Literature DB >> 19640029

Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands.

Eja Pedersen1, Frits van den Berg, Roel Bakker, Jelte Bouma.   

Abstract

The increasing number and size of wind farms call for more data on human response to wind turbine noise, so that a generalized dose-response relationship can be modeled and possible adverse health effects avoided. This paper reports the results of a 2007 field study in The Netherlands with 725 respondents. A dose-response relationship between calculated A-weighted sound pressure levels and reported perception and annoyance was found. Wind turbine noise was more annoying than transportation noise or industrial noise at comparable levels, possibly due to specific sound properties such as a "swishing" quality, temporal variability, and lack of nighttime abatement. High turbine visibility enhances negative response, and having wind turbines visible from the dwelling significantly increased the risk of annoyance. Annoyance was strongly correlated with a negative attitude toward the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape. The study further demonstrates that people who benefit economically from wind turbines have a significantly decreased risk of annoyance, despite exposure to similar sound levels. Response to wind turbine noise was similar to that found in Sweden so the dose-response relationship should be generalizable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19640029     DOI: 10.1121/1.3160293

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  27 in total

1.  Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines.

Authors:  Roy D Jeffery; Carmen Krogh; Brett Horner
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  The influence of wind turbine visibility on the health of local residents: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Freiberg; Christiane Schefter; Janice Hegewald; Andreas Seidler
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 3.  Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines.

Authors:  Alec N Salt; Timothy E Hullar
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 4.  WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary.

Authors:  Elise van Kempen; Maribel Casas; Göran Pershagen; Maria Foraster
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 5.  Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Loren D Knopper; Christopher A Ollson
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 5.984

6.  Auditory recognition of familiar and unfamiliar subjects with wind turbine noise.

Authors:  Luigi Maffei; Massimiliano Masullo; Maria Di Gabriele; Nefta-Eleftheria P Votsi; John D Pantis; Vincenzo Paolo Senese
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Evaluation of Quality of Life of Those Living near a Wind Farm.

Authors:  Bożena Mroczek; Joanna Banaś; Małgorzata Machowska-Szewczyk; Donata Kurpas
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  The effects of vision-related aspects on noise perception of wind turbines in quiet areas.

Authors:  Luigi Maffei; Tina Iachini; Massimiliano Masullo; Francesco Aletta; Francesco Sorrentino; Vincenzo Paolo Senese; Francesco Ruotolo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  The relation between scores on noise annoyance and noise disturbed sleep in a public health survey.

Authors:  Frits van den Berg; Claudia Verhagen; Daan Uitenbroek
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  The pattern of complaints about Australian wind farms does not match the establishment and distribution of turbines: support for the psychogenic, 'communicated disease' hypothesis.

Authors:  Simon Chapman; Alexis St George; Karen Waller; Vince Cakic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.