Resource Documents: Noise (373 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Click here to send in ordinances, contracts, research, testimony, presentations, etc.
Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress
Author: Bakker, R.H.; Pedersen, E.; van den Berg, G.P.; Stewart, R.E.; Lok, W.; and Bouma, J.
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: The present government in the Netherlands intends to realize a substantial growth of wind energy before 2020, both onshore and offshore. Wind turbines, when positioned in the neighborhood of residents may cause visual annoyance and noise annoyance. Studies on other environmental sound sources, such as railway, road traffic, industry and aircraft noise show that (long-term) exposure to sound can have negative effects other than annoyance from noise. This study aims to elucidate the relation between exposure to the sound of wind turbines and annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress of people that live in their vicinity. Data were gathered by questionnaire that was sent by mail to a representative sample of residents of the Netherlands living in the vicinity of wind turbines
PRINCIPAL RESULTS: A dose-response relationship was found between immission levels of wind turbine sound and self-reported noise annoyance. Sound exposure was also related to sleep disturbance and psychological distress among those who reported that they could hear the sound, however not directly but with noise annoyance acting as a mediator. Respondents living in areas with other background sounds were less affected than respondents in quiet areas.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: People living in the vicinity of wind turbines are at risk of being annoyed by the noise, an adverse effect in itself. Noise annoyance in turn could lead to sleep disturbance and psychological distress. No direct effects of wind turbine noise on sleep disturbance or psychological stress has been demonstrated, which means that residents, who do not hear the sound, or do not feel disturbed, are not adversely affected.
Science of the Total Environment. 2012 May 15;425:42-51
Department of Applied Research in Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Halmstad University and Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, Halmstad, Sweden
G.P. van den Berg
GGD Amsterdam Public Health Service, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Department of Community & Occupational Health, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Department of Health Care, Science shop, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources
Author: Janssen, Sabine; Vos, Henk; Eisses, Arno; and Pedersen, Eja
Surveys have shown that noise from wind turbines is perceived as annoying by a proportion of residents living in their vicinity, apparently at much lower noise levels than those inducing annoyance due to other environmental sources. The aim of the present study was to derive the exposure-response relationship between wind turbine noise exposure in L(den) and the expected percentage annoyed residents and to compare it to previously established relationships for industrial noise and transportation noise. In addition, the influence of several individual and situational factors was assessed. On the basis of available data from two surveys in Sweden (N=341, N=754) and one survey in the Netherlands (N=725), a relationship was derived for annoyance indoors and for annoyance outdoors at the dwelling. In comparison to other sources of environmental noise, annoyance due to wind turbine noise was found at relatively low noise exposure levels. Furthermore, annoyance was lower among residents who received economical benefit from wind turbines and higher among residents for whom the wind turbine was visible from the dwelling. Age and noise sensitivity had similar effects on annoyance to those found in research on annoyance by other sources.
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Dec;130(6):3746-53
Sabine A. Janssen
Department of Urban Environment and Safety, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, Delft, The Netherlands
Arno R. Eisses
Department of Acoustics and Sonar, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, The Hague, The Netherlands
Ecology and Environmental Science, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
Author: Verheijen, Edwin; Jabben, Jan; Schreurs, Eric; and Smith, Kevin
The Dutch government aims at an increase of wind energy up to 6 000 MW in 2020 by placing new wind turbines on land or offshore. At the same time, the existing noise legislation for wind turbines is being reconsidered. For the purpose of establishing a new noise reception limit value expressed in Lden, the impact of wind turbine noise under the given policy targets needs to be explored. For this purpose, the consequences of different reception limit values for the new Dutch noise legislation have been studied, both in terms of effects on the population and regarding sustainable energy policy targets. On the basis of a nation-wide noise map containing all wind turbines in The Netherlands, it is calculated that 3% of the inhabitants of The Netherlands are currently exposed to noise from wind turbines above 28 dB(A) at the façade. Newly established dose-response relationships indicate that about 1500 of these inhabitants are likely to be severely annoyed inside their dwellings. The available space for new wind turbines strongly depends on the noise limit value that will be chosen. This study suggests an outdoor A-weighted reception limit of Lden = 45 dB as a trade-off between the need for protection against noise annoyance and the feasibility of national targets for renewable energy.
Noise Health. 2011 Nov-Dec;13(55):459-63
Edwin Verheijen, Jan Jabben, Eric Schreurs, Kevin B. Smith
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Environmental Monitoring, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Author: Berglund, Birgitta; Hassmén, Peter; and Soames Job, R.F.
The sources of human exposure to low-frequency noise and its effects are reviewed. Low-frequency noise is common as background noise in urban environments, and as an emission from many artificial sources: road vehicles, aircraft, industrial machinery, artillery and mining explosions, and air movement machinery including wind turbines, compressors, and ventilation or air-conditioning units. The effects of low-frequency noise are of particular concern because of its pervasiveness due to numerous sources, efficient propagation, and reduced efficacy of many structures (dwellings, walls, and hearing protection) in attenuating low-frequency noise compared with other noise. Intense low-frequency noise appears to produce clear symptoms including respiratory impairment and aural pain. Although the effects of lower intensities of low-frequency noise are difficult to establish for methodological reasons, evidence suggests that a number of adverse effects of noise in general arise from exposure to low-frequency noise: Loudness judgments and annoyance reactions are sometimes reported to be greater for low-frequency noise than other noises for equal sound-pressure level; annoyance is exacerbated by rattle or vibration induced by low-frequency noise; speech intelligibility may be reduced more by low-frequency noise than other noises except those in the frequency range of speech itself, because of the upward spread of masking. On the other hand, it is also possible that low-frequency noise provides some protection against the effects of simultaneous higher frequency noise on hearing. Research needs and policy decisions, based on what is currently known, are considered.
J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 May;99(5):2985-3002.
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute and Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
R. F. Soames Job
Department of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia