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

Noise Annoyance: What does it mean?
Ian FLINDELL & Paul HOOPER
Department of Natural Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Keywords: Noise, Annoyance, Community, Management

1. INTRODUCTION
The acoustics community has struggled for many years to find a completely acceptable assessmentof noise annoyance.
Following a long history of research using alternative definitions andassessments of the concept, a concerted international effort eventually resulted in standardized
definitions. These were first published in 2001 by the International Commission on Biological
Effects of Noise (ICBEN)1 and were then adopted as an international technical specification ISO/TS
15666:2003(E) on the assessment of noise annoyance in social surveys 2 (last reviewed andconfirmed in 2017).
They were designed to overcome the previous huge variety of inconsistent and incompatible
annoyance scales. Previously, there was only limited or no comparability between the results ofdifferent studies using different scales 3.
The ICBEN question for the assessment of noise-induced annoyance, available in 9 languages in
the original version, is as follows. The ICBEN offers 2 different answer scales to this question,
which can be queried separately or together in a survey (ICBEN recommends to use both scales
because there was no consensus as to which was ‘best’):

A 5-point verbal scale, recommended for contexts of communication with policy makers:“Thinking about the last (… 12 months or so…), when you are here at home, how muchdoes noise from (… noise source…) bother, disturb, or annoy you?”“extremely”, “very”, “moderately”, “slightly”, and “not at all” 1 .

An 11-point numeric scale, recommended for research purposes, as it is suitable formultivariate statistical methods:“Next is a zero to ten opinion scale for how much (..source..) noise bothers, disturbs orannoys you when you are here at home. If you are not at all annoyed choose zero, if you
are extremely annoyed choose ten, if you are somewhere in between choose a number
between zero and ten. Thinking about the last (..12 months or so..), what number fromzero to ten best shows how much you are bothered, disturbed, or annoyed by (..source..)noise?” 1 .

Probably the main justification for developing these standard annoyance scales was the problem ofcomparing the results of different surveys where people had been asked to report their response tocommunity and environmental noise, but in different ways and with different wordings inquestionnaires, and this is notwithstanding uncertainties arising from q uestionnaires written andadministered in different languages. Previous to the widespread introduction of standardised
measurement scales, various attempts to devise common, ‘harmonised’, dose or exposure – response
relationships had all been subject to effectively unknown degrees of uncertainty in terms of themeasurement of both noise exposure and individual response to that exposure. It was anticipated thatby using standardised response scales as above, at least one source o f uncertainty could be removed.

346

The present authors’ more recent experience has, however, convinced us that at least part of the
supposed benefit of using the ICBEN standardised scales of noise annoyance has been largely illusory.
A good example of this is the continuing differences between the findings obtained in community
noise research carried out using the ICBEN standardised scales, and any resulting technical debates
regarding the most appropriate relationships to be used in predictive modelling and assessment. Seefor example the different levels of community annoyance demonstrated in surveys of populations near
airports around the world reported by Guski et al and summarized in Figure 1 4 .

Figure 1 - calculated %HA.Scatterplot and quadratic regression of the relation between L and thecalculated % HA for 12 aircraft noise studies, together with ERFs by Miedema and Oudshoorn 5 , (red),and Janssen and Vos 6 , (green). Notes: (1) The size of the data points corresponds to the number ofparticipants.
Possible (or hypothetical) explanations for these differences include the following; Respondents to different noise surveys conducted at different times and different places
exhibit fundamentally different responses to community and environmental noise.
 Differences in acoustic factors present when conducting research in different places and atdifferent times contribute to observed differences in findings.
 Response measurement instruments deployed in different noise surveys, even thoughstandardised (e.g. ISO standard questionnaire items) are not actually measuring the samethings in different surveys.
The ‘true explanation’ if there is any such thing, is likely to be a combination of all three hypotheses
set out above. Not all readers will necessarily be aware of these ‘difficulties’ and consequently, eachhypothesis may require an element of further explanation as set out below.

2. UNDERSTANDING VARIATION IN ANNOYANCE RESPONSES
2.1 Individual differences in response
Apart from the fact that normal healthy people (not suffering from any disease or significant
sensory impairment) are (generally) rather more similar than they are different physiologically, and are
therefore likely to possess similar auditory capabilities, there are no particular reasons why theyshould all have the same attitudes and opinions when faced with different situations. In fact, it is wellknown that different people have different preferences, both aesthetically and socially, and are likely
to be more or less satisfied with different situations. These differences become increasingly important347

when considering the possible adverse health effects of chronic stress associated with negative
attitudes to community and environmental noise.
Potential explanations for these differences are offered in many studies of noise annoyance basedon, or at least echoing the transactional model of stress and coping, developed by Lazarus 7 . Suchstudies have identified certain precursors as well as implications and consequences, of noise
annoyance models, all of which are integrated into a coherent model, which reflects both theoreticalexplanations and empirical findings of the Lazarus model.

Figure 2 - Transactional model of stress and coping according to Lazarus and Folkman 7,8
In the transactional model stress is explained as the result of an interaction between environmental
and personal factors. Special importance is attached to the subjective evaluation of both the stressor
and a person’s individual resources. Lazarus describes stressors as, "demands made by the internal orexternal environment that upset balance, thus affecting physical and psychological well -being andaction to restore balance" 7.
When a person is exposed to a stressor, initially - consciously or unconsciously - an interpretationof the stressor takes place (primary appraisal). The model suggests that if this is judged as positive or
irrelevant, no stress will occur. However, if the stressor is classified as dangerous, it is potentiallystress inducing. It can then be:a challenge, if the situation seems manageable,a threat, if there is potential future harm or
harm/loss, when harm has already occurred

In all of these potentially stress-inducing situations, according to the model, there will be another again conscious or unconscious - assessment of whether the situation can be overcome with available
resources (secondary appraisal), that is, an assessment about the person’s control over the stressor.

348

These evaluation processes do not necessarily have to happen consecutively; they can also take place
simultaneously and interact with each other. The resources can be within the person (e.g. physical ormental) as well as externally available options (e.g. social or mate rial).
If the available resources are rated as insufficient for the given stressor, a stress response istriggered. Stress, in turn, provokes coping processes to reduce stress. Depending on the person's
feelings about controllability, these mechanisms can either address the problem or the emotions: In the case of perceived control there will be problem-focused coping, aimed at
reducing/changing the problem or the stressor itself, including strategies like generating
alternative solutions or learning new skills to deal with the stressor.
 In the case of little or no perceived control there will be emotion-focused coping, aimed at
reducing negative emotions, including strategies like avoiding, acceptance, selective
attention, venting anger, and substance abuse.
After the coping attempts, a reappraisal of the stressor and the resources takes place. For example,
after a reappraisal, a former threat might be rated as a non-stress-inducing challenge. After the
reappraisal, if necessary, further efforts to cope take place.
Therefore, according to this model, decisive for the development of stress are the cognitive
assessment processes and, in particular, the assessment of available resources. Stress, then, is theresult of a complex interactive process between a person and the environment, with a perceived
imbalance between the perceived threatening or dangerous requirement of the environment and theperceived resources. The experience of ‘stress’ may vary considerably between different individu als in
different situations.
As stated above, many models of noise annoyance are based on Lazarus' transactional model ofstress and coping. As one of the first, Stallen specified a corresponding specific noise annoyancemodel. Many of the models proposed later are essentially extensions or slight modifications toStallen's model 9.
As an example, Figure 3 shows the central part of the model by Schreckenberg et al10 (the complete
model also contains sleep, health, and environmental quality of life-factors), which is the most recent
model modification.

Figure 3 - Model of noise annoyance according to Schreckenberg et al10
In this model - just as in the other models of noise annoyance - the environmental stressor a person
has to deal with is, of course, sound. The stress response is somewhat loosely described as annoyance.
It results, analogous to the model of Lazarus, from an interaction of the appraisal of the threat of thestressor (primary appraisal) and the appraisal of the resources to face or cope with the threat(secondary appraisal).
Stallen points out that in the context of noise annoyance primary appraisal can be understood as
perceived disturbance and secondary appraisal as the extent of the perceived control of the sound ornoise situation 9 .

349Perceived control plays a central role in the emergence of noise annoyance. It may have mental, thatis cognitive and affective, components (e.g. the predictability of future sound exposure), as well as
behavioural components (e.g. the ability to alter exposure).
The meaning and significance of perceived control applies equally to all models of noise annoyancefound in the literature, and has moreover also been underpinned by many empirical findings. Most
importantly Stallen emphasises that the various components of perceived control can never becompletely subjective: "To a large extent perceived control is rooted in how noise is managed inpractice by the source". Thus, he identifies the management of sound levels (in addition to theactual sound level) as important determinants of noise annoyance 9 .
Coping has a dual meaning and function in the noise annoyance models based on Lazarus. On the
one hand, it is to be understood as a strategy to deal with experienced stress. In this sense, coping can- analogous to Lazarus' original model - be both problem-focused (e.g. acquiring sound insulation
measures to minimize the impact of the stressor on the person) and emotion -focused (e.g. mindfulness
exercises to reduce perceived stress). On the other hand, the state of the successfully achieved
overcoming of stress is called coping, too.
Coping is seen as a process of reappraisal of the person-environment situation, that is, in Stallen’swords “a matter of mental (cognitive and/or emotional) change including the formation of new
behavioural intentions and (…) the undertaking of correspondent actions” 9 . At this point, "non-noise
related characteristics of the person or environment" become particula rly relevant. These are discussed
in Section 2.3 below.
Stallen’s work and later work by others help explain why individual annoyance responses toso-called ‘overall’ noise and ‘specific’ noise often bear no obvious relationship whatsoever. It is not
unknown for individuals to describe or report their home environments as being generally ‘quiet’ andpleasant places to live, even if, when answering a different questionnaire item, they might reportaircraft noise as ‘very annoying’, or less frequently, vice versa. In qualitative, open ended, research,
respondents will often report aircraft noise as ‘very annoying’ while at the same time claiming thatthey have ‘got used to the noise’ and hardly notice it for most of the time. Which is the most relevant
response for predicting annoyance stress related health effects? In such cases, when the respondent
reports that the aircraft noise is ‘very annoying’ do they mean that the aircraft noise itself has someproperty of being very annoying (but that it hasn’t actually had that effect on them as individuals), or
do they mean that they themselves are very annoyed. These are two entirely different concepts andcannot be distinguished simply from the data obtained by using standardised questionnaire formats.
There have been situations where people have reported noise as being annoying even at times of day
when they are not personally present and thereby exposed to the noise. We can speculate as to why
this happens, but the only way to find out is to actually ask people, and even then they might not havethought about it and don’t actually know themselves.
2.2 Acoustic factors
Most situations vary across a wide range of different physical or objective acoustic factors present,
and by no means have all, or even many of, of these factors been properly reflected by whatever
acoustic metrics have been deployed in research. For example, the current and largely administrative
consensus for the increasingly widespread adoption of LAeq and Lden type acoustic metrics, while
beneficial for standardisation and comparison purposes, should not be accepted as a basis for assumingthat these metrics represent anything other than long-time average acoustic intensity, withstandardised weightings and adjustments, at any specific measuremen t location under the specificconditions pertaining at the time of measurement. Actual noise exposure can vary in terms of different
time of day distributions, and also in terms of the representativeness of any particular day for any otherday, or average day.
Repeating such measurements at different times and at slightly different locations will usuallyobtain at least slightly and often significantly different results. Averaging over larger measurement
samples reduces variance and may be understood as increasing the stability of the measurement, but inreality it simply conceals uncertainty. If people were completely static, like trees, it might be possible
to devise long time measurement programmes that obtain data representative of actual exposure, but inpractice, standardised outdoor measurements (and associated noise models) are not particularly
representative of individual noise exposure at all. People spend different amounts of time indoors
and outdoors, and often spend a considerable proportion of the day somewhere else entirely.

350

Measuring personal noise ‘dose’ using dosimeters can provide much more representative data for eachparticular individual’s exposure, but practical experience shows that dosimeter data is poorly, if at all,related to standard measurements of outdoor community and environmental noise.
In addition, and in many situations, adopting different weightings and ‘adjustments’ from thosearbitrarily defined in standard acoustic metrics will often result in different outcomes. It should be
noted that the available evidence to support the use of for example; the A -frequency weighting;so-called energy averaging; and even the various time of day weightings specific to Ldn and Lden, is
in fact limited and even controversial in some applications.
Possibly an even bigger problem would be caused by any attempt to adjust physical (or objective)
measurements for so-called non-acoustic factors arising from differences not amenable to short -term
physical measurement, such as general attitudes towards the noise source and/or whicheverorganisation or institution is responsible for the noise and/or it’s regulation and management. An
interesting variation of this problem arose several years ago, when in a large scale government
sponsored survey of reported attitudes to aircraft noise in the UK, average reported annoyance washigher than expected on the basis of previous research, and it was suggested by peer reviewers that this
could have been a consequence of dissatisfaction with the regulator or the regulatory procedures rather
than actual chronic annoyance, and that possibly perversely, this was not evidence that the results ofthe previous research had been in any way called into question (see 11 for full list of ANASE
documents).
2.3 Individual and community response
Acoustic metrics, no matter how many associated physical or acoustic factors are taken into
account, are not measurements of individual or community response no matter how strong any
statistical relationship exists between them. Disregarding human chronic and acute health effects(which is effectively another topic entirely) human response can only be measured, or possibly
observed, directly from observations of human behaviour or by means of subjective questionnaires.
Preliminary investigations of human behaviour have not shown much sensitivity to community andenvironmental noise levels, and have largely fallen out of use. Most research and assessment has
therefore been forced to fall back on subjective questionnaires, leading to the ISO standard scales ofannoyance reported earlier. The main difficulty with the ISO standard scales is that they record no
information about the particular way that the respondent may have understood the concept of noise
annoyance and any strategy they might have adopted to provide a response or to adopt any kind of
coping behaviour. Considerably more information can be obtained from individual respondents bymeans of in-depth qualitative interviews, but this technique can be equivalently compromised b y
unknown bias and expectation on the part of the interviewer. The only solution to these problems is toprogress slowly using both quantitative and qualitative methods, and if possible, provide meaningful
yet still hypothetical alternatives for respondents to express preferences between. Perhaps it should
also be more widely accepted that it is perhaps unreasonable to expect different respondents indifferent situations to be consistent in their attitudes to community and environmental noise as muchdepends on a large number of individual differences and multiple so-called non-acoustic factors,
which can vary considerably between different situations.

3. CONCLUSIONS
There is no simple solution to many of these problems and any continuing search for uniformity andconsistency will be more or less doomed to failure. Instead, given our understanding of the stressresponse and the role of non-acoustic factors in influencing the human response to noise, it would bebetter to focus on the particular reasons for carrying out any research or assessment and then employ
whatever measurement instruments appear to be most appropriate for that particular task. In
particular authorities charged with mitigating noise problems should focus on the noise management
process itself, as this can be crucial in determining the annoyance response (see Stallen above), andthis is often the one part of the overall situation that they can actually have any influence over. A
management process that involves affected communities in key decisions, through appropriate
communication and engagement procedures, is likely to result in outcomes that are more acceptable tocommunities; providing some control over the root cause of the environmental stressor and thus offer
the potential to lower annoyance and any associated long-term health outcomes. So perhaps the goal ofnoise management should be to arrive at consensus outcomes rather than to seek to mitigate annoyance
directly, given that the latter remains a contested concept that has provided exceptionally difficult to351

quantify and relate to given sound stimuli.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors may acknowledge the support of the EU through H2020 research project ANIMA, which isinvestigating novel approaches to the mitigation of aircraft noise impacts

REFERENCES
1. Fields, J. M., Jong, R. G. de, Gjestland, T., Flindell, I. H., Job, R. F.S., Kurra, S., . . . Guski, R. (2001).
Standardized general-purpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: Research and arecommendation. Journal of Sound and Vibration. 2001: 242(4): 641–679.
2. ISO. Acoustics - Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. ISO/TS
15666:2003. Geneva, Switzerland.
3. Janssen, S. A., Vos, H., van Kempen, E. E. M. M., Breugelmans, O. R. P., & Miedema, H. M. E. Trends inaircraft noise annoyance: the role of study and sample characteristics. The Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America. 2011: 129(4): 1953–1962.
4. Guski, R., Schreckenberg, D., & Schuemer, R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European
Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance. International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public Health. 2017: 14: 1539.
5. Miedema, H. M., & Oudshoorn, C. G. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure
metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environmental Health Perspectives 2001: 109(4):409–416.
6. Janssen, S.A.; Vos, H. A Comparison of Recent Surveys into Aircraft Noise Exposure-Response
Relationships. In TNO Report; The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research: The
Hague, The Netherlands. 2009, p14.
7. Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. 1984. New York: Springer.
8. Guttmann, P. Illustration of the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping of Richard Lazarus. 2016
[Online][Accessedon
18thDecember
2018]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Transactional_Model_of_Stress_and_Coping_-_
Richard_Lazarus.svg
9. Stallen, P.J.M. A theoretical framework for environmental noise annoyance. Journal of Noise and Health.
1999: 1(3): 69–79.
10. Schreckenberg, D.. Meis, M. and Eikmann, T. Aircraft Noise and Quality of Life around Frankfurt
Airport. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2010: 7(9): 3382-3405.
11.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081106075800/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/enviro
nmentalissues/Anase/352