Search

Noise annoyance may reflect a pro-participatory attitude towards public information and consultation according to the European Environmental Noise Directive. However, noise annoyance is also indicative of a stress response to perceived uncontrollable noise exposure. Using cross-sectional data on a sample of elderly citizens (n = 1772), we investigated whether the value residents ascribed to being able to control noise exposure at home moderated the potential indirect effect of road traffic noise on annoyance through perceived noise control. Our results confirmed the presence of such a moderated mediation, which may justify studying the impact of residents' valuing perceived noise control on participation readiness., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.)

Background: Disturbance by traffic noise can result in health problems in the long run. However, the subjective perception of noise plays an important role in their development., Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine if speed cameras are able to reduce subjective traffic noise disturbance of residents of high-traffic roads in Luebeck?, Methods: In August 2012 a speed camera has been installed in 2 high-traffic roads in Luebeck (IG). Residents living 1.5 km in front of the installed speed cameras and behind them received a postal questionnaire to evaluate their subjective noise perception before (t0), 8 weeks (t1) and 12 months (t2) after the installation of the speed camera. As controls (CG) we asked residents of another high-traffic road in Luebeck without speed cameras and residents of 2 roads with several consecutive speed cameras installed a few years ago. Furthermore, objective measures of the traffic noise level were conducted., Results: Response rates declined from 35.9% (t0) to 27.2% (t2). The proportion of women in the CG (61.4-63.7%) was significantly higher than in the IG (53.7-58.1%, p<0.05), and responders were significantly younger (46.5±20.5-50±22.0 vs. 59.1±17.0-60.5±16.9 years, p<0.05). A reduction of the perceived noise disturbance of 0.2 point, measured on a scale from 0 (no disturbance) to 10 (heavy disturbance), could be observed in both IG and CG. Directly asked, 15.2% of the IG and 19.3% of the CG reported a traffic noise reduction at t2. The objective measure shows a mean reduction of 0.6 dB at t1., Conclusion: The change of noise level of 0.6 dB, which could only be experienced by direct comparison, is in line with the subjective noise perception. As sole method to reduce traffic noise (and for health promotion) a speed camera is insufficient., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Research on systematic noise effects started in Germany back in the fifties with basic experimental studies on humans. As a result, noise was classified as a non-specific stressor, which could cause an ergotropic activation of the complete organism. In the light of this background research a hypothesis was proposed that long-term noise exposure could have an adverse effect on health. This hypothesis was further supported by animal studies. Since the sixties, the adverse effects of chronic road traffic noise exposure were further examined in humans with the help of epidemiological studies. More epidemiological aircraft noise studies followed in the 1970s and thereafter. The sample size was increased, relevant confounding factors were taken into account, and the exposure and health outcomes were investigated objectively and with higher quality measures. To date, more than 20 German epidemiological traffic noise studies have focused on noise-induced health effects, mainly on the cardiovascular system. In particular, the newer German noise studies demonstrate a clear association between residential exposure to traffic noise (particularly night noise) and cardiovascular outcomes. Nevertheless, additional research is needed, particularly on vulnerable groups and multiple noise exposures. The epidemiological findings have still not been fully considered in German regulations, particularly for aircraft noise. The findings, however, were taken into account in national recommendations. The Federal Environment Agency recommends noise rating levels of 65 dB(A) for the day and 55 dB(A) for the night, as a short-term goal. In the medium term, noise rating levels of 60 / 50 (day, night) should be reached and noise rating levels of 55 / 45 in the long run.

The German transport and personal protective equipment (PPE) technical committees of the German Social Accident Insurance have laid down criteria, which have since become established, for hearing protectors to be used in railway systems and road traffic in Germany: only hearing protectors which do not significantly impair the audibility of auditory warning signals may be used. In addition, the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (BGIA) has proposed a simple criterion for the selection of hearing protectors for workplaces outside railway systems and road traffic which perform well with regard to signal audibility (general), speech intelligibility, and perception of informative operating sound (AIP). This criterion is based upon the research carried out in the field of signal audibility in railway systems and road traffic and upon an additional study. It has been established by the German PPE technical committee and is presented here.

Traffic noise (road noise, railway noise, aircraft noise, noise of parking cars), is the most dominant source of annoyance in the living environment of many European countries. This is followed by neighbourhood noise (neighbouring apartments, staircase and noise within the apartment). The subjective experience of noise stress can, through central nervous processes, lead to an inadequate neuro-endocrine reaction and finally lead to regulatory diseases. Within the context of the LARES-survey (Large Analysis and Review of European housing and health Status), noise annoyance in the housing environment was collected and evaluated in connection with medically diagnosed illnesses. Adults who indicated chronically severe annoyance by neighbourhood noise were found to have an increased health risk for the cardiovascular system and the movement apparatus, as well as an increased risk of depression and migraine. Furthermore adults with chronically strong annoyance by traffic noise additionally showed an increased risk for respiratory health problems. With regards to older people both neighbourhood and traffic noise indicated in general a lower risk of noise annoyance induced illness than in adults. It can be assumed that the effect of noise-induced annoyance in older people is concealed by physical consequences of age (with a strong increase of illnesses). With children the effects of noise-induced annoyance from traffic, as well as neighbourhood noise, are evident in the respiratory system. The increased risk of illness in the respiratory system in children does not seem to be caused primarily by air pollutants, but rather, as the results for neighbourhood noise demonstrate, by emotional stress.

Traffic noise (road, train and flight noise, and the noise of parking cars), is the dominant source of annoyance in the living environment of many European countries. This is followed by neighbourhood noise (neighbouring apartments, staircases and noise within the apartment). The subjective experience of noise stress can, through central nervous processes, lead to an inadequate neuro-endocrine reaction and finally to regulation diseases. Within the context of the LARES-survey, noise annoyance within the everyday living environment was collected and evaluated in connection with medically diagnosed illnesses. Adults who indicated chronically strong annoyance due to neighbourhood noise were found to have an increased health risk in the cardiovascular system, the movement apparatus as well as depression and migraine. For adults with chronically strong annoyance caused by traffic noise, the risks to the respiratory system also increased. In older people, both neighbourhood and traffic noise indicated, in general, a lower risk of noise annoyance induced illness than in adults. It can be assumed that the effects of noise induced annoyance in older people is concealed by the physical consequences of age (with a strong increase in illnesses). With children, the effects of noise induced annoyance from traffic as well as neighbourhood noise is evident in the respiratory system. The increased illness risks in the respiratory system in children do not seem to be caused primarily by air pollutants but rather, as with case of neighbourhood noise, though emotional stress.

In preparation of the revised edition of the Air Traffic Noise Act the Federal Environmental Agency formulated targets for aircraft noise control. They were prepared oriented to the Federal Immission Control Act. The assessment periods were chosen analogously to the regulations on other traffic noise sources (rail traffic, road traffic). The control targets cover the following affected areas * aural, extra-aural health * night's sleep * annoyance * communication * recreation Considerable nuisance can be avoided by limiting the exposure to aircraft noise(outside) to equivalent levels below 55 dB(A) by day and 45 dB(A) at night, and impairment of health can be avoided by limiting the exposure to aircraft noise (outside) to equivalent levels below 60 dB(A) by day and 50 dB(A) at night.

Disturbing effects of aircraft noise depend on the time of day at which the sound sources emerge. The reason can be seen in different human activities which vary qualitatively throughout the day. Especially in the evening and during the night people are more sensitive against noise induced disturbances which is a result of several field studies. Additionally there exists empirical evidence that human performance behaviour profits by keeping the night period free of sound exposure. As a consequence of these findings it is discussed whether the existing air traffic should be rescheduled to the daytime. It is argued that not only noise rescheduling needs to be considered, but also the spatial redistribution of air traffic volume. In using a mix of rescheduling techniques and administrative possibilities, significant reductions of aircraft noise exposure can be achieved.

While looking for enough living quarters for the town people regional planners are often confronted with high levels of noise due to traffic, highways and railways near the planning area. This may change or even stop the procedure of town planning. Generally, health authorities--who are more or less involved in the process of planning--should take the chance to demand compatibility of special planning with health care regarding noise. However, most guidelines on health-compatible noise levels are not legally binding. This paper describes the variety of health problems accompanied by moderate to high levels of noise. In regions with traffic noise problems efforts should be directed at maximum health compatibility coupled to highly imaginative planning. It is suggested that levels of noise of 55 dB(A) (daytime) and of 45 dB(A) (nighttime) should be tolerated near to the building. This would ensure tolerable levels of noise of 35 dB(A) (daytime) and of 30 dB(A) (nighttime) in the dwellings. Examples of different arrangements of buildings are shown. They demonstrate that these tolerable noise levels could even be observed in areas with traffic problems. It mostly depends on the planner's imagination whether the need for dwelling houses in problem areas could be met in keeping with health demands.