4.0 Article

The link between noise perception and quality of life in South Australia

Journal

NOISE & HEALTH
Volume 16, Issue 70, Pages 137-142

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.134913

Keywords

Annoyance; environmental noise; quality of life; survey

Funding

  1. South Australian Environment Protection Authority
  2. Department of planning, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI)
  3. Department of Health and Ageing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Environmental noise is a significant risk factor for a range of short- and long-term adverse health outcomes such as annoyance, cognitive development impairment, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, and psychiatric problems. The aim of this study was to gather standardized quality of life (QOL) data hitherto rarely correlated with noise annoyance by source category. To provide an evidence-base for environmental noise policy development, a representative state-based survey was undertaken in South Australia (SA). A total of 3015 face-to-face interviews were conducted, using a questionnaire addressing noise sources, distances to busy roads and standardized measures of perceived annoyance and QOL. Population weighted descriptive survey and regression analysis. The most common sources of noise annoyances were road transport (27.7%, using a Likert scale, aggregating little to extreme annoyance), neighbors (22.0%), construction noise (10.0%), air conditioner noise (5.8%), rail transport noise (4.7%), and industry (3.9%). Using the QOL instrument, all eight health dimensions were significantly decreased for those reporting high noise annoyance (very much to extreme) in relation to road transport and neighbors compared to those reporting low annoyance (none to moderate) from these sources. Noise annoyance is common in the SA general population, and the evidence for a strong association with QOL reinforces the need for environmental noise management at a population basis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available