Annoyance and Worry in a Petrochemical Industrial Area—Prevalence, Time Trends and Risk Indicators

Abstract

In 1992, 1998, and 2006, questionnaires were sent to stratified samples of residents aged 18–75 years living near petrochemical industries (n = 600–800 people on each occasion) and in a control area (n = 200–1,000). The aims were to estimate the long-term prevalence and change over time of annoyance caused by industrial odour, industrial noise, and worries about possible health effects, and to identify risk indicators. In 2006, 20% were annoyed by industrial odour, 27% by industrial noise (1–4% in the control area), and 40–50% were worried about health effects or industrial accidents (10–20% in the control area). Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed significantly lower prevalence of odour annoyance in 1998 and 2006 than in 1992, while industrial noise annoyance increased significantly over time. The prevalence of worry remained constant. Risk of odour annoyance increased with female sex, worry of health effects, annoyance by motor vehicle exhausts and industrial noise. Industrial noise annoyance was associated with traffic noise annoyance and worry of health effects of traffic. Health-risk worry due to industrial air pollution was associated with female sex, having children, annoyance due to dust/soot in the air, and worry of traffic air pollution.

Residents' behaviour as a function of cognitive appraisals and affective responses toward a petrochemical industrial complex

“…As Eder et al (2007Eder et al ( : 1139 noted, a "reason for a strong reliance on cognitive paradigms in affective research was the apparent success of cognitive methods in the explanation of human reasoning and behaviour". From this theoretical approach, we propose that residents' affects are constructed on a cognitive basis, which is also consistent with previous studies on communities and petrochemical complexes (Axelsson et al, 2013;Taylor et al, 1997) and both elements determine their behaviour. This relationship should be understood within the framework of the above-mentioned interactive sequence between cognition and affect.…”

“…Axelsson et al (2013), in the context of a petrochemical area, analyse the relation between odours and annoyance/worry and conclude that living in close proximity to petrochemical industries implies a greater annoyance and worry about the possible health effects from the industry. Taylor et al (1997) and Steinheider and Winneke (1993) also analyse and confirm this odourannoyance relationship.…”

“…The literature has explored the impact on people's living conditions of residing in the vicinity of these complexes and other kind of contaminating installations such as waste disposal sites, nuclear power plants etc. (see, for example, Atari et al, 2011;Axelsson et al, 2013; Baxter and Lee, 2004;Burningham and Thrush, 2004;Castan-Broto et al, 2007;Cutchin et al, 2008;McGee, 1999;Phillimore and Moffatt, 2004;Venables et al, 2012). The approach these studies take emphasises the negative connotations associated with the effect that industrial pollution and environmental deterioration have on residents' quality of life.…”

Subjective Health Complaints Among Workers in the Aftermath of an Oil Tank Explosion

“…Characterization of odour exposure varied in different studies. Most studies used distance to odorous source [29,60,[64][65][66][67][68] as a proxy for exposure, whereas some studies used calibrated human observers [68,69] (Table 5).…”

“…Previous studies of odour-related health complaints among humans who are exposed to malodorous emissions at non-toxic levels have suggested that odour perception and odour annoyance are of importance for the development of such complaints [60,64,[66][67][68][69]. Even worries about a possible health risk have been associated with more health complaints among residents who lives close to a hazardous waste site [61].…”