{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013432835820895522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2372093023255815, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Supplemental Metrics to Communicate Aircraft Noise Effects

Airport noise analyses rely heavily on the use of complex exposure metrics that can be obscure to the layperson. Individuals often seek out information on aircraft noise levels, only to be frustrated by the complexity of the science. In recent years, there has been increasing use of supplemental or other nontraditional metrics to describe the impact of aviation noise on people. Implicit in this usage has been an assumption that supplemental metrics are better understood by the community. This paper proposes that practitioners be much more explicit in relating these supplemental noise metrics to the potential effects of noise and presents several examples that relate noise effects to lay terms. FAA's integrated noise model (INM) can predict noise impact on the basis of well-established relationships between noise effects and metrics available in the INM. Then, instead of presenting noise level information, it is possible to use these relationships to prepare graphical depictions that represent the extent of the effects, rather than the extent of the noise level metric. With the increased transparency provided by these effect maps, policy makers and concerned citizens can engage in a more informed discussion that could ultimately lead to better outcomes for all.