High Annoyance Research Articles

Noise annoyance from stationary sources: relationships with exposure metric day-evening-night level (DENL) and their confidence intervals.

Relationships between exposure to noise [metric: day-evening-night levels (DENL)] from stationary sources (shunting yards, a seasonal industry, and other industries) and annoyance are presented. Curves are presented for expected annoyance score, the percentage "highly annoyed" (%HA, cutoff at 72 on a scale from 0 to 100), the percentage "annoyed" (%A, cutoff at 50 on a scale from 0 to 100), and the percentage "(at least) a little annoyed" (%LA, cutoff at 28 on a scale from 0 to 100). The estimates of the parameters of the relations are based on the data from a field study (N=1875) at 11 locations (2 shunting yards, 1 seasonal industry, 8 other industries) in the Netherlands. With the same (yearly) DENL, the seasonal industry causes less annoyance than the other industries, while the other industries cause less annoyance than the shunting yards. It appears that annoyance caused by vibrations from shunting yards and annoyance caused by noise from through trains are (partly) responsible for the relatively high annoyance from shunting yards. The relatively low annoyance from the seasonal industry presumably is related to the presence of a relatively quiet period. Results for the two shunting yards and the seasonal industry are based on fewer data than the other industrial sources, and are indicative. The same patterns of influence of age and noise sensitivity that are generally found are also found in this study. For comparison, results regarding transportation sources are also given, including previously unpublished results for expected annoyance.

ANNOYANCE DUE TO AIR POLLUTION IN EUROPE

ISEE-76 Introduction: Annoyance might be both an outcome of air pollution and a marker of perceived exposure. Although annoyance due to air pollution has been poorly studied, it is known that some factors like age, or presence of a respiratory illness can influence annoyance. The objective of this study was to assess sociodemographic factors or respiratory symptoms related to annoyance in an international setting. Methods: The European Community Respiratory Health Survey II (ECRHSII) was conducted in 2000-01, in 25 European centers in 12 countries and in two non-European centers. 8770 randomly selected adult participants aged 27-58 years (52 percent females) were included in this analysis. Annoyance due to air pollution was self-reported on an 11 points scale (0: no disturbance at all, 10: intolerable disturbance). Demographic and socioeconomic factors, smoking status and presence of respiratory symptoms or disease were measured through a standard questionnaire. Random effect meta-analysis method was used. Results: Fifty-seven percent of subject reported some kind of annoyance (i.e., more than 0 on the scale). The general mean was 2.17 and the median 1. Fourteen percent reported high annoyance, 6 or more on the scale, and only 6% are highly annoyed, from 8 to 10 on the scale. Distribution of annoyance by centers was heterogeneous, with less annoyance in Northern countries and more in Southern ones (median range from 0 in Bergen, Norway to 5 in Huelva, Spain). In general in Scandinavian and Nordic centers, the proportion of subjects reporting higher levels of education was larger, and levels of smoking and traffic were lower. At individual level, high education (OR 1.71 95% CI 1.41-2.07) and median education (OR 1.51 95% CI 1.24-1.83) were related to any annoyance for the same level of traffic intensity and reported respiratory symptoms in all centers, also adjusting for gender and smoking. Very similar results were obtained for the outcome “highly annoyed” (OR 1.52 95% CI 1.02-2.24 for medium education and OR 1.87 95% CI 1.25-2.78 for high education). Females, never smokers, passive smokers, subjects reporting shortness of breath at night, phlegm and rhinitis reported more annoyance. All the adjusted OR have a non-heterogeneous distribution. Wheezing, asthma and season of the interview were unrelated with annoyance. Conclusions: Fourteen percent of the population in 12 European countries reported high annoyance due to air pollution. The association of gender, education, health and smoking status with annoyance shows that a subjective score captures both environmental and personal characteristics.

The long term effect of noise protection barriers on the annoyance response of residents

Results are presented of two parallel acoustic and psychological surveys at four different barriers with four adjacent research areas and 12 experimental sites, and one untreated control area with two sites, in the outskirts of the cities Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, Krefeld and Neuss in 1976 and 1988. Conclusions from the results can be briefly summarized as follows. (i) There is not a simple causal relation between noise level reduction and annoyance reduction. (ii) Barriers produce high annoyance reduction at near sites but only minimal effects beyond 150 m from the highway. (iii) Annoyance reduction, on average, is relatively greater than noise level reduction. (iv) Changing traffic volume on urban roads has stronger psychological effects than those of barriers. (v) Highway noise produces higher annoyance reactions than urban road traffic noise of the same level. (vi) After barrier construction the noise level influence on annoyance is weaker than before construction. (vii) A negative experience of residents before barrier construction is not likely to be influenced by the reduced immission level after construction.

The Effects of Broadband, Tonal and Masked Ventilation Noise on Performance, Wakefulness and Annoyance

A laboratory study was designed in order to investigate the effects of ventilation noise on performance, fatigue and annoyance. The study was also designed in order to compare the effects of broadband noise 40 dB(A), tonal noise, 40 dB(A), and tonal noise masked by means of low frequency pink noise, 41 dB(A). The study of performance was based on a figure identification test. The annoyance and fatigue were tested by means of rating scales. The analyses of fatigue also included EEG-recordings. The acceptability of the different types of ventilation noise was also analysed through matching tests. The differences in performance between broadband and tonal ventilation noise were significant and did not show any unambiguous tendency. An insignificant tendency of worse performance during broadband exposure and that the tonal ventilation noise should be more tiring could be observed. The tonal exposure was described as less annoying during work. On the other hand, in the matching tests, the subjects tolerated an insignificantly lower level of the tonal ventilation noise compared to the broadband noise. Comparisons between the tonal ventilation noise and the tonal ventilation noise masked by means of a pink noise, showed that the masked ventilation noise was correlated to ambiguous tendencies towards higher performance, lower fatigue but higher annoyance. In the matching tests, the subjects tolerated a lower level of masked ventilation noise compared to the unmasked ventilation noise. Except for the ratings of fatigue, all differences were below the level of significance p 0.05.

Transportation noise annoyance: Testing of a probabilistic model

This analysis extends the development and testing of a probabilistic model of noise annoyance proposed in an earlier paper [1]. In the model, noise, measured as the level and number of specific events, leads to annoyance through its interference with activities. Testing of the model is based on noise and survey data collected at 56 sites around Toronto International Airport. Logit analysis is used to estimate equations to predict the probabilities of activity interference and annoyance due to road traffic noise and aircraft noise at each site. From these equations, probabilities of high annoyance are predicted and are compared with the proportion of respondents at each site reporting being highly annoyed. For this comparison, the sites are grouped on the basis of having the same 24 hour L eq . Both predicted and reported annoyance values are consistently higher for aircraft noise than for road traffic noise at the same 24 hour L eq . The results support the underlying argument of the model that previously reported source differences in dose-response relationships can be explained by using a model based on single event rather than daily average noise measures.

Community response to blasting.

Annoyance due to chronic exposure to blast noise and vibration was assessed in residential areas near two surface mines and a quarry. It was found possible to base useful prediction of the prevalence of high annoyance on a metric of outdoor ground vibration related to high centiles of the long term distribution of exposure levels.

Aircraft noise and mental health: I. Prevalence of individual symptoms.

A domiciliary survey (sample size circa 6000) was conducted in areas of different aircraft noise exposure affected by London (Heathrow) Airport. Respondents were urban dwellers age 16+. Since no differences were found in the prevalence of manifest psychiatric disorders, the frequency of 27 individual acute and chronic symptoms was investigated. Many acute symptoms showed an increase with noise, and this was particularly evident for waking at night, irritability, depression, difficulty in getting to sleep, swollen ankles, burns/cuts/minor accidents, and skin troubles. Two chronic symptoms, tinnitus and ear problems, showed evidence of an increase with noise, while most other chronic symptoms were more common in low noise conditions. Results are controlled for the effects of age, sex and other standard epidemiological variables. Irrespective of their association with noise, most symptoms, chronic and acute, were more frequent among those respondents who also reported high annoyance. Suggestions for the analysis of surveys of health effects by noise are put forward.

Sociopsychological Factors Affecting the Human Response to Noise Exposure

Community noise is reported to be the most often mentioned undesirable neighborhood condition in a recent U.S. Census survey. Understanding community response to noise involves the measurement of a number of complex acoustic and nonacoustic variables and establishing the chain of relationships between physical exposure, perception, annoyance, and acceptability responses and finally complaint behavior. The perceived loudness of a noise is the most important acoustic parameter influencing annoyance and complaints, and the simple dBA unit can be used to integrate spectral characteristics of complex sounds in community studies. Although energy averaging such as Leq or Ldn can be used to describe multiple noise exposures over time, the variable trade-off relationships between number and level of exposures are somewhat obscured by such summary measures. However, they are still the best available descriptors and, until more accurate ones are developed, can be used to measure community noise environments. Perception of an identical noise exposure can vary according to the physiological noise sensitivity of a person and the activity context in which the noise is heard. Although the acoustic quality of the noise itself usually explains about 10 to 25 per cent of the variability in annoyance responses, sociopsychological variables measured in field studies account for 35 to 50 per cent of the variations in human annoyance responses. Three of the most important nonacoustic factors are the connotative fear effects of the noise signal, the feeling that those responsible for the noise are misfeasant in not reducing the noise, and the feeling that harmful health effects are produced by the noise. When residents report great fear, a high misfeasance, and marked health effects, about 90 per cent report a high annoyance level whether their noise exposure level is above 90 Ldn or 65 to 70 Ldn. In contrast, if the feelings are a low fear level, a low degree of misfeasance, and minimal health effects, only 3 to 10 per cent give high annoyance responses. Complaint behavior, although based on intensity of annoyance, is modified by a number of other sociopsychological factors and often is an unreliable indicator of an environmental problem.

Environmental noise in Kentucky

A state-wide study was conducted pursuant to development of a Kentucky environmental noise regulation, including assessments of noise and attitudes in 20 cities and impacts of regulation on three mineral processing industries. Urban Leq (daytime mean = 59.1 dBA, sigma = 7.4 dBA; nighttime 5.5 dBA lower) was sufficient for significant noise annoyance and a small potential for permanent hearing loss, judged by EPA “Levels Document” Criteria. Surface transportation was responsible for 80% of the intrusive events and 67% of the high annoyance ratings. Citizens considered urban noise sufficiently harmful to outdoor activity, sleep, and communication to warrant regulation but preferred local over state or federal control and fines for revenues over taxes. An estimated 39% of the coal, rock, and asphalt plants in the state (responsible for most of the complaints to state officials) would violate a 63 dBA test limit; engineering control would cost $10.9 million, rising or falling exponentially with the enforcement limit selected. A proposed regulation is now being finalized. [Work supported by the State of Kentucky.]

Relation of some personality types to annoyance response to noise

Subjects were classified into several groups based on their scores on extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, and lie scales of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. They were instructed to estimate the magnitude of annoyance of 27 aircraft noise stimuli while engaged in viewing television. Test/retest correlations between average annoyance estimations (over the 27 noises), slopes and intercepts of annoyance function in three test sessions (three different conditions of test room illumination), as well as split-half reliabilities, showed that annoyance measures were stable and consistent among the subjects. The slope increased and the intercept decreased when the illumination was lower than ordinary in psychotics (but not in nonpsychotics) and in low-L scorers (but not in high-L scorers). The intercept tended to correlate positively while the slope correlated negatively with introversion, when illumination was brighter, and the slope correlated negatively with neuroticism whet illuminations was dimmer. The average estimation measures showed that hysterics (neurotic extroverts) are high annoyance estimators, where dysthymics (neurotic introverts) are low annoyance estimators of noise at relatively high levels (ranging from 84 to 92 dBA, peak value).