Noise annoyance Why measure noise outside ?

The availability of strategic noise mapping at European scale should allow comparing people exposure in each country but, unfortunately, different methods have been used so far. This paper focuses on sources of uncertainty in people exposure estimate depending on the method used to calculate noise levels at receivers and to assign levels to the buildings as well as population to each building. Results show that inaccurate estimate can lead to inappropriate allocation of economical resources within the action plans and can also affect results of epidemiological studies. Thus, the choice of the method should consider the aim of the study before assigning noise levels. Considering only the maximum noise level at the building façade is not suitable for epidemiological studies and definition of priorities of noise mitigation in action plans, as well as determination of noise scoring based upon highly annoyed dose-response curves.

There is an increasing demand from politicians, lawmakers and community planners to have precise models for assessment of reactions to noise. The politician can set a limit for the negative influence a certain noise source may cause; for instance maximum IO percent of the population being high/y annoyed. This limit must be transformed by the acoustics specialist into a quantity that can be readily measured or calculated using physical input parameters such as noise levels, number of noise events, time of day, etc. Dose-response curves, i.e. diagrams that show the relationship between a certain noise exposure and the associate subjective reaction, are therefore vital instruments in all kinds of land use planning.

2011

The DEFRA funded project "Human Response to Vibration in Residential Environments" investigates relationships between human response in residential areas, primarily in terms of annoyance, and combined effects from exposure to vibration and noise. This paper focuses on the results from the analysis of noise exposure in this study, in particular from construction work and railway traffic. The exposures for railway traffic noise sources were obtained and calculated according to a routine based on Calculation of Railway Noise (1) (Department of Transport 1995) and "Additional railway noise source terms for 'Calculation of Railway Noise '" (Department of Transport 2007). On the other hand, exposure from construction work was calculated based on measurements of the various sources at different locations. This paper compares noise exposures from those sources in terms of level of noise, frequency content, distance from source to receiver, and the environment in which residents are exposed to noise and the reported annoyance. To conclude, the paper shows the relationships between noise exposure from the different vibration sources and annoyance. [Work funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) UK].

… Research Part D: …, 2011

Starting from an experiment conducted in a realistic setting, with recorded traffic sounds reproduced in an ecologically valid way, the relationship between indicators of magnitude, spectrum, and temporal evolution of the sonic environment and the reported annoyance was analyzed. In contrast to the bulk of noise annoyance research, the exposure was characterized by the binaurally recorded overall indoor sound. It was shown that a series of proposed parameters, related with temporal and spectral structure of the sound pressure level, allows modeling reported annoyance using multiple linear models (r 2 =0.94) more accurately than the overall indoor A-weighted equivalent noise level, L Aeq (r 2 =0.43). The proposed descriptors thus complement this indicator, at least when exposure is based on overall indoor sound. Principle components amongst the studied exposure indicators relate to the detectability of the sound indoors and to the typical temporal difference between road and rail traffic. Linear regression models based on these indicators also outperform linear regression models based on source related façade L Aeq (r 2 =0.80).

The influence of non-acoustical factors on noise annoyance was studied in a unique field experiment. An innovative system was implemented for selecting representative participants from the Dutch population, as regards age, gender, level of education, noise sensitivity, reported anxiety, pre-exposure to train and road traffic noise, general quality of the living environment, and general health. It was grounded in 1500 participants' responses to a specifically constructed questionnaire, which contained items from a nation-wide Dutch and Eurobarometer surveys. Finally, 100 representative participants were selected. During the experiment, which took place in a realistic setting (living room of holiday cottage), groups of 5-7 participants were asked to be seated, relax, reading a magazine or newspaper and were served refreshments. During their stay, traffic noise was reproduced in an ecologically valid way via outdoor loudspeakers. Every ten minutes, the participants were asked to assess traffic noise annoyance. At the beginning and after at least 1 hour of the experiment, participants were also asked to scale the annoyance of a set of 7 reference sounds utilized for master scaling. In this field experiment, residual effect on noise annoyance was found from non-acoustical factors like noise sensitivity, environmental worry, and health status. Even after master scaling, it seems that inter-individual variation in traffic-noise annoyance remains which is dependent on certain important non-acoustical factors.

Journal of Social Issues, 2007

Because effects of environmental noise do not require extremely high or long exposures, they occur, with different degrees of intensity, in a substantial part of the world population, especially in areas with a dense population and dense transportation networks. As a consequence, noise is a global issue that continues to detract from sustainable development. This article attempts to contribute to evidence-based noise policies by providing a review and systematization of noiseeffects modeling and findings. The results presented can be used in noise abatement policy to find the best practical ways of reducing noise-induced effects through the reduction of noise exposure. At present, it is possible to calculate noise maps showing the exposures to noise in residential areas. With the relationships between exposure and effects as presented here, these can be translated into estimates of the number of people affected. Estimates of effects can be made on the basis of existing noise exposures, but also on the basis of scenarios for future noise levels, so that the consequences of different scenarios can be explored and decisions with respect to noise abatement measures can be optimized. Such an evidence-based approach may be instrumental in reducing the worldwide burden of environmental noise.

Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1999

This paper presents a simulated-environment study to determine the effects of noise level and source type on annoyance responses to different transportation noises. Noise sources used in the study were; road, railway and aircraft traffic whose noise levels varied between 30-55 dB(A) in L eq (indoor). Pass-by number for railway and aircraft traffic had values of 8, 12 and 16 per 30 min, while road traffic was continuous during this period. 64 subjects attending three different sessions of 30 min each, filled in a special questionnaire during the experiments. At each session, the subjects performed two different activities (reading and listening) and thus in addition to the overall annoyance, the activity disturbance was investigated. The total of 192 answers were analyzed as individual values, group average scores and highly annoyed subjects (HA%). The overall annoyance in both group average scores (giving the best correlation with noise level) and individual scores, are presented in this first of the two companion papers. The noise and annoyance relationships determined for each source revealed very strong dependence on noise levels and the regression lines displayed a steeper increase in comparison with the previous results. The significance of the source-type effect on annoyance was found at the levels of 0•03 and 0•02 for the overall annoyance question (P Q 0•05). However since this effect was significant only for half of the different questions asked, it can be said that the source type is not a highly deterministic factor while the respondents are concentrating on daily work at home. Railway noise appeared to be the most prominent noise source in the overall annoyance, especially at moderate and low noise levels. The results supported the view that L eq = 45 dB(A) is an indoor noise limit indicating a crossover between the source-specific annoyance lines. The activity disturbance will be elaborated in Part 2.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2013

Previous studies indicate that residents may benefit from a "quiet side" to their dwellings. The influence of the level of road traffic noise exposure at the least exposed side on road traffic noise annoyance was studied in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Road traffic noise exposure was assessed at the most and least exposed faç ade (L den,most and L den,least respectively) of dwellings for subjects in a population based survey (N = 1,967). It was investigated if and to what extent relative quietness at the least exposed faç ade affected the level of road traffic noise annoyance by comparing two groups: (1) The subgroup with a relatively quiet faç ade; (2) the subgroup without a relatively quiet faç ade (large versus small difference in exposure between most and least exposed faç ade; DIF ≥ 10 dB and DIF < 10 dB respectively). In addition, it was investigated if and to what extent L den,least affected the level of road traffic noise annoyance. Results indicate a significantly lower road traffic noise annoyance score at a given L den,most , in the subgroup with DIF ≥ 10 dB versus DIF < 10 dB. Furthermore, results suggest an effect of L den,least independent of L den,most . The estimated size of the effect expressed in an equivalent change in L den,most approximated 5 dB for both the difference between the two subgroups (DIF ≥ 10 dB and DIF < 10 dB), and for a 10 dB change in L den,least .