城市道路交通噪声烦恼度社会调查

本文以烦恼度为主观反应指标,采用三种5级程度衡量尺度,对西安市内三条主要干道和两类典型交叉口附近区域内的道路交通噪声进行了烦恼度问卷调查。此次调查针对人口统计学因素(性别、年龄、文化程度、身体健康状况)上的个体差异与等级描述词不同的程度尺度可能对道路交通噪声烦恼度调查结果的影响,以及特定路况条件下的噪声烦恼度与不同机动车辆的行驶噪声烦恼度展开了研究。通过对调查数据的分析处理,发现并初步总结出:与选取不同的烦恼度尺度相比,人口统计学因素对调查结果的影响更加显著;人口统计学因素与特定路况条件下的噪声烦恼度及不同机动车辆的行驶噪声烦恼度无明显相关;但不同机动车辆的行驶噪声烦恼度不同,实际研究中需对摩托车噪声加以重视并区别对待。     

Comparison of dose-response relationships between railway and road traffic noises: the moderating effect of distance

It has been found in European studies that railway noise causes less annoyance than road traffic noise. However, recent Japanese studies have shown that there is no systematic difference in dose-response relationships between railway and road traffic noises. In general Japanese houses are situated closer to railways or roads than European houses. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether the distance from noise source to houses influences community responses to railway and road traffic noises. A re-analysis was made of data from social surveys on community responses to railway and road traffic noises, which have been obtained from 1994 to 2001 in Kyushu, a warmer area of Japan and Hokkaido, a colder area. The results showed that the annoyance in areas close to railways was greater than that in distant areas, while there was no difference in dose-response relationships for road traffic noise between both areas. Considering the situation of houses in Europe and Japan, it is expected that the annoyance caused by railway noise is more severe in Japan than in Europe. The distance from noise source to houses may be one of the causes of the difference in community responses between Europe and Japan.     

An assessment of certain causal models used in surveys on aircraft noise annoyance

The causal relationships which have so far been proposed between aircraft noise exposure, annoyance and certain “psycho-social” variables (fear of aircraft crashing, general attitude towards aviation, etc.), are re-analysed, and it is demonstrated that by using correlational analysis one can arrive at contradictory results. From the sociological surveys undertaken to date, one can derive only an ordered sequence of verbal reactions to aircraft noise, and not a causal sequence between these verbal reactions: the only clear cause of annoyance is the noise itself.It is suggested that future surveys on noise annoyance should include personality tests and health questionnaires, if one wishes to establish reliable causal sequences.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a dose-response relationship

Installed global wind power increased by 26% during 2003, with U.S and Europe accounting for 90% of the cumulative capacity. Little is known about wind turbines' impact on people living in their vicinity. The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of annoyance due to wind turbine noise and to study dose-response relationships. Interrelationships between noise annoyance and sound characteristics, as well as the influence of subjective variables such as attitude and noise sensitivity, were also assessed. A cross-sectional study was performed in Sweden in 2000. Responses were obtained through questionnaires (n = 351; response rate 68.4%), and doses were calculated as A-weighted sound pressure levels for each respondent. A statistically significant dose-response relationship was found, showing higher proportion of people reporting perception and annoyance than expected from the present dose-response relationships for transportation noise. The unexpected high proportion of annoyance could be due to visual interference, influencing noise annoyance, as well as the presence of intrusive sound characteristics. The respondents' attitude to the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape scenery was found to influence noise annoyance.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating the equivalence of verbal scales and question stems to be used in English and Japanese noise annoyance questions

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the equivalence of noise annoyance scales and questions recommended by Team 6 (Community Response to Noise) of ICBEN for English and Japanese, two strikingly different languages. The first experiment was conducted with bilingual subjects in order to test a key assumption of the method established by ICBEN Team 6 for the development of equivalent noise annoyance scales: subjects who speak different languages interpret the concept of “highest degree” of annoyance similarly. The results indicate that English- and Japanese-speaking subjects do interpret the “highest degree” similarly. The second experiment tested for effects of wording differences. English- and Japanese-speaking subjects were presented with noise annoyance questions of one of three format types. The first type was similar to the question format recommended by ICBEN Team 6. It focused on the degree to which a given noise would “bother, disturb, or annoy” the subject. The second asked subjects to evaluate the “bothersome, annoying, or disturbing” quality of the noise. The third asked how much the noise would “worry, irritate, or concern” the subject. No significant difference was found in responses to the three formats when subjects evaluated noise in laboratory conditions.     

Trends in aircraft noise annoyance: the role of study and sample characteristics

Recently, it has been suggested that the annoyance of residents at a given aircraft noise exposure level increases over the years. The objective of the present study was to verify the hypothesized trend and to identify its possible causes. To this end, the large database used to establish earlier exposure-response relationships on aircraft noise was updated with original data from several recent surveys, yielding a database with data from 34 separate airports. Multilevel grouped regression was used to determine the annoyance response per airport, after which meta-regression was used to investigate whether study characteristics could explain the heterogeneity in annoyance response between airports. A significant increase over the years was observed in annoyance at a given level of aircraft noise exposure. Furthermore, the type of annoyance scale, the type of contact, and the response percentage were found to be sources of heterogeneity. Of these, only the scale factor could statistically account for the trend, although other findings rule it out as a satisfactory explanation. No evidence was found for increased self-reported noise sensitivity. The results are of importance to the applicability of current exposure-annoyance relationships for aircraft noise and provide a basis for decisions on whether these need to be updated.     

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.     

Annoyance reactions due to railway noise

Social survey studies to assess the presence of general annoyance were made in different areas exposed to railway noise. The results show that an increase in the number of passing trains increases annoyance up to a certain level, after which a levelling off takes place. Hence, there is no real annoyance in areas exposed to a maximum of 50 train passages/24 hours until the noise level reaches above 85 dB(A). If, on the other hand, train passages are 60 or more, annoyance increases according to the dB(A) level.     

Traffic noise annoyance and speech intelligibility in persons with normal and persons with impaired hearing

Annoyance ratings in speech intelligibility tests at 45 dB(A) and 55 dB(A) traffic noise were investigated in a laboratory study. Subjects were chosen according to their hearing acuity to be representative of 70-year-old men and women, and of noise-induced hearing losses typical for a great number of industrial workers. These groups were compared with normal hearing subjects of the same sex and, when possible, the same age. The subjects rated their annoyance on an open 100 mm scale. Significant correlations were found between annoyance expressed in millimetres and speech intelligibility in percent when all subjects were taken as one sample. Speech intelligibility was also calculated from physical measurements of speech and noise by using the articulation index method. Observed and calculated speech intelligibility scores are compared and discussed. Also treated is the estimation of annoyance by traffic noise at moderate noise levels via speech intelligibility scores.     

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.     

Individual differences in sensitivity to traffic noise: An empirical study

Repeated interview surveys were made in surburban residential areas of London and Liverpool. In both cities two sites were selected according to the noise exposure level (70 or 80 dB(A) 18 hour L₁₀, 1 metre from dwelling facade). The characteristics of the neighbourhoods were similar in all other relevant respects. The initial sample size obtained was 413 which was reduced by 21% when the interviews were repeated. Questions included noise dissatisfaction semantic differential scales, sensitivity to noise scales, environmental sensitivity scales, and classificatory questions. Two smaller random samples of 25 respondents selected from each of the noisy sites were also given two personality tests. It was found that (a) there was no evidence to suggest that the noise annoyance distributions were not normal—more specifically, they did not appear to be bimodal; (b) retest correlation coefficients were low but significant, indicating acceptable reliability of the noise dissatisfaction scale; (c) the reliability of the self-rating noise sensitivity scale was also found to be low but significant; (d) no personality factor was found to relate to annoyance or sensitivity to noise in a consistent manner. A general conclusion drawn was that noise dissatisfaction variation is due more to randomness in response to the measuring instrument than to individual differences in sensitivity to noise.     

Penalty for impulse noise, derived from annoyance ratings for impulse and road-traffic sounds

In the laboratory, four groups of 16 subjects rated the annoyance caused by three types of impulse sounds (regular and irregular gunfire noise and metal-construction noise) and by road-traffic sounds, all presented in background noise. The subjects were presented with the sounds for 5-min periods. The annoyance ratings were related to the A-weighted equivalent level (Leq) of the sounds. From these annoyance ratings a correction term or penalty was derived, which, added to the Leq of the impulse sounds, gives the level of equally annoying traffic noise. The correction was determined for conditions in which (1) only the annoyance caused by specific sources, or (2) the annoyance caused by the total sound (specific source plus background) had to be rated. In addition, the indoor Leq of the constantly present background noise was 35 or 55 dB(A) by and large, the results showed that for lower levels of the sounds an impulse-noise correction of at least 10 dB was required, whereas for higher levels the derived correction was about equal to the ISO/R 1996 penalty of 5 dB. This conclusion, based on the relation between Leq and annoyance ratings, is consistent with the correction based on Leq and the percentage of subjects who reported to be "very much annoyed." For equivalent levels of the impulse sounds at which 33% of the subjects claimed to be very much annoyed, the correction was 10 dB for the conditions in which the indoor Leq of the background noise was 35 dB(A), and 5 dB when this Leq was 55 dB(A).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

多噪声源共同作用下的总烦恼度评价与预测

主要研究了多噪声源共同作用下的混合噪声烦恼度的评价过程与预测方法. 首先, 设计并完成了固定播放时长噪声样本作用下的烦恼度主观评价实验, 获得了人工合成的混合噪声样本作用下的混合噪声烦恼度(亦称总烦恼度) α_T 评价数据与构成混合噪声样本的所有单一噪声样本单独作用时的烦恼度α_i (i=1, 2, 3, ···, K; K为混合噪声样本中单一噪声样本的总数) 评价数据. 随后, 细致分析了两组评价数据之间的关系, 提出在已知α_i 的基础上利用多元线性回归模型预测α_T. 最后, 解决了如何确定模型中对应各α_i的权值ω_i (i=1, 2, 3, ···, K) 的问题. 研究表明, 以所提出的权值确定方法建立的多元线性回归预测模型 能够较为成功地预测混合噪声样本作用下的总烦恼度评价值.