Contributors to Neighbour Noise Annoyance

Benz, Sarah; Kuhlmann, Julia; Schreckenberg, Dirk; Wothge, Jördis

doi:10.3390/ijerph18158098

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 2, there was a significant difference between the noise annoyance of subgroup D1 (low noise sensitivity) and subgroup D2 (high noise sensitivity). Noise annoyance of subjects in the high noise sensitivity group was higher than that in the low noise sensitivity group (see Figure 5), which was consistent with the research results from Di [19], Kamp [29], Janssen [24], Benz [30], and Jakovljevic [31] et al Noise sensitivity could be regarded as a physiological or psychological state of the subject which can increase the degree of response to noise. The higher the noise sensitivity score of subjects, the greater the degree of response to a same noise and the higher the noise annoyance of subjects [32].…”

Section: Noise Sensitivitysupporting

confidence: 89%

Influencing Factors Identification and Prediction of Noise Annoyance—A Case Study on Substation Noise

Wang

Yao

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noise-induced annoyance is one person’s individual adverse reaction to noise. Noise annoyance is an important basis for determining the acceptability of environmental noise exposure and for formulating environmental noise standards. It is influenced by both acoustic and non-acoustic factors. To identify non-acoustic factors significantly influencing noise annoyance, 40 noise samples with a loudness level of 60–90 phon from 500–1000 kV substations were selected in this study. A total of 246 subjects were recruited randomly. Using the assessment scale of noise annoyance specified by ISO 15666-2021, listening tests were conducted. Meanwhile, basic information and noise sensitivity of each subject were obtained through a questionnaire and the Weinstein’s noise sensitivity scale. Based on the five non-acoustic indices which were identified in this study and had a significant influence on noise annoyance, a prediction model of annoyance from substation noise was proposed by a stepwise regression. Results showed that the influence weight of acoustic indices in the model accounted for 80% in which the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level and the sound pressure level above 1/1 octave band of 125 Hz were 65% and 15%, respectively. The influence weight of non-acoustic indices entering the model was 20% in which age, education level, noise sensitivity, income, and noisy degree in the workplace were 8%, 2%, 4%, 4%, and 2%, respectively. The result of this study can provide a basis for factors identification and prediction of noise annoyance.

show abstract

Section: Noise Sensitivitysupporting

confidence: 89%

Influencing Factors Identification and Prediction of Noise Annoyance—A Case Study on Substation Noise

Wang

Yao

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There seem to be divergent views with regards to the annoyance caused by chatting among the students as extremely annoyed versus not at all was reported to be 30.1% vs 25.2% for school A, 32.3% vs 31.3% for school B, and 49.4% vs 30.9% for school C. These contrasting results show that the degree of noise annoyance is dependent of individual's state of mind and sensitivity. Thus, what seems highly annoyed could be deemed low annoyance by another person (Benz et al 2021). With regards to noise annoyance due to AC and fans operations, the majority of the students have described it as not at all, with very few people reporting it as extremely annoyed, especially in only schools A (11.4%) and B (7.3%) with no response from school C (Table 3).…”

Section: Subjective Noise Annoyancementioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of outdoor noise-induced health risk in schools located in urbanized arid country

Amoatey

Al-Harthy

Amankona

et al. 2023

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambient noise pollution is deemed as one of the major growing public health issues, especially in developing countries.Therefore, it is crucial to assess the impact of noise pollution on public health. The aim of this study is to investigate the health risk of noise exposure levels in three schools: Kaab Bin Zeyd of Basic Education (School A), Hail Al-Awamour Girls school (School B), and Al-Fikr School (School C) in Muscat, Oman. The study employed a survey of 300 students, dose-response models, and regression models to quantify health risk and to determine the relationship between noise levels and perceived noise annoyance sources. The study found average noise levels (L Aeq ) of school A (70.03 ± 8.21 dBA), school B (69.54 ± 7.75 dBA), and school C (55.95 ± 5.67 dBA) to be higher than WHO's outdoor schools environment standard of 55 dBA and European (EN16798-1) classroom's critical limits of 30-34 dBA. Most of the students from schools A (30.9%), B (33.3%), and C (63%) have reported noise produced from tra c as extremely annoyed compared to aircraft of 15.4%, 11.5%, and 27.2%, respectively. Regression analysis results showed that L Aeq explained most of the changes in variations of perceived tra c annoyance by 48.1%, 12.1%, and 13.2% for schools A (R 2 = 0.481), B (R 2 = 0.121), and C ( R 2 = 0.132), respectively. The health risk assessment results show that the percentage of highly annoyed (%HA) was higher in school A (15.2%), and school B (14.95%), than in school C (8.18%).The estimated highly sleep disturbed (%HSD) based on mean noise levels were almost the same in schools A (15.62%) and B (15.19%) but far higher compared to school C (6.01%). However, there was an association between the mean noise exposure levels and the risk of developing ischaemic heart diseases (IHD) in school A (

show abstract

“…The latter term, ranging from 25 Hz (onethird octave band), is not defined by ISO but is a result of research based upon low-frequency impact sounds 18 where it was found that evaluation from 25 Hz gave stronger correlation to the rated annoyance compared to evaluation from 50 or 100 Hz. Definitions of standardised level difference (D nT ) and standardised impact sound pressure level (L′ nT ), as well as the spectrum adaptation terms, all in one-third octave bands, follow from equations ( 1)- (6).…”

Section: Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies about acoustic comfort in residential buildings have been reported in the literature, often in combination with data about the measured sound insulation. Examples from recent years are the field study in Canada of five multi-unit residential buildings with 50-288 units each, 4 the investigation of acoustic and non-acoustic factors in Korea of four apartment complexes with 400 resident responses in total, 5 the study of neighbour noise annoyance in Germany based upon 1973 completed questionnaires from four geographic areas, 6 the socioacoustic investigation in Norway involving 600 dwellings, 7 and the acoustic comfort investigation in Sweden with 101 building units. 8 Other related examples are the acoustic comfort evaluation in France with multi-storey lightweight buildings, 9 the Finnish studies of occupants' satisfaction with the sound insulation focused on wall constructions, 10 and the Swedish investigation about airborne sound insulation between dwellings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound insulation in multi-family houses: Proposal of single number limits for acoustical protection and comfort

Ljunggren,

Simmons

2023

Building Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, the acoustical quality in apartment housing is studied. The purpose is to find out to what extent occupants are annoyed by indoor noise and to compare the annoyance with measured airborne and impact sound insulation. The occupants in 38 building cases in Sweden, grouped into different construction categories, were asked in a questionnaire to rate their annoyance for a variety of potentially disturbing sound sources. In total, 1230 individual responses were used for the statistical analyses. The result shows that on average, the occupants are quite satisfied and reported low annoyance. This is taken as an indication that the present National legislation for sound insulation, airborne sound insulation included, works well. However, annoyance from footstep of walking neighbours is an exception, causing significantly greater annoyance compared to any other source, especially among occupants in lightweight buildings. The commonly used impact sound insulation descriptors are unable to match subjective experience. In combination with the sensitivity of lightweight floors to low-frequency sounds, improper building designs are likely to result in poor noise protection for the occupants. To overcome this issue, a new single number quantity taking frequencies as low as 25 Hz into account is suggested.

show abstract

Contributors to Neighbour Noise Annoyance

Cited by 16 publications

References 42 publications

Influencing Factors Identification and Prediction of Noise Annoyance—A Case Study on Substation Noise

Influencing Factors Identification and Prediction of Noise Annoyance—A Case Study on Substation Noise

Contribution of outdoor noise-induced health risk in schools located in urbanized arid country

Sound insulation in multi-family houses: Proposal of single number limits for acoustical protection and comfort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About