European Symposium
Harmonization of European Sound Insulation Descriptors and Classification Standards
Florence, December 14th 2010
QUESTIONNAIRE BASED SURVEY FOR NOISE INDUCED
ANNOYANCE IN URBAN POPULATION
Gordana Ristovska
Institute of public health, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
[email protected]
Abstract
Environmental noise causes considerable disturbance and annoyance in exposed population. Besides the psychosocial effects of noise exposure, there is concern about the impact of noise on public health, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes.
The aim of the study was to assess annoyance in adult population exposed to environmental noise in the capital, Skopje.
Methods. We invited 700 subjects to be interviewed with questionnaire for assessment of noise annoyance, developed according to the ISO/TS-15666. Using a five item
verbal scale and a ten point numerical scale, the interviewed subjects gave answer to the
question related to the extent of annoyance due to different sources over the last 12
months when being home. Five item verbal scale use the verbs not annoyed, very little
annoyed, moderate annoyed, high annoyed and very high annoyed. Answers “high annoyed” and “very high annoyed” were treated as high level of annoyance, answers like
“not annoyed” and “very little annoyed” were treated as not annoyed. On the numerical
scale 0 was equivalent to “not at all annoyed” and 10 was equivalent to “extremely annoyed”. Values from 0-4 meant that they were not annoyed, 5-7 moderately annoyed
and 8-10 highly annoyed.
Results: Analysis of the annoyance level in the whole sample, according to the scale
0-10, has shown that 13% of subjects have reported high level of annoyance, 33.5%
have reported moderate level of annoyance and 53% didn’t feel annoyance. Analysis of
the annoyance level, according to the five verbal scale and according to the noise
sources has shown that most annoyed noise source was noise from construction activities, in 34% of subjects. Road traffic noise caused high level of annoyance in 24% of
Questionnaire based survey for noise induced annoyance in urban population
EAA-COST_2010_14
European Symposium
Florence, December 14, 2010
Gordana Ristovska
subjects, 18 % were annoyed by noise from people gathered in one place, 17% by noise
from restaurants, cafeterias etc. Neighborhood noise was the reason for high annoyance
in 14% of subjects. We found association between exposure to Lday in range 61-65 dBA
and annoyance in exposed population (χ2 =86.14; p=0.000) and Lnight >45 dBA was associated with annoyance (χ2 =58.85 and p = 0.03).
Conclusion: Activities from the neighborhood, like construction activities, road traffic, leisure activities, were the most annoying noise sources because of the lack of national building standards and their implementation. Questionnaire based surveys are
useful in detection of specific noise sources and development of protective measures for
noise reduction. Noise limit values should be considered in urban planning and development of building standards, because they can protect public health.
1. Introduction
Environmental noise causes considerable disturbance and annoyance in exposed
population. Besides the psychosocial effects of noise exposure, there is concern about
the impact of noise on public health, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes.
Adverse health effects of noise exposure can be evaluated by assessing the extent of annoyance in exposed population. According definition, annoyance is feeling of displeasure associated with an agent or condition, known or believed by an individual or group
to adverse affect them. Many studies have shown that equal levels of traffic and industrial noise results in different magnitudes of annoyance [1,2]. According to the curves
synthesized by Schultz and Miedema, the percentage of people highly or moderately
annoyed was related to the day and night continuous equivalent sound level. The percentage of highly annoyed persons in a population started at Ldn value of 42dBA and the
percentage of moderately annoyed persons at Ldn value of 37dBA. The correlation between noise exposure and general annoyance is much higher at the group level than at
individual level. Data from 42 surveys have shown that at the group level about 70% of
the variety of annoyance is explained by noise exposure characteristics [3].
The capital of Macedonia, Skopje, has become a typical urban centre, and a good
example for an urban noise polluted area. According to the measurements of community
noise in Skopje, it was concluded that noise level depends on road traffic flow, number
and speed of vehicles, and as a city with 600 000 citizens there is noise level of 72-78
dBA on the main streets [4].
The aim of the study was to assess annoyance in adult population exposed to environmental noise in the capital, Skopje.
2. Methods and materials
2.1 Noise measurements
Noise exposure assessment was made using indicators Lday and Lnight. Lday presents
long-term exposure to average equivalent energy noise level during the day period from
07-23, encompasses the evening period. Lnight presents long-term exposure to average
equivalent energy noise level during the night period from 23-07. We determined the
measurement points for environmental noise in the central part of the urban centre
Skopje, residential-administrative-market area burdened with traffic and various activities and in suburban entirely residential area, nearby the city. Measurements points were
allocated in different parts of the city, with aim to cover areas with different noise levels
and to determine the noise level where subjects live. Measurement of community noise
Questionnaire based survey for noise induced annoyance in urban population
EAA-COST_2010_14
pag.2
European Symposium
Florence, December 14, 2010
Gordana Ristovska
was performed with the sound analyzer Bruel&Kjaer, type 2260 Investigator, during
one week in spring and one week in autumn, year 2006. We performed four measurements of noise, each one for 15 minutes, during day time period (07h - 23h) for determination of indicator Lday, and two measurements during the night period, from 23-07
for determination of indicator Lnight.
2.2 Sample
The sample for this study was randomly selected from the population who live in
Skopje in the center of the city, nearby streets with heavy traffic, in mixed residentialadministrative – market areas, in suburban areas where we expected low noise level. Including criteria for subjects were age between 18-65 years and at least one year residential period on the current living address. We invited 700 subjects to be interviewed with
questionnaire for assessment of noise annoyance, developed according to the ISO/TS15666 [5]. Using a five item verbal scale and a ten point numerical scale, the interviewed subjects gave answer to the question related to the extent of annoyance due to
different sources over the last 12 months when being home. Five item verbal scale use
the verbs not annoyed, very little annoyed, moderate annoyed, high annoyed and very
high annoyed. Answers “high annoyed” and “very high annoyed” were treated as high
level of annoyance, answers like “not annoyed” and “very little annoyed” were treated
as not annoyed. On the numerical scale 0 was equivalent to “not at all annoyed” and 10
was equivalent to “extremely annoyed”. Values from 0 - 4 meant that they were not annoyed, 5-7 moderately annoyed and 8-10 highly annoyed [6].
3. Results and discussion
The total number of subjects was 510, 243 (47.65 %) were men and 267 (52.35 %)
women. Their mean age was 37.34±14.38 years.
Analysis of annoyance in the total sample, measured on the scale from 0 to 10,
showed that 13 % of the subjects were highly annoyed with noise, 34 % moderately and
53 % not at all. This means that nearly a half of all subjects were annoyed with noise
(Figure 1).
13%
53%
hig h a nnoya nc e
34%
m ode ra te
a nnoya nc e
not a nnoye d
Figure 1 - The level of annoyance in whole sample
Questionnaire based survey for noise induced annoyance in urban population
EAA-COST_2010_14
pag.3
European Symposium
Florence, December 14, 2010
Gordana Ristovska
According to the five-item verbal scale and to noise source, the most annoying was
the noise from construction activities (34 % of the subjects), followed by highly annoying road traffic noise (24 % of the subjects), leisure activities (various entertainment activities in public places) (18 %), and finally by noise from restaurants and cafeterias
(17 %) Neighbourhood noise was the reason for high annoyance in 14 % of the subjects.
Railway and aircraft traffic noise seem not to annoy the subjects at all (Table 1).
Table 1 - The level of annoyance according to noise sources
moderate
annoyance
%
high annoyance
%
51,5
7
56,2
7
65,4
9
70
23,73
24,7
28,82
14,9
17,06
17,45
18,04
11,96
noise from construction
activities
48,2
4
17,45
34,31
noise from leisure activities
industrial noise
58,2
4
81,9
6
23,33
18,43
10,98
7,06
railway noise
99,0
2
0,39
0,59
Noise sources
road traffic noise
neighborhood noise
noise from reastaurants,
cafeterias
noise from children playgrounds
not annoyed
%
Annoyance analysis has shown that 47 % of the subjects were annoyed with noise to
a different degree. This level of annoyance is very similar to other countries, but what
makes our study different is the rating of noise sources in terms of annoyance. It turns
out that the most annoying source are construction activities, even in suburban areas
with low noise level (Lday ≤55dB(A)). According to results form the WHO Large Analysis and Review of European Housing and Health Status (LARES) project conducted in
eight European countries, the most annoying source of noise was traffic, which 14 % of
subjects found highly and 38 % moderately annoying. Neighbourhood was the second
most annoying source of noise, causing high and moderate level of annoyance in 12 %
and 35 % of subjects, respectively [7].
We decided to use weighted daytime and night time noise indicator for relationship
with annoyance, as separate exposure indicators, and may be more appropriate when assessing physiological responses to the noise. In urban settings, common daytime noise
levels range between 45 dB(A) and 75 dB(A), and night time average noise levels for
road traffic are 7 dB(A) to 10 dB(A) lower than daytime average, which is relatively independent of the street traffic volume (1). Lden as integrated noise exposure indicator for
daytime, evening, night time can be weighted or calculated and it is recommended with
Questionnaire based survey for noise induced annoyance in urban population
EAA-COST_2010_14
pag.4
European Symposium
Florence, December 14, 2010
Gordana Ristovska
European legislation for environmental noise. Penalties of 5 dB(A) and 10 dB(A) are
usually given to the evening period and the night period, respectively. In this context,
appears to be a useful noise indicator for decision-making and regulatory purposes, it
can be used for noise mapping and refers normally to the most exposed facade, which
incorporates a certain degree of exposure misclassification regarding cause-effect relationships [8,9].
We tested the association between exposure to different noise levels and annoyance
in the study population. We found a significant association between exposure to Lday in
the range of 61dB(A) to 65 dB(A) and annoyance (chi-square 86.14; p<0.001). We also
found that association between Lnight and annoyance started at levels above 46 dB(A)
(Table 2).
Table 2 - Association between exposure to different noise levels and annoyance
Noise exposure
Lday dB(A)
≤55
56-60
61-65
>65
Noise exposure to
LnightdB(A)
≤45
46-50
51-55
>55
χ2
52,89
27,56
86,14
75,54
2
χ
4,65
58,85
84,84
169,72
χ2 - test
χ2 - тест
p
0,08
0,93
0,000
0,86
p
0,19
0,03
0,000
0,002
It is obvious that individual habituation to noise had influence on public response to
noise. Subjects were already habituated to environmental noise and significant response
was detected in subject group exposed to daytime noise above 60 dB(A), besides the
fact that limit value for annoyance prevention is 55dB(A). Night time noise had also
significant role, especially above 45 dB(A) and it should be seriously considered in investigations of noise effects. This argues in favour of field investigation as the most appropriate to assess annoyance with noise. Case-by-case research is the most appropriate
way to identify noise sources in a specific environment and non-acoustic factors in
community response to noise. The most important non-acoustic factor is individual
noise sensitivity, demographic (age, gender), lifestyle, residence time, previous noise
experience [8, 9]. Therefore we need to further investigate annoyance with noise to
identify additional factors affecting community response to noise. Self-reported annoyance or subjective evaluation of noise response has a much bigger influence on health
than objective noise exposure. Subjects with manifest health problems may be more
likely to give exaggerated answers about their annoyance by traffic noise in the interview, although they were not being stressed by the noise. They may tend to blame their
environment for their health status, hoping that the results of a study might influence future noise policy. Subjects who believe that noise contributes to their health problem
may be more dissatisfied and annoyed with noise [10].
Questionnaire based survey for noise induced annoyance in urban population
EAA-COST_2010_14
pag.5
European Symposium
Florence, December 14, 2010
Gordana Ristovska
4. Conclusion
Activities from the neighborhood, like construction activities, road traffic, leisure
activities, were the most annoying noise sources because of the lack of national building
standards and their implementation. Questionnaire based surveys are useful in detection
of specific noise sources and development of protective measures for noise reduction.
Noise limit values should be considered in urban planning and development of building
standards, because they can protect public health.
5. References
[1] B. Berglund, T. Lindvall, DH. Schwela,“Guidelines for Community Noise”, edited
by WHO (Geneva, 1999)
[2] WHO Regional office for Europe, “Night noise guidelines for Europe”, edited by
WHO (Copenhagen, 2009)
[3] HM. Miedema and H.Vos, “Noise annoyance from stationary sources: relationships
with exposure metric day-evening-night level (DENL) and their confidence
intervals”, J Acoust Soc Am 116, 334-343 (2004)
[4] G. Ristovska, V. Georgiev, D. Gjorgjev, M. Kocubovski, “Risk assessment of noise
pollution in urban centre Skopje with digital modelling”, J Environ Protect Ecol 5,
547-554 (2004)
[5] ISO/TS 15666:2003. Acoustics-Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social
socio-acoustics surveys.
[6] RH. Friis, T. Sellers, “Epidemiology for Public Health Practice 3rd ed”, edited by
Jones and Bartlett (Boston, 2004)
[7] H. Niemann and C. Maschke, “WHO LARES. Final report. Noise effects and
morbidity
“
[displayed
3
June
2009]
Available
at
http://www.euro.who.int/Document/NOH/WHO_Lares
[8] W. Babish, “Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk review and synthesis of
epidemiological studies, dose-effect curve and risk estimation” edited by Umweltbundesamt (Berlin,2006). Available from: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de
[9] E. Ohrstrom, “Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road traffic noiseannoyance, activity disturbances and psycho-social well-being”, J Acoust Soc Am
115, 719-729 (2004)
[10] G. Ristovska, D. Gjorgjev, E. Stikova, V. Petrova, M. Davceva Cakar, “Noise
induced sleep disturbance in adult population: cross sectional study in Skopje urban
centre”, Maced J Med Sci 2(3), 255-260 (2009)
Questionnaire based survey for noise induced annoyance in urban population
EAA-COST_2010_14
pag.6