KTH Centrum för Hållbar Luftfart (CSA)Workshop om Flygbuller

Måndag 3 Oktober 09.00-13.00 med efterföljande lunch & mingelPlats: KTH OpenLab, Multihallen, Valhallavägen 79

Why is aircraft noise more annoying than other transportation noises?

Mats E. NilssonGösta Ekman Laboratory, Department of PsychologyStockholm University

www.who.int

WHO’s Guidelines for community noise

2000

www.euro.who.int

2011

2011

Traffic Noise and Health

Traffic noise

Annoyance

Sleep disturbance

Cardio-vascular disease

Noise at

facade

Perceived

annoyance

Activity

disturbance (speech,

concentration,

rest, sleep…)

Self-reported

noise

annoyance

Individual factors(noise sensitivity,

attitudes to the source,

age, …)

Noise annoyance

Non-acoustic

exposure factors(Visual intrusion, odor,

vibration, …)

Acoustic factors (quiet side, facade

reduction, window

opening habits, …)

Noise annoyance questionnaire

ISO. (2003). Acoustics-Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. ISO/TS 15666:2003(E). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.

”Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home,

how much does noise from …. bother, disturb or annoy you?

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G. (2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

MAXFLYG 2013

Schultz (1978)

Schultz, T. J. (1978). Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64(2), 377-405.

Kryter (1982)

Kryter, K. D. (1982). Community annoyance from aircraft and ground vehicle noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72(4), 1222-1242.See also rebuttals to comments by Schultz

Miedema & Oudshoorn, 2001Commission of the European Communities, 2002

Miedema, & Oudshoorn, (2001). Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 409-416.

CEC. (2002). Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

0

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

An

del

bu

llers

törd

a

<45 45-49

Vägtrafikbuller, LDEN (dB)

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

>700

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

Spårtrafikbuller, LDEN (dB)

<45 45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

>70

[1] Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001)

Metaanalysprediktion [1]

Ströningsdata:

Miljöhälsoenkät 2007

N = 2496 (Stockholm,

Göteborg, Malmö)

Bullerdata:

END kartor

Vägtrafikbuller Spårtrafikbuller

Andel bullerstörda av trafikbuller i svenska storstäder:

Data och prediktion

Eriksson, et al. (2011)

Babsich, et al., 2009

Nosie annoyance road traffic

Pro

prt

ion h

ighly

annoyedr

[%]

Road traffic noise [dB LDEN]

Is aircraft noise getting more disturbing?

Babsich, et al., 2009

pro

prt

ion h

ighly

annoyed [

%]

Aircraft noise [dB LDEN]

Noise annoyance aircraft

Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G. (2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

MAXFLYG 2013

Janssen et al. (2011). JASA, 129, 1953-1962.

Trends in aircraft noise annoyance

Kryter’s answer:

Kryter, K. D. (1982). Community annoyance from aircraft and ground vehicle noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72(4), 1222-1242.

Why is aircraft noise more annoying?

Kluizenaar, et al. (2011)Öhrström, et al. (2006)

Noise annoyance and access to quiet facade

Self reported sleep disturbance

Source: Miedema and Oudshoorn, 2003, 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Traffic noise (dB, Lnight)

Pro

prt

in h

igh

ly s

leep

dis

turb

ed (

%H

SD)

Air

Road

Rail

%

Jonsson & Sörensen. (1970). Relation between annoyance reactions and attitude to source of annoyance. Public Health Reports, 85, 1070-1074.

Attityder till trafik

1. 113 (20 %, n = 611)2. 222 (15 %, n = 461)3. 223 (14 %, n = 442)…………25. 321 (0.1%, n = 2)26. 312 (0 %, n =1 )27. 311 (0 %, n =1 )

41%44%

5%

52%46%27%

7%10%68%

Unpublished data from the MAXFLYG study

Noiseexsposure

Noiseannoyance

Attitudes to noisesource

Backgroundvariables

Model 1: Attitudes influences annoyance

Noiseexsposure

Noiseannoyance

Attitudes to noisesource

Backgroundvariables

Model 2: Annoyance influences attitudes

Flygbullerexponering och attityd

0 1-2 3-5 6-14 15-29 30-59 >=60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Antal flygbullerhändelser 70 dB LA max,s low

Andel negati

v f

lygtr

afik a

llm

änt

Alla flygplatser

”Samhället bör verka för en minskning av …”

FlygtrafikVägtrafik

Spårtrafik

Unpublished data from the MAXFLYG study

Summary

o Aircraft more annoying than road and rail• The difference seem to be increasing, unclear why

o Why makes aircraft noise more annoying? • Acoustic factors (quite side)• Attitudes to the source

0 1-2 3-5 6-14 15-29 30-59 >=60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Antal flygbullerhändelser 70 dB LA max,s low

Andel flygbullers

törd

a u

tepla

ts

Ej negativ egen flygplats

Negativ egen flygplats

0 1-2 3-5 6-14 15-29 30-59 >=60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Antal flygbullerhändelser 70 dB LA max,s low

Andel flygbullers

törd

a u

tepla

ts

Ej negativ flygtrafik

Negativ flygtrafik

Flygbullerstörning och attityd till flygtrafik

4. Vid jämförbar flygbullerexponering är andelen flygbullerstörda markant högre bland personer med en negativ attityd till flygtrafik jämfört med personer med en merpositiv attityd. För båda grupperna ses dock ett tydligt och starkt samband mellanflygbullerexponering och bullerstörning.

Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G. (2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

MAXFLYG 2013

Nilsson, M. E., Selander, J., Alvarsson, J., Berglund, B., & Bluhm, G. (2013). Naturvårdsverkets rapport 6570. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket.

MAXFLYG 2013

Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445

Aircraft

20 studies, total n = 34 214

Aircraft Noise Annoyance

Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445

Road traffic

26 studies, total n = 21 228

Road traffic Noise Annoyance

Miedema & Vos (1998). JASA,104(6), 3432-3445

Railway

9 studies, total n = 8 527

Railway noise annoyance

Target: 40 dB Lnight

”… to protect the public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly”

Interim target: 55 dB Lnight

”… [if the target] cannot be achieved in the short term for various reasons, and where policy makers choose to adopt a stepwise approach”

www.euro.who.int2009