Survey context and question wording affects self reported annoyance due to road traffic noise: a comparison between two cross-sectional studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Surveys are a common way to measure annoyance due to road traffic noise, but the method has some draw-backs. Survey context, question wording and answer alternatives could affect participation and answers and could have implications when comparing studies and/or performing pooled analyses. The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in annoyance reporting due to road traffic noise in two types of surveys of which one was introduced broadly and the other with the clearly stated aim of investigating noise and health.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data was collected from two surveys carried out in the municipality of Malmö, southern Sweden in 2007 and 2008 (n = 2612 and n = 3810). The first survey stated an aim of investigating residential environmental exposure, especially noise and health. The second survey was a broad public health survey stating a broader aim. The two surveys had comparable questions regarding noise annoyance, although one used a 5-point scale and the other a 4-point scale. We used geographic information systems (GIS) to assess the average road and railway noise (L_Aeq,24h) at the participants' residential address. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for annoyance in relation to noise exposure.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Annoyance at least once a week due to road traffic noise was significantly more prevalent in the survey investigating environment and health compared to the public health survey at levels > 45 dB(A), but not at lower exposure levels. However no differences in annoyance were found when comparing the extreme alternatives "never" and "every day". In the study investigating environment and health, "Noise sensitive" persons were more likely to readily respond to the survey and were more annoyed by road traffic noise compared to the other participants in that survey.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The differences in annoyance reporting between the two surveys were mainly due to different scales, suggesting that extreme alternatives are to prefer before dichotomization when comparing results between the two. Although some findings suggested that noise-sensitive individuals were more likely to respond to the survey investigating noise and health, we could not find convincing evidence that contextual differences affected either answers or participation.</p

Influence of Social and Behavioural Characteristics of Users on Their Evaluation of Subjective Loudness and Acoustic Comfort in Shopping Malls

A large-scale subjective survey was conducted in six shopping malls in Harbin City, China, to determine the influence of social and behavioural characteristics of users on their evaluation of subjective loudness and acoustic comfort. The analysis of social characteristics shows that evaluation of subjective loudness is influenced by income and occupation, with correlation coefficients or contingency coefficients of 0.10 to 0.40 (p<0.05 or p<0.01). Meanwhile, evaluation of acoustic comfort evaluation is influenced by income, education level, and occupation, with correlation coefficients or contingency coefficients of 0.10 to 0.60 (p<0.05 or p<0.01). The effect of gender and age on evaluation of subjective loudness and acoustic comfort is statistically insignificant. The effects of occupation are mainly caused by the differences in income and education level, in which the effects of income are greater than that of education level. In terms of behavioural characteristics, evaluation of subjective loudness is influenced by the reason for visit, frequency of visit, and length of stay, with correlation coefficients or contingency coefficients of 0.10 to 0.40 (p<0.05 or p<0.01). Evaluation of acoustic comfort is influenced by the reason for visit to the site, the frequency of visit, length of stay, and also season of visit, with correlation coefficients of 0.10 to 0.30 (p<0.05 or p<0.01). In particular, users who are waiting for someone show lower evaluation of acoustic comfort, whereas users who go to shopping malls more than once a month show higher evaluation of acoustic comfort. On the contrary, the influence of the period of visit and the accompanying persons are found insignificant

The use of nanocrystal quantum dot as fluorophore reporters in molecular beacon-based assays

textversion:publishe

International meta-analysis of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9527-4This paper reports the first meta-analysis and most extensive review of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance. The meta-analysis is based on a newly compiled data set of 258 values from 49 studies and 23 countries and spanning more than 40 years. Contrast this with the most extensive meta-analysis of the more conventional hedonic pricing approach which includes 53 noise valuations. Moreover, the sample compares favourably with the 444 observations from the very first meta-analysis of the value of travel time savings which is by far the most widely examined parameter in transport planning. A particularly significant finding of the study is that the intertemporal income elasticity is close to one, somewhat larger than the cross-sectional income elasticity typically obtained from individual studies. This demonstrates the importance of distinguishing the effects of 2 income variations that occur over time, which tend to drive policy, from variations across individuals at one point in time, and such findings are typical of those observed in other markets. Importantly, the values derived are transferable across countries and may be used to benchmark existing evidence and provide values in contexts where none exist. Other key results are that values for aircraft noise exceed those for other modes, whilst those exposed to higher noise levels and those who are highly annoyed also have higher values in line with expectations. A wide range of design effects were tested but few were significant and these included the consumer surplus measure, the representation of noise and the context

Towards a general framework for including noise impacts in LCA

Industrial Ecolog