The relationship between road traffic noise and annoyance levels in Phuket Province, Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Road traffic noise generates unpleasant sounds in communities, which not only makes enormous noise pollution in road areas, but also disrupts the quality of life in buildings located near these roads. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between road traffic noise and annoyance levels in Phuket, Thailand. Traffic noise levels were measured during the day and night time on nine roads in Muang Phuket, Thalang, and Kathu Districts. The annoyance levels of 253 people living in these areas were determined using questionnaires. Noise annoyance level was estimated using the ICBEN method, which classified annoyance level into a five-point verbal scale (extremely, very, moderately, slightly, and not at all annoyed). The results showed that traffic noise levels (Leq 24 hr) were in the range of 70.0-70.9, 72.7-74.7, and 74.6-74.8 dB(A) in Muang Phuket, Thalang, and Kathu Districts, respectively, exceeding 70 dB(A) for the ambient noise standard of Thailand. Moreover, Ldn ranged from 74.0-75.8, 77.5-78.1, and 79.7-80.1 dB(A) in Muang Phuket, Thalang, and Kathu Districts, respectively. The average annoyance scores for traffic noise in Muang Phuket, Thalang, and Kathu were found to be 1.78, 2.52, and 2.75, respectively. Thus, the average annoyance score of Phuket Province was 2.24. The annoyance responses of residents in surveyed areas indicated that people in Muang Phuket were more sensitive to road traffic noise than those in Talang and Kathu. Moreover, the result showed a significant positive correlation between road traffic noise and annoyance level (Pearson correlation coefficient= +0.733, P=0.025).
Article Details
References
[2] Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., 1995. Community noise- document prepared for the world Health Organization. Archives of the. Center for Sensory Research 2, 86-103.
[3] EEA (European Environment Agency)., 2000. Are we moving in the right direction? Indicators on transport and environmental integration in the EU: TERM 2000. Environmental issue report No 12. Indicator 4: Traffic noise: exposure and annoyance. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency. [WWW Document]. URL https://reports.eea.eu.int/ENVISSUENo12/en/page009.html. (accessed 29. 3. 16).
[4] Jakovljevic, B., Paunovic, K., Belojevic, G., 2009. Road-traffic noise and factors influencing noise annoyance in an urban population. Environment International 35, 552-225.
[5] Thi Phan, H.Y., Yano, T., Thi Phan, H.A., Nishimura, T., Sato, T., Hashimoto, Y., 2010. Community response to road traffic noise in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Applied Acoustics 71, 107-114.
[6] Minh, K.N., 2010. Community response to road traffic noise in Hue City, Vietnam. Environmental and Natural Resources 12, 24-28.
[7] Department of Tourism., Thailand tourism statistics [WWW Document]. URL https://www.tourism.go.th/home/details/11/221/25767. (accessed 27. 3. 16).
[8] Daniel, W.W., 1999. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences. 7th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[9] Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan., Environmental quality standards for noise. [WWW Document]. URL https://www.env.go.jp/en/air/noise/noise.html. (accessed 10. 10. 16).
[10] Pochanajan, P., Noise pollution and hearing capacity of effected people and working staff nearby the traffic route in Bangkok. Environmental Center, Suan Dusit Rajabhat University [WWW Document]. URL https://research.dusit.ac.th/menu/abstra/abstract/full/sci/pravorrada/abstr_eng.pdf. (accessed 9. 10. 16).
[11] Phan Thi, H.Y., Yano, T., Sato, T., Nishimura, T., 2010. Characteristics of road traffic noise in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Applied Acoustics 71, 479-485.
[12] Ali, S.A., Tamura, A., 2003. Road traffic noise levels, restrictions and annoyance in Greater Cairo, Egypt. Applied Acoustics 64, 815-823.
[13] Pierrette, M., Marquis-Favre, C., Morel, J., Rioux, L., Vallet, M., Viollon, S., Moch, A., 2012. Noise annoyance from industrial and road traffic combined noises: A survey and a total annoyance model comparison. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32, 178-186.
[14] Nguyen, M.K., 2014. Community response to road traffic noise in Hue City, Vietnam. Environment and natural resources 12, 24-28.
[15] Bjorkman, M., 1991. Community noise annoyance: importance of noise levels and the number of noise events. Journal of Sound and Vibration 151, 497-503.
[16] Sato, T., Yano, T., Bjorkman, M., Rylander, R., 1999. Road traffic noise annoyance in relation to average noise level, number of events and maximum noise level. Journal of Sound and Vibration 223, 775-784.
[17] Klaeboe, R., Amundsen, A.H., Fyhri, A., Sollberg, S., 2004. Road and traffic noise-the relationship between noise exposure and noise annoyance in Norway. Applied Acoustics 65, 893-912.
[18] Yano, T., Sato, T., Bjorkman, M., Rylander, R., 2004. Comparison of community response to road traffic noise in Japan and Sweden. Journal of Sound and Vibration 250, 169-174.
[19] Nguyen, T.L., 2011. Community response to aircraft noise in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi. Applied Acoustics 72, 814-822.
[20] Venkatappa, K.G., Shankar, V., 2011. Study of association between noise levels and stress in traffic policeman of Bengaluru city. Biomedical Research 23.
[21] Li, H., Lu, J., Zeng, L., Li, N., Zhao, Y., 2008. Investigation of road traffic noise and annoyance in Beijing: A cross-sectional study of 4th Ring Road. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN); Foxwoods, CT