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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Laboratory annoyance and different traffic noise sources

The acute annoyance reaction to different noise sources (lorries, aircraft, mopeds and trains) was investigated in a laboratory experiment. Students were exposed to different noise climates at noise levels 70 and 80 dB(A) for 25 minutes, and their reactions were subsequently assessed by using a questionnaire. Their general sensitivity to noise was also evaluated. The results demonstrated that L_eq gave the best correlation with annoyance. However, lorry noise was found to be less disturbing than aircraft noise at the same L_eq value. This was more pronounced if the different noises were compared at equal peak dB(A) levels. The results suggest that other factors such as the irregularity of the noise or the individual experience of the noise are of importance for the annoyance reaction. A relationship was found between the general annoyance score and annoyance reactions in the laboratory. Questionnaires could thus be a suitable tool for identifying noise sensitive persons.     

Aircraft noise annoyance modeling: Consideration of noise sensitivity and of different annoying acoustical characteristics

Noise annoyance due to aircraft flyover noise was assessed under laboratory conditions. The main objectives of the study were: (i) to identify influential acoustical features of noise annoyance, (ii) to propose noise indices to characterize these acoustical features and (iii) to enhance annoyance models including influential acoustical and non-acoustical variables. Therefore, a verbalization task was performed by the participants of the experiment to collect their whole impression concerning the aircraft flyover noises for which they rated annoyance. This verbalization task highlights that noise annoyance was influenced by three main acoustical features: (i) the spectral content, (ii) the temporal variation and (iii) the perceived sound intensity. Four combinations of noise indices were used to propose multilevel annoyance models, in combination with the individual noise sensitivity. Noise sensitivity was found to highly contribute to annoyance models and should therefore be considered in future studies dealing with noise annoyance due to aircraft noise. Different combinations of noise indices coupled with noise sensitivity were found to be promising for future studies that aim to enhance current annoyance models.     

A reduced-scale railway noise barrier's insertion loss and absorption coefficients: comparison of field measurements and predictions

In situ testing determined the insertion loss (IL) and absorption coefficients of a candidate absorptive noise barrier (soundwall) to abate railway noise for residents of Anaheim, CA. A 4000 m barrier is proposed south of the tracks, but residential areas to the north have expressed concerns that barrier reflections will increase their noise exposure. To address these concerns, a 3.66 m high by 14.6 m long demonstration barrier was built in the parking lot of Edison Field, Anaheim, as part of a public open house, thereby allowing for acoustical measurements.Insertion loss (IL) was measured in third-octave bands assuming 1/2-scale construction. The IL for three, scaled railway noise sub-sources (rail/wheel interface, locomotive, and train horn) was measured at six, scaled distances. The highest total, A-weighted IL, after corrections for finite-barrier and point-source speaker effects was 22 dB(A) for rail/wheel noise, 18 dB(A) for locomotive noise, and 20 dB(A) for train horn noise. These results can be compared favourably to IL predictions made using algorithms from the US Federal Rail Administration (FRA) noise assessment guidelines. For the actual barrier installation, shielded residential receivers located south of the project are expected to see their future noise exposures reduced from an unmitigated 78 CNEL to 65 CNEL.Absorption coefficients were measured using time delay spectrometry. At lower frequencies, measured absorption coefficients were notably less than the reverberation room results advertised in the manufacturer's literature, but generally conformed with impedance tube results. At higher frequencies the correspondence between measured absorption coefficients and reverberation room results was much improved. For the actual barrier installation, unshielded residential receivers to the north are expected to experience noise exposure increases of less than 1 dB(A). This factor of increase is consistent with a finding of no impact when assessed using FRA guidelines for allowable increases of noise exposure.     

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.     

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 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.     

Activity interference and noise annoyance

Debate continues over differences in the dose-response functions used to predict the annoyance at different sources of transportation noise. This debate reflects the lack of an accepted model of noise annoyance in residential communities. In this paper a model is proposed which is focussed on activity interference as a central component mediating the relationship between noise exposure and annoyance. This model represents a departure from earlier models in two important respects. First, single event noise levels (e.g., maximum levels, sound exposure level) constitute the noise exposure variables in place of long-term energy equivalent measures (e.g., 24-hour L_eq or L_dn). Second, the relationships within the model are expressed as probabilistic rather than deterministic equations. The model has been tested by using acoustical and social survey data collected at 57 sites in the Toronto region exposed to aircraft, road traffic or train noise. Logit analysis was used to estimate two sets of equations. The first predicts the probability of activity interference as a function of event noise level. Four types of interference are included: indoor speech, outdoor speech, difficulty getting to sleep and awakening. The second set predicts the probability of annoyance as a function of the combination of activity interferences. From the first set of equations, it was possible to estimate a function for indoor speech interference only. In this case, the maximum event level was the strongest predictor. The lack of significant results for the other types of interference is explained by the limitations of the data. The same function predicts indoor speech interference for all three sources—road, rail and aircraft noise. The results for the second set of equations show strong relationships between activity interference and the probability of annoyance. Again, the parameters of the logit equations are similar for the three sources. A trial application of the model predicts a higher probability of annoyance for aircraft than for road traffic situations with the same 24-hour L_eq. This result suggests that the model may account for previously reported source differences in annoyance.     

Community response to aircraft noise in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi

To formulate Vietnamese and global noise policies, social surveys on community response to aircraft noise and combined noise from aircraft and road traffic were carried out in Ho Chi Minh City from August to September 2008 and in Hanoi from August to September 2009. In total, 1562 and 1397 responses were obtained in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, respectively. The aircraft noise was measured for seven successive days, and the combined noise was measured for 24 h. Aircraft and combined noise exposures ranged from 53 to 71 dB and 73 to 83 dB L_den in Ho Chi Minh City and from 48 to 61 dB and 70 to 82 dB L_den in Hanoi, respectively. The dose–response curve for aircraft noise for Vietnam was established and fitted onto the curve for the European Union. For the same noise exposure, the aircraft noise annoyance in Hanoi was higher than that in Ho Chi Minh City because of the lower background noise level in Hanoi.     

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.     

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.     

The relationship between civil aircraft noise and community annoyance in Korea

Studies of community annoyance caused by civil aircraft noise exposure were carried out in 18 areas around Gimpo and Gimhae international airports in order to accumulate social survey data and assess the relationship between aircraft noise levels and annoyance responses in Korea. WECPNL, adopted as the aircraft noise index in Korea, and the percentage of respondents who felt highly annoyed (%HA) have been used to assess the dose-response of aircraft noise. Aircraft noise levels were measured automatically by airport noise monitoring system, B&K type 3597. Social surveys were carried out to people living within 100 m of noise measurement points. The Questionnaire used in the survey contained demographic factors, noise annoyance, interference with daily activities and health-related symptoms. The question relating to the aircraft noise annoyance was answered on an 11-point numerical scale. The randomly selected respondents who were aged between 18 and 70 years completed the questionnaire by themselves. In total, 705 respondents participated in the questionnaire. The results show that WECPNL, noise metric considering characteristics of event and intrusive noise, is more reasonable than L_dn, noise metric considering total sound, to assess the effects of aircraft noise on health. It is also shown that the annoyance responses caused by aircraft noise in Korea seems higher than those reported in other countries.     

Influence of noise sensitivity on annoyance of indoor and outdoor noises in residential buildings

A survey and a laboratory experiment were conducted to investigate the influence of noise sensitivity on the annoyance caused by indoor residential noises and outdoor traffic noise. Results showed that noise sensitivity significantly influenced the annoyance level caused by both indoor and outdoor noise, consistent with previous studies on transportation noise. Annoyance level was significantly correlated with sensitivity in both the survey (r = 0.42–0.48 and 0.35 for indoor and outdoor noises, respectively) and the laboratory experiment (r = 0.25 and 0.14 for indoor and outdoor noises, respectively), in which noise exposure was controlled at 50 dBA. The correlation coefficient for indoor noise was higher than that for outdoor noise and was also higher than the average values (r = 0.3 and 0.22 for uncontrolled and controlled noise exposures, respectively) calculated using the results of several previous studies on outdoor transportation noise. Sensitivity was found to have a greater influence on the percentage of people who were highly annoyed by the indoor noise than it did on those affected by the outdoor noise.     

Aircraft noise annoyance estimation: UK time-pattern effects

An improvement appears to be possible in estimating UK aircraft noise annoyance. This is based on a more detailed analysis and modelling of the data supporting the present UK aircraft noise policies. There is empirical evidence that people’s real-life annoyance at aircraft noise is in part determined by its time-patterns. People benefit from Heathrow’s regular and predictable alternation cycles on westerly operations, equivalent to an effective dB(A) Leq value for that operational mode some 2-dB less than the measured dB(A) Leq. This correction is statistically controlled for people whose work/business is connected with Heathrow. The implications of a time-pattern correction would be significant for UK airport noise contours.     

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。      

Investigation of the dose-response relationship for road traffic noise in Assiut, Egypt

A field study has been carried out in urban Assiut city, Egypt. The goals of this study are: (1) to carry out measurements to evaluate road traffic noise levels, (2) to determine if these levels exceeds permissible levels, (3) to examine people’s attitudes towards road traffic noise, (4) to ascertain the relationship between road traffic noise levels and degree of annoyance. The measurements indicate that traffic noise noise levels are higher than those set by Egyptian noise standards and policy to protect public health and welfare in residential areas: equivalent continuous A - weighted sound pressure levels (L_A eq) = 80 dB and higher were recorded, while maximum permissible level is 65 dB. There is a strong relationship between road traffic noise levels and percentage of highly annoyed respondents. Higher road traffic noise levels mean that the percentage of respondents who feel highly annoyed is also increased.