PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Assessment of short-term annoyance due to shooting noise using
the experience sampling method
Stephan Grossarth1; Dirk Schreckenberg1
1

ZEUS GmbH, Germany

ABSTRACT
Experience Sampling or Ecological Momentary Assessment allows researchers to assess behavioral andpsychological phenomena directly in a given situation. In a longitudinal study, we aim to model short-term
annoyance due to shooting noise as a function of intra- and inter-individual differences in perceived
annoyance by using a hierarchical data modelling approach. The MovisensXS app is used to collect data from80 participants at three different study sites in Germany. They are asked to participate for a period of fiveconsecutive days per week. During this time, the participants fill out a survey consisting of 19 items, fivetimes a day at set intervals. This will add up to approximately 4,000 single measurements depending on the
response rate and the compliance. We describe the methodology of this study, the planning and executional
steps taken to ensure a proper data quality. Furthermore, we will explain what has been done to prepare thedata analysis. Finally, we will give a forecast into data analysis and will exemplarily talk about longitudinal
data analysis and linear mixed effect modelling.
Keywords: Short-term annoyance, shooting noise, experience sampling

1. INTRODUCTION
For years, environmental noise has been recognized and treated as an important public health issue,
being among the top environmental risks to health (1). For gaining insight into the implications
environmental noise exposure has on the life and health of individuals, noise assessments are
conducted regularly in the context of city noise mapping and health impact assessments [HIAs].
Usually, for purposes of assessing health impact of noise exposure and resident's responses to noise,
Surveys on long-term community response to noise are carried out in defined areas. While this practicehas been proven to be a valid strategy, there are some implications deriving from real -life
circumstances that cannot be thoroughly reflected by the established study methodologies.
For once, there are several short-term noise events, which can cause high annoyance, but which will
most likely not be displayed in a long-term annoyance rating approach. Examples for this canfrequently be found throughout all countries and communities: Construction sites, vehicle noises (e.g.
motorbike noise in summer), increased noise exposure for people spending time in their gardens on asummer’s night compared to indoor stay, etc. Additionally, there are various personal (2) and areal
differences (3–5), which not only cause differences in perceived annoyance but also in soundpropagation, altering the perception of a noise emitted at point A distinctively from the soundimmissions at point B and C. As the regular regression-derived exposure-response functions do notoffer a solution to consider these individual differences in perceived annoyance, the differences in
explained variance are potentially lost to insufficient study design set ups. Here , we propose anddescribe a solution to the question of how to model short-term annoyance by illustrating a study as an
example. The study examines short-term noise annoyance caused by small and large firearms at threedifferent military training sites in Germany. Several studies on blast noise annoyance have been
carried out in the last decades. However, for Germany, no updated information on shooting noise
annoyance exists since the 1980's and 1990's.
We meet the implications of a repeated measure, short-term blast noise annoyance analysis by
exercising an Ecological Momentary Assessment, which is also known as Experience Sampling
Method [ESM] or Diary Study. Our aim is to describe the process of obtaining data and setting up a
study design, granting to fulfil all requirements for proper scientific data obtainment once the study is1390

grossarth@zeusgmbh.de; schreckenberg@zeusgmbh.derunning. Although, we cannot report any results, yet, we aim at giving insight into the process of
in-situ noise assessment strategies. We describe the process of preparing a multilevel analysis andexplain possible pitfalls during the phase of data collection.

2. THEORY
The current issue of the technical instructions on noise [TA Lärm] stipulates noise thresholds forstationary noise sources in Germany. This is also true for small calibre firearms (<20mm projectilesand <50mg of a TNT equivalent). However, military training grounds are not considered by this
instruction, including all weapons with bigger projectiles and explosive charges. Lenart et al. (4)assume that there are two reasons for this:
1. The defence contract has a somewhat special status in regards to noise regulation ;2. Due to many different physical implications and lack of physical knowledge specifics, a standard
regulation cannot be imposed.
The German armed forces do practice “kooperatives Lärmmanagement” [cooperative noise
management]. This includes the following self-imposed noise related restrictions:x A daily average noise level of 70 dB(C) ‫ܮ‬ௗ௘௡ in mixed zones and 65 dB(C) ‫ܮ‬ௗ௘௡ inresidential areas including all shots from heavy guns is not to be exceeded more than 5% of
the days in a year
x The maximum level of 100dB(C) ‫ܮ‬ௗ௘௡ in mixed zones and 95 dB(C) ‫ܮ‬ௗ௘௡ in residential
areas for a single noise event is not to be exceeded more than 5% of the days in a year
x Both of these goals must be fulfilled for every inhabited grid cell with the dimensions 250
meters *250 meters.
Shooting noise emissions from military bases are, therefore, monitored by the responsible
authorities. To take the impacts of different weapons and their characteristics (e.g. small and large
guns, cannons, missiles, rapid and slow fire) into account, different sound exposure levels [SELs] havebeen chosen to assess correlated annoyance ratings. As Schreckenberg (6) has summed up, annoyancecaused by small firearms correlates more with an A-weighted sound level, while the correlations
between big gun fire are more appropriately reflected with a C-weighted SEL.
Although this could lead to the assumption that at least differences in weapons and projectiles usedin training have been considered by research before, the majorities of studies examine small firearms(6, 9) and large firearms (10) independently, without considering the effects of another weapon type.
Practice sessions run on a schedule determined by the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) , which is
being communicated to the residents in the area. Although projectable, noise emissions caused by guns,cannons and rifles on military training grounds occur throughout all hours of a day, because the armed
forces have to practice day and night.
As stated above, no updated information exists for the the exposure-response relationship for %HA
due to shooting noise in Germany. However, Lenart et al. (4) estimate an increase in %HA at 70 dB (C)‫ܮ‬ௗ௘௡ . This is fairly close to the estimates of Nykaza et al. (2), who see the threshold for a considerable
increase in %HA at 60-65 dB (C) ‫ܮ‬ௗ௘௡ .
Like road, aircraft, railway, industrial and leisure noise, noise deriving from military practiceroutines potentially interferes with people’s leisure time and interrupts or disturbs daily activities.
However, during our research, we found three particularly relevant sound character istics, which are
not unique to shooting noise, but potentially have a significant impact on human perception andresponse:
1. Low frequencies: especially big gun blasts and explosions (assumed the explosive charge isabove a 1kg TNT equivalent) elicit deep frequencies at 10-100 Hz (11, 7). Until today, findings
suggest that groups of respondents may react particularly sensitive to low-frequency noise (e.g.
12).
2. Impulse noise: unlike a train or a plane that moves towards a receptor or a constant traffic flow,
shots, blasts, and explosions occur suddenly and unpredictably. The impulse character ofgunfire may cause people to jump and startle (13, 14). It shall be noted that an impulse soundcannot only be produced by the shot itself, but also by sonic boom, which is propagated along
the flight path of a projectile, assumed the projectile reaches speed of at least Mach 1.
3. Vibration and rattle: (15–19) The so-called “rattle-factor” (17) is of importance whenever391

people experience sound derived vibration and rattle inside their homes (20). That is, people
are likely induced with fear of structural damage to their dwellings and belongings, whichalthough very unlikely (21)- has potential to increase annoyance.
At military training grounds, shooting practice sessions vary day by day. The cooperative noise
management aims at monitoring the practise sessions which, again, results in a fine -tuning offollowing practise sessions from the perspective of (modelled) noise exposure. The objective of thisstudy is to evaluate the cooperative noise management from the perspective of noise responses ofresidents living in the vicinity of military training grounds. In order to conduct the survey thatconsiders relevant variables of shooting noise with regard to human perception and response, we haveto operationalize each of the above mentioned aspects in our questionnaire. A translation of altogether
18 questions used in the diary study is given below (see table 2).

3. STUDY SITES AND SAMPLING
We used QGIS (22) to define a 5 km radius along the outskirts of the military training grounds forthe definition of the study areas. Once the geographical coordinates of these 5 km contours had been
extracted, we obtained addresses and geographical coordinates of all residential properties withinthese study areas from the responsible surveying and mapping authority agency (Zentrale Stelle fürHauskoordinaten und Hausumringe, Köln [ZSHH]).
Having obtained the addresses, we contacted the registration offices in each administrative region
to complete our building data sets with personal data. Altogether, the process took several months until
all personal data was received. Unfortunately, one sub-region had to be left out from the final
examination due to unsuitable (not processable) format.
In each study area a survey on long-term shooting noise annoyance precedes the experiencesampling study. For this, random samples are drawn from the obtained register data sets. A mixed
mode (postal and online survey) will be applied for the long-term survey. The recruitment will be done
'offline' by means of personalised invitation letters. Altogether, the aim is to get 800 participants of thelong-term annoyance survey and 80 persons participating in the ESM study. At the end of the initiallong-term questionnaire we ask participants if they would, in general, be willing to participate in an
in-depth study on shooting noise.
As the long-term study will last for a couple of months we will regularly check for volunteers andwill be able to reach out to them while the long-term assessment is still ongoing. This enables us, toreact flexibly on participants preferences in regard to their daily life.
Three independent study sites throughout Germany are selected for the study (see figure 1).

392

Figure 1: Locations of the selected military training ground in Germany (markers are showing the estimatedcenter of the military training grounds), map data provided by © OpenStreetMap
Munster and Bergen are both located fairly close to each other in Lower Saxony and Baumholder islocated in Rhineland-Palatinate, south of Frankfurt on the Main.

4. STUDY PROCEDURE AND QUESTIONNAIRE
The short-term questionnaire of the ESM study, which will be implemented on the participant's own
mobile device (smartphone, tablet), features 18 questions, each of which addresses the recently passed
time period. Table 1 shows the time frames to be observed and the alarm settings for each measurement.
Participants will have to fill-in the questionnaire five times per day at fixed points of time. The overall
ESM study time will be 14 days, with a four days break after five days, followed by another five daysof the trial. The four days break helps avoiding oversampling weekends.
Table 1 – Alarm settings and time periods observed in the short-term ESM study
Measurement numberTime period observed per day

Alarm

10 pm -6 am

Night

8 am

6 am – 8 am

Early morning

8 am

2

8 am - 12 pm

Morning

12 pm

3

12 pm - 3 pm

Noon

3 pm

4

3 pm - 6pm

Afternoon

6 pm

5

6 pm – 10 pm

Evening

10 pm

1

Although the experience sampling approach demands an in-situ measurement (23–25), we decided
to combine the assessments for the night period (10 pm – 6 am) and for the early morning both in ameasurement at 8 am. Corruption of compliance may occur when setting an alarm too early and data
might be lost, because participants may still be asleep at 6 am or may abort the study altogether due tothe strain of an alarm at 6 am.
Overall, an ESM study is quite demanding towards participants and, therefore, may need special
considerations regarding the stability of participants’ compliance. Accordingly, the alarm time is393

adjusted and the count of measurement points is set to a reasonable limit as the repeated measurements
can be stressful and interfere with participants’ daily routines (26, 27). Additionally, participants
might as well be worried to divulge too much personal data by using their smartphone (e.g. 28).
Participants will receive an expense allowance of € 1 per sent questionnaire to further increase
compliance, which has been proven to be useful in ESM settings (29, 30). Reacting to each alarm andcompleting the questionnaire in every measurement will equal in a total expense allowance of € 50 foreach participant.
Table 2 –Short-term survey questions and response scales (translated from German language)
Number

Question

Scale

Block A) Preponderant whereabouts
Yes, inside my house/flat
Yes, outside (balcony, terrace,1.

During the last period, did you stay at home?

around the house)
No, not at home

2.

If No. 1 = 'Yes, inside my house/flat':
How was the window position while you were at home? b

ClosedPartly open (tilted)
Open

Block B) Annoyance3.

4.

Thinking about the [recent time period], when you are

ICBEN 5-point verbal scale

here at home, how much did noise from firearms bother,(5) Extremely,

disturb, or annoy you?

(4) Very,And how about vibration caused by gunfire, how much didthat bother, annoy or disturb you?

(3) Moderately,(2) Slightly or(1) Not at all

Block C) Noise characteristics
Thinking about the [recent time period], how much did
you feel bothered, disturbed or annoyed by
5.

Frequency

ICBEN 5-point verbal scale

6.

Nature of noise („boom“)(5) Extremely,

7.

Unpredictability/ surprise(4) Very,8.

Startling(3) Moderately,9.

Vicinity or intensity(2) Slightly or

10.

The low frequencies(1) Not at all

11.

other

Open question

Block D) Preponderant activities
Thinking about the [recent time period], how much did
you feel bothered, disturbed or annoyed by shooting noise
during the following activities
12.

394

Talking or calling inside the house/flat

ICBEN 5-point verbal Scale

13.

Listening to the radio or watching TV(5) Extremely,

14.

Reading or focussing inside the house(4) Very,15.

Relaxing after work inside the house/ flat(3) Moderately,

16.

Socializing/ having visitors inside the house/ flat(2) Slightly or

17.

Staying or relaxing outside(1) Not at all’18.

Talking outside

We tested the time needed to the questionnaire in every measurement and estimated thatparticipants will need approximately two minutes for each measurement. Those who regularly react totheir alarms will likely speed up over time due to familiarity.
We use the movisensXS® (31) Android mobile device application to program the questionnaire formobile devices. This enables participants to use their own devices.
A team of assistant researchers will be schooled in the handling of the app and visit all partici pants
at home to assist them in setting up their devices and operating systems . This ensures an orderly
execution of the study.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Conducting a short-term noise assessment with ESM methodology is a demanding exercise. Many
steps in the process are methodical-specific and bear pitfalls, if not considered carefully. Although it
takes a lot of preparation and effort to conduct a study like this, we think short-term, ESM based noiseassessments are worth the trouble.
ESM and the accompanying data analysis with multilevel linear models offer possibilities beyond
the scope of the usual long-term noise annoyance surveys. Here, we have described the details andimplications necessary to set up a study using ESM methodology. There is reason to assume that adiary study can explain more variety in data than the usual retrospective surveys combined withregression derived approaches, by considering in-situ raised data and the discrimination of fixed andrandom effects when calculating the models.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is funded by the Bundesamt für Infrastruktur, Umweltschutz und Dienstleistung der
Bundeswehr (BAIUDBw), Bonn, Germany.

REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization. Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. Copenhagen,Denmark: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe; 2018.
2. Rathsam J, Hayward M, Gille L-A, Nykaza E, Wayant N. Multilevel modeling of recent community
noise annoyance surveys. In: Acoustical Society of America; 2018. p. 1–11 (Proceedings of Meetings on
Acoustics).
3. Ma J, Li C, Kwan M-P, Chai Y. A Multilevel Analysis of Perceived Noise Pollution, Geographic
Contexts and Mental Health in Beijing. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(7).
4. Lenart H, Bauerschmidt W, Hirsch K-W. Das Lärmmanagement der Bundeswehr. Strategie & Technik
2011:54–7.
5. Nykaza ET, Valente D, Swift hS, Danielsson B, Krecker P, Hogdon K et al. An Investigation ofCommunity Attitudes Toward Blast Noise: General Community Survey, Study Site 1. Champaign,
Illinois; 2012.
6. Buchta E. A field survey on annoyance caused by sounds from small firearms. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;
88: 1459–67.
7. Buchta E, Vos J. A ﬁeld survey on the annoyance caused by sounds from large ﬁrearms and road trafﬁc. J
Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104; 2890-2902.

395

8. Schreckenberg D. Belästigung durch Schießgeräusche. In: Proceedings Of DAGA 2017; 2017. p. 1–4.
9. Vos J. A Review of Research on the Annoyance Caused by Impulse Sounds Produced by small Firearms.
In: Proceedings of Inter-Noise 1995; 1995. p. 875–8.
10. Rylander R, Lundquist B. Annoyance Caused by Noise from Heavy Weapon Shooting Ranges. Journalof Sound and Vibration 1996; 192(1):199–206.
11. Storheier SA, Vigran TE. Prediction of Low Frequency Impuslive Sound Propagation. In: inter. noise
2000 The 29th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering; 2000. p. 1–7.
12. Poulsen T. Annoyance of Low Frequency Noise (LFN) in the Laboratory Assessed by LFN-Sufferers
and Non-Sufferers. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 2003; 22(4):191–
201.
13. Nykaza ET, Hodgdon KK, Gaugler T, Krecker P, Luz GA. On the relationship between blast noise
complaints and community annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 133(5):2690–8.
14. Brown D, Sutherland LC. NASA Contractor Report 189643: Evaluation Minimized of
Outdoor-to-Indoor Sonic Booms. Hampton, Virginia: NASA; June 1992.
15. Loubeau A. Evaluation of the effect of aircraft size on indoor annoyance caused by sonic booms andrattle noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 143(3):1936.
16. Fidell S, Pearsons K, Silvati L, Sneddon M. Relationship between low-frequency aircraft noise andannoyance due to rattle and vibration. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111(4):1743–50.
17. Woodcock J, Sica G, Peris E, Sharp C, Moorhouse AT, Waddington DC. Quantification of the effects ofaudible rattle and source type on the human response to environmental vibration. J Acoust Soc Am
2016; 139(3):1225–34.
18. Carr DJ. Two Laboratory Studies of People’s Responses to Sonic Booms and Other Transient Sounds asHeard Indoors [Master Thesis]. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University; 2016.
19.Klos J. Sonic boom induced window rattle in indoor environments. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 143(3):1936.
Available from: URL: https://asa.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1121/1.5036330.
20. Miller DM. Human Response To Low-Amplitude Sonic Booms [Dissertation]: Pennsylvania State
University; 2011.
21. Sabatier JM, Bass HE, Rasper R. Investigation of possibility of damage from acoustically coupledseismic waveform from blast and artillery. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81(S1):S99-S99.
22. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation; 2018. Available from:
URL: http://qgis.osgeo.org/.
23. Hormuth SE. The sampling of experiences in situ. J Personality 1986; 54(1):262–93.
24. Bolger N, Davis A, Rafaeli E. Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol 2003;
54:579–616.
25. Bolger N, Laurenceau J-P. Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experiencesampling research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2013. (Methodology in the social sciences).
26. Wen CKF, Schneider S, Stone AA, Spruijt-Metz D. Compliance With Mobile Ecological Momentary
Assessment Protocols in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J MedInternet Res 2017; 19(4):e132.
27. Verhagen SJW, Hasmi L, Drukker M, van Os J, Delespaul PAEG. Use of the experience sampling
method in the context of clinical trials. Evid Based Ment Health 2016; 19(3):86–9.
28. Wenz A, Jäckle A, Couper MP. Willingness to use mobile technologies for data collection in aprobability household panel. Survey Research Methods 2019; 13(1):1–22.
29. Yu S, Alper HE, Nguyen A-M, Brackbill RM, Turner L, Walker DJ et al. The effectiveness of amonetary incentive offer on survey response rates and response completeness in a longitudinal study.
BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17.
30. Laurie H, Lynn P. The Use of Respondent Incentives on Longitudinal Surveys. Essex, UK: Institute ofSocial and Economic Research University of Essex; 2008.
31. movisensXS. Karlsruhe, Germany; 2019.

396