This paper presents the main findings of a field survey conducted in the United Kingdom into the human response to vibration in residential environments. The main aim of this study was to derive exposure-response relationships for annoyance due to vibration from environmental sources. The sources of vibration considered in this paper are railway and construction activity. Annoyance data were collected using questionnaires conducted face-to-face with residents in their own homes. Questionnaires were completed with residents exposed to railway induced vibration (N = 931) and vibration from the construction of a light rail system (N = 350). Measurements of vibration were conducted at internal and external positions from which estimates of 24-h vibration exposure were derived for 1073 of the case studies. Sixty different vibration exposure descriptors along with 6 different frequency weightings were assessed as potential predictors of annoyance. Of the exposure descriptors considered, none were found to be a better predictor of annoyance than any other. However, use of relevant frequency weightings was found to improve correlation between vibration exposure and annoyance. A unified exposure-response relationship could not be derived due to differences in response to the two sources so separate relationships are presented for each source.

No abstract

Railway induced vibration is an important source of annoyance among residents living in the vicinity of railways. Annoyance increases with vibration magnitude. However, these correlations between the degree of annoyance and vibration exposure are weak. This suggests that railway vibration induced annoyance is governed by more than just vibration level and therefore other factors may provide information to understand the wide variation in annoyance reactions. Factors coming into play when considering an exposure-response relationship between level of railway vibration and annoyance are presented. The factors investigated were: attitudinal, situational and demographic factors. This was achieved using data from field studies comprised of face-to-face interviews and internal vibration measurements (N ¼ 755). It was found that annoyance scores were strongly influenced by two attitudinal factors: Concern of property damage and expectations about future levels of vibration. Type of residential area and age of the respondent were found to have an important effect on annoyance whereas visibility of the railway and time spent at home showed a significant but small influence. These results indicate that future railway vibration policies and regulations focusing on community impact need to consider additional factors for an optimal assessment of railway effects on residential environments.

The development and application of a procedure for the assessment of low frequency noise (LFN) complaints are described. The development of the assessment method included laboratory tests addressing low frequency hearing threshold and the effect on acceptability of fluctuation, and field measurements complemented with interview-based questionnaires. Environmental health departments then conducted a series of six trials with genuine "live" LFN complaints to test the workability and usefulness of the procedure. The procedure includes guidance notes and a pro-forma report with step-by-step instructions. It does not provide a prescriptive indicator of nuisance but rather gives a systematic procedure to help environmental health practitioners to form their own opinion. Examples of field measurements and application of the procedure are presented. The procedure and examples are likely to be of particular interest to environmental health practitioners involved in the assessment of LFN complaints.

No abstract