PROCEEDINGS of the23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Forty-five years of surveys on annoyance from road traffic noise
Truls GJESTLAND
SINTEF DIGITAL, Norway

truls.gjestland@sintef.noABSTRACT
The Miedema & Vos curve for predicting road traffic noise annoyance was based on 18 different surveys
conducted over a period of 9 years. The curve was developed using a statistical regression technique. An
extended analysis comprising 46 surveys conducted between 1969 and 2013 yields a very similar
dose-response relationship. This analysis was based on the CTL method (Community Tolerance Level).
There are no obvious temporal trends, and contrary to claims by other researcher the prevalence of highly
annoyed residents exposed to road traffic noise today is the same as 45 years ago.
Keywords: Noise annoyance, road traffic, temporal trends

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years several researchers have published articles claiming that annoyance due toenvironmental noises have increased. In other words, the prevalence of highly annoyed people today ishigher than it was 25 or 50 years ago (1). As a consequence, The World Health Organization, WHO,
last year presented new noise guidelines for Europe recommending lower exposure limits for both
aircraft and road traffic noise in order to avoid adverse health effects (2). These recommendations werebased on results from noise surveys published after 2000.
Gelderblom et al. have published a comprehensive analysis of 62 social surveys on aircraft noise
conducted between 1961 and 2015, that shows there has been no change in people's reaction to thistype of noise (3).
In this paper a similar analysis will be conducted of results from surveys on road traffic noise. TheCTL method (4, 5) is a very convenient tool for this type of analysis. The method, further explained in
the international standard ISO 1996-1 (6), provides a single number characterization of a noise
situation, a CTL value, that defines a complete dose-response curve, from 0% to 100% highly annoyed.
Differences in people's reaction to various noise situations can therefore be discussed in terms ofdifferences in CTL values.

2. RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS
Forty-seven surveys of annoyance from road traffic noise conducted over the past five decades
were identified for which sufficient information was available to calculate their CTL values. The
surveys included in this analysis is shown in Table 1. The reference codes refer to the catalog by
Bassarab et al. (7).
Table 1. Data from 47 surveys of road traffic noise annoyance
Study year

Location

ReferenceRespondents

CTL value [dB]1969

Paris area

FRA-041

700

79.6

1971

Basel

SWI-053

3939

81.6

1972

Copenhagen area

DEN-075

960

77.3

1972

London area

UKD-0712933

771974

Dordrecht

NET-106383

68.61975Antwerp

BEL-122

1319

85361

362

1975

Amsterdam, exp.

NET-258

622

80.3

1975

Western Ontario

CAN-120

1150

74.6

1975

Toronto area

CAN-121

1786

87.6

1976

Brussels

BEL-137

495

81.3

1976

Sweden 3 cities

SWE-142

1377

85.3

1976

Gothenburg

SWE-165

464

92

1977

Germany, 26 areas

GER-192

1080

77.6

1977

London area

UKD-157

1363

78.3

1978

Canada, 4 sites

CAN-168

965

78.6

1982

GB, 5 sites

UKD-242

2097

77.3

1983

Neth. 3 cities

NET-276

798

69.6

1984

France, 4 sites

FRA-239

1032

84.6

1984

Schiphoel

NET-240

581

75.3

1984

ArnhemNET-362132275

1984

Glasgow

UKD-238

608

78.3

1985

Germany, 2 cities

GER-372

564

82

1987

Germany, Ratingen

GER-373

516

74.6

1989

Austria, Alpine

AUS-329

1989

69.3

1990

Italy, Modena

ITL-350

908

73

1993

Multi area

NET-361

4038

78.3

1993

France, 15 sites

FRA-364

895

78.3

1995

Istanbul, motorway

TRK-367

154

74.3

1996

Gothenburg, detachedSWE-368

436

68.6

1996

Gothenburg, apartment

SWE-368

706

78.3

1996

Kumamoto, detachedJAP-369

378

74

1996

Kumamoto, apartment

JAP-369

458

75.3

1997

France, 61 sites

Cremezi et al. (8)673

81.31997

Sapporo, detachedJAP-382

411

76.3

1997

Sapporo, apartment

JAP-382

369

76

2000

Sweden, 2 cities

SWE-526

956

78.3

2002

Copenhagen

DEN-5291149

862005

Hanoi

Shimoyama et al (9)

1503

78.3

2006

Alpine motorway

Lercher et al. (10)

3630

75.1

2006

Alpine main road

Lercher et al. (10)

3630

72.3

2007

Ho Chi Minh

Shimoyama et al (9)

1471

84.3

2009

Hong Kong

Brown et al. (11)

10077

82

2011

Da Nang

Shimoyama (9)

492

88.3

2012

Hue

Shimoyama (9)

688

92

2013

Swiss German

Brink (12)

2386

76.3

2013

Thai NguyenShimoyama (9)

81385

2015

Switzerland

Brink (13)

5431

78.3

2.1 Analysis
The surveys listed in Table 1 comprise interviews with more than 70,000 respondents. The grandmean CTL value for these studies is LCT 78.7 dB. The dose-response curve associated with this CTL
value is shown in Figure 1 together with the current EU reference curve for road traffic noise. The CTL
curve under-estimates the annoyance at low exposure levels compared with the EU reference curve andindicates slightly higher prevalence of annoyance at high exposure levels.

percentage highly annoyed

504030EU20CTL 78.7
1004045505560657075

road traffic noise, Lden [dB]

Figure 1. Comparison of the average dose-response function for 47 surveys of road traffic noiseannoyance (CTL value 78.7) and the current EU reference curve.
The CTL value for 47 individual surveys has been plotted as a function of study year in Figure 2.
The difference between the highest and lowest value is about 25 dB. The difference in CTL value
between the various surveys can be attributed to non-acoustical factors. One such factor could be atemporal trend factor.
A linear regression function has been fitted to the dataset. This line is almost horizontal with apositive slope of only 0.032 dB/year. This indicates that the average response has been quite stable
across the relevant time period. A positive slope means that the annoyance is decreasing.
The EU reference curve established by Miedema and Vos (14) was based on 18 different surveys,
the last one being conducted in 1993. If the dataset is split in a pre - and post-1993 part, the average
CTL value for 26 pre-1993 surveys turns out to be LCT 78.5 dB and the corresponding value for the 21
post-1993 surveys is LCT 79.0 dB. The difference from the grand average of LCT 78.7 dB is negligible.
Guski et al. have analyzed a set of road traffic studies published from 2000 and onwards (1). The
dataset comprises studies conducted from 1996 to 2013. They conclude that the annoyance has
increased compared with earlier studies. Their work was part of a World Health Organization initiativeto establish new recommendations for exposure to environmental noise. Unfortunately, the conclusionby Guski et al. was based on a set of incompatible survey results, see paper by Gjestland (15).

363

95

CTL value [dB]

90
85
80
75
7065
1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

survey year

Figure 2. CTL values for 47 surveys on road traffic noise conducted between 1969 and 2015. The
dotted line is a linear regression function fitted to the data.
The average CTL value for the post-1996 studies in Table 1 is LCT 80.0 dB. The difference from the
grand average is not significant, but a higher CTL value indicates a lower prevalence of highlyannoyed. In other words, the average annoyance found from recent studies seems to be lower, nothigher, than for earlier ones.

3. CONCLUSIONS
Detailed analysis of the results from 47 surveys of annoyance from road traffic noise conducted
over the last half a century shows that there is a relatively large spread in th e response data. The same
degree of annoyance can be found for noise exposure levels that differ by as much as 25 dB. Such
differences are attributed to non-acoustical factors.
A plot of CTL values as a function of survey year shows that there has been vi rtually no change in
the average annoyance response over the past 45 years. A linear regression line fitted to these data ispractically horizontal, indicating that the prevalence of highly annoyed people today is the same as
forty-five years ago. The exposure-response curve established by Miedema & Vos in 1998 seems togive a reasonably good description of the average annoyance response. Thus, the new recommendationfrom WHO regarding road traffic noise is not supported by existing evidence.

REFERENCES
1.

2.
3.
4.

5.

364

Guski, R., Schreckenberg, D., & Schuemer, R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the EuropeanRegion. A systematic review on environmental noise and annoyance. Int J of Environmental Research andPublic Health, 2017, doi:10.3390/ijerph14121539
World Health Organization. Environmental noise guidelines for the European region. 2018, Copenhagen,Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe
Gelderblom, F. B., Gjestland, T., Fidell, S., & Berry, B. On the stability of community tolerance for aircraft
noise. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 17-27, 2017
Fidell, S., Mestre, V., Schomer, P. D., Berry, B., Gjestland, T., Vallet, M., Reid, T.: A first-principles modelfor estimating the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise exposure. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130 (2011)
791–806.
Schomer, P., Mestre, V., Fidell, S., Berry, B., Gjestland, T., Vallet, M., & Reid, T. (2012). Role of community
tolerance level in predicting the prevalence of the annoyance of road and rail noise. J Acoust Soc Am,
2772-2786.

6.
7.
8.
9.

10.

11.
12.
13.

14.
15.

ISO. (2016). ISO 1996-1. Acoustics - Description, measurement and assesment of environmental noise - part1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures. International Standardization Organization.
Bassarab, R., Sharp, B., Robinette, B.: An updated catalog of 628 social surveys of residents’ reaction toenvironmental noise (1943–2008). Wyle Laboratories, WR 09-18, 2009.
Cremezi, C, Gautier, P E, Lambert, J, Champelovier, P, Annoyance due to combined noise sources –Advanced results, ICA 2001, Rome
Shimoyama, K, Yano, T, Morihara, T, Nguyen, T, Nguyen, H Q, Comparison of community response to roadtraffic noise in five cities of Vietnam, 11th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem(ICBEN) 2014, Nara, JAPAN, 2014
Lercher, P.; de Greve, B.; Botteldooren, D.; Rüdisser, J. A comparison of regional noise-annoyance-curves inalpine areas with the European standard curves. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Noise
as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN 2008), Foxwoods, CT, USA, 21–25 July 2008.
Brown, L, Lam, K C, van Kamp, I, Quantification of the exposure and effects of road traffic noise in a dense
Asian city: a comparison with western cities, Environ Health, 14: 22, 2015
Brink M (2011). Parameters of well-being and subjective health and their relationship with residential
traffic noise exposure – a representative evaluation in Switzerland. Environ Int. 37:723–33.
Brink, M., Schäffer, B., Vienneau, D., Foraster, M., Pieren, R., Eze. I. C., Cajochen, C., Probst-Hensch, N.,Röösli, M. Wunderli, J-M., A survey on exposure-response relationships for road, rail, and aircraft noise
annoyance: Differences between continuous and intermittent noise. Environ. Int. Feb 2019, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.043
Miedema, H. M., & Vos, H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am,1998, 3432-3445
Gjestland, T. A critical review of the basis for WHO's new recommendatons for limiting annoyance due toenvironmental noise, Proc. 23rd International Congress on Acoustics, September 2019, Aachen, Germany365