Search

Populations in cities are projected to increase globally, densifying urban residential environments with both positive and negative effects. Positive social effects are offset by negative health effects however; urban residential noise has been identified in a large number of studies as a significant contributor to social unrest as well as a risk to physiological and psychological health caused by stress, making this topic highly relevant to the discussion on sustainability urban growth. Focusing on the psychological rebound effect of urban residential noise, this paper attempts to explain how and why auditory aspects of the spatial environment negatively influences urban residents. To provide context and to indicate areas in need of improvement, the legislative challenges to be faced are considered, with Sweden as a prime example of a first world country grappling with the effects of increased urban density. Existing building legislation regarding residential noise is considered in relation to studies investigating the effects of residential noise on psychological and physiological health, outlining areas in need of future development. Then, health responses to residential noise are placed in a broader evolutionary context by considering how these effects might be the result of triggered evolutionary mechanisms for keeping population size optimal. Further, the spatial dimension of hearing is discussed with reference to theories of territoriality in environmental psychology and the concept of auditory territoriality is described., Competing Interests: None

Governments all over the world have enacted environmental noise directives and noise control ordinances/acts to protect tranquility in residential areas. However, there is a lack of literature on the evaluation of whether the Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) stipulated in the directive/ordinance/act are actually achievable. The study aimed at measuring outdoor environmental noise levels in Hong Kong and identifying whether the measured noise levels are lower than the stipulated ANLs at 20 categories of residential areas. Data were gathered from a territory-wide noise survey. Outdoor noise measurements were conducted at 203 residential premises in urban areas, low-density residential areas, rural areas, and other areas. In total, 366 daytime hourly Leq outdoor noise levels, 362 nighttime hourly Leq outdoor noise levels, and 20 sets of daily, that is, 24 L(eq,1-)h outdoor noise levels were recorded. The mean daytime L(eq,1-h) values ranged 54.4-70.8 dBA, while the mean nighttime L(eq,1-h) values ranged 52.6-67.9 dBA. When the measured noise levels were compared with the stipulated ANLs, only three out of the 20 categories of areas had outdoor noise levels below ANLs during daytime. All other areas (and all areas during nighttime) were found to have outdoor noise levels at or above ANLs.

Environmental noise remains a complex and fragmented interplay between industrialization, population growth, technological developments, and the living environment. Next to the circulatory diseases and cancer, noise pollution has been cited as the third epidemic cause of psychological and physiological disorders internationally. A reliable and firm relationship between the cumulative health implications with the traffic annoyance and occupational noise has been established. This agenda has called for an integrated, coordinated, and participatory approach to the reliable protection of noise interference. Despite several fragmented policies, legislation and global efforts have been addressed; the noise pollution complaints have been traditionally neglected in developing countries, especially in Malaysia. This paper was undertaken to postulate an initial platform to address the dynamic pressures, gigantic challenges, and tremendous impacts of noise pollution scenario in Malaysia. The emphasis is speculated on the traffic interference and assessment of industrial and occupational noise. The fundamental importance of noise monitoring and modeling is proposed. Additionally, the confronting conservation program and control measure for noise pollution control are laconically elucidated.

Many music organizations are opposed to restrictive noise regulations, because of anxiety related to the possibility of a decrease in the number of adolescents attending music events. The present study consists of two research parts evaluating on one hand the youth's attitudes toward the sound levels at indoor as well as outdoor musical activities and on the other hand the effect of more strict noise regulations on the party behavior of adolescents and young adults. In the first research part, an interview was conducted during a music event at a youth club. A total of 41 young adults were questioned concerning their opinion toward the intensity levels of the music twice: Once when the sound level was 98 dB(A), LAeq, 60min and once when the sound level was increased up to 103 dB(A), LAeq, 60min . Some additional questions concerning hearing protection (HP) use and attitudes toward more strict noise regulations were asked. In the second research part, an extended version of the questionnaire, with addition of some questions concerning the reasons for using/not using HP at music events, was published online and completed by 749 young adults. During the interview, 51% considered a level of 103 dB(A), LAeq, 60min too loud compared with 12% during a level of 98 dB(A), LAeq, 60min . For the other questions, the answers were similar for both research parts. Current sound levels at music venues were often considered as too loud. More than 80% held a positive attitude toward more strict noise regulations and reported that they would not alter their party behavior when the sound levels would decrease. The main reasons given for the low use of HP were that adolescents forget to use them, consider them as uncomfortable and that they never even thought about using them. These results suggest that adolescents do not demand excessive noise levels and that more strict noise regulation would not influence party behavior of youngsters.

The systems of public complaints on environmental noise were reviewed in seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), South-East Europe (SEE), and Newly Independent States (NIS). Public complaints remain an important issue due to differences in public sensitivity to noise and due to several cases where a measurement of noise intensity does not give a satisfying solution to the problem. The unresolved problem remaining in the residential neighborhoods is the noise from pubs and restaurants that are open until late in the night. In our review, we compiled information on the institutions responsible for the implementation of environmental noise legislation and organizations that are responsible for dealing with public complaints. Information on activities for increasing public awareness on hazards rising from environmental noise and the role of civil initiative was explored. In seven countries, and among them, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Poland, the responsibilities and duties are shared among different institutions at national and regional levels, depending on the noise source. The problem of gathering information on complaints and using it for improving the wellbeing and health of citizens remains often difficult and unsolved.

The Dutch government aims at an increase of wind energy up to 6 000 MW in 2020 by placing new wind turbines on land or offshore. At the same time, the existing noise legislation for wind turbines is being reconsidered. For the purpose of establishing a new noise reception limit value expressed in L den , the impact of wind turbine noise under the given policy targets needs to be explored. For this purpose, the consequences of different reception limit values for the new Dutch noise legislation have been studied, both in terms of effects on the population and regarding sustainable energy policy targets. On the basis of a nation-wide noise map containing all wind turbines in The Netherlands, it is calculated that 3% of the inhabitants of The Netherlands are currently exposed to noise from wind turbines above 28 dB(A) at the faηade. Newly established dose-response relationships indicate that about 1500 of these inhabitants are likely to be severely annoyed inside their dwellings. The available space for new wind turbines strongly depends on the noise limit value that will be chosen. This study suggests an outdoor A-weighted reception limit of L den = 45 dB as a trade-off between the need for protection against noise annoyance and the feasibility of national targets for renewable energy.

In the United Kingdom, before the introduction of the various town and country planning acts and associated regulations, landowners were free to use their land in any way they wished, subject only to limitations imposed by lease or covenant and the avoidance of nuisance or trespass against neighbours. Any disputes arising would be resolved by negotiation or via a court of law. Under current planning laws and regulations, local authorities are empowered to impose special conditions or even to refuse development to prevent excessive nuisance, but the resulting noise management solutions are not always optimum from either the noise maker's or the noise exposed's points of view. In addition, the planning system has almost no effect on existing noise. Public inquiries provide a useful mechanism for the investigation of appeals against local authority decisions, or where the government has decided that issues of strategic or national importance need to be fully explored in a public forum. In practice, and largely because of individual disagreement, public inquiries can result in excessive delays while all interested parties are allowed to have their say. There seems to be an increasing consensus that the general inadequacy of existing methods of assessing noise impact is at least partly to blame. The new European Environmental Noise Directive represents a step change towards the imposition of one-size-fits-all regulatory or administrative procedures which should eventually contribute towards the reduction of public inquiry delays, but on the other hand, any weakening of the general principle of basing decisions on 'informed flexibility' will probably have significant negative consequences over the longer term.