Attitudinal response towards road traffic noise in the industrial town of Asansol, India

Banerjee, Dibyendu; Chakraborty, Subrata; Bhattacharyya, Sidhakam; Gangopadhyay, Aniruddha

doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0247-0

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers studied the impact of environmental noise on exposed population (Ising and Kruppa, 2004;Piccolo et al, 2005;Tang and Wang, 2007;Banerjee, 2008;Banerjee, et al, 2009;Monazzam and Nassiri, 2009;Omidvari and Nouri, 2009), while some others investigated the risk of workers exposed to noise pollution in different working places (Nassiri and Golbabai, 1993;Giardino and Durkt, 1996;Morrison et al, 2003;Yildirim et al, 2007;Roozbahani et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise pollution and its effects on medical care workers and patients in hospitals

Juang

Lee

Yang

et al. 2010

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A BS T RA C T:The objectives of this study are to investigate the levels of noise pollution in some hospitals in Taiwan and to study the effects of noise pollution on the physiological and psychological reactions and annoyance response of medical care staff, patients and visitors in these hospitals. An instrument for the measurement of sound level was used and a self-answered survey questionnaire on noise pollution was administered. Results showed that the daily average sound levels measured inside these hospitals during daytime were between 52.6 and 64.6 decibels. These are higher than the current daytime environmental noise limit of 50 decibels in Taiwan. Most nursing staff members expressed that "talking of visitors or patient's family members" is the major source of noise inside the wards, whereas "talking of visitors or patient's family members" and "children playing" are the two major noise sources outside the wards. However, most patients or visitors claimed that "doors opening or closing" and "patients moaning or crying" are the two major sources of noise inside the wards. "Footsteps," "renovation of hospitals," "talking of visitors or patient's family members," "shouting of nursing staff" and "doors opening or closing" are the five major noise sources outside the wards. To conclude, noise pollution inside and outside the wards either directly or indirectly affects, in a simultaneous manner, the subjective perception of noise, emotions, physiology and experience of noise inside and outside the wards of both the medical care staff and the patients and visitors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise pollution and its effects on medical care workers and patients in hospitals

Juang

Lee

Yang

et al. 2010

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notion that the number and level of noise events in a road traffic noise stream may drive human responses to traffic noise is not new. There have been persistent assertions that the presence of heavy vehicles may separately contribute to annoyance (Langdon, 1976a,b;Bj€ orkman, 1991), and either the number, or proportion, of heavy vehicles in the road traffic stream has been identified as determinants of annoyance responses over and above their contribution to equivalent sound levels (Lercher and Kofler, 1996;€ Ohrstr€ om, 2004;Bannerjee et al, 2009;Dratva et al, 2010)-though Versfeld and Vos (2002) suggest otherwise. Noise events also figure in the Environmental Noise Directive (European Commission, 2002) which requires assessment of L den and L night , but additionally allows the use of noise events as supplementary noise indicators-presumably to limit sleep disturbance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal annoyance responses to a road traffic noise management strategy that reduced heavy vehicles at night

Brown

2015

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A traffic management strategy was designed to reduce trucks using an urban corridor. The intervention had potential to affect night-time truck flows, but did not target truck traffic in the day, or vehicles other than trucks at any hour. A two-year long panel study measured the community's response to this intervention, using five repeated measurements of response. There were significant reductions in the panel's response to noise, both for night-time annoyance and for interference with activities. This was remarkable given that noise monitoring showed that the intervention produced no change in conventional traffic noise indicators. However, there were measureable changes in the number of articulated truck movements at night, and the benefit can be attributed to reduction in the number of noise events from heavy vehicles. The parallel tracking of changes in reported noise effects and the numbers of heavy vehicles in the night hours in this longitudinal study provides strong support to the notion that noise effects at night depend on the number of noise events experienced, not only on the overall level of traffic noise. The latter appear to be unresponsive indicators by which to assess the noise-effect benefit of heavy vehicle reduction strategies.

show abstract

“…Some examples of its use are presented in Langdon (1976aLangdon ( , 1976b, parts I and II); a drawback due to its origins from L eq and L xx is that it becomes representative only when the traffic is flowing. Furthermore, both the TNI and NPL are not sufficiently sensitive to assess the diversity of urban contexts and the different traffic kinematic characteristics, showing a feeble correlation with residents' annoyance (Banerjee, Chakraborty, Bhattacharyya, & Gangopadhyay, 2009). These reasons, as well as the specificity of the traffic conditions in which they have been calibrated, make them inadequate for the assessment of the infrastructure impact and make it impossible to generalize their usability.…”

Section: Strengths and Weaknesses Of The Current Noise Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Transport Noise Indicators

Pronello

Camusso

2012

Transport Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceThe different approaches to noise impact assessment adopted by the individual countries and the scientific community have led to the development of a certain number of indicators, mainly focused on specific transport modes. However, in practice, technicians and decision-makers alike may fail to identify the most appropriate indicators, if they have no specific expertise on environmental noise. This paper presents a review of the main transport noise indicators, both the general acoustic ones and those used for specific transport modes. A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these indicators is provided, as well as a section discussing the framework in which they work, and suggestions for their best use, aimed at assisting decision-makers to ascertain their role in the evaluation process of the transport systems. To this extent, a classification is proposed, supplemented by the DPSIR (driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, responses) approach, in an effort to assess the cause–effect relationship between society and the environment. Decision-makers will also gain insight into the prioritization of the use of the existing indicators in accordance to their own needs, as well as advice on the joint use of socioeconomic variables to fully support their decisions

show abstract

Attitudinal response towards road traffic noise in the industrial town of Asansol, India

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Noise pollution and its effects on medical care workers and patients in hospitals

Noise pollution and its effects on medical care workers and patients in hospitals

Longitudinal annoyance responses to a road traffic noise management strategy that reduced heavy vehicles at night

A Review of Transport Noise Indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About