{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014657980456026058, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.43455497382199, '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}}
Non-acoustic factors and their role in aircraft noise annoyance

Non-acoustic factors have been acknowledged for some time as likely contributors to aircraft noise annoyance. They help explain why a given level of noise exposure can evoke severe annoyance in one person but not in another. Multiple analyses have concluded that non-acoustic factors explain more variance in annoyance results than noise exposure levels do. That begs questions as to why noise exposure levels are currently the only prescribed predictor of annoyance, and why regulating agencies continue to focus on only reducing noise exposure to combat annoyance. The subjective nature and lack of thorough understanding of non-acoustic factors has rendered them unusable for regulatory purposes, or even as topics of discussion with various stakeholders. What then is the purpose to study non-acoustic contributors to noise annoyance, other than to dismiss severe annoyance by implicating personal, attitudinal, or situational factors rather than the noise itself? This discussion suggests mechanisms by which non-acoustic factors contribute to annoyance and proposes practical ways to incorporate this knowledge in the prediction and mitigation of annoyance.