Community response to noise in Vietnam: Exposure-response relationships based on the community tolerance level

Abstract

Social surveys on noise annoyance have been conducted in five different cities in Vietnam. The surveys included both aircraft noise (three airports) and road traffic noise (five cities). The main objective for these studies was to establish dose-response functions that were representative for Vietnam. The results have been compared with results from similar surveys from other regions. Dose-response functions for aircraft noise in Vietnam showing the percentage of highly annoyed people versus the noise level are nearly identical to those presented in the European Noise Directive [European Commission (2002). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm]. For road traffic noise, however, the results indicate that people in Vietnam are more tolerant. The noise levels can be increased by 5-10 dB in order to have a response similar to the curve recommended by the European Commission.

Community Response to Noise from Hot-Spots at a Major Road in Quito (Ecuador) and Its Application for Identification and Ranking These Areas

“…Several interesting studies appear in the WHO report for their atypical values of HA compared to the same noise exposure values in other cities. Such is the case in the study conducted in Vietnam [19] (red dose-response curve-Figure 3), with a very small HA for exposures above 65 dB, and a study in Inntal (Austria valley) [15,22,44] with a high HA. In this last study, more participants were more annoyed than those represented in the WHO curve for all the noise levels considered (from 40 dB to 70 dB), both in the curve representing the annoyance caused by the main roads and in the curve that represents the annoyance caused by highways.…”

“…Therefore, hypothesis H1 is also not fulfilled for the HA dose-response curve calculated Figure 3. Comparison of the exposure-response curves for the percentage of highly annoyed people according to the full-range studies (light blue), and the full range excluding the Alpine/Asian ones evaluated by Guski et al [15] (orange), to Gjestland et al [19] (red), to Groothuis-Oudshoorn and Miedema [43] (blue), Miedema and Oudshoorn [42] (grey), and Lercher et al [22,44] (brown for highway, and black for main roads), and according to the case study (purple). The prediction models are drawn in solid lines, and the confidence intervals, when available, are in dashed lines.…”

“…Figure 3. Comparison of the exposure-response curves for the percentage of highly annoyed people according to the full-range studies (light blue), and the full range excluding the Alpine/Asian ones evaluated by Guski et al [15] (orange), to Gjestland et al [19] (red), to Groothuis-Oudshoorn and Miedema [43] (blue), Miedema and Oudshoorn [42] (grey), and Lercher et al [22,44] (brown for highway, and black for main roads), and according to the case study (purple). The prediction models are drawn in solid lines, and the confidence intervals, when available, are in dashed lines.…”

“…Funding: The research leading to these results was developed under the project SOA.VPR. 19.02 funded by the Universidad de Las Americas.…”

“…This heterogeneity of the study estimates is largely due to non-acoustic factors, such as cross-cultural differences in the experience that citizens observe about noise [3,16,17]. Some previous studies have searched for evidence for the deviation from the accepted models of noise-exposure-response relationships due to road traffic concerning annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbances [18][19][20][21][22][23]. On the other hand, the aforementioned WHO noise-exposure-response curves for roads are based on cross-sectional studies developed only in cities in Europe and Asia-Pacific.…”