KTH Centrum för Hållbar Luftfart (CSA)
Workshop om Flygbuller
Måndag 3 Oktober 09.00-13.00 med efterföljande lunch & mingel
Plats: KTH OpenLab, Multihallen, Valhallavägen 79
Why is aircraft noise more annoying than other
transportation noises?
Mats E. Nilsson
Gösta Ekman Laboratory, Department of Psychology
Stockholm University
WHO’s Guidelines for community noise
2000 www.who.int
2011
2011
www.euro.who.int
Traffic Noise and Health
Traffic
noise
Annoyance
Sleep
disturbance
Cardiovascular
disease
Noise annoyance
Individual factors
(noise sensitivity,
attitudes to the source,
age, …)
Perceived
annoyance
Noise at
facade
Activity
disturbance
Self-reported
noise
annoyance
(speech,
concentration,
rest, sleep…)
Acoustic factors
Non-acoustic
exposure factors
(Visual intrusion, odor,
vibration, …)
(quiet side, facade
reduction, window
opening habits, …)
Noise annoyance questionnaire
ISO. (2003). Acoustics-Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socioacoustic surveys. ISO/TS 15666:2003(E). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
”Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home,
how much does noise from …. bother, disturb or annoy you?
Not at all
[ ]
Slightly
Moderately
[ ]
[ ]
Very
[ ]
Extremely
[ ]
MAXFLYG 2013
Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G.
(2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.
Schultz (1978)
Schultz, T. J. (1978). Synthesis of social surveys
on noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 64(2), 377-405.
Kryter (1982)
Kryter, K. D. (1982). Community annoyance from
aircraft and ground vehicle noise. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 72(4), 1222-1242.
See also rebuttals to comments by Schultz
Miedema & Oudshoorn, 2001
Commission of the European Communities, 2002
0
Miedema, & Oudshoorn, (2001). Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 409-416.
CEC. (2002). Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Andel bullerstörda av trafikbuller i svenska storstäder:
Data och prediktion
Andel bullerstörda
Vägtrafikbuller
Spårtrafikbuller
.7
.7
.6
.6
.5
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
Metaanalysprediktion [1]
0
<45
4549
5054
5559
6064
Vägtrafikbuller, LDEN (dB)
Ströningsdata:
Miljöhälsoenkät 2007
N = 2496 (Stockholm,
Göteborg, Malmö)
6569
>70
0
<45
4549
5054
5559
6064
6569
>70
Spårtrafikbuller, LDEN (dB)
Bullerdata:
END kartor
[1] Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001)
Eriksson, et al. (2011)
Proprtion highly annoyedr [%]
Nosie annoyance road
traffic
Road traffic noise [dB LDEN]
Babsich, et al., 2009
proprtion highly annoyed [%]
Is aircraft noise getting more disturbing?
Noise annoyance aircraft
Aircraft noise [dB LDEN]
Babsich, et al., 2009
MAXFLYG 2013
Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G.
(2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.
Trends in aircraft noise annoyance
Janssen et al. (2011). JASA, 129, 1953-1962.
Why is aircraft noise more annoying?
Kryter’s answer:
Kryter, K. D. (1982). Community annoyance from aircraft and ground vehicle noise. Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America, 72(4), 1222-1242.
Noise annoyance and access to quiet facade
Kluizenaar, et al. (2011)
Öhrström, et al. (2006)
Proprtin highly sleep disturbed (%HSD)
Self reported sleep disturbance
35
%
30
Air
25
Road
20
15
Rail
10
5
0
35
40
45
50
55
Traffic noise (dB, Lnight)
Source: Miedema and Oudshoorn, 2003, 2004
60
65
70
75
Jonsson & Sörensen. (1970). Relation
between annoyance reactions and
attitude to source of annoyance. Public
Health Reports, 85, 1070-1074.
Attityder till trafik
41%
44%
5%
1. 113 (20 %, n = 611)
2. 222 (15 %, n = 461)
3. 223 (14 %, n = 442)
…
…
…
…
25. 321 (0.1%, n = 2)
26. 312 (0 %, n =1 )
27. 311 (0 %, n =1 )
52%
46%
27%
7%
10%
68%
Unpublished data from the MAXFLYG study
Model 1: Attitudes influences annoyance
Background
variables
Noise
exsposure
Noise
annoyance
Attitudes to noise
source
Model 2: Annoyance influences attitudes
Background
variables
Noise
exsposure
Noise
annoyance
Attitudes to noise
source
Flygbullerexponering och attityd
”Samhället bör verka för en minskning av …”
1
Alla flygplatser
Andel negativ flygtrafik allmänt
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Flygtrafik
Vägtrafik
0.4
0.3
0.2
Spårtrafik
0.1
0
0
1-2
3-5
6-14
15-29
30-59
>=60
Antal flygbullerhändelser  70 dB LA max,s low
Unpublished data from the MAXFLYG study
Summary
o Aircraft more annoying than road and rail
• The difference seem to be increasing, unclear why
o Why makes aircraft noise more annoying?
• Acoustic factors (quite side)
• Attitudes to the source
Flygbullerstörning och attityd till flygtrafik
1
1
Ej negativ egen flygplats
Negativ egen flygplats
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
1-2
3-5
6-14
15-29
30-59
Antal flygbullerhändelser  70 dB LA max,s low
>=60
Ej negativ flygtrafik
Negativ flygtrafik
0.9
Andel flygbullerstörda uteplats
Andel flygbullerstörda uteplats
0.9
0
1-2
3-5
6-14
15-29
30-59
>=60
Antal flygbullerhändelser  70 dB LA max,s low
4. Vid jämförbar flygbullerexponering är andelen flygbullerstörda markant högre bland
personer med en negativ attityd till flygtrafik jämfört med personer med en mer
positiv attityd. För båda grupperna ses dock ett tydligt och starkt samband mellan
flygbullerexponering och bullerstörning.
MAXFLYG 2013
Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G.
(2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.
MAXFLYG 2013
Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G.
(2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.
Aircraft Noise Annoyance
Aircraft
20 studies, total n = 34 214
Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445
Road traffic Noise Annoyance
Road traffic
26 studies, total n = 21 228
Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445
Railway noise annoyance
Railway
9 studies, total n = 8 527
Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445
Target: 40 dB Lnight
”… to protect the public,
including the most vulnerable
groups such as children, the
chronically ill and the elderly”
Interim target: 55 dB Lnight
”… [if the target] cannot be
achieved in the short term for
various reasons, and where policy
makers choose to adopt a stepwise
approach”
2009
www.euro.who.int