An overview of the effects of noise on annoyance & Trends and research needs

Transcription

1 An overview of the effects of noise on annoyance & Trends and research needs Irene van Kamp, Dirk Schreckenberg 1

2 Outline Why is Noise a problem? What is Annoyance? Overview Annoyance NORAH: results on annoyance Effect of interventions on annoyance Forecast of sound and noise in future Future Research Needs 2

3 Preliminary Results WHO Burden of Disease New Scientist 25 augustus 2007: Dying for some peace and quiet 3 3

4 Annoyance as Metaphore (after Eben Schwartz) An explanation gives more relief than any treatment: people need causes for their sufferings.. Every endeavor to link mind and body is a metaphorical inference... And we all do this: patients and professionals modern, traditional and alternative medicine. Psychological component is always present. 4

5 Annoyance, complaints and wellbeing attributed to an external factor: from food additive to environmental noise. We all do this: we monitor our bodies. BUT some have to learn to better listen While others have yo learn how to ignore the signals... How to study this and what does it mean? 5

6 Review Noise and Annoyance MAIN SOURCE: Guski R, Schreckenberg D, Schuemer R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance. International journal of environmental research and public health Dec 8;14(12):

7 Annoyance (inputs from Guski at al) In the recent WHO review on the impact of environmental noise on annoyance (Guski et al., 2017) including studies published between 2000 and 2014, the evidence for an exposure-response relationship for annoyance was (a.o) reviewed for the noise sources aircraft, railway, road traffic, Adding studies after 2014 : all provide consistent evidence of an exposure-response relationship (Erfs) between environmental noise and annoyance, Erfs (per source) show considerable variance over time and between studies, Supporting the preference for region specific curves 7

8 Erfs differ from earlier studies 1 WHO Evidence Review 2017 (Guski, Schreckenberg & Schuemer, Covers publications ): 12 aircra noise surveys provided ERFs, N=17,094 Modelled data from ERFs were weighted by study size, and aggregated: % HA higher than EU standard curve at comparable Lden % Highly Annoyed Air Heathrow 2003 Air Berlin-Tegel 2003 Air Amsterdam 2003 Air Arlanda 2003 Air Athens 2003 Air Malpensa 2003 Air Zurich Air Hanoi 2009 Air HoChiMinh 2008 Air DaNang 2011 Air Amsterdam 2002 Air Frankfurt 2005 Regr WHO full dataset Regr Miedema & Oudshoorn Air 2001 C.I. Miedema & Oudshoorn Air 2001 Regr Janssen & Vos 2009 C.I. Janssen & Vos Lden (db) Guski: Increase of aircraft noise annoyance ICBEN 2017 p. 8

9 Increase of % HA is not unique to aircraft noise 1 WHO Evidence Review 2017, Railway noise annoyance: %HA higher than EU standard curve at comparable Lden Esp. at higher Lden levels Guski: Increase of aircraft 9 noise annoyance ICBEN 2017 p. 9

10 Increase of % HA is not unique to aircraft noise 2 WHO Evidence Review 2017, Road traffic noise annoyance: %HA higher than EU standard curve at lower Lden levels Esp. if Alpine studies are included Guski: Increase of aircraft 10 noise annoyance ICBEN 2017 p. 10

11 Cardiovascular diseases, sleep disturbance and other health effects of transportation noise results from the NORAH Study Environmental noise the underestimated public health problem Side event of the 6 th Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health Ostrava, Czech Republic, June 2017 Dirk Schreckenberg Centre for Applied Psychology, Environmental and Social Research D Hagen, Germany, 11

12 Agenda 1. NORAH's workpackages 2. Results on Effects of aircraft noise on sleep Risk of cardio vascular and mental health diseases due to transportation noise Effects of aircraft noise on children's cognition Community responses: Annoyance due to transportation noise -12

13 NORAH WPs Acoustics WP1: Annoyance & HQoL WP2: Health WP3: Children's cognition, HQoL -13

14 NORAH WPs Acoustics WP1: Annoyance & HQoL WP2: Health WP3: Children's cognition, HQoL -14

15 %HA due to aircraft, road traffic and railway noise around Frankfurt Airport Air (2012; n = 3 508) 95 % confidence interval p(ha) very/extremely annoyed Road (2012; n = 3 172) 95 % confidence interval Railway (2012; n = 3 307) 95 % confidence interval -15

16 Trend of increasing aircraft noise annoyance NORAH Study (FRA airport expansion: 10/2011) WHO systematic evidence review of studies on aircraft noise annoyance (studies until 2014) %HA Aircraft 25% n = Airports (IATA code) BER = Berlin Brandenburg CGN = Cologne/Bonn FRA = Frankfurt STR = Stuttgart ca. 54 db Guski, Schreckenberg & Schuemer, 2016 European position paper on annoyance due to transportation noise (2002): Aircraft noise: 25% are highly annoyed by L den = 64 db -16

17 How to interpret? It is argued that annoyance is dissociated from sound levels for two reasons: Only up to one third of the variance is explained by average sound levels (e.g. Lden, Lday). Contextual and Personal factors contribute to the explanation of annoyance The ERF have shifted over time towards higher percentage of annoyance against given sound levels than decades ago. BUT: -17

18 That would mean that annoyance is dissociated from sound level exposure However, annoyance is still proportionally related to sound levels and this hasn't changed in the past decades -18

19 Vorphase "Change-Effekt" Übergangsphase Gewöhnungsphase Anpassungsphase Änderung der Lärmreaktionen Änderung der Lärmreaktionen Baseline für neue Geräuschbelastung?? Änderung der Geräuschbelastung Änderung der Geräuschbelastung Zeit 19

20 NORAH-Studie Increase since 2011 Frankfurt: %HA in 2012 ±2dB stabil Decrease since October 2011: Opening of the new (4th) runway Northwest NORAH: Annoyance assessment before (2011) after, 1. year (2012) after, 2. year (2013) -20-

21 Frankfurt: %HA in 2012 vs. reference 2011 Negative change effect in areas of increase: %HA-l > Referenz 2011 Positive change effect in areas of decrease: %HA-l < Referenz 2011 Below 55 db L paeq,06-22h negative change effect also in "stabil" areas (+/- 2 db) -21-

22 Frankfurt: %HA in 2013 What has changed since 2012? In 2013: %HA curves approach the reference curve of 2011 again. In Increase group: %HA curve still above the reference curve of 2011 (change effect remains) -22-

23 A systematic review of evidence of the effect of transport noise interventions on human health Irene van Kamp & Lex Brown 23

24 Points of Departure 1. Exposure to high levels of environmental noise have adverse effects on human health: 1. Sleep disturbance 2. Cognitive development in children 3. Cardiovascular disease 4. Annoyance. etc 2. Changing exposure to environmental noise (Noise Interventions, Noise Management, Noise Control) should change magnitude of health effect. 3. Task: review the literature for evidence of interventions leading to a change in human health outcomes.

25 Types of Interventions 25

26 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE SOURCES Outcome: Annoyance A Source Intervention B Path Intervention C New/Closed Infrastructure E Other Physical AIRCRAFT NOISE SOURCES Outcome: Annoyance B Path Intervention 1-1 C New/Closed Infrastructure 2 1 3

27 Synthesis across studies? Examine association between level and outcome? Too much diversity between studies in: study designs methods of analyses exposure levels Changes in exposure experienced within studies complex and not always adequately linked to individual,s outcomes. ERGO: Not possible.

28 Instead two questions 1) Did interventions result in a change in health outcome? 2) What was the relationship between the intervention outcome and the Exposure-Response Function (ERF) for that outcome?

29 Change Effect (Excess Response) Annoyance Response B expected Response A observed Excess Response Level A Exposure to Transport Noise 29 Level B

30 Conclusions II From the evidence that is available: Environmental noise interventions invariably result in a change in health outcome (for all sources, outcomes, interventions). The minimum change in outcome can be predicted from the ERF (at least for the annoyance outcome, and for road and airtraffic sources) The observed changes in outcome exceed those from ERFs they exhibit excess response. (see also Brown and van Kamp 2009 and compare with Guski s conclusion

31 Conclusions II The review does not confirm clear evidence with respect to thresholds regarding changes in health outcomes as a result of interventions. Little evidence on longitudinal effects, but evidence that the initial change in response is sustained over at least several years. Indirect evidence for an annoyance reducing effect of provision of a quiet side to the dwelling, or the provision of green space in the neighbourhood.

32 Implications for noise management The noise management strategies currently utilized have, at least, the potential of a beneficial effect on human health confirms current management approaches. Caveat : evidence not extensive nor well distributed over all transport noise sources, intervention types, or health outcomes. Magnitude of the interventions in improving health outcomes still unknown.

33 Annoyance in Schoolchildren RANCH/van Kempen et al 2009 (JASA) 33

34 34

35 Forecast: Public Health (NL) Noise annoyance will increase in the years to come The levels of transport related noise will keep increasing in the coming years and also the character of the noise will change. This is the consequence of increasing density in Europe, further urbanization and mobility. Also aircraft transport will increase as will the cargo transport by rail, especially during the night. This implies more noise despite the fact that cars, trans and aircrafts are more quiet. Annoyance might also be caused by low frequency noise due to road traffic. For some people this is perceived as an annoying humming tome. Other sources are: mechanical ventilation systems, heat pumps, and wind turbines all used in view of energy saving measures. 35

36 >>>.. Climate change also implies more cooling systems in the built environment and neighbor noise can be an increasing source of annoyance. Unwanted sound can cause annoyance, sleep disturbance and cardiovascular effects as well as cognitive effects and mental issues (Basner et al, 2014). Although for the latter evidence is weak, it is more that mental problems make people more susceptible to sound. we have spoken now primarily about negative effects, but sound can also be perceived as positive and contribute to wellbeing and restoration. The soundscape approach receives increasing attention in urban planning; hereby sound is not merely considered as waste but also as a building block for attractive, and varied public spaces ( Brown, 2010). 36

37 Evidence reviews Annoyance Sleep Cognitive effects and mental health Effects on cardiovascular and metabolic system Adverse Birth Outcomes Hearingloss and Tinnitus Effects of interventions 37

38 Evidence since 2014 Recent studies show further evidence of an association between transportation noise and health. For example, results of a laboratory sub-study within the frame of the Swiss SiRENE study on short-term and long-term effects of transportation noise exposure suggest short-term effects of nocturnal, in particular intermittent transportation noise on glucose and insulin levels. Results of the German NORAH study on transportation noise-related annoyance, cognition and health of residents around airports ( , published 2015 and later) are largely in line with previous findings on noise annoyance, sleep cardio-vascular effects, healthrelated quality of life and cognitive impairment of children. 38

39 So what are the gaps? NORAH study found evidence for an association between noise exposure and the incidence of depression for all transportation noise sources. BUT: Up to now evidence on mental health effects is inconclusive. In summary, there is a growing number of studies reporting evidence of health impacts of environmental noise. BUT: there are knowledge gaps with regard to the health impact of noise. 39

40 The need for a comprehensive noise impact model on health 40

41 With regard to the impact of noise auditory and non-auditory effects can be distinguished The auditory effects refer to hearing loss or hearing impairments whereas non-auditory effects refer to stress-related effects outside the hearing system. Most effects of environmental noise, in particular the effects of transportation noise are non-auditory. 41

42 Model Babisch Prominent noise-related stress models is the noise reactions scheme Not claiming to describe all psychophysiological pathways Münzel Present a more specific description of the pathophysiological mechanisms of the link between environmental noise and cardiometabolic diseases. 42

43 Association between Noise and Mental Health The stress theory would predict that on the long run responses to noise such as annoyance would lead to reduction in mental health and this is sup-ported by studies on health-related quality of life Or poor mental health comes together with noise sensitivity and less resources to cope with noise and, thus, in consequence, are more annoyed can be predicted from stress theory. It is argued that this reversed causality of the annoyance health association might also be true for (self reported) physical health. 43

44 Within the ENNAH project ( ) the researchers identified knowledge gaps and future research needs on the basis of literature research and workshops. Some of these gaps and re-search needs have been addressed in recent European studies such as The Swiss SiRENE study The French DEBATS project And the German NORAH study 44

45 Points of further Improvement Study Design: Need for more longitudinal and retrospective studies. Noise exposure assessment: need for the assessment of individual noise 'dose'. harmonisation of the environmental noise assessment alternative noise metrics, such as the maximum sound level alone or in combination with the number of events are more appropriate. Differences in the effect of different noise sources: new evidence from WHO reviews shows changes (eg rail bonus no longer justified) >> needs reevaluation! 45

46 >> Noise related aspects For some sources of environmental noise we have little or mixed evidence for health impacts, in particular for risks of health diseases. railway noise, industrial noise and wind turbine noise.. we need to consider noise over full spectrum and possible shifts in these see also above: + the combined impact of multiple sources. 46

47 For annoyance some models for explaining the impact of multiple noise sources exist. >> see eg Good Practice EEA document for other health outcomes, e.g. sleep disturbances and cardiovascular health diseases reliable models on the impact of noise from multiple sources are lacking. Finally as we saw above : intervention studies are missing. More interventions studies are needed in particular for other noise sources than road traffic noise, and for health outcomes other than or in addition to annoyance. These future studies should be of high quality, following a standardised protocol for a before-after study design that facilitates study comparability and considers both short- and long-term health effects. (as proposed in Brown and van Kamp, 2017) 47

48 Thanks for your attention! 48