Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Review

Annoyance and other reaction measures to changes in noise exposure — A review

H.E. Laszlo a, E.S. McRobie a, S.A. Stansfeld b, A.L. Hansell a,⁎
a
Imperial College London, MRC-HPA Centre for Environment and Health, St Mary's Campus, Norfolk Place, London, W2 1PG, UK
b
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine & Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

H I G H L I G H T S

► Systematically reviewed studies on human reactions to changed noise conditions.

► Studies were methodologically diverse and it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis.
► The most commonly studied outcomes were annoyance and sleep disturbance.
► Non-acoustical factors play an important role in annoyance ratings in changed noise conditions.
► Studies investigating impacts on health endpoints (e.g. blood pressure) in changed noise situations are needed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Noise is increasingly recognised as a potentially important environmental pollutant but most
Received 30 April 2012 studies on human responses to noise exposure relate to steady state situations. Effects may differ when
Received in revised form 29 June 2012 noise changes rapidly, e.g. after noise mitigation interventions or with changes in road or airport configura-
Accepted 30 June 2012 tions.
Available online 17 August 2012
Methods: A systematic review of studies on human reactions to changes in environmental noise exposures
published from 1980 to March 2011 was conducted.
Keywords:
Noise
Results: 41 papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. The most commonly studied outcomes were annoyance
Annoyance (23 papers) and sleep disturbance (11 papers). Other reactions were well-being, activity disturbance and
Sleep disturbance use of living environment. No studies including physiological or disease measures were identified. The
Modifying factors most commonly used study design was a written survey. Studies were methodologically diverse and it
Health was not possible to conduct a formal meta-analysis. Annoyance was not necessarily decreased by reducing
Epidemiology noise exposure. Non-acoustical factors influenced annoyance ratings and some of these were not identical
to those in steady state conditions. There was insufficient evidence to recommend sleep disturbance as an
alternative measure of reactions in changed noise conditions.
Conclusions: Surveys of health effects in changed noise situations should be conducted both before and
after the change. Annoyance as a reaction indicator should be evaluated with caution as non-acoustical
factors play an important role in annoyance ratings. Technical interventions reducing noise levels may
therefore not have impacts on annoyance proportionate to their impacts on sound levels. Further studies,
investigating impacts on health endpoints (e.g. blood pressure) in changed noise situations are needed.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
1.1. Measuring annoyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
1.2. Non-acoustical factors affecting annoyance rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
2.1. Study search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
2.2. Study selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
2.3. Data extraction and quality assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7594 3344; fax: +44 20 7594 0768.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H.E. Laszlo), [email protected] (E.S. McRobie), [email protected] (S.A. Stansfeld), [email protected] (A.L. Hansell).

0048-9697/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.112
552 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562

3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
3.1. Annoyance studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
3.2. Annoyance modifiers specific to changed noise conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
3.3. Study design issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
3.4. Reaction measures other than annoyance in changed noise conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
4.1. Annoyance as the main reaction indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
4.1.1. Factors affecting annoyance in changed noise and steady state situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
4.1.2. Factors not influencing noise annoyance in either steady state or changed noise conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
4.1.3. Factors influencing annoyance specific to changed noise conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
4.2. Other reaction measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
4.3. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
4.4. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560

1. Introduction the issues involved have been discussed by Bodin et al. (2012).
Meta-analyses of exposure–response data measured by various
There is increasing evidence that in (assumed) steady state con- questionnaires in different countries show that annoyance in rela-
ditions environmental noise exposure is associated with various tion to environmental noise generally increases with exposure
adverse physiological and psychological health endpoints (WHO, (Fidell, 2003; Miedema and Vos, 1998). In addition, annoyance may
2011). Most evidences to date relate to cardiovascular disease, hyper- not be stable over time; some studies have found that annoyance relat-
tension, sleep disturbance and annoyance. Dose–response curves de- ing to a given aircraft noise level has increased over the last decades
rived from meta-analyses have been established for road traffic noise (Babisch et al., 2009; Brink et al., 2008; Guski, 2004; Janssen et al.,
and myocardial infarction (Babisch, 2008), aircraft noise and hyperten- 2011; Masurier et al., 2007) and is now greater than predicted by the
sion (Babisch and van Kamp, 2009) and road traffic noise and hyperten- EU standard curves (EU, 2002).
sion (van Kempen and Babisch, 2012). Synthesis curves have been
derived to predict the percentage of annoyed subjects (Miedema
1.2. Non-acoustical factors affecting annoyance rating
and Vos, 1998; Schultz, 1978) and self-reported sleep disturbance
(Miedema and Vos, 2007). However, there are few studies evaluat-
Annoyance rating does not depend solely on noise level experi-
ing effects of increases or decreases in noise level on human reac-
enced but also on non-acoustical factors (Job, 1988a). The actual
tions and health. This would be of particular interest to policy
noise level has been found to explain only 10–25% of an individual re-
makers in evaluating noise interventions such as installation of
action to noise (Job, 1996). Further, it has been suggested that annoy-
double- or triple-glazing, and changes in road traffic or airport
ance reactions for those exposed to changes in noise levels might be
configuration.
greater or smaller than those predicted by the steady-state expo-
There are different ways to measure human reaction to noise. The
sure–response curves (Brown and van Kamp, 2005, 2008, 2009a,
most widely used design is a population survey, collecting informa-
2009b; Horonjeff and William, 1997; Huybregts, 2003; Job, 1988b).
tion on self-reported health endpoints, annoyance, well-being or dis-
Brown and van Kamp (2009a) have presented a quantitative display
satisfaction. Questionnaires have the advantage of being generally
of the size of the change effect in different studies — although not a
quick, cheap and easy to administer. While standardised question-
formal meta-analysis, presumably due to the heterogeneity of studies
naires are available for annoyance (ISO, 2003) and noise sensitivity
conducted. They suggested that one of the explanations for the excess
(Weinstein, 1978), these subjective measures are prone to variability
response is a change in variables that modify the exposure–response
due to various factors that present challenges when assessing causal-
relationship with annoyance before and after the change.
ity (Job and Sakashita, 2008). Objective measures (e.g. measured
Effect modifiers or moderator variables are terms used for factors
blood pressure, EEG brain signals or heart rate variability) are more
that affect the direction or strength of the relation between dependent
expensive and complex to administer, but less prone to subjective
variables, such as annoyance or blood pressure and the independent
fluctuations and easier to standardise especially in laboratory envi-
variable, i.e. noise. Modifiers have been categorised in various ways in
ronments. For example, it has been found that subjective report of
previous reviews (Fields, 1993; Guski, 1999; Job, 1988a; Miedema and
nocturnal awakenings is underestimated compared with the objec-
Vos, 1999). In this review, we group them as demographical, personal,
tively assessed awakenings (Pirrera et al., 2010).
social and situational factors (Table 1). For example, length of residency
may be important as noise sensitive individuals may leave after an in-
1.1. Measuring annoyance crease in noise levels; factors such as adaptation to a certain noise
level or expectations people have regarding insulation measures may
Annoyance is one of the most commonly studied effects of envi- influence the (perceived) effectiveness of noise insulation (Koehler et
ronmental noise (Berglund et al., 1999). It can be viewed as an indica- al., 2006). However, there is currently no systematic review of the effect
tor of negative reactions to noise (Job, 1988a) and also as a well-being of modifying variables on annoyance in varying noise exposures.
issue (Dratva et al., 2010). Furthermore, it may act as a mediator in The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly to identify and classify factors
the causal chain of noise and health (Babisch, 2002, 2004). A ques- that influence annoyance ratings in changed noise conditions in order
tionnaire set by the Community Response to Noise Team of ICBEN is a to improve the methodologies of future noise intervention studies; sec-
commonly used tool to evaluate the subjective annoyance due to ondly, to systematically review the evidence on human reactions to
noise (ISO, 2003). A detailed analysis of annoyance and the instruments changes in environmental noise exposures to identify alternatives to
used to measure it is beyond the scope of this review, but some of annoyance as measured endpoints.
 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562 553

Table 1 performed. The search terms were noise, change, reaction, perception,
Demographical, personal, social and situational factors affecting annoyance in steady state
response, annoyance, human community, individual, air, traffic, and
noise conditions (light grey background — not annoyance modifiers in an important
extent; striped background — weak effect on annoyance; dark grey background — important rail joined by Boolean operators using the following combinations:
annoyance modifier; and white background — not enough evidence/mixed evidence).

Demographical Personal Social Situational

((changed OR changing OR change) AND noise AND (reaction OR
perception OR response) AND (human or community or individual)
Age (Bluhm et al., Sensitivity to noise General evaluation of
2004; Fields, 1992, (Job, 1988a; Fields, noise source (Guski,
Distance from
AND (air OR traffic OR road OR rail))
1993; Miedema and 1993; Guski, 1999; 1999; Schreckenberg
source ((changed OR changing OR change) AND noise AND (annoyance)
Vos, 1999) Miedema and Vos, et al., 1998)
1999;Vastfjall, 2002)
AND (human or community or individual) AND (air OR traffic
Attitudes to the noise OR road OR rail)).
source (Job, 1988a)
− Fear of source
Spatial factorsa
(Fields, 1993; Guski,
− Type of area 2.2. Study selection
1999; Miedema and
Gender (Bluhm et al., Vos, 1999) Trust or misfeasance − Reaction
with authorities measured
2004; Fields, 1992) − Feeling that
(Guski, 1999) indoor/outdoor
annoyance Seven inclusion criteria were applied in study selection (see Appendix
is preventable (Fields,
1993) Table A). The search focused on studies that measured community or in-
dividual reactions in changed noise conditions. Various noise interven-
Temporal factors:
time of the day tions such as insulation, barriers and changes in runway configuration
(Bradley, 1979;
Hume et al., 2002,
were screened. Papers that contained no original data were excluded.
Type of housing
Coping (Guski, 1999)
History of noise
exposure (Guski,
2003) The selection of studies was conducted in two steps: first the title and ab-
(Fields, 1992)
1999) Meteorological stracts of all records were checked; then the potential relevant papers
conditions (Fields,
2004; Griffiths et were retrieved, read in full by one reviewer (HL) and assessed against
al., 1980; Miedema
et al., 2005) the inclusion criteria.
Length of
Previous
residency (Bluhm et Expectations (Guski,
experience with the 2.3. Data extraction and quality assessment
al., 2004; Fields, 1999)
1992) areaa

Dwelling
The data extraction using a standardised format was completed
orientation (Bluhm by two authors (HL, EM), with comments from another author
et al., 2004;
Education (Bluhm et (AH). Each study was summarised in a tabular form by extracting in-
Lercher, 1996;
al., 2004; Fields,1992,
Ohrstrom, 1991;
1993; Miedema and
Ohrstrom et al., formation on study population, study design, noise source, noise ex-
Vos, 1999)
2006, 2007; posure, direction of change in noise exposure, reason for change in
Rylander and
Bjorkman, 2002) noise exposure, measures of response, method of measure of the re-
sponse, confounding factors and conclusion. Disagreements between
Home ownership Hours spent at
(Fields, 1992; home (Fields, 1993; the reviewers were resolved by consensus. The study quality was
Miedema and Miedema and Vos,
Vos,1999) 1999) assessed by evaluating the risk of bias including selection bias and
reporting bias, based on guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration
Employment (Fields, Sound insulation of
1992) the property (http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/).
(Fields, 1993)
For annoyance papers we examined all identified demographical,
No. of people in the Media coveragea personal, social and situational factors affecting annoyance in steady
household (Miedema
and Vos, 1999) state condition to see if these were also modifiers in changed noise
Socioeconomic Interviewing mode conditions.
status (Fields, 1992) (Fields, 1993)

Use of mode of 3. Results

transportation
(Miedema and Vos,
1999)
The database literature search yielded 439 records (Web of Science
Satisfaction with 236, Pubmed 69, Embase 134). Based on their abstracts 87 records
residence (Bluhm et
al., 2004) were found to be possibly relevant and retrieved (Fig. 1). After full read-
aFactors are discussed in relation to changed noise conditions. ing, 46 papers were excluded (Appendix Table B). In case of duplicate
publications we excluded the older and/or conference proceeding in fa-
vour of peer-reviewed publications. We could not retrieve one paper
(Fidell and Pearsons, 2003).
2. Methods Forty-one papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. These exam-
ined (1) annoyance (2) activity disturbance, (3) physiological and
A systematic review was carried out, informed by the Meta-analysis psycho-social well being, and (4) use of living environment.
of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines (Stroup The majority of studies considered annoyance as a main indica-
et al., 2000), and the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines (http://www. tor of reactions to changed noise conditions (23 papers). Eighteen
cochrane-handbook.org/). papers considered other reaction measures such as physiological
and psychological well-being including sleep disturbance (eleven
papers — Amundsen, 2007; Eberhardt and Akselsson, 1987; Fidell,
2.1. Study search et al., 2000, 2002; Hofman et al., 1995; Nilsson and Berglund,
2006; Ohrström and Björkman, 1983; Tulen et al., 1986; Wilkinson
The electronic databases Web of Science, PubMed and Embase were and Campbell, 1984; Öhrström and Skånberg, 2004; Öhrström,
searched from 1980 to March 2011 to identify relevant articles written 2004a), three papers examined other well-being indicators (Hume et
in English. In addition, the reference lists from relevant original research al., 2004; Stansfeld et al., 2009; Öhrström, 2004b), five publications ex-
and review articles and conference proceedings (Inter-Noise 2001–02, amined activity disturbance (Fidell et al., 2002; Moehler et al., 1997;
2004–05, 2007–08, '10) were reviewed. A Google search was also Nilsson and Berglund, 2006; Zusman, 2007; Öhrström, 2004b) and
554 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562

three papers looked at use of living environment (Krog et al., 2004, The identified studies did not present the impact of some demo-
2010; Öhrström, 2004b). Some papers presented more than one reac- graphic variables (see Table 1) such as age, gender, type of dwelling,
tion measure (Table 2). The studies were generally judged as unknown number of hours spent at home, or neighbourhood noise on annoy-
risk of bias due to lack of information given in the papers (Appendix ance although some studies adjusted for these.
Table C). However, some studies investigated social and personal factors — such
Due to large variation in study set-ups (i.e. different noise source, as noise sensitivity, attitude to the noise source (i.e. fear of the source or
different noise metrics used, etc.), it was not possible to conduct a feeling that annoyance is preventable) or misfeasance (here, belief that
meta-analysis so a narrative review was conducted. the noise could be reduced, but that those in authority do nothing about
it). Au et al. (2005) found that before the opening of a railway line exten-
sion, people's annoyance levels were determined by their perceived nois-
3.1. Annoyance studies iness and their noise sensitivity. However, after the opening of the
railway, people's attitude towards the railway became an annoyance pre-
There was large heterogeneity in the studies in relation to source of dictor. Schreckenberg et al. (2001) showed that those residents who
the noise, type of intervention and exposure assessment (see Appendix mistrusted the intention of planners before changes were introduced in
Table D). Nine of the 23 papers identified concerned aircraft noise, eight a railway line had more negative expectations with regard to their future
traffic noises whose source composition was not defined, but possibly annoyance. Moreover, the greater the mistrust the more the expected fu-
focused on road traffic noise, four concerned railway noise and three ture disturbance exceeded the actual disturbance. One study (Houthuijs
road traffic noises (of the latter one paper looked at both railway and et al., 2007) investigated the impact of these modifying factors according
road traffic noises). All railway studies evaluated the effect of railway to the level of noise exposure before and after a new airport runway and
extension (new line opening), while studies on aircraft noise investigat- found that attitude towards the authorities and the airport, anxiety, ex-
ed the effect of a new runway (2 papers), temporary closure and reloca- pectation about future noise levels, and noise sensitivity contributed up
tion of runway (4 papers), operational changes (1 paper) and the to 43% to the burden of severe annoyance. Attitude and noise sensitivity
replacement of old jets (1 paper). In traffic noise studies, the reasons became important when aircraft noise levels are above 45 dB while
for a change in noise exposure were new road openings (6 papers), in- such a threshold was not found for anxiety and expectations about future
sulation (2 papers) and noise barrier erection (2 papers). In annoyance noise situations. Benefit from the noise source reduced annoyance in a
studies, the change in noise exposure varied from a decrease of study about the effect of a new railway line extension; people who used
19 dB(A) to an increase of 20.3 dB(A). Various measured and modelled a new railway line more frequently were more tolerant to the noise
noise metrics were used including Leq, L10, LDEN, Ldn. As in steady-state impact of the new line (Chan and Lam, 2008).
conditions, annoyance was found to be modified by some non- People's annoyance further depends on the situation when the noise
acoustical factors but the extent of this was not necessarily the same exposure occurs. Dwelling orientation towards noise source was investi-
after the change. Kastka et al. (1995) found that before erecting a gated in a study of insulation from traffic noise in Norway; Amundsen
noise barrier, traffic noise level explained 28% of the variance of the an- et al. (2011) found that where the noise level on the most exposed fa-
noyance response before but only 4% after. cade of the house was about 65 dB, respondents with a bedroom on

References identified in
database search (n=439)
Web of Science: 236
PubMed: 69
Embase: 134 References excluded (n=352)
Duplicates
Irrelevant references (i.e. not
environmental noise, steady state
noise conditions, community/
individual response was not
measured, studies not with
humans)
Distinct references (n=87)
Web of Science: 16
PubMed: 4
Embase: 6
Conference proceedings: 11
Reference list screening: 40
Google search: 10 References excluded (n=46)
Study did not measure the change in
noise exposure: 21
The change in noise exposure was not
due to noise barrier/insulation/ etc
described in inclusion criteria: 1
No information about reaction
measure:1
The response was not measured for
Human reactions in changed the same population: 3
noise conditions (n=41) Paper is not in English: 3
Annoyance: 23 Review paper with no original
Other measures: 18 research: 13

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of study selection process.

 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562 555

the ‘quiet’ side were significantly less annoyed when indoors than those reactions was still apparent after 7 to 9 years and Kastka et al.
who sleep in the ‘noisy’ side (60% compared to 80%, respectively). How- (1995) that this persisted after 12 years.
ever, Griffiths and Raw (1986) found no excess dissatisfaction in a sub- It has been suggested (Brown et al., 1985) that adaptation may occur
set of houses that had a newly opened motorway at the rear compared to the new noise levels in a changed noise situation, resulting in a reduc-
to those households that faced towards the new motorway. Distance tion in reported annoyance over time, but this was not confirmed by the
from the source was investigated by Mital and Ramakrishnan (1997), studies identified in this review. Fidell et al. (1985) found no significant
who found that after erecting a noise barrier, only those residents difference in annoyance response two weeks after the change took
who lived close to it were satisfied with the installation. However, it is place; the authors suggested that at least a few weeks must elapse be-
worth noting that the reduction in noise closer to the barrier (11 dB fore short term attitudes about changes in noise exposure develop
(A) measured 100 m from the barrier) was significantly greater into long term attitudes i.e. adaptation. However, no adaptation was ob-
(pb 0.01) than reductions elsewhere (on average 5.5 dB(A)). A served following the opening of a new major road in the U.S. over a pe-
distance-dependent annoyance reaction was also observed by Kastka riod of 4 to 16 months (Weinstein, 1982). Brown (1987) also found no
et al. (1995), who found that road noise barriers produced high annoy- evidence for adaptation to increased road traffic noise between 7 and
ance reduction at near sites but had only minimal effects beyond 150 m 19 months, although he noted that adaptation might have occurred
from the highway. However, this was not stable over time and correla- shortly after the change in traffic noise exposure.
tions between annoyance of residents and their distance to the highway Subjective reactions to increased or decreased noise may be affect-
were lower 12 years after the erection of noise barrier than before the ed by media coverage and the availability and accessibility to informa-
situation, while the relation between the distance and noise level tion about the planned changes. In a railway extension study, both
remained relatively stable. Time of the day and seasonal dependent an- the information provided and the frequency of using the new line
noyance reactions to changed noise conditions (Brink et al., 2008; significantly affected the respondents' annoyance reactions, but no in-
Hume et al., 2004) have been observed. Significant differences in the teraction was observed between the two factors investigated (Chan
number of complaints per month, day-of-the-week and hour-of- and Lam, 2008; Lam and Au, 2008). The study group receiving informa-
the-day before and after opening a new airport runway were found by tion about noise mitigation measures that had already been
Hume et al. (2004). implemented had significantly lower annoyance ratings than a com-
Nilsson and Berglund (2006) found different annoyance ratings parison group receiving information about possible reduction methods
depending on whether the annoyance was measured indoors or outdoors. that had not yet been implemented and these differences remained
Although a noise barrier erection reduced noise annoyance up to 100 m significant one month after the different information sheets were pro-
from the main road, annoyance (% annoyed and % highly annoyed) vided (Chan and Lam, 2008). Additionally people who used the line
outdoors was much greater than predicted from Miedema and more frequently had lower noise annoyance ratings. Hume et al.
Oudshoorn's (2001) widely-used noise–annoyance relationship curves (2004) found that increased media cover of the opening of a new rail-
both before and after the erection of the barrier. In contrast, indoor way invoked negative reactions and suggested this may have been due
noise annoyance was significantly reduced in the ‘after’ study and was to a sensitization process. Fidell et al. (1985) hypothesised that public
well predicted by the synthesised curves. The survey method (telephone awareness of an upcoming change may be enough to evoke an
vs. questionnaire) was not found to influence annoyance ratings in over-reaction even before the change takes place. However, Brink et
changed noise conditions (Brink et al., 2008). al. (2008) found no evidence that public awareness resulted in statisti-
cally different annoyance ratings after a configuration change in airport
traffic.
3.2. Annoyance modifiers specific to changed noise conditions
3.3. Study design issues
Some factors are annoyance modifiers only in changed noise con-
ditions including activity disturbance, the method of noise reduction, Study design and timing may affect observed changes in reported
prior experience of the ‘before’ situation and media coverage of the annoyance and other subjective responses, resulting in recall bias.
change. Brown (1987) found that, following an increase in noise levels, retro-
For activity disturbance, window opening was examined by spective assessment of subjective response differed from judgments
Öhrström (2004b), who found after traffic noise reduction; signif- made before the change. This difference in “before” and “retrospec-
icantly fewer people were annoyed by not being able to keep the tive before” responses was also shown when the noise levels were de-
windows open due to noise. creasing (Brown et al., 1985). In a study of airport relocation in
Different noise reduction methods (i.e. reducing the noise level at Norway, Krog and Engdahl (2004) found that the effect of the situa-
the source, reducing the passby-traffic, noise barriers and noise inter- tion (if the response was measured before or after the relocation of
vention) that may not have the same effect on annoyance (Griffiths the airport) was more influential on changes in annoyance than the
and Raw, 1986; Langdon and Griffiths, 1982). Griffiths and Raw actual noise exposure itself. However, the authors noted that the dif-
(1986, 1989) showed a greater effect on annoyance with traffic vol- ferent kinds of change were involved (i.e. decreased noise exposure
ume change than with interventions. This was confirmed by Kastka when airport was moved and an increased noise exposure at the
et al. (1995), who concluded that although both the traffic volume place where the airport was relocated) and that the effect may also
change and noise barrier erection reduced annoyance, traffic volume depend on the direction of change.
reduction showed stronger effects. Repeated interviewing in changed noise situations could, in theo-
Prior experience with the area also affects annoyance levels. Kastka ry, affect the annoyance responses (for review see Horonjeff and
et al. (1995) found that residents who lived on the site before a noise William, 1997), but this was not supported by the results of a three
barrier erection showed a higher annoyance than newcomers, whose airport study (Fidell et al., 1985), which found that the personal deci-
annoyance level could be predicted by the noise levels using the rela- sion criteria for selecting response categories representing degrees of
tionship from Miedema and Oudshoorn (2001). Krog et al. (2010) annoyance are stable over time and rounds of interviews.
found that variables predicting annoyance with aircraft noise before
runway relocation did not predict who would stop using recreational 3.4. Reaction measures other than annoyance in changed noise conditions
areas after the change, which was only influenced by prior experience
with the area. These effects may persist — Griffiths and Raw (1989) All studies looking at reaction measures other than annoyance had
reported that the effect of traffic volume change on annoyance a similar e.g. before–after study design (Table 2) and generally the
 556
Table 2
Studies that measured reactions to changed noise conditions other than annoyance.

Reference Reason of N (study Study Noise Noise exposure Direction of change Measures of Subjective/ Conclusion
change population: design source calculated /measured in noise exposure response objective
in noise before (B), after measure

H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562
exposure (A), during (D))

Amundsen, Insulation B: 624 Before– Road traffic C − Laeq (Laeq − 7 dB) Sleep disturbance Sa Improved sleep
2007 instalment A: 409 after

Eberhardt and Insulation B and A:7 Before– Road traffic M − Leq (Laeq − 8 dB) Sleep disturbance O and S Perception of improved sleep
Aleksson, instalment after and prolonged duration of slow
1987 wave sleep, no effect on REM

Fidell et al., Airport B1: 30 Before– Aircraft M − Lamax + Sleep disturbance O No effect
2000 relocation B2: 29 after
D: 30
A: 28

Increased B: 22 Before– Aircraft M − Lamax + Sleep disturbance O Non-significant increase

operational A:22 after in awakening
activity

Fidell et al., New runway B: 1000 Before– Aircraft C − DNL (DNL + 3–7 dB) Sleep disturbance, S Significant increase in sleep
2002 opening A: 1067 after speech interference disturbance and speech interference

Hofman et al., Insulation B: 12 Before– Road M − Laeq (Laeq − 9 dB) Cardiac reactivity O No change in the magnitude
1995 instalment A: 12 after traffic during sleep or the absolute level of the
cardiac responses

Hume et al., New runway N/A Before– Aircraft C-perceived noise Not defined No. of complaints O and S Significant difference in the
2004 opening after decibel (PNdB) number of month, day-of-the-week
and hour-of-the-day complaints

Krog et al., Airport B: 1210 Before– Aircraft M − Laeq, proportion (Laeq − 22 dB), Changes in use of outdoor Sa Non-significant change in
2004, 2010 relocation A: 1603 after of time over 55 dB%, (Laeq + 2 dB) recreational area frequency of use of
(and those who proportion of time recreational area
visited the same aircraft can be
area: heard%
B and A: 1046)

Moehler et al., Rail-grinding B: 81 Before– Railway M − Laeq (Laeq − 7—8 dB) Disturbance in conversation, S Significant improvement
1997 A1: 64 after relaxation, conversation in conversation and relaxation
A2: 46 outdoors, disturbance
while going to sleep

Nilsson and Noise barrier B and A: 379 Before– Traffic C − Lden (Lden − 7.5 dB) Sleep disturbance, S Significant improvement in
Berglund, development (plus control B after speech interference outdoor speech communication
2006 and A: 166) and non significant improvement
in indoor speech interference and
sleep disturbance
Reason of N (study Study design Noise Noise Direction of change Measures of Subjective/objective Conclusion
change population: source exposure in noise exposure response measure
in noise before (B), after calculated /
exposure (A), during (D)) measured

Ohrström and Insulation B: 3 Before– Traffic M and C − Laeq, (Laeq − 9 dB) Sleep S and O Mixed effect; significant reduction
Björkman, instalment A: 3 after Lamax, number of disturbance in sleep movements in 2 of 3 subjects
1983 events

Öhrström, Reduction in B:50 Before– Road M and C − Laeq, 24 (Laeq − 10–14 dB) Sleep S Significant
2004b traffic load A: 45 after traffic disturbance, improvement in; sleep, physiological
(plus control B: 92 well-being, activity distur- and psychological symptoms,
A: 75) bance, enjoyment of outdoor area and
use of living neighbourhood, significantly lower
environment activity disturbance. increased time
spent outdoor and windows open

Öhrström and B:13 Before– Road M and (Laeq 10–13 dB) Sleep S and O Significantly shorter time in bed, fewer
Skånberg, A: 11 after traffic C − Laeq, 24 disturbance long wake episodes, improved
2004 sleep quality

Öhrström, Reduction in B: 116 Before– Road M and (Laeq 10–14 dB) Sleep S and O Significant improvement in sleep
2004a traffic load A: 98 after traffic C − Laeq, 24 disturbance quality, 'time to fall asleep and
tiredness in the morning, but no
change in number

H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562
of awakenings

Stansfeld Introduction B: 337 A:228 Before– Road M − Laeq, L10 (Laeq − 2–4 dB) Quality of life, Sa No change in levels
et al., of a bypass after traffic mental of mental disorder
2009 disorder or quality of life

Tulen et al., Insulation B: 12 Before– Road M − Leq, L1, L10, L90, L95 (Leq − 10 dBA) Heart rate, S and O No change in
1986 instalment A: 12 after traffic respiratory psychological
effects, sleep variables, respiratory
quality, mood, reactivity during sleep, heart rate
performance, increased
well-being with exposure, but no effect on phasic
cardiac disturbance

Wilkinson and Insulation B: 12 Before– Traffic M − Laeq Laeq − 5.8 dB Sleep, heart S and O Significant increase
Campbell, instalment A: 12 after rate, performance in stage 4 and delta
1984 in the morning sleep and heart rate,
mixed effect on
performance

Zusman, 2007 Closure of Not defined Before– Aircraft C − DNL Not defined Speech S and O Decrease in test
runways and after interference, failure rate of
airports and test scores high-school students
insulation
instalment
a
Confounding factors were included in the analysis.

557
558 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562

Factors affecting annoyance in Factors affecting annoyance

changed noise and steady state only occurring in changed noise
conditions conditions
• Type of change in noise level
• Demographical
- Direction of change
- Usage of the transportation mode
- Permanent vs. temporary changes
that generates noise
- Step change vs. gradual change
• Social and personal factors
- Noise reduction methods
- Sensitivity
• Personal and social factors
- Attitudes to the noise source
- Prior experience with the area
- Mistrust in the intention of
- Adaptation?
planners
ANNOYANCE • Situational
• Situational
- Media coverage
- Distance from source
• Study design
- Time of day and day of the week
- Response measured before or after
- Indoor-outdoor
the change in noise level
- Time span between change in noise
level and survey

Factors affecting annoyance

only in changed noise
conditions
• Situational
- Type of area
- Activity disturbance

Fig. 2. Factors affecting annoyance in changed noise conditions.

quality assessment showed that risk of study bias for most compo- 2004b) and activity disturbance include speech interference and distur-
nents was unknown (Appendix Table C). Many studies were small bance in conversation (Fidell et al., 2002; Moehler et al., 1997; Nilsson
and few studies included control groups (Nilsson and Berglund, and Berglund, 2006; Zusman, 2007; Öhrström, 2004b). Changes in the
2006; Öhrström, 2004b; Stansfeld et al., 2009) or confounding factors use of living environment were also investigated by questionnaires
(Amundsen, 2007; Krog et al., 2010; Nilsson and Berglund, 2006; (Krog et al., 2004, 2010; Öhrström, 2004b). In the activity disturbance
Stansfeld et al., 2009) in their analysis. The time span in which the re- studies, noise interventions resulted in improved communication and
actions were measured before the change in noise exposure varied lower activity disturbance, but other studies were too diverse to permit
from 2 to 3 weeks (Fidell et al., 2000) to 3 years (Hume et al., conclusions.
2004). Similar broad time spans were observed in the “after” situa-
tion; some reactions were measured during the same night 4. Discussion
(Eberhardt and Akselsson, 1987) while other reactions were recorded
21 months (Fidell et al., 2002) after the change in noise conditions. In this systematic review, we evaluated 41 papers investigating
The majority of the studies not examining annoyance investigated human reactions to changed noise conditions, with reactions evaluated
sleep disturbance (11 out of 18). However it was not possible to di- both before and after the change. Twenty-four papers dealt with annoy-
rectly compare the results due to large differences in design including ance assessed by questionnaire. Certain modifiers of annoyance ratings
sleep parameters measured, noise sources considered (i.e. road traffic were identified including attitude towards the noise source, trust in the
and aircraft noise), and noise metrics employed (i.e. Laeq, DNL, Lden). authorities involved, direction of change of noise level and information
Further differences were seen in noise intervention studies and in available about the change were the most important. Study design – in
the direction and value of the changes in noise exposure. While sub- particular if annoyance was assessed after, but not also before the change
jective measures of sleep disturbance generally improved after noise – also had potential to influence reported levels. Eleven studies investi-
reduction, objective measures including cardiac reactivity during gated sleep disturbance but were very heterogeneous and remaining
sleep did not change significantly. Studies that used Leq as a road traf- studies looked at physiological and psychological well-being and activity
fic noise indicator (Amundsen, 2007; Eberhardt and Akselsson, 1987; disturbance.
Öhrström and Skånberg, 2004; Öhrström, 2004a, 2004b), an average
measure of sound levels, concluded that sleep was improved after insu- 4.1. Annoyance as the main reaction indicator
lation was applied to reduce road traffic noise indoor. However, two
identified studies suggested that not the sound level, but sound peaks Annoyance is the most widely used measure of human response to
generated by the passing vehicles cause the psycho-physiological dis- noise but the literature suggests steady state dose–response curves
turbances during sleep (Tulen et al., 1986; Wilkinson and Campbell, do not necessarily predict annoyance reactions in changed noise situ-
1984). Therefore reduction in average sound level may not be the best ations (for review see Brown and van Kamp, 2009a). In fact, an excess
measure of efficacy of sound insulation. In contrary, Fidell et al. (2000) response is often found with higher than expected annoyance
did not find a significant effect of increased and decreased maximum responses to increased noise levels and a greater decline in annoy-
aircraft noise levels on some sleep parameters. This inconsistency ance than expected to reduced noise levels and the excess response
might be related to the different frequency compositions of road and may differ by noise source (e.g. road noise vs. aircraft noise)(Brown
aircraft noise. and van Kamp, 2009b).
Other studies not investigating annoyance examined a number of We identified several factors that affect annoyance in both
complaints due to aircraft noise (Hume et al., 2004), well-being and steady-state and changed noise conditions while others are specific
quality of life (Stansfeld et al., 2009; Tulen et al., 1986; Öhrström, to changed noise situations (Fig. 2).
 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562 559

4.1.1. Factors affecting annoyance in changed noise and steady state 4.1.2. Factors not influencing noise annoyance in either steady state or
situations changed noise conditions
Certain demographic, social and personal factors and situational fac- Demographic variables such as age, gender and type of housing
tors were found to be important modifiers of annoyance in steady state have been found to be unimportant noise annoyance modifiers in
and changed noise situations. Miedema and Vos (1999) found that re- steady state noise conditions (Bluhm et al., 2004; for review see
spondents who depend on the activities or who frequently use the Fields, 1992; Fields, 1993; Miedema and Vos, 1999) but were not
mode of transportation that causes the noise are less annoyed about evaluated sufficiently in the changed noise situation papers identified
it. Similarly, survey respondents who work at airports are less likely to to be able to draw conclusions. Neither the survey method (telephone
be annoyed than those who do not work at airports. This finding is in ac- vs. questionnaire) nor the interviewing method samples (panel vs. in-
cordance with the observation in changed noise conditions (Chan and dependent samples) found to affect on annoyance ratings in stable
Lam, 2008). Personality factors such as sensitivity to noise and attitude conditions (Fields, 1993, 2004). In the identified studies we found
to the noise source (i.e. fear of the source or feeling that annoyance is similar conclusions; annoyance due to aircraft noise was independent
preventable) have a large impact on annoyance both in stable (Guski, of the survey method (Brink et al., 2008).
1999; Job, 1999; Vastfjall, 2002) and changing noise environments Ohrstrom et al. (2006) showed that having access to the quiet side
(Houthuijs et al., 2007). Noise sensitivity may also influence readiness of the dwelling reduces annoyance in stable noise conditions. Further-
to participate in surveys that are identified as being about environmen- more dwelling orientation has been found to result in up to 20% differ-
tal conditions thus potentially biasing results (Bodin et al., 2012). ence in the extent of annoyance (Bluhm et al., 2004; Lercher, 1996;
Social factors, for example, evaluation of the noise source (i.e. Ohrstrom, 1991; Ohrstrom et al., 2007; Rylander and Bjorkman, 2002).
how the mode of transport is seen as unhealthy, dangerous or eco- In contrast, no difference in annoyance ratings at different sides of the
logically harmful), mistrust in authorities, or possible control of the dwelling was reported due to increased road traffic noise (Griffiths
noise exposure could also influence annoyance ratings to a signifi- and Raw, 1986). Dwelling orientation might also be related to differ-
cant degree in stable noise exposure (Guski, 1999; Schreckenberg ences in indoor–outdoor noise levels that could be as high as 15 dB in
et al., 1998). Knowledge of whether the survey is concerned with stable noise conditions (Berglund and Nilsson, 2001, 2002). Thus find-
environmental conditions, for instance noise exposure, may influ- ings in our review on the effect of measurements of indoor–outdoor an-
ence how respondents answer annoyance questions. In a compari- noyance (Nilsson and Berglund, 2006) may be a result of dwelling
son of two Swedish surveys, the survey that openly acknowledged orientation.
that it was an environmental survey received higher annoyance
ratings than one that was presented as a general public health sur- 4.1.3. Factors influencing annoyance specific to changed noise conditions
vey (Bodin et al., 2012). Similarly, in an earlier study, ratings of irri- Method of noise reduction, prior experience of the ‘before’ situa-
tation were higher in questions that explicitly linked aircraft noise tion and media coverage of the change are factors that are shown to
with irritation than questions that just asked about irritation influence annoyance ratings in changed noise conditions. The effec-
(Barker and Tarnopolsky, 1978). Thus the way studies are presented tiveness of methods reducing annoyance, especially in case of noise
to the public and how questions are worded may have effects on barriers and traffic volume change, may depend on the visibility of
annoyance responses. Mistrust in authorities is a particularly interesting the source, thus visibility might be acting as a mediator. Bangjun et
modifying factor that is potentially preventable. Findings in the changed al. (2003) found that, under same acoustic environment, annoyance
noise situation (Houthuijs et al., 2007; Schreckenberg et al., 2001) were scores were higher when the source of noise can be seen. Furthermore
in accordance with previous findings in steady state conditions: resi- the type of the area in terms of the presence of natural elements, attrac-
dents who feel that they cannot control the noise source and have mis- tive appearance, the degree of naturalness and presence of parks and
trust in authorities generally produce higher annoyance scores (Guski, green areas lower annoyance response in stable noise exposed areas
1999). These findings are in keeping with work suggesting that percep- (Gidlof-Gunnarsson and Ohrstrom, 2007, 2010; Kastka and Noack,
tions of lack of control of the environment are associated with feelings 1987; Li et al., 2010). However this was not investigated in the identi-
of anger, helplessness and ill-health (Cohen and Spacapan, 1984). Also fied studies. Another study found that preconceptions about the noise
that active coping with noise may lead to lower annoyance responses barrier materials' ability to reduce noise as well as aesthetic perfor-
(van Kamp, 1990). mance influence the perception of the barriers' effectiveness (Joynt
Temporal (time of the day and seasonal) dependent annoyance and Kang, 2010).
reactions have been observed in stable (Bradley, 1979; Fields, A permanent change in noise exposure is likely to produce differ-
2004; Hume et al., 2002, 2003; Miedema et al., 2005) and changed ent reactions compared with temporary changes (Fields et al., 2000).
noise conditions (Brink et al., 2008; Fields et al., 2000; Hume et al., Guski (2005) suggested that not only the type of change in noise ex-
2004). Seasonal effects might distort comparisons of annoyance posure but the time history of the change (i.e. step change or gradual
prevalence rates depending on the time of the interview, thus it change) can have an effect on the reaction. This factor was not ex-
could account for as much as 10% of the variability in annoyance plored in the reviewed studies.
in changed noise conditions (Fields et al., 2000). Season could also The reviewed studies also suggested that annoyance might be
affect coping mechanism (e.g. window opening), time spent out- influenced by previous experience — individuals may adapt to the new
doors and outdoor activity. circumstances and judge a noise situation based on the change in noise
Robinson et al. (1963) found that people were more sensitive to rather than the actual levels (Kastka et al., 1995; Krog et al., 2010). How-
aircraft noise indoors than outdoors; the same annoyance ratings ever, it is worth noting that this concept of noise adaptation differs from
were related to 20 dB(A) difference in noise levels. The difference in that identified in a review by Brown and van Kamp (2009b), where ad-
annoyance ratings depending on measured indoor or outdoor has aptation was defined as an adjustment of response to a stimulus to
been confirmed in changed noise conditions (Nilsson and Berglund, reach a new equilibrium. In the reviewed papers there was no evidence
2006). for adaptation after the noise change has occurred that is consistent with
Distance from source of noise was found to be an annoyance modifier a review by Egan et al. (2003), who studied adaptation and disturbance
in reduced road noise levels (Nilsson and Berglund, 2006), that is consis- after opening of major urban roads and also found no evidence for adap-
tent with railway noise studies concerning steady state (Morihara et al., tation of response. However adaptation has not been well studied imme-
2004). However the distance dependent annoyance is most likely to be diately following the change in noise exposure (Fields, 1993).
related to the effectiveness of the reduction method and not act as an in- Providing information to residents about the noise mitigation
dependent modifier. measures implemented was found to reduce annoyance (Chan and
560 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562

Lam, 2008), but the effects of media reporting and public awareness 4.4. Recommendations
on annoyance ratings in the two studies examining this (Brink et al.,
2008; Hume et al., 2004) did not have consistent findings. Annoyance is likely to remain the most widely evaluated reaction
measure in changed noise conditions. However, researchers need to
be aware that study design can bias findings (in particular, annoyance
4.2. Other reaction measures
needs to be evaluated both before and after the change and time of
day or season may influence responses). Also, non-acoustical factors
The majority of studies that focused on reaction measures other than
may modify annoyance ratings and need to be taken into account.
annoyance in changed noise situation measured sleep disturbance.
Policy makers should support discussion between planners and res-
However, due to heterogeneity in study design and generally unknown
idents, increase trust in authorities by providing information about
risk of bias (Appendix Table C), we could not draw a clear conclusion as
planned changes and look at ways affected residents can benefit from
to whether or not sleep disturbance was a good alternative to annoyance
transportation changes that might result in more noise — all of these
as a reaction measure in changed noise conditions. Gómez-Jacinto and
factors can reduce noise annoyance ratings.
Moral-Toranzo (1999) have suggested that arousal and disturbance in
There is a clear need to evaluate the influence of changing noise
a steady state condition were good indicators of the perceived noise
environment on other reaction measures than annoyance. Sleep dis-
but these needs to be evaluated in a changed noise situation. Additional-
turbance measures look a promising alternative, but further investi-
ly, some studies reviewed suggested that insulation may not reduce
gation is required to define which sleep disturbance measure is best.
sleep disturbance as the characteristics of sound peaks in traffic noise
Objective physiological measures such as heart rate or blood pres-
are most relevant to this outcome (Hofman et al., 1995; Tulen et al.,
sure should be investigated in changed noise situations, to see if these
1986). Further, the relationship between daytime noise exposure and
are in line with dose-responses predicted in steady state conditions
night-time sleep disturbance has not been defined.
and, if not, to help produce dose–response curves that better predict
physiological responses to noise reduction efforts.
4.3. Limitations Finally, many of the studies considered were in conference proceed-
ings or other more difficult to access publications — researchers in this
We cannot exclude that we have missed some papers, particularly area should be encouraged to publish full details in peer-reviewed
as we only were able to consider papers written in English. However, journals.
we searched three electronic databases and in fact the majority of
studies were identified through hand search in conference proceed- Acknowledgements
ings and references. Further, we asked experts at a noise and health
conference (ICBEN 2011) to suggest additional papers. The study was supported by the European Network on Noise and
In some of the identified studies on changed noise conditions (Au Health (ENNAH) project funded by European Commission Seventh
et al., 2005; Houthuijs et al., 2007; Kastka et al., 1995; Schreckenberg Framework Programme EU FP7-ENV-2009-1, grant agreement number
et al., 2001), the change in noise exposure was less than 3–4 dB(A). 226442.
People do not notice changes in aircraft noise if it is below 3 dB(A)
(Fidell et al., 1998; Raw and Griffiths, 1985). Vallet et al. (1979) Appendix A. Supplementary data
suggested that minimum 4 dB(A) reduction in noise level is required
to achieve a significant change in annoyance reactions. However, al- Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://
though annoyance may not change, it is still possible that physiolog- dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.112.
ical changes e.g. sleep disturbance, occur (Fidell et al., 2002).
One of the problems in identifying the effect of modifying factors References
on annoyance is that these are not independent of each other. For ex-
Amundsen A. Effects of facade insulation on annoyance and sleep disturbances.
ample, noise reductions close to a noise barrier were found to be sig- Proceedings of international congress and exposition on noise control engineering
nificantly greater than elsewhere (Mital and Ramakrishnan, 1997), so (Inter-Noise), Istanbul, Turkey; 2007.
modification of annoyance ratings in relation to distance might be the Amundsen A, Klæboe R, Aasvang G. The Norwegian facade insulation study: the effica-
cy of facade insulation in reducing noise annoyance due to road traffic. J Acoust Soc
result of lower noise levels, but potentially difficult to investigate in
Am 2011;129(3):1381–9.
statistical analyses if both variables are highly correlated. Noise bar- Au WH, Lam KC, Hui WC. Changes in the acoustical environment arising from new
riers may reduce visibility of the source as well as noise levels — railway extension: a case study of Hong Kong. Proceedings of International Con-
Bangjun et al. (2003) found that, under same acoustic environment, gress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2005.
Aydin Y, Kaltenbach M. Noise perception, heart rate and blood pressure in relation to
annoyance scores were higher when the source of noise could be aircraft noise in the vicinity of the Frankfurt airport. Clin Res Cardiol 2007;96(6):
seen. Window opening habits may be related to indoor–outdoor dif- 347–58.
ference in noise exposure, which can be as high as 15 dB (Berglund Babisch W. The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise Health
2002;4(16):1-11.
and Nilsson, 2001, 2002). Perceived unfairness in noise management Babisch W. Health aspects of extra-aural noise research. Noise Health 2004;6(22):
can affect mistrust in authorities (Maris et al., 2006, 2007a, 2007b). 69–81.
In the reviewed papers, the influence of some factors on annoyance Babisch W. Road traffic noise and cardiovascular risk. Noise Health 2008;10(38):
27–33.
ratings was only investigated in relation to one noise source (except for Babisch W, van Kamp I. Exposure–response relationship of the association between
traffic noise where no definition was given about the composition of the aircraft noise and the risk of hypertension. Noise Health 2009;11(44):161–8.
source). Since annoyance reactions in steady state conditions depend on Babisch W, Houthuijs D, Pershagen G, Cadum E, Katsouyanni K, Velonakis M, et al. An-
noyance due to aircraft noise has increased over the years — results of the HYENA
the type of noise source (Miedema and Vos, 1998), it is necessary to eval- study. Environ Int 2009;35(8):1169–76.
uate the impact of these factors on annoyance in combined changing Bangjun Z, Lili S, Guoqing D. The influence of the visibility of the source on the subjec-
noise conditions. tive annoyance due to its noise. Appl Acoust 2003;64(12):1205–15.
Barker SM, Tarnopolsky A. Assessing bias in surveys of symptoms attributed to noise.
Studies on noise and health in steady state conditions have used ob-
J Sound Vib 1978;59:349–54.
jective reaction measures such as blood pressure (Jarup et al., 2008) or Belojevic G, Jakovljevic B, Vesna S, Paunovic K, Jelena I. Urban road-traffic noise and
heart rate (Aydin and Kaltenbach, 2007; Belojevic et al., 2008), but we blood pressure and heart rate in preschool children. Environ Int 2008;34(2):
did not identify any studies that had investigated these in changed 226–31.
Berglund B, Nilsson M. Variation in perceived soundscape due to shielding building and
noise conditions (except cardiac reactivity during sleep — Hofman et facade. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control En-
al., 1995). gineering (Inter-Noise)The Netherlands: The Hague; 2001. p. 1253–6.
 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562 561

Berglund B, Nilsson M. Soundscapes perceived indoors and outdoors at quiet and noisy Houthuijs D, Breugelmans O, Kamp IV. Burden of annoyance due to aircraft noise and
sides of apartment buildings. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition non-acoustical factors. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on
on Noise Control Engineering (Inter-Noise). USA: Dearborn; 2002. p. 488. Noise Control Engineering (Inter-Noise), Istanbul, Turkey; 2007.
Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH, editors. Guidelines for community noise. Geneva: Hume K, Terranova D, Thomas C. Complaints and annoyance caused by aircraft opera-
World Health Organisation; 1999. tions: temporal patterns and individual bias. Noise Health 2002;4(15):45–55.
Bluhm G, Nordling E, Berglind N. Road traffic noise and annoyance — an increasing Hume K, Gregg M, Thomas C, Terranova D. Complaints caused by aircraft operations: an as-
environmental health problem. Noise Health 2004;6(24):43–9. sessment of annoyance by noise level and time of day. J Air Transp Manag 2003;9(3):
Bodin T, Bjork J, Ohrstrom E, Ardo J, Albin M. Survey context and question wording 153–60.
affects self reported annoyance due to road traffic noise: a comparison between Hume K, Morley H, Thomas C. Community response to a new runway: preliminary re-
two cross-sectional studies. Environ Int 2012;11:14. sults. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engi-
Bradley JS. Community noise (STP692-EB). Philadelphia: American Society for Testing neering (Inter-Noise), Prague, Czech Republic; 2004.
and Materials; 1979. p. 108–24. Huybregts C. Community response to changes in railway noise exposure — a review.
Brink M, Wirth KE, Schierz C, Thomann G, Bauer G. Annoyance responses to stable and Proceedings of Western Pacific Acoustics Conference, Melbourne, Australia; 2003.
changing aircraft noise exposure. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;124(5):2930–41. ISO. Acoustics – Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic
Brown AL. Responses to an increase in road traffic noise. J Sound Vib 1987;117(1):69–79. surveys. ISO/TS 15666. International Organization for Standardization; 2003.
Brown AL, van Kamp I. Towards a design for studies of response to a change in noise Janssen S, Vos H, van Kempen E, Breugelmans O, Miedema H. Trends in aircraft noise
exposure. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control annoyance: the role of study and sample characteristics. J Acoust Soc Am
Engineering (Inter-Noise); Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2005. 2011;129(4):1953–62.
Brown L, van Kamp I. Estimating the magnitude of the change effect. Proceedings of Inter- Jarup L, Babisch W, Houthuijs D, Pershagen G, Katsouyanni K, Velonakis M, et al. Acute
national Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN). USA, Foxwoods; 2008. and long-term effect on blood pressure of exposure to noise near airports — the
Brown A, van Kamp I. Response to a change in transport noise exposure: a review of HYENA study. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on Noise Con-
evidence of a change effect. J Acoust Soc Am 2009a;125(5):3018–29. trol Engineering (Inter-Noise), Shanghai, Japan; 2008.
Brown A, van Kamp I. Response to a change in transport noise exposure: competing Job R. Community response to noise: a review of factors influencing the relationship
explanations of change effects. J Acoust Soc Am 2009b;125(2):905–14. between noise exposure and reaction. J Acoust Soc Am 1988a;83(3):991.
Brown A, Hall A, Kyle-Little J. Response to a reduction in traffic noise exposure. J Sound Job R. Over-reaction to changes in noise exposure: the possible effect of attitude. J Sound
Vib 1985;98(2):235–46. Vib 1988b;126(3):550–2.
Chan T, Lam K. The effects of information bias and riding frequency on noise annoyance Job R. The influence of subjective reactions to noise on health effects of the noise. Environ
to a new railway extension in Hong Kong. Transp Res D-TR E 2008;13(5):334–9. Int 1996;22(1):93-104.
Cohen S, Spacapan S. Social psychology of noise. In: Jones DM, Chapman AJ, editors. Job R. Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reaction to noise. Noise Health
Noise and society. London, UK: Wiley; 1984. p. 221–46. 1999;1(3):57–68.
Dratva J, Zemp E, Felber Dietrich D, Bridevaux PO, Rochat T, Schindler C, et al. Impact of Job R, Sakashita C. Conceptual differences between experimental and epidemiological ap-
road traffic noise annoyance on health-related quality of life: results from a proaches to assessing the causal role of noise in health effects. Proceedings of Inter-
population-based study. Qual Life Res 2010;19(1):37–46. national Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN). USA, Foxwoods;
Eberhardt J, Akselsson K. The disturbance by road traffic noise of the sleep of young 2008.
male adults as recorded in the home. J Sound Vib 1987;114(3):417–34. Joynt J, Kang J. The influence of preconceptions on perceived sound reduction by envi-
Egan M, Petticrew M, Ogilvie D, Hamilton V. New roads and human health: a ronmental noise barriers. Sci Total Environ 2010;408(20):4368–75.
systematic review. Am J Public Health 2003;93(9):1463–71. Kastka J, Noack R. On the interaction of sensory experience, causal attributive cogni-
European Union. Position paper on dose response relationships between trans- tions and visual context parameters in noise annoyance. Dev Toxicol Environ Sci
portation noise and annoyance. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/ 1987;15:345–62.
noise_expert_network.pdf2002. Copenhagen, Denmark. Kastka J, Buchta E, Ritterstaedt U, Paulsen R, Mau U. The long term effect of noise pro-
Fidell S. The Schultz curve 25 years later: a research perspective. J Acoust Soc Am tection barriers on the annoyance response of residents. J Sound Vib 1995;184(5):
2003;114(6):3007–15. 823–52.
Fidell S, Pearsons K. Sensitivity to prospective transportation noise exposure. Noise Koehler J, Ruijsbroek A, van Poll R. Effectiveness of insulation measures and underlying
Control Eng 2003;51(2):106–13. factors. Proceedings of International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem
Fidell S, Horonjeff R, Mills J, Baldwin E, Teffeteller S, Pearsons K. Aircraft noise (ICBEN), Honolulu, Hawaii; 2006.
annoyance at three joint air carrier and general aviation airports. J Acoust Soc Krog NH, Engdahl B. Annoyance with aircraft noise in local recreational areas, contin-
Am 1985;77(3):1054–66. gent on changes in exposure and other context variables. J Acoust Soc Am
Fidell S, Silvati L, Pearsons K. Noticeability of a decrease in aircraft noise. Noise Control 2004;116(1):323–33.
Eng 1998;46(2):49–56. Krog NH, Engdahl B, Tambs K. Studies on aircraft noise in outdoor recreational areas.
Fidell S, Pearsons K, Tabachnick B, Howe R. Effects on sleep disturbance of changes in Experiential and behavioral effects of changes in noise exposure. Proceedings of In-
aircraft noise near three airports. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;107(5):2535–47. ternational Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering (Inter-Noise),
Fidell S, Silvati L, Haboly E. Social survey of community response to a step change in Prague, Czech-Republic; 2004.
aircraft noise exposure. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;111(1):200–9. Krog NH, Engdahl B, Tambs K. Effects of changed aircraft noise exposure on the use of
Fields J. Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance: with special outdoor recreational areas. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2010;7(11):3890–915.
reference to implications for en route noise. U.S. Department of Commerce, Nation- Lam KC, Au WH. Human response to a step change in noise exposure following the open-
al Technical Information Service; 1992. ing of a new railway extension in Hong Kong. Acta Acust United Acust 2008;94(4):
Fields J. Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential 553–62.
areas. J Acoust Soc Am 1993;93(5):2753–63. Langdon F, Griffiths I. Subjective effects of traffic noise exposure, II: comparisons of
Fields J. Effects of meteorological conditions on reactions to noise exposure. Hampton: noise indices, response scales, and the effects of changes in noise levels. J Sound
NASA Langley Research Centre; 2004. Vib 1982;83(2):171–80.
Fields J, Ehrlich G, Zador P. Theory and design tools for studies of reactions to abrupt Lercher P. Environmental noise and health: an integrated research perspective. Environ
changes in noise exposure. Hampton: NASA Langley Research Centre; 2000. Int 1996;22(1):117–29.
Gidlof-Gunnarsson A, Ohrstrom E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environ- Li HN, Chau CK, Tang SK. Can surrounding greenery reduce noise annoyance at home?
ments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape Sci Total Environ 2010;408:4376–84.
Urban Plan 2007;83(2–3):115–26. Maris E, Stallen P, Steensma H, Vermunt R. (Un)sound management. Three laboratory
Gidlof-Gunnarsson A, Ohrstrom E. Attractive “quiet” courtyards: a potential modifier of experiments on the effects of social nonacoustical determinants of noise annoy-
urban residents' responses to road traffic noise? Int J Environ Res Publ Health ance. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engi-
2010;7(9):3359–75. neering (Inter-Noise), Honolulu, Hawaii; 2006.
Gómez-Jacinto L, Moral-Toranzo F. Urban traffic noise and self-reported health. Psychol Maris E, Stallen P, Vermunt R, Steensma H. Noise within the social context: annoyance
Rep 1999;84(3):1105–8. reduction through fair procedures. J Acoust Soc Am 2007a;121(4):2000–10.
Griffiths I, Raw G. Community and individual response to changes in traffic noise expo- Maris E, Stallen P, Vermunt R, Steensma H. Evaluating noise in social context: the effect
sure. J Acoust Soc Am 1986;111(2):209–17. of procedural unfairness on noise annoyance judgments. J Acoust Soc Am
Griffiths I, Raw G. Adaptation to changes in traffic noise exposure. J Sound Vib 2007b;122(6):3483–94.
1989;132(2):331–6. Masurier L, Bates J, Taylor J, Flindell I, Humpheson D, Pownall C, et al. Attitudes to noise
Guski R. Personal and social variables as co-determinants of noise annoyance. Noise from aviation sources in England (ANASE) final report for Department for Transport;
Health 1999;1(3):45–56. Norwich; 2007.
Guski R. How to forecast community annoyance in planning noisy facilities. Noise Miedema HM, Oudshoorn C. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with
Health 2004;6(22):59–64. exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environ Health
Guski R. Defining a step change of aircraft noise in residential areas. Proceedings of In- Pers 2001;109(4):409–16.
ternational Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Miedema HM, Vos H. Exposure–response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust
Brazil; 2005. Soc Am 1998;104(6):3432–45.
Hofman W, Kumar A, Tulen J. Cardiac reactivity to traffic noise during sleep in man. Miedema HM, Vos H. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from
J Sound Vib 1995;179(4):577–89. transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105(6):3336–44.
Horonjeff R, William R. Attitudinal responses to changes in noise exposure in residen- Miedema HM, Vos H. Associations between self-reported sleep disturbance and envi-
tial communities. Hampton: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lang- ronmental noise based on reanalyses of pooled data from 24 studies. Behav Sleep
ley Research Centre National Technical Information Service; 1997. p. 1-150. Med 2007;5(1):1-20.
562 H.E. Laszlo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 435–436 (2012) 551–562

Miedema HM, Fields J, Vos H. Effect of season and meteorological conditions on com- Schreckenberg D, Schuemer R, Schuemer-Kohrs A, Griefahn B. Attitudes toward nosie
munity noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117(5):2853. source as determinants of annoyance. Proceedings of EuroNoise, Munich, Germany;
Mital A, Ramakrishnan A. Effectiveness of noise barriers on an interstate highway: a 1998. p. 595–9.
subjective and objective evaluation. J Hum Ergol 1997;26(1):31–8. Schreckenberg D, Schuemer R, Moehler U. Railway-noise annoyance and “misfeasance”
Moehler U, Hegner A, Schuemer R, Schuemer-Kohrs A. Effects of railway noise reduction under conditions of change. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition
on annoyance after rail-grinding. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposi- on Noise Control Engineering (Inter-Noise), Hague, Netherlands; 2001.
tion on Noise Control Engineering (Inter-Noise), Budapest, Hungary; 1997. Schultz T. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;64(2):
Morihara T, Sato T, Yano T. Comparison of dose–response relationships between rail- 377–405.
way and road traffic noises: the moderating effect of distance. J Sound Vib Stansfeld S, Haines M, Berry B, Burr M. Reduction of road traffic noise and mental
2004;277(3):559–65. health: an intervention study. Noise Health 2009;11(44):169–75.
Nilsson M, Berglund B. Noise annoyance and activity disturbance before and after the Stroup D, Berlin J, Morton S, Olkin I, Williamson D, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of ob-
erection of a roadside noise barrier. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119(4):2178–88. servational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA — J Am Med
Ohrstrom E. Psycho-social effects of traffic noise exposure. J Sound Vib 1991;151(3): Soc 2000;283(15):2008–12.
513–7. Tulen J, Kumar A, Jurriens A. Psychophysiological acoustics of indoor sound due to traf-
Öhrström E. Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road traffic noise: effects on fic noise during sleep. J Sound Vib 1986;110(1):129–41.
sleep assessed by general questionnaires and 3-day sleep logs. J Sound Vib Vallet M, Abramowitch J, Lambert J. Impact of noise barrier on people annoyance: case
2004a;276(3–5):713–27. study at L'HayLes Roses. Proceedings of International Congress and Exposition on
Öhrström E. Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road traffic noise–annoyance, Noise Control Engineering (Inter-Noise), Warsaw, Poland; 1979. p. 865–8.
activity disturbances, and psycho-social well-being. J Acoust Soc Am 2004b;115(2): Van Kamp I. Coping with noise and its health consequences. Groningen: Styx and
719. PP; 1990.
Ohrström E, Björkman M. Sleep disturbance before and after traffic noise attenuation in Van Kempen E, Babisch W. The quantitative relationship between road traffic noise and
an apartment building. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;73(3):877–9. hypertension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens 2012;30(6):1075–86.
Öhrström E, Skånberg A. Longitudinal surveys on effects of road traffic noise: substudy Vastfjall D. Influences of current mood and noise sensitivity on judgments of noise an-
on sleep assessed by wrist actigraphs and sleep logs. J Sound Vib 2004;272(3–5): noyance. J Psychol 2002;136(4):357–70.
1097–109. Weinstein N. Individual differences in reactions to noise: a longitudinal study in a col-
Ohrstrom E, Skanberg A, Svensson H, Gidlof-Gunnarsson A. Effects of road traffic noise lege dormitory. J Appl Psychol 1978;63(4):458–66.
and the benefit of access to quietness. J Sound Vib 2006;295(1–2):40–59. Weinstein N. Community noise problems: evidence against adaptation. J Environ Psychol
Ohrstrom E, Barregård L, Andersson E, Skånberg A, Svensson H, Angerheim P. Annoyance 1982;2(2):87–97.
due to single and combined sound exposure from railway and road traffic. J Acoust Wilkinson R, Campbell K. Effects of traffic noise on quality of sleep: assessment by EEG,
Soc Am 2007;122(5):2642–52. subjective report, or performance the next day. J Acoust Soc Am 1984;75(2):
Pirrera S, De Valck E, Cluydts R. Nocturnal road traffic noise: a review on its assessment 468–75.
and consequences on sleep and health. Environ Int 2010;36(5):492–8. World Health Organisation. Burden of disease from environmental noise. Bonn Office:
Raw G, Griffiths I. The effect of changes in aircraft noise exposure. J Sound Vib WHO European Centre for Environment and Health; 2011. http://www.euro.who.
1985;101(2):273–5. int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf.
Robinson D, Bowsher J, Copeland W. On judging the noise from aircraft in flight. Zusman AF. Findings of the FICAN pilot study on the relationship between aircraft noise re-
Acustica 1963;13:324–36. duction and changes in standardized test scores. Federal Interagency Committee on
Rylander R, Bjorkman M. Road traffic noise annoyance and window orientation in Aviation Noise; 2007. http://www.fican.org/pdf/FICAN_Findings_on_school_study.pdf.
dwellings. J Sound Vib 2002;249(4):828–31.