal curve of distribution falls within 1.96
standard deviation of the mean.
Suppose one decides that the desired probability is
• 95 and that X (sample mean) falls within .l£of
(population mean). Then:
Prob. (
-------
77
X - >*/ = 1.96
6 x
.1 6 - 1.96
c/ir
2
N = (19.6) = 384 = minimum sample size at .05
level
With a probability of .99, then:
X =2.58
6 x
¦ ltf - 2.58
6 / "Vn~
2
N = (25.8) = 666 = minimum sample size at .01
level
SIGNIFICANCE The probability of making a type I error which can
LEVEL be set at any level (by convention, .05). A type I
error refers to rejecting assumptions when they are
in fact true. For example, if one states two popu-
lations are in fact different at the .05 level and
rejects the null hypothesis (no difference between
populations), one will be in error five times in
one hundred.
SPEARMAN RANK A nonparametric measure of correlation for ordinal
CORRELATION level data which enables one to judge whether two
COEFFICIENT (rho) sets of scores are related as well as the degree
and direction of the relationship.
VARIABLE Typically a population characteristic which "varies"
in terms of a range of values or characteristics.
For example: age, occupation, income, etc. (See
"Level of Measurement.")
Z-SCORE
The most common unit of variation is the standard
deviation. References to the normal curve of dis-
tribution (bell-shaped) are typically made in terms
------- |