Activity interference and noise annoyance

Abstract

Debate continues over differences in the dose-response functions used to predict the annoyance at different sources of transportation noise. This debate reflects the lack of an accepted model of noise annoyance in residential communities. In this paper a model is proposed which is focussed on activity interference as a central component mediating the relationship between noise exposure and annoyance. This model represents a departure from earlier models in two important respects. First, single event noise levels (e.g., maximum levels, sound exposure level) constitute the noise exposure variables in place of long-term energy equivalent measures (e.g., 24-hour Leq or Ldn). Second, the relationships within the model are expressed as probabilistic rather than deterministic equations. The model has been tested by using acoustical and social survey data collected at 57 sites in the Toronto region exposed to aircraft, road traffic or train noise. Logit analysis was used to estimate two sets of equations. The first predicts the probability of activity interference as a function of event noise level. Four types of interference are included: indoor speech, outdoor speech, difficulty getting to sleep and awakening. The second set predicts the probability of annoyance as a function of the combination of activity interferences. From the first set of equations, it was possible to estimate a function for indoor speech interference only. In this case, the maximum event level was the strongest predictor. The lack of significant results for the other types of interference is explained by the limitations of the data. The same function predicts indoor speech interference for all three sources—road, rail and aircraft noise. The results for the second set of equations show strong relationships between activity interference and the probability of annoyance. Again, the parameters of the logit equations are similar for the three sources. A trial application of the model predicts a higher probability of annoyance for aircraft than for road traffic situations with the same 24-hour Leq. This result suggests that the model may account for previously reported source differences in annoyance.