Sanford Fidell

Updating a dosage–effect relationship for the prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise

More than a decade has passed since a relationship between community noise exposure and the prevalence of annoyance was synthesized by Schultz [T. J. Schultz, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 377–405 (1978)] from the findings of a dozen social surveys. This quantitative dosage–effect relationship has been adopted as a standard means for predicting noise‐induced annoyance in environmental assessment documents. The present effort updates the 1978 relationship with findings of social surveys conducted since its publication. Although the number of data points from which a new relationship was inferred more than tripled, the 1978 relationship still provides a reasonable fit to the data.

Predicting noise‐induced sleep disturbance

The findings of 21 studies of the effects of noise on sleep were reanalyzed in an effort to develop a quantitative dosage‐response relationship. Large and systematic differences in sleep disturbance were observed between the findings of studies conducted in laboratory and in field settings. The influence of noise on sleep was also found to depend on additional factors such as the nature of noise and response metrics, noise source, background noise level, length of study, and sex of test participants. No reliable quantitative model for sleep disturbance could be developed from the studies reviewed.

Field study of noise‐induced sleep disturbance

Behaviorally confirmed awakenings were recorded during nighttime hours for periods of approximately one month in 45 homes of 82 test participants. Measurements of awakening and of both indoor and outdoor noise exposure were made for a total of 632 subject nights near a military airfield, 783 subject nights near a civil airport, and 472 subject nights in neighborhoods with community noise exposure of nonaircraft origin. Sound exposure levels of individual noise intrusions were much more closely associated with awakenings than long‐term noise exposure levels. The slope of the relationship between awakening and sound exposure level was rather shallow, however. Although the present findings do not resemble those of laboratory studies of noise‐induced sleep interference, they are in good agreement with the results of other field studies.

Effects on sleep disturbance of changes in aircraft noise near three airports

Field measurements were conducted of potential sleep disturbance associated with changes in nighttime aircraft noise exposure near three airports. One study was conducted near Stapleton International Airport (DEN) and Denver International Airport (DIA) in anticipation of the closure of the former and opening of the latter. Sleep behavior was monitored in 57 homes located near runway ends at the two airports. A second study was conducted in the vicinity of DeKalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK), a large general aviation airport that expected increased nighttime flight operations due to the Olympic Games in July and August of 1996. Similar methods of measuring nighttime noise levels and sleep disturbance in the two studies were maintained over the course of 2717 and 686 subject-nights of observations, respectively. No major differences in noise-induced sleep disturbance were observed as a function of changes in nighttime aircraft noise exposure.

Review of Field Studies of Aircraft Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance

Aircraft noise-induced sleep disturbance (AN-ISD) is potentially among the more serious effects of aircraft noise on people. This literature review of recent field studies of AN-ISD finds that reliable generalization of findings to population-level effects is complicated by individual differences among subjects, methodological and analytic differences among studies, and predictive relationships that account for only a small fraction of the variance in the relationship between noise exposure and sleep disturbance. It is nonetheless apparent in the studied circumstances of residential exposure that sleep disturbance effects of nighttime aircraft noise intrusions are not dramatic on a per-event basis, and that linkages between outdoor aircraft noise exposure and sleep disturbance are tenuous. It is also apparent that AN-ISD occurs more often during later than earlier parts of the night; that indoor sound levels are more closely associated with sleep disturbance than outdoor measures; and that spontaneous awakenings, or awakenings attributable to nonaircraft indoor noises, occur more often than awakenings attributed to aircraft noise. Predictions of sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise should not be based on over-simplifications of the findings of the reviewed studies, and these reports should be treated with caution in developing regulatory policy for aircraft noise.

Variability in the criterion for reporting annoyance in community noise surveys

Independent estimates of the contributions of acoustic and nonacoustic factors to the prevalence of annoyance observed in 32 surveys of reactions to transportation noise are made by means of a previously described probabilistic model. The surveys show considerable variation in the level of noise exposure required to elicit self‐reports of consequential degrees of annoyance. The distributions of the criteria for reporting annoyance with aircraft and with other noise sources overlap considerably, but the mean value of the criterion for reporting annoyance is about 5 dB more tolerant of nonaircraft exposure. Errors of estimates in quantifying noise exposure and human response in field studies are also assessed.

Nationwide urban noise survey

Most current knowledge about community response to noise exposure is derived from studies of high-level transportation sources. A nationwide urban noise survey was undertaken to study effects associated with more moderate but far more common sorts of noise exposure. Over 2000 respondents at 24 sites in seven cities of varying noise exposure and population density were interviewed by telephone and in person about their reactions to everyday noises. A brief but comprehensive structured questionnaire was based on direct questioning about annoyance and related effects. Among the major findings of the survey were widespread annoyance and speech interference from exposure to urban noise and strong relationships between the extent of annoyance and exposure level, speech interference, and population density.

A theoretical interpretation of the prevalence rate of noise‐induced annoyance in residential populations

A simple statistical model containing only one free parameter is proposed to account for the variability observed in a dosage–effect relationship between an integrated metric of noise exposure and the prevalence of annoyance in a community as synthesized by Schultz [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64, 377–405 (1978)]. The model assumes that a community’s noise dose is produced by long‐term noise exposure acting through a compressive transformation of the day–night average sound level (DNL). Individual reactions to this noise dose are characterized by a random variable. Individuals are assumed to report a consequential degree of annoyance when the value of this random variable exceeds a criterion level that is not a function of acoustic factors.

Role of community tolerance level (CTL) in predicting the prevalence of the annoyance of road and rail noise.

Fidell et al. [(2011), J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(2), 791-806] have shown (1) that the rate of growth of annoyance with noise exposure reported in attitudinal surveys of the annoyance of aircraft noise closely resembles the exponential rate of change of loudness with sound level, and (2) that the proportion of a community highly annoyed and the variability in annoyance prevalence rates in communities are well accounted for by a simple model with a single free parameter: a community tolerance level (abbreviated CTL, and represented symbolically in mathematical expressions as L(ct)), expressed in units of DNL. The current study applies the same modeling approach to predicting the prevalence of annoyance of road traffic and rail noise. The prevalence of noise-induced annoyance of all forms of transportation noise is well accounted for by a simple, loudness-like exponential function with community-specific offsets. The model fits all of the road traffic findings well, but the prevalence of annoyance due to rail noise is more accurately predicted separately for interviewing sites with and without high levels of vibration and/or rattle.

Aircraft noise annoyance at three joint air carrier and general aviation airports

The results of social surveys conducted near three airports that support both general aviation and scheduled air carrier operations are presented and discussed. Inferences supported by these data include: The nature of noise exposure and community reaction at smaller airports may differ from that at larger airports; survey techniques are capable of identifying changes in annoyance associated with numerically small changes in noise exposure; changes in the prevalence of annoyance are causally produced by changes in noise exposure; and changes in annoyance associated with changes in exposure vary with time.