Theory and Design Tools For Studies of Reactions to Abrupt Changes in Noise Exposure (original) (raw)
Related papers
GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING CORE INFORMATION FROM COMMUNITY NOISE REACTION SURVEYS
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1997
Difficulties in comparing the results from studies have interfered with accumulating knowledge about communities' responses to noise. Gaps in the information presented in publications have been especially serious problems for combined social and acoustical surveys of residents' responses to environmental noise. In an attempt to alleviate this 0022-460X/97/400685 + 11 $25.00/0/sv971144 7 1997 Academic Press Limited
PROCEEDINGS INTERNOISE 2019, 2019
Noise annoyance is one of the most important local environmental concerns nowadays reported by people living in urban areas. A standardized questionnaire designed to assess community response to environmental noise has been used in Granada (Spain) since 2005. The survey includes standardized questions and response scales that allow for comparable results with other similar studies. It pays special attention to road traffic noise and includes annoyance assessment as well as other noise effects in everyday activities. Several field campaigns were carried out in Granada coincident with the elaboration of the city second Strategic Noise Map (SNM), in order to evaluate by means of this questionnaire the effect of environmental noise on citizens and provide valuable additional information for Noise Action Planning (NAP) The sampling work was carried out by Local Agenda 21 Technical Office in collaboration with University of Granada researchers who also took part in the elaboration of Granada SNM. In this paper we present results of this survey focusing on noise annoyance rating, environmental noise effects on common activities and citizens' attitude to noise exposure. First results from a comparative study between experimental noise annoyance evaluation and dose-effect evaluation from SNM data is also included.
Sufficient data refer to the relevant prevalence of sound exposure by mixed traffic sources in many nations. Furthermore, consideration of the potential effects of combined sound exposure is required in legal procedures such as environmental health impact assessments. Nevertheless, current practice still uses single exposure response functions. It is silently assumed that those standard exposure-response curves accommodate also for mixed exposures-although some evidence from experimental and field studies casts doubt on this practice. The ALPNAP-study population (N = 1641) shows sufficient subgroups with combinations of rail-highway, highway-main road and rail-highway-main road sound exposure. In this paper we apply a few suggested approaches of the literature to investigate exposure-response curves and its major determinants in the case of exposure to multiple traffic sources. Highly/moderate annoyance and full scale mean annoyance served as outcome. The results show several limitations of the current approaches. Even facing the inherent methodological limitations (energy equivalent summation of sound, rating of overall annoyance) the consideration of main contextual factors jointly occurring with the sources (such as vibration, air pollution) or coping activities and judgments of the wider area soundscape increases the variance explanation from up to 8% (bivariate), up to 15% (base adjustments) up to 55% (full contextual model). The added predictors vary significantly, depending on the source combination. (e.g., significant vibration effects with main road/railway, not highway). Although no significant interactions were found, the observed additive effects are of public health importance. Especially in the case of a three source exposure situation the overall annoyance is already high at lower levels and the contribution of the acoustic indicators is small compared with the non-acoustic and contextual predictors. Noise mapping needs to go down to levels of 40 dBA,Lden to ensure the protection of quiet areas and prohibit the silent "filling up" of these areas with new sound sources. Eventually, to better predict the annoyance in the exposure range between 40 and 60 dBA and support the protection of quiet areas in city and rural areas in planning sound indicators need to be oriented at the noticeability of sound and consider other traffic related by-products (air quality, vibration, coping strain) in future studies and environmental impact assessments.
Calculation of overall community noise impact due to a change in noise source emissions
2008
When the acoustic amenity of a region changes, either by the addition or modification of a transportation noise source, the overall community noise impact depends on the number of affected receivers as well as the change in noise level at each receiver. This overall impact could be quantified as an arithmetic average of the change in noise level at the affected receiver. However, a simple arithmetic average does not adequately consider the relative significance of the change at the receivers which experience substantial increase or decrease of noise level. For instance, a change of 2 dB(A) is usually regarded as being a barely perceptible change for environmental noise and a change of 10 dB(A) is usually regarded as approximately doubling or halving the subjective sound loudness. A method is proposed whereby a change in noise amenity is quantified in terms of the significance of the change in noise level as a function of the number of affected receivers and the severity to which the...
Adverse effects of community noise as a public health issue
Sleep and Biological Rhythms, 2016
Too much noise disturbs sleep, as well known. The number of persons affected by community noise is estimated to be huge. This paper summarizes the recommendation by WHO (1999) and the following international documents, and introduce new data and debate. First, we should choose noise descriptors to study and to regulate noise-induced sleeplessness taking account of (1) whether we want to focus on continuous noise or intermittent noise, and (2) whether we want to focus on noise prediction or ecological measurement. L Aeq (A-weighted sound equivalent level) at sleep period well predicts sleep disturbance in general. Since intermittent noise is more likely to disturb sleep than continuous noise, even if their L Aeq is the same, L Amax and L AE are also used. Second, we should determine sleep descriptors such as EEG, actigraphy, and questionnaires. The descriptors should be chosen, in consideration of burdens to subjects and timescale that should be matched with noise assessment. Based on the dose-response relationship between community noise and sleep disturbance, WHO (1999) recommended that indoor sound level should be L Aeq of 35 dB or below for the general population from the aspect of health sciences. WHO Regional Office for Europe (2004), however, proposed much more strict guidelines, taking the recent studies on community noise and cardiovascular diseases in the general population. Most of the data were, however, cross-sectionally obtained, and causality cannot be determined. As a result, intensive debate emerged whether or not the reported effects are meaningful and all the effects are impermissible, reflecting the difference between European view of health and US pragmatic position. On the other hand, effects of ultra-lowfrequency sound from wind turbine plants on sleep and health seem negligible, although audible noise from wind turbine can disturb sleep among residents. Individual difference in sensitivity to noise and effects of daytime noise on night/shift-workers should be further investigated. If they can be clarified, this should be systematically reflected to the exposure assessment.
Applied Acoustics, 2011
The main purpose of this work is to establish a methodology which uses the advantages of stratified sampling to study noise perception. Taking as a starting point the results of an existing psychosocial survey of a large population sample, the proposed procedure consists in stratifying the original sample into homogeneous groups (clusters or classes) as far as noise perception/annoyance, and then select some representatives within each group. Those representatives will be used for further inquiries relating to noise annoyance perception (i.e. action plans follow up) and may facilitate further data acquisition making it faster and cheaper to acquire without significant precision loss. According to the European Directive 2002/49/EC, action plans for noise perception and noise level conflicts reduction shall be based both on existing noise maps and existing psychosocial surveys. It is in this context that the proposed methodology can be useful, since it will allow action plans follow up and thus evaluate in a fast and cost effective way the impact of action plans on the population. The methodology has been applied to the Málaga psychosocial survey results and the variability of estimates when working with subsamples (representatives from each group) has been studied. It is observed that performing a stratified sampling technique on the clusters optimizes the cost/precision ratio of estimators.
An Investigation of Community Response to Urban Traffic Noise
Advanced Concurrent Engineering, 2009
Traffic noise is a major environmental source of pollution in the whole planet, both in developed and in developing nations. The study being reported here has been carried out on one of the most busy and crowded streets in the downtown area of Kerman, located in south east of Iran, which have heavy traffic during the day. Total of 20 measuring points were selected along the main road and its 6 connecting streets. In this study the A-weighted continuous equivalent sound level values and statistical levels were manually measured at each site separately. The noise equivalent level varied between 66 to 79.5 dBA. The results of the study established the fact that noise levels are more than the acceptable limit of 60 dBA, which is the daytime governmentally prescribed noise limit for residential-commercial areas. This paper also describes the reaction of the environmental noise of the city of Kerman. A total of 250 questionnaires were processed. The results of the interview questionnaire revealed the following items; (I) the main isolated noise source was traffic (50%) and street noise (34%); (II) 70% of the people classified the noise in his/her street as "very high"; (III) 52% and 48% of the respondents answered that noise bother them more in morning and evening, respectively; (IV) 86% and 86.8% of the subjects answered that traffic noise produce physicsl and psychological annoyance to them; (V) the main outcomes of exposure to noise were: irritability (40.8%), insomnia (24%), difficulty in concentrating (16%) and conservation disruption (16%).