Geographic Ecological Momentary Assessment (GEMA) of environmental noise annoyance: the influence of activity context and the daily acoustic environment

Abstract

Background Noise annoyance is considered to be the most widespread and recognized health effect of environmental noise. Previous research is mostly based on the static study of residential environmental noise, but few studies have focused on the effects of noise exposure in different activity contexts on real-time annoyance. The two deficiency are that they neglect the influence of activity context besides residence and fail to reflect the difference of time-scale effect of noise influence. Methods Using portable noise and air sensors, GPS-equipped mobile phones, questionnaire survey, and geographic ecological momentary assessment (GEMA), this paper measured the environmental noise and real-time noise annoyance of participants at different activity places. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to examine the effects of environmental noise on people’s real-time annoyance. The paper further considered the influence of the geographic context of the activity places and daily acoustic environment on participants’ real-time annoyance. Further, a nonlinear regression model was constructed using Random Forest to further examine the nonlinear relationship between environmental noise and real-time annoyance. Results The results showed that: (1) the average cumulative equivalent sound level during was 55 dB (A) when the participants responded to the EMA surveys; (2) Only the temperature of activity places had an influence on momentary annoyance and the higher the temperature, the more likely participants were annoyed; (3) Participants with higher perception of noise pollution in residential communities were more likely to be annoyed. However, participants with higher daily exposure to noise were less likely to feel annoyed; (4) The threshold value of the effect of noise on real-time annoyance was 58 dB (A) to 78 dB (A). Conclusions These findings can guide the development of urban planning and environmental noise standards and also provide a reference for noise barrier requirements for different activity places.

Examining the Influence of Housing Conditions and Daily Greenspace Exposure on People’s Perceived COVID-19 Risk and Distress

“…Specifically, it includes two different measurements: (1) neighborhood-based greenspace exposure, and (2) activity-based greenspace exposure. The neighborhood-based greenspace exposure includes open space and recreational land, woodland, shrubland, and grassland, which are assessed by the area of each type of the greenspace land inside a buffer area of 500 m (i.e., walking distance < 10 min) around participants’ home locations [ 38 , 39 ]. The mobility-based greenspace exposure is assessed by the sum of the time-weighted area of each type of greenspace land inside a buffer area of 500 m around participants’ daily activity locations, as Equation (1) shows: where measures participants’ exposure to a certain type of greenspace (i.e., open space and recreational land, woodland, shrubland, or grassland) in their daily activities; is the area of 500 m buffer; is the area of greenspace land coverage in the nth activity location buffer, and so on; is the duration the participant spent in the nth activity space, and so on.…”

Assessing the Current Integration of Multiple Personalised Wearable Sensors for Environment and Health Monitoring

“…In the field, some studies attributed missing data to unavailable or weak signals, non-response of sensors, loss of battery power and the failure of the application while using a phone [56]. Since the real-world situation is complex and filled with interference, it is necessary to consider the data quality in fieldwork, such as battery expiration, signal loss, data loss, and data noise [30,64,65].…”

Informing about the invisible: communicating en route air pollution and noise exposure to cyclists and pedestrians using focus groups

“…For example, a study in Leipzig, Germany, showed that over 80% of the surveyed cyclists underestimated their exposure to particulate matter and noise pollution [19]. When people are exposed to noise over a longer period of time they adapt to it and the annoyance decreases [21]. A recent review shows that in most studies perceived and measured pollution (not only in traffic) match, however, in other studies they do not correlate [22].…”