Access to a quiet side in one's dwelling is thought to compensate for higher noise levels at the most exposed façade. It has also been indicated that noise from combined traffic sources causes more noise annoyance than equal average levels from either road traffic or railway noise separately.
2612 persons in Malmö, Sweden, answered to a residential environment survey including questions on outdoor environment, noise sensitivity, noise annoyance, sleep quality and concentration problems. Road traffic and railway noise was modeled using Geographic Information System.
Access to a quiet side, i.e., at least one window facing yard, water or green space, was associated with reduced risk of annoyance OR (95%CI) 0.47 (0.38-0.59), and concentration problems 0.76 (0.61-0.95). Bedroom window facing the same environment was associated to reduced risk of reporting of poor sleep quality 0.78 (0.64-1.00). Railway noise was associated with reduced risk of annoyance below 55 dB(A) but not at higher levels of exposure.
Having a window facing a yard, water or green space was associated to a substantially reduced risk of noise annoyance and concentration problems. If this window was the bedroom window, sleeping problems were less likely.
A common indicator of effectiveness for roadside noise barriers is the reduction in A-weighted sound pressure level (L(A)). The present experimental study considered alternative indicators using an annoyance-reduction criterion. A large number of 8 s experimental sounds were created from binaural recordings conducted at various distances from a highway at a location with a 4.6 m high roadside barrier (barrier sounds) and at a location along the same road with no barrier (nonbarrier sounds). Eighteen listeners scaled the annoyance of the experimental sounds with the method of magnitude estimation. The barrier sounds recorded 10-45 m from the road and nonbarrier sounds recorded 50-200 m from the road were of similar L(A). Despite this, the barrier sounds were found to be more annoying than the nonbarrier sounds. The annoyance difference corresponded to approximately a 3 dB increase in L(A) and was mainly related to the barrier sounds' higher relative level of low-frequency sound. This suggests that L(A) reduction may not be a valid indicator of the annoyance reduction caused by a noise barrier. The loudness level (ISO 532B) and a low-frequency corrected sound pressure level (L(A) ( *)) were found to be better than L(A) as indicators of the barrier's annoyance-reduction efficiency.
The adverse effects of long-term exposure to a high volume of road traffic were studied in socio-acoustic surveys in 1997 and in 1999 after a substantial reduction in road traffic. The results obtained in 1997 showed a similar response pattern as in previously performed studies in the area in 1986 [Ohrström, J. Sound Vib. 122, 277-290 (1989)]. In 1999, road traffic had been reduced from 25000 to 2400 vehicles per day, and this resulted not only in a large decrease in annoyance and activity disturbances, but also in a better general well-being. The results suggest that a reduction in both noise and other pollutants from road traffic contribute to these effects. To be able to use the outdoor environment and to have the possibility to keep windows open is essential for general well-being and daily behavior, which implies that access both to quiet indoor and outdoor sections of the residency is of importance for achievement of a healthy sound environment. More knowledge of long-term health consequences of exposure to noise and simultaneous pollutants from road traffic is needed. Studies should focus more on "softer" health outcomes and well-being than hitherto and preferably be performed in connection with traffic abatement measures.
The Norwegian facade insulation study includes one pre-intervention and two post-intervention surveys. The facade-insulating measures reduced indoor noise levels by 7?dB on average. Before the intervention, 43% of the respondents were highly annoyed by noise. Half a year after the intervention, the proportion of respondents who were highly annoyed by road traffic noise had been significantly reduced to 15%. The second post-intervention study (2?yr after the first post-intervention study) showed that the proportion of highly annoyed respondents had not changed since the first post-intervention study. The reduction in the respondents' self-reported sleep disturbances (due to traffic noise) also remained relatively stable from the first to the second post-intervention study. In the control group, there were no statistically significant differences in annoyance between the pre-intervention and the two post-intervention studies. Previous studies of traffic changes have reported that people "overreact" to noise changes. This study indicated that when considering a receiver measure, such as facade insulation, the effect of reducing indoor noise levels could be predicted from exposure-response curves based on previous studies. Thus no evidence of an "overreaction" was found.
Questionnaire studies were conducted in a residential area before and after the erection of a 2.25 m high noise barrier of conventional type along a heavily traveled road (19,600 vehicles/24 h). The interval between studies was two years. Houses closest to the barrier received a sound-level reduction from -70.0 to 62.5 dB Lden at the most exposed facade. The sound-level reduction decreased with distance to the road, and was negligible for houses at more than 100 m distance. Up to this distance, the noise barrier reduced residents' noise annoyance outdoors and indoors as well as improved speech communication outdoors. Indoors, speech communication and sleep disturbance were slightly but nonsignificantly improved. Predictions of the number of annoyed persons from published exposure-response curves (in Lden) agreed with the percentage of residents being annoyed when indoors, before and after the barrier. Conversely, the percentage of residents being annoyed when outdoors clearly exceeded the predictions. These results suggest that these exposure-response curves may be used in predicting indoor situations, but they should not be applied in situations where outdoor annoyance is at focus.