Link to CNAG Homepage

Albuquerque Environmental Noise Study 1998: Assessment of Citizen Perceptions

Center for Opinion Research Institute for Social Research University of New Mexico

Executive Summary

Introduction
Sampling Error
Statistical Terminology

Perceived Levels of Noise
Quiet or Noisy Neighborhoods
Levels of Annoyance

Noise Affecting Health of Quality of Life
Average Noise Disturbances per Month
Perceived Health Effects
Perceived Effects to Quality of Life
Relocation Due to Excessive Noise

Variations in Perceived Levels of Noise
Time of Day
Days of the Week

Sources of Noise

Administrative Relief from Unwanted Noise
Who to Contact
Official Complaints

Appendix A: Research Design and Response Rates

Appendix B: Frequency Report and Data Codebook


Executive Summary


Introduction

The purpose of this research effort was to learn more about how Albuquerque area residents perceive the level of noise in their neighborhoods. This research follows up earlier research conducted for the City of Albuquerque (see Albuquerque Citizen Satisfaction: Assessment of City Services and Policies 1997) Researchers from the University of New Mexico's Center for Opinion Research assisted representatives of the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Division in both the research design and questionnaire development for this project.

The questionnaire focused on capturing local area attitudes on a number of topics related to environmental noise. These included questions designed to evaluate the perceived amount of noise in the respondents neighborhood that derived from a variety of sources. In addition, we attempted to learn more about perceived noise at different times of day, different times during the week, and for seasonal variations in levels of noise. We also asked respondents to evaluate whether noise in their neighborhoods was affecting their health or general quality of life. We collected the sample by controlling for the Community Planning Area. The table below illustrates the population balance of the collected interviews.

Community Planning Area

Interviews % of Total % of Population in 1995
Central Albuquerque 10 4.0% 4.1%
East Gateway 26 10.4% 10.4%
Foothills 23 9.2% 9.2%
Mid Heights 45 18.0% 17.9%
Near Heights 40 16.0% 15.7%
North Albuquerque 19 7.6% 7.8%
North Valley 25 10.0% 10.1%
South Valley 22 8.8% 8.7%
Southwest Mesa 17 6.8% 6.9%
West Side 23 9.2% 9.2%
Total 250 100.0% 100.0%

Sampling Error

The calculated sampling error for 250 sampled respondents approximates plus or minus 6.2% at the 95% confidence level. This means that in 95 of 100 cases, the results obtained through the sampling effort are not expected to differ by greater than the estimated sampling error had the entire population of eligible adults in Albuquerque been interviewed.

Statistical Terminology

Throughout this report, we used the term significant when discussing relationships between variables and measurements. This is a statistical reference that specifies that the given analysis were found to be statistically valid. For purposes of simplicity, we have limited the reporting of statistical significance to three levels of confidence. These are stated as p-values less than 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01. These values indicate the probability that the results displayed were likely to occur by chance. The p-value of 0.05 is considered to be the minimum standard for statistical significance in traditional social science research. This means that in five out of one hundred cases, the results displayed may have occurred accidentally or by chance. The p-value 0.10 demonstrates that a weaker, and thus, more suspect relationship may exist. The p-value 0.01 is the strongest of the three measures and suggests that the reported analysis would occur accidentally in only one in one hundred cases.

Throughout this report, we examined for statistical variation using the personal measures of educational attainment, annual household income, ethnicity, gender, age of the respondent and homeownership. In general, we reported only those analyses that demonstrated one of the three levels of statistical significance as defined in the preceding paragraph.


Perceived Levels of Noise

A. Quiet or Noisy Neighborhoods

Our research indicated that, in general, most individuals living in the Albuquerque area perceive their neighborhoods to be quiet or very quiet. The figure below illustrates the perceived evaluations for our sample respondants.

{short description of image}

We examined the data, particularly for those individuals who reported that the perceived level of noise in their neighborhood was unsatisfactory, and we found significant differences in the evaluation based on whether the respondent owned or rented their dwelling (p < 0.01). In general, the individuals who rented their apartment or home were twice as likely to report that the perceived level of noise was unsatisfactory in thier neighbor hood. The graphic below highlights these results.

Percent of Respondents Reporting Neighborhood to be Noisy or Very Noisy - By Homeownership

{short description of image}

B. Levels of Annoyance

We asked respondents to tell us, using an eleven-point scale, to what degree they had been annoyed in the past year due to noise. Our interviewers instructed respondents to evaluate the extent that they had been annoyed by using a scale from zero to ten where zero meant that the respondent had not been annoyed at all and ten meant that the respondent had been extremely annoyed over the past year.

This is the first time that such an evaluation has been taken of the local area residents, and as such, the results represent a baseline measurement in noise assessment. The graphic illustration below highlights the mean city-wide evaluation.

{short description of image}

We compared the levels of annoyance for the various personal and demographic measures. We found significant differences when we controlled for these social indicators. These summary results are displayed in the table below.

Age Cohort Ethnic Background
18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Hispanic Other White
Mean Ratings 3.9 3.5 3.0 2.6 ns ns ns
Dwelling Type Education Gender
Own Rent HS Post HS College Male Female
Mean Ratings 3.1 3.9 ns ns ns 2.9 3.5

*NS = Not statiscally significant. The City-wide figure provides the most reliable estimate.


Noise Affecting Health of Quality of Life

A. Average Noise Disturbances Per Month

We asked respondents to estimate the number of times per month, since January 1997, that neighborhood noise had disturbed them in such a way that a specific occurrence resulted. We asked each respondent to consider five situations. These are listed below as:

Number of Times Per Month That Neighborhood Noise Resulted in the Listed Outcome (since January 1997)

{short description of image}

We examined the evaluations for variation based on the personal and demographic measures. We found significant differences in the mean number of times that respondents were disturbed in a specific way when we controlled for the age cohort, ethnic background, homeownership status, household income, and level of educational attainment of the of the study participants. We have displayed these summary statistics in the table below.

Number of Times Per Month That Neighborhood Noise Resulted in the Listed Outcome (since January 1997)

Age Cohort Ethnic Background
18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Hispanic Other White
Irritated or annoyed
Forced to close windows 2.9 12.3 1.4
Disrupted activities 11.0 1.9 2.3 1.0 6.7 1.8 1.4
Disturbed sleep 2.4 3.1 2.8 0.6 3.4 3.4 1.9
Startled or frightened 1.7 0.6 0.9
Dwelling type Education Income
Own Rent HS Post HS College <$30K >$30K
Irritated or annoyed 3.3 5.5
Forced to close windows
Disrupted activities 5.6 1.6
Disturbed sleep 2.8 2.4 3.5
Startled or frightened

Only Significant Results Displayed

B. Perceived Health Effects

We asked respondents to report whether they perceived any adverse health effects due to noise in their neighborhoods. In general, a high percentage of study participants stated that they did not believe that noise was negatively affecting thier health. The graphic below highlights these statistical breakdowns.

chart 5

We compared the results on this question for the personal and demographic measures. We found significant differences in perceptions when we controlled for the annual household income of respondents included in the study (p < 0.05). These differences are reported in the graphic below.

chart 6

C. Perceived Effects to Quality of Life

We asked repondents to report whether they perceived any adverse effects to their quality of life due to noise in thier neighborhoods. In general, the majority of study participants stated that they did not believe that noise was negatively affecting their quality of life. The graphic below highlights these statistical breakdowns.

chart 7

We compared the results on this question for the personal and demographic measures. We found significant differences in perceptions when we controlled for the annual household income (p < 0.05), homeownership status (p < 0.1), and age cohort (p < 0.01) of the respondents included in the study. These differences are reported in the table below.

Has noise in your neighborhood affected your quality of life in any way? Pecent of respondents - by specific characteristics - answereing Yes

Age Cohort Dwelling Type Household Income
18-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Own Rent <$30K >$30K
16.0 20.2 22.2 2.0 14.4 26.2 24.3 12.3


Variations In Perceived Levels of Noise

A. Time of Day

We asked respondents to tell us whether noise is more bothersome at one time of the day when compared to other times. In general, we found that a simple majority of sample respondents (52%) perceived significant variations in noise at different times of the day.

We asked these individuals to profile when noise was the worst in their neighborhoods. A plurality of those who had stated that noise was more bothersome at specific times of the day reported that the early evening period, i.e., 5pm through 9pm was was the time when noise was the most bothersome in their neighborhood. The illustrations below highlights the summary information (note: we did not find significant differences when we examined for the personal and demographic measures.)

chart 8

B. Days of the Week

We followed this line of questioning by asking respondents whether there was more noise in their neighborhoods on the weekdays, or whether it did not make a difference. A plurality of the city-wide respondents reported that there was more noise in their neighborhoods on the weekends. The graphic below highlights the summary information for this item.

chart 9

We examined for differences in perception based on the personal and demographic measures. We found significant differences only when we controlled for the age cohort of the study participants (p < 0.01). These variations in evaluations are listed in the table below.

Days of Week When Noise Is Most Bothersome
*Figures listed in pecents

Age Cohort
Mean Ratings 18-29 30-49 50-64 65+
Weekdays 8 22.2 11 26.5
Weekends 68 50.5 47.9 28.6
About the same 24 27.3 40.8 44.9

Sources of Noise

A. Who To Contact

We asked study participants to evaluate whether they were annoyed by the noise that stems from a variety of sources. We instructed respondents to use a scale from zero to ten where zero means they are generally not annoyed at all and 10 means that they are generally extremely annoyed. We offered respondents the opportunity to rate the level of noise coming from the following sources:

We have provided the mean evaluations for the thirteen sources of noise in the graphic illustration below.

{short description of image}

Administrative Relief from Unwanted Noise

A. Who to Contact

We asked respondents a series of questions related to admistrative assistance with unwanted noise in their neighborhoods. First, we questioned respondents about who they would most-likely contact if they wanted to file a noise complaint. Our research showed that a majority of respondents (52.4%) were unsure as to who to contact. Of those who did venture an answer, a plurality of study participants stated that they would contact the police department. We examined for differences based on the personal and demographic cahrachteristicsand found no statisticallly significant variations. Therefore, we have displayed the general results in the graphic illustration below.

chart 11

B. Official Complaints

We asked the study participants to tell us whether they had, since January 1997, files a complaint about noise in their neighborhood with anyone in an official position. We found that approximately 5% of respondents had taken official action. Unfortunately, due to the small number of respondents (13) who had answered affirmatively, we were unable to investigate this question in greater detail. In addition, we asked a follow-up question of those individuals who had answered yes. We asked whether they were pleased with the way the agency or department handled your complaint. Nine individuals, or 69% of this subgroup, reported that they were pleased with the way the agency or department handled your complaint. Of the four who stated they were not pleased with the manner that the agency handled their copmlaint, we asked who was the agency or department. None of the four individuals could remember who they had contacted.


Appendix A: Research Design and Response Rates

This sampling effort randomly interviewed 250 Albuquerque residents at least 18 years of age. All interviews were collected over the telephone using the Center for Opinion Research (COR) computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) laboratory. The interviewing session lasted approximately 4.1 minutes on average.

Respondents for this study were randomly selected from the COR database of existing households. These individuals had participated previously in city or regional COR research conducted over the past two years and had consented to participate in a follow-up interview. The method of selecting the respondent for the intial contact was a dual-stage sampling design. The first-stage of respondent selection was accomplished using a random digit dialed (RDD) method. The second-stage of the respondent selection was determined using the last-birthday method as the screening criteria of the eligible household members.

A total of five interviewers participated in the data collection process. Our research team conducted the interviews during the final two weeks of April and the first week of May 1998.

Response Rates

When reporting sample information, it is important to question the validity of the collected data. One method of analyzing the sample is to compute survey response rates.

For this study, the Center for Opinion Research provided three measures of sample response rates. The first, Cooperation rate, divides the number of completed interviews by the number completed intervies and the number of eligible households that declined to participate in the study.

The second measure, Refusal Rate, illustrates the percent of refusals relative to the actual number of completed interviews.

The final measure, Overall Rate, compares the numbre of completed interviews to the total number of listings that were tried by our researchers. This final statistic includes households where our staff were unable to determine respondent eligibilty, but excludes households where our staff were unable to determine respondent eligibility, but excludes households that were found to be ineligible, as well as business listings, fax or computer modem lines, and non-working numbers.

Cooperation Rate 98%
Refusal Rate 2%
Overall Rate 38.5%

Appendix B: Frequency Report and Data Codebook

Question # 1 Introduction

Hello <<Name>> my name is _____. I'm a student at teh University of New Mexico. A few months ago, you participated in a study with our reasearch group. At that time, you gave us permission to call back and ask you some follow-up questions. These questions take about 3 minutes to answer. Keep in mind that All answers to the study remain confidential. The Univeristy releases no information as to how any particular individual answers the study. Would you complete our short study [this evening/today]?

Question # 2

I would like to ask you a few question about noise in your neighborhood. First, how would you describe your neighborhood? Woud you say it is:

1. Very quiet
2. Quiet

3. Noisy
4. Very Noisy
-99. DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 4 1.6
1 44 17.6
2 149 59.6
3 47 18.8
4 6 2.4
Total 250 100

Question # 3

I would like you to rate the amount of noise in your neighborhood over the past year. Use a scale from zero to ten, where zero means you have not been annoyed at all and ten means that you have been extremely annoyed. In general, how would you rate the amount of noise in your neighborhood over the last year?

0. 0 Not Annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. Extremely annoyed
-99. DK/NA

Count Percent
0 35 14
1 35 14
2 33 13.2
3 48 19.2
4 30 12
5 27 10.8
6 11 4.4
7 18 7.2
8 4 1.6
9 4 1.6
10 5 2
Total 250 100

Question # 4

Is noise in your neighborhood more bothersome at one time of the day than at other times?

1. Yes
0. No
-99. DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
0 120 48
1 129 51.6
Total 250 100

Question # 5

At what time is noise the worst?

1. Early morning (5-8)
2. Morning (8-11:30)
3. Noon (11:30-1)
4. Afternoon (1-5)
5. Early evening (5-9)
6. Late evening (9-12)
7. Night (12-5)
-99. DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 9 6.569
1 5 3.65
2 11 8.029
3 3 2.19
4 22 16.058
5 55 40.146
6 31 22.628
7 1 .73
Total 137 100

Question # 6

Is there more noise in your neighborhood on the weekdays or on the weekends?

1. Weekdays
2. Weekends
3. About the same
-99. DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 3 1.2
0 85 34
1 45 18
2 117 46.8
Total 250 100

Question # 7

Now I would like you to evaluate the amount of noise that comes from different sources. Use a scale from zero to ten where zero means you are generally not annoyed at all and 10 means that you are generally extremely annoyed. How do you rate the level of noise coming from:

Question # 8

Traffic

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 53 21.2
1 38 15.2
2 43 17.2
3 27 10.8
4 18 7.2
5 18 7.2
6 12 4.8
7 15 6
8 12 4.8
9 8 3.2
10 6 2.4
Total 250 100

Question # 9

Aircraft including planes and helicopters

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 64 25.6
1 37 14.8
2 25 10
3 31 12.4
4 23 9.2
5 23 9.2
6 11 4.4
7 10 4
8 10 4
9 6 2.4
10 10 4
Total 250 100

Question # 10

Motorcycles

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 2 .8
0 88 35.2
1 43 17.2
2 35 14
3 22 8.8
4 11 4.4
5 14 5.6
6 7 2.8
7 12 4.8
8 7 2.8
9 4 1.6
10 5 2
Total 250 100

Question # 11

Power lawn equipment

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 103 41.2
1 39 15.6
2 45 18
3 26 10.4
4 18 7.2
5 9 3.6
6 3 1.2
7 3 1.2
8 3 1.2
10 1 .4
Total 250 100

Question # 12

Commercial sources such as shopping centers and industry

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 3 1.2
0 167 66.8
1 33 13.2
2 16 6.4
3 9 3.6
4 5 2
5 3 1.2
6 2 .8
7 6 2.4
8 2 .8
10 4 1.6
Total 250 100

Question # 13

Neighborhood air conditioners or swamp coolers

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 2 .8
0 176 70.4
1 33 13.2
2 19 7.6
3 7 2.8
4 7 2.8
5 1 .4
6 1
.4
7 2 .8
8 1 .4
9 1 .4
Total 250 100

Question # 14

People's voices or children playing

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 97 38.8
1 45 18
2 49 19.6
3 17 6.8
4 16 6.4
5 11 4.4
6 3 1.2
7 6 2.4
8 4 1.6
9 2 .8
Total 250 100

Question # 15

Dogs Barking

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 40 16
1 49 19.6
2 26 10.4
3 25 10
4 23 9.2
5 30 12
6 14 5.6
7 18 7.2
8 10 4
9 7 2.8
10 8 3.2
Total 250 100

Question # 16

City services such as garbage pickup

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 2 .8
0 83 33.2
1 51 20.4
2 36 14.4
3 33 13.2
4 20 8
5 8 3.2
6 6 2.4
7 3 1.2
8 4 1.6
9 3 1.2
10 1 .4
Total 250 100

Question # 17

Public works such as street or sewer repair

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
0 142 56.8
1 34 13.6
2 30 12.0
3 11 4.4
4 9 3.6
5 6 3.4
6 4 1.6
7 6 2,4
8 4 1.6
9 3 1.2
Total 250 100

Question # 18

Truck noise including idling

City services such as garbage pickup

City services such as garbage pickup

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
0 97 38.8
1 44 17.6
2 33 13.2
3 18 7.2
4 12 4.8
5 10 4
6 12 4.8
7 14 5.6
8 4 1.6
9 2 .8
10 3 1.2
Total 250 100

Question # 19

Booming bass from car stereos

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 59 23.6
1 27 10.8
2 24 9.6
3 35 14
4 20 8
5 18 7.2
6 13 5.2
7 13 5.2
8 17 6.8
9 8 3.2
10 16 6.4
Total 250 100

Question # 20

Ice cream trucks

City services such as garbage pickup

0. 0 Not annoyed
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10 Extremely annoyed
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 92 36.8
1 31 12.4
2 30 12
3 21 8.4
4 20 8
5 17 6.8
6 8 3.2
7 9 3.6
8 9 3.6
9 2 .8
10 11 4.4
Total 250 100

Question # 21

Since January 1997, how many times per month, on average, has neighborhood noise:

Question # 22

Disturbed your sleep

Count Percent
0 126 50.4
1 33 13.2
2 22 8.8
3 19 7.6
4 14 5.6
5 6 2.4
6 5 2
7 2 .8
8 3 1.2
10 8 3.2
12 3 1.2
13 1 .4
15 2 .8
20 1 .4
25 2 .8
30 3 1.2
Total 250 100

Question # 23

Startled or frightened you

Count Percent
0 126 50.4
1 33 13.2
2 22 8.8
3 19 7.6
4 14 5.6
5 6 2.4
6 5 2
7 2 .8
8 3 1.2
10 8 3.2
12 3 1.2
13 1 .4
15 2 .8
20 1 .4
25 2 .8
30 3 1.2
Total 250 100

Question # 24

Forced you to close your windows or doors

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
0 153 61.2
1 30 12
2 16 6.4
3 15 6
4 4 1.6
5 12 4.8
6 3 1.2
8 3 1.2
10 3 1.2
12 1 .4
15 3 1.2
20 1 .4
25 1 .4
30 3 1.2
365 1 .4
Total 250 100

Question # 25

Irritated or annoyed you

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
0 88 35.2
1 34 13.6
2 40 16
3 20 8
4 20 1.6
5 9 4.4
6 6 2.4
7 6 2.4
8 2 .8
10 5 2
12 2 .8
14 1 .4
15 2 .8
20 4 1.6
25 2 .8
30 7 2.8
60 1 .4
Total 250 100

Question # 26

Disrupted activities requiring concentration such as normal conversation or viewing the TV

Count Percent
0 157 62.8
1 2 10.4
2 23 9.2
3 14 5.6
4 5 2
5 5 2
6 3 1.2
7 1 .4
8 2 .8
10 5 2
12 2 .8
15 1 .4
20 1 .4
30 3 1.2
60 1 .4
220 1 .4
Total 250 100

Question # 27

In your opinion, has noise in your neighborhood affected your quality of life in any way?

1. Yes
2. No
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 209 83.6
1 41 16.4
Total 250 100

Question # 28

Has noise in your neighborhood affected your heath in any way?

1. Yes
2. No
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 2 .8
0 235 94
1 13 5.2
Total 250 100

Question # 29

Have you ever moved from a neighborhood beacause of excessive noise?

1. Yes
2. No
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 226 90.4
1 24 9.6
Total 250 100

Question # 30

If you wanted to file a noise complaint, which City department would you call?

1 Mayor's Office
2 Environmental Health
3 Police Department
4 Zoning Office
5 Department of Transportation
6 Other
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 131 52.4
1 14 5.6
2 24 9.6
3 46 18.4
4 1 .4
5 4 1.6
6 30 12
Total 250 100

Question #31

Since January 1997, have you filed a complaint noise in your neighborhood with anyone in an official position?

1 Yes
2 No
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 237 94.8
1 13 5.2
Total 250 100

SKIPS from Q31

IF Q31=1 SKIP TO: 32

IF else SKIP TO: 33

Question # 32

Were you pleased with the way the agency or department handled your complaint?

1 Yes
2 No
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
0 4 30.769
1 9 69.231
Total 13 100

SKIPS from Q32

IF Q32=0 SKIP TO: 33

IF else SKIP TO: 34

Question # 33

Who was the agency or department?

Dbase- (Number of Items: 2)

Enter Verbatim (100 characters)

<<Text Variable>>

Question # 34

Finally, would you say thay you are less sensitive, more sensitive, or experience the same sensitivity to noise as most people?

1 Less
2 More
0 About the same
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
0 165 66
1 50 20
2 34 13.6
Total 250 100

Question # 37

[THE RESPONDENT'S GENDER]

Count Percent
Female 132 52.8
Male 118 47.2
Total 250 100

Question # 38

[THE RESPONDENT'S INCOME]

1 Less than $10,000
2 10 to 20
3 20 to 30
4 30 to 40
5 40 to 50
6 50 to 60
7 60 to 70
8 70 to 80
9 80 to 90
10 90 to 100
11 Over $100,000
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 22 8.8
1 7 2.8
2 21 8.4
3 46 18.4
4 42 16.8
5 38 15.2
6 22 8.8
7 11 4.4
8 14 5.6
9 9 3.6
10 6 2.4
11 12 4.8
Total 250 100

Question # 39

[THE RESPONDENT'S EDUCATION LEVEL]

1 K-8th Grade
2 Some High School
3 High School Graduate
4 Post High School/Trade
5 Associates Degree
6 Less than 2 years of College
7 More than 2 years of College
8 Colllege Graduate
9 Graduate Work or Degree
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
-99 1 .4
1 3 1.2
2 9 3.6
3 50 20
4 10 4
5 5 2
6 25 10
7 29 11.6
8 61 24.4
9 57 22.8
Total 250 100

Question # 40

[THE RESPONDENT'S HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS]

Count Percent
Own 208 83.2
Rent 42 16.8
Total 250

Question # 41

[THE RESPONDENT'S ETHNICITY]

1 White NonHispanic
2 African American
3 Native American
4 Asian
5 Spanish/Latin
6 Other
-99 DK/NA

Count Percent
1 157 62.8
2 4 1.6
3 2 .8
4 3 1.2
5 59 23.6
6 25 10
Total 250 100

Question # 42

[THE RESPONDENT'S AGE]

From (>) To (<) Count Percent
18 28 15 6.073
28 38 39 15.789
38 48 59 23.887
48 58 59 23.887
58 68 30 12.146
68 78 29 11.741
78 88 14 5.668
88 98 1 .405
98 108 1 .405
108 118 0 0
Total 247 100

Question # 43

[THE RESPONDENT'S CPA]

1= Westside
2= N Valley
3= N Albuquerque
4= Mid Heights
5= Foothills
6= E Gateway
7= SW Mesa
8= Near Heights
9= Central Albuquerque
10= S Valley

Count Percent
1 23 9.2
2 25 10
3 19 7.6
4 45 18
5 23 9.2
6 26 10.4
7 17 6.8
8 40 16
9 10 4
10 22 8.8
Total 250 100

Acknowledgements

The author would like to formally thank the following individuals for their assistance with the development of this study. Without their help, it would have been imbossible to accomplish the professional objectives in report writing, analysis, and data collection.

Scott Goold
I can't Accept Not Trying

AnnMarie Pohl, InfoImagination, Analysis, Layout Design, and Report Assembly

Deborah Hart, City of Albuquerque, Instrument and Research Design

Gary LaFree, Director, Institute for Social Research, General Supervision

Richard Mitzelfelt, City of Albuqerque, Instrument and Research Design


Institute for Social Research
Center for Opinion Research

Interviewing Technicians:

Courney Lewis
David Sanchez
Jason Buchen
Marina Carcaro
Sarah Duffy


Institute for Social Research

Bob Wilson, Projects Coordinator
Stella Anagnostakos, Office Administrator


Link to CNAG Homepage