The relationship between railway noise and community annoyance in Korea

A study of community annoyance caused by exposures to railway noise was carried out in 18 areas along railway lines to accumulate social survey data and assess the relationship between railway noise levels and annoyance responses in Korea. Railway noise levels were measured with portable sound-level meters. Social surveys were administered to people living within 50 m of noise measurement sites. A questionnaire contained demographic factors, degree of noise annoyance, interference with daily activities, and health-related symptoms. The question relating to noise annoyance was answered on an 11-point numerical scale. The randomly selected respondents, who were aged between 18 to 70 years of age, completed the questionnaire independently. In total, 726 respondents participated in social surveys. Taking into consideration the urban structure and layout of the residential areas of Korea, Japan, and Europe, one can assume that the annoyance responses caused by the railway noise in this study will be similar to those found in Japan, which are considerably more severe than those found in European countries. This study showed that one of the most important factors contributing to the difference in the annoyance responses between Korea and Europe is the distance between railways and houses.     

COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE IN JAPAN AND SWEDEN—PART I: OUTLINE OF SURVEYS AND DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS

To investigate cross-cultural differences in the community response to road traffic noise, social surveys were conducted in Gothenburg, Sweden, and Kumamoto and Sapporo, Japan, using the same questionnaire and noise measurement method. Typical residential areas with detached houses and apartments were selected as the target areas in each city. The questionnaire comprised 40 questions relating to environmental, housing and personal factors. The key questions concerned annoyance caused by road traffic noise. The total numbers of respondents were 1142 in Gothenburg, 837 in Kumamoto and 780 in Sapporo. The response rates were 68·8, 69·3 and 57·5% respectively. After the questionnaires were completed, noise measurements were made in each area. Community responses were compared on the basis of the dose-response relationships. There were no systematic differences between community responses in Sapporo and Kumamoto, which have the same culture. People living in detached houses in Gothenburg were more annoyed by the same road traffic noise than the people living in Japanese cities. There were no systematic differences among the three cities with regard to activity disturbances indoors, but significant disturbance of activities and resting in gardens or on balconies was noted in Gothenburg. The difference in activity disturbance was due to the differences between lifestyles in the two countries. People living in detached houses were more annoyed by the house vibration caused by road traffic than those living in apartments and people were annoyed by the exhaust from road traffic to the same extent as noise.     

The effects of long-term exposure to railway and road traffic noise on subjective sleep disturbance

The exposure-response relationships between subjective annoyance with sleep disturbance from railway trains and road traffic noise were established from an extensive social survey by CENVR (Center for Environmental Noise and Vibration Research) in Korea. The objectives of this research are to determine the long-term effects of noise on sleep and to compare the exposure-response relationships from different noise sources with those from other studies and to elucidate the effects of some modifying factors on subjective responses to noise. From an investigation of the percentage of a highly sleep-disturbed population (%HSD) in response to railway and road traffic noise, it was found that sleep is affected more by railway noise than by road traffic noise. The effects of non-acoustical factors on the responses were examined and sensitivity was shown to be a significant modifying factor, as it pertains to subjective sleep disturbance. A comparison of the response curves from an analysis of pooled data from predominantly European surveys by Miedema and Vos [Behav. Sleep Med. 5, 1-20 (2007)] with the response curves from this survey showed more of a subjective sleep disturbance response in this survey to railway noise, whereas there was no significant difference in terms of a response to road traffic noise.     

The differing annoyance levels of rail and road traffic noise

The results of a study on the relative annoyance by rail or road traffic noise in urban and rural areas are reported. Fourteen areas with rail and road traffic noise with differing levels of loudness (L_eq) were investigated. The annoyance was assessed by means of a questionnaire. The analysis of the relationship between annoyance and L_eq—performed separately for rail and road traffic noise—shows that the same amount of annoyance is reached for railway traffic noise at L_eq levels 4–5 dB(A) higher than for road traffic noise (railway/traffic noise “bonus”). The estimation for the difference values vary for the different variables of annoyance. Furthermore, the difference levels tend to be higher in urban than in rural areas.     

Acoustical, sensory, and psychological research data and procedures for their use in predicting effects of environmental noises

A demonstration field-research study reveals that aircraft noise measured at two one-story houses is approximately 9 dB less attenuated from measured outdoor levels than is street traffic noise, and, found in other studies, approximately 14 dB less than railway noise. Comparable differences are found between these noises from the application of basic acoustical formulas for quantifying attenuations that occur on site of one- and two-story houses. Reasonably consistent with those findings are results from attitude surveys showing that daily exposure levels of aircraft must be approximately 8 dB less than levels of street traffic noise, and approximately 13 dB less than levels of railway noise to be perceived as an equal cause of annoyance and related adverse effects. However, USA government guidelines recommend that equal exposure levels of noise measured outdoors from vehicles of transportation should be considered as being equally annoying. Changes in present USA noise-measurement procedures and noise-control guidelines are proposed that provide more accurate predictions of annoyance, related adverse effects, and criteria for setting "tolerable" limits of noise exposure in residential areas. Key acoustical and psycho-acoustical principles and data pertaining to predicting correlations between dosages of environmental noises and its effects on people and land noise zoning in residential communities are examined.     

The response to railway noise in residential areas in Great Britain

The effects of railway noise on residents have been measured with a combined social survey (1453 respondents) and noise measurement survey (over 2000 noise measurements) at 403 locations in 75 study areas in Great Britain. In the analysis of the data methods have been used which take into account many typical noise survey problems including noise measurement errors, unique locality effects and the weakness of the noise annoyance relationship. Railway noise bothers 2% of the nation's population. Approximately 170 000 people live where railway noise levels are above 65 dB(A) 24 hour L_eq. Annoyance increases steadily with noise level; thus there is no particular “acceptable” noise level. Railway noise is less annoying than aircraft or road traffic noise of equivalent noise level, at least above 50 to 65L_eq. Noise is rated as the most serious environmental nuisance caused by railways. Maintenance noise is rated as a bigger problem than passing train noise. Vibration is the most important non-noise problem. Reactions to vibrations are related to distance from route, train speed and number of trains. The railway survey's highly stratified, probability sample design with many study areas makes it possible to evaluate the effects of area characteristics on reactions. The 24 h L_eq dB(A) noise index is more closely related to annoyance than are other accepted noise indices examined. There is no support for ambient noise level or night-time corrections. Thirteen railway operation characteristics were examined. One, the type of traction, has a strong effect on reactions after controlling for L_eq (overhead electrified routes are the equivalent of about 10 dB less annoying at high noise levels). Three indicators of railway ancillary noises and non-noise environmental nuisances affect annoyance but most operational characteristics have no effect. The effects of over 35 demographic, attitudinal and neighbourhood characteristics on annoyance are examined. Though most objective characteristics of neighbourhoods and respondents are not correlated with annoyance, three do decrease annoyance (older dwellings, older respondents, and life-time residence). The attitudes which affect annoyance with railway noise are not general ones about railways as transportation sources, but rather ones which are specific to the neighbourhood setting or to railways as environmental intrusions in the neighbourhood. Such attitudes often have less effect on annoyance at low noise levels. In such cases it is the reactions of the more annoyed types of people which are most closely related to noise level.     

Comparing the relationships between noise level and annoyance in different surveys: A railway noise vs. aircraft and road traffic comparison

Annoyance expressed in a railway noise survey is compared with that in two road traffic and three aircraft surveys in order to determine whether responses to various environmental noises are similar or are source-specific. Railway noise is less annoying than other noises at any given high noise level. Railway noise annoyance increases less rapidly with increasing noise level. At high noise levels this gap in reactions averages about 10 dB but ranges from 4 dB to more than 20 dB. Comparisons between the findings in the different surveys can be made only after considering differences in noise index calculation procedures, human response measurement procedures and annoyance moderating conditions. The methodology for comparing surveys is examined. It is found that methodological uncertainties lead to imprecise comparisons and that different annoyance scales give different estimates of intersurvey differences.     

Some developments in community response research since the second international workshop on railway and tracked transit system noise in 1978

As far as human responses to railway noise are concerned, knowledge has increased considerably since the Second International Workshop on Railway and Tracked Transit System Noise was held in Lyon, France, in October 1978. Only some developments are mentioned in this article. Concerning land use planning some evidence became available that in maintaining or recovering a certain amount of well-being the concept of noise zoning deserves most attention, and that applying heavier sound insulation measures is not sufficient in solving the problem of noise annoyance. About the influence of background noise on annoyance, data from railway noise surveys are not conclusive. Whether or not habituation to noise occurs seems to be dependent on the way it has been made operational. Neither the often used self-reported habituation nor length of residence appears to have a clear relation with annoyance. Noise from shunting yards appears to be very annoying, compared with noise from through trains, road traffic and aircraft. The characteristics of the noise causing this relatively high degree of annoyance are still subject to study. “Normal” through trains cause less annoyance than road traffic and aircraft, the noise levels being equal. Some specific disturbances, however, like for instance being disturbed while watching television or having a conversation, occur at lower noise levels with railway noise than with road traffic noise.     

Comparison of models to predict annoyance from combined noise in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi

Seven models were compared in terms of the ability to predict the annoyance due to the combination of aircraft and road traffic noises on the basis of data collected around airports in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, Vietnam. The 24-h average sound levels L_Aeq,24h and unweighted means of annoyance scores for aircraft, road traffic, and combined noise were used to solve the regression equations for the seven models. The results indicate that road traffic noise exposure and annoyance were more than those of aircraft noise at almost all sites in both Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi. Among the considered models, the dominant source model yielded the highest coefficients of determination, with R² values of 0.82 and 0.90 for surveys in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, respectively. These results suggest that the dominant source model is the most useful model in the vicinity of those airports in Vietnam where road traffic noise is more dominant than aircraft noise. This is convenient for situations in which dose-response curves are established separately for different noise sources.     

Road traffic noise - the relationship between noise exposure and noise annoyance in Norway

Exposure-effect relationships between the level of road traffic noise at the most exposed side of a dwelling's façade and the residents' reactions to road traffic noise have been estimated. The relationships are based on five Norwegian socio-acoustic studies featuring 18 study areas from two cities and a total of near 4000 respondents. The survey questionnaires distinguish between noise annoyance experienced right outside the apartment and when indoors. Exposure-effect relationships for all degrees of annoyance are estimated simultaneously from ordinal logit models. These predict road traffic noise annoyance when right outside the apartment and when indoors, respectively, as a function of the road traffic noise level outside the most exposed façade. Separate analyses indicate that Norwegians react stronger to road traffic noise than results from a recent compilation of socio-acoustic surveys would lead one to believe. People having inferior single glazing windows report higher indoor annoyance.     

Annoyance and disturbance of daily activities from road traffic noise in Canada

This study evaluated road traffic noise annoyance in Canada in relation to activity interference, subject concerns about noise and self-reported distance to a major road. Random digit dialing was employed to survey a representative sample of 2565 Canadians 15 years of age and older. Respondents highly annoyed by traffic noise were significantly more likely to perceive annoyance to negatively impact health, live closer to a heavily traveled road and report that traffic noise often interfered with daily activities. Sex, age, education level, community size and province had statistically significant associations with traffic noise annoyance. High noise annoyance consistently correlated with frequent interference of activities. Reducing noise at night (10 pm-7 am) was more important than during the rest of the day.     

Annoyance response to mixed transportation noise in Hong Kong

To better understand mixed transportation noise-annoyance response, a study was undertaken in Hong Kong to (1) unravel factors affecting annoyance response to mixed transportation noise; (2) contrast noise-annoyance relationships between road traffic and railway noise dominant situations; and (3) explain the differences, if any, between the two using structural equation modelling from the data collected in a social survey. Results of this study show that annoyance is largely determined by noise disturbance and perceived noisiness. Personal noise sensitivity, attitudes towards different means of transport and perceived quality of the living environment are secondary contributing factors. When road traffic noise dominates, annoyance is primarily determined by noise disturbance caused by the peaks of railway noise events; when railway noise dominates, peaks of train events can induce annoyance response directly without causing disturbance. Policy implications of such results on how to minimize noise-annoyance response are discussed in the paper.     

Annoyance due to single and combined sound exposure from railway and road traffic

Environmental noise is a growing and well recognized health problem. However, in many cases people are exposed not to a single noise source-for example, road, railway, or aircraft noise-but to a combination of noise exposures and there is only limited knowledge of the effects on health of exposure to combined noise sources. A socio-acoustic survey among 1953 persons aged 18-75 years was conducted in residential areas exposed to railway and road traffic noise with sound levels ranging from L(Aeq,24h) 45-72 dB in a municipality east of Gothenburg, Sweden. The objectives were to assess various adverse health effects, including annoyance, and to elucidate the impact of exposure to single and combined noise sources. In areas exposed to both railway and road traffic, the proportion annoyed by the total traffic sound environment (total annoyance) was significantly higher than in areas with one dominant noise source (rail or road traffic) with the same total sound exposure (L(Aeq,24h,tot)). This interaction effect was significant from 59 dB and increased gradually with higher sound levels. Effects of the total sound exposure should be considered in risk assessments and in noise mitigation activities.     

Community responses to road traffic noise in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City

Vietnam is a developing country in southeast Asia, and its environment has been seriously affected by industrialization and urbanization. In large cities like Hanoi (northern Vietnam) and Ho Chi Minh City (southern Vietnam), noise emission from road traffic has been found to be a serious concern among general public. In 2005 and 2007, two large-scale socio-acoustic surveys of community response to road traffic noise were conducted to investigate human reactions to road traffic noise in these cities; the sample sizes were 1503 people in Hanoi and 1471 in Ho Chi Minh City. The noise exposure levels (L_den) were 70–83 dB in Hanoi and 75–83 dB in Ho Chi Minh City. Noise annoyance was estimated using standardized annoyance scales. For both cities, dose–response relationships were established between L_den and the percentage of highly annoyed respondents. Compared to annoyance responses of European people, Vietnamese were less annoyed by road traffic noise by about 5 dB. Hanoi respondents seemed to be more annoyed by noise than Ho Chi Minh City respondents. Conversation and sleep disturbances were not as serious as expected in either city. Furthermore, window orientation in the home was found to affect activity disturbances.     

Bound formula for determining the fundamental frequency

The extent of interference with various activities was studied among populations in areas exposed to noise from aircraft, road traffic, trains and tramways. When areas with differences in the extent of general annoyance were compared, similar differences in the extent of the various activity interferences were found, except for those due to vibrations. As an example of the differences in the activity interference pattern, it was found that road traffic noise interfered significantly less with speech than train noise, whereas both noise types caused roughly the same interference with rest/sleep. The results suggest that uniform weighted annoyance scores incorporating various kinds of activity interference are not valid for all types of environmental noises. Interference due to vibrations probably has to be treated separately from that due to noise.     

Railway noise and vibration annoyance in residential areas

This paper summarizes the results from the 1975 British railway noise study. Noise from railways does cause annoyance and interfere with activities. People in Great Britain appear to find high levels of railway noise to be somewhat less annoying than high levels from other sources. L_eq is as closely related to annoyance as any other index examined. Since annoyance increases steadily with noise level there is no particular “acceptable” railway noise level. Overhead electrified routes appear to be less annoying than diesel routes at the same noise levels. Through train noise, maintenance noise and vibration are the most widely noticed problems associated with railways in residential areas.     

Relationship between exposure to multiple noise sources and noise annoyance

Relationships between exposure to noise [metric: day-night level (DNL) or day-evening-night level (DENL)] from a single source (aircraft, road traffic, or railways) and annoyance based on a large international dataset have been published earlier. Also for stationary sources relationships have been assessed. Here the annoyance equivalents model concerning noise annoyance from combined sources and the underlying assumptions are presented. The model first translates the noise from the individual sources into the equally annoying sound levels of a reference source, road traffic, and then sums these levels giving total level L. The annoyance from the combined sources is found by substituting exposure L in the road traffic exposure-annoyance relationship. The most important assumption, independence of the contributions of the sources, is discussed. It appears that independence will be violated substantially only due to the effect of the presence or absence of a quiet side of building which is not incorporated in the model. For use in practice the application of the model is broken down in five steps. The step by step procedure can be used for the assessment of the total noise level and the associated total annoyance on the basis of the DNL or DENL values of the individual sources.     

An experiment on auditory and non-auditory disturbances caused by railway and road traffic noises in outdoor conditions

In a laboratory experiment, disturbance caused by two types of noise (railway and road traffic noises) at three noise levels (55, 65 and ) in two kinds of stimulation conditions (listening and calculation) was investigated. Thirty Japanese and thirty Chinese subjects performed a listening or calculation task while each noise was presented for 6 min. The subjects assessed the disturbance of their activities using 5-point verbal scales constructed by ICBEN method. A railway bonus, mainly caused by noise masking, was found in the listening task but not in the calculation task. There was a significant difference between the effects of two noises on listening performance when noise level was 75 dB, but no difference was found between railway and road traffic noises on task performance. The results suggest that the disturbance evaluation is determined by several factors and that the interaction among the factors increases with the increase of noise level. Evaluation disturbance is not related to task performance in certain cases.     

利用自相关函数和双耳自相关函数分析对交通噪声特征参量的提取~

对实地双通道测量获得的道路交通噪声和铁路噪声信号样本进行了自相关函数和双耳自相关函数(Interaural CrossCorrelation Function)的分析。进而通过对噪声样本时间因子和空间因子的相关性分析、主成分分析和主观评价实验,得到了3个铁路噪声源特征参量物理因子和4个道路交通噪声源特征参量物理因子。发现与传统的声压级测量相比,表征声音信号时间特性和空间特性的这7个物理量可以更全面、准确地表征交通噪声的特性。在对道路噪声进行测量或分析时,掌握与声源视觉宽度和音调感相对应的物理因子以及双耳时延和初始能量,就可获悉与人的主观评价相一致的道路交通噪声特征信息;对铁路噪声而言,掌握与声源视觉宽度相对应的物理因子以及双耳时延和声音的重复性特征,就可以得到与入主观评价相一致的铁路噪声特征信息。综合道路噪声特征参量和铁路噪声特征参量可以发现,双耳时延和与声源视觉宽度相对应的物理因子是与人的主观反应最为一致的主成分指标,说明噪声中决定人的评价的最主要的因素是代表空间特征的信号因子。