Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 468

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance

Guski, Rainer, Schreckenberg, Dirk, Schuemer, Rudolf·2017·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph14121539
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: This paper describes a systematic review and meta-analyses on effects of environmental noise on annoyance. The noise sources include aircraft, road, and rail transportation noise as well as wind turbines and noise source combinations. Objectives: Update knowledge about effects of environmental noise on people living in the vicinity of noise sources. Methods: Eligible were published studies (2000–2014) providing comparable acoustical and social survey data including exposure-response functions between standard indicators of noise exposure and standard annoyance responses. The systematic literature search in 20 data bases resulted in 62 studies, of which 57 were used for quantitative meta-analyses. By means of questionnaires sent to the study authors, additional study data were obtained. Risk of bias was assessed by means of study characteristics for individual studies and by funnel plots to assess the risk of publication bias. Main Results: Tentative exposure-response relations for percent highly annoyed residents (%HA) in relation to noise levels for aircraft, road, rail, wind turbine and noise source combinations are presented as well as meta-analyses of correlations between noise levels and annoyance raw scores, and the OR for increase of %HA with increasing noise levels. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE terminology. The evidence of exposure-response relations between noise levels and %HA is moderate (aircraft and railway) or low (road traffic and wind turbines). The evidence of correlations between noise levels and annoyance raw scores is high (aircraft and railway) or moderate (road traffic and wind turbines). The evidence of ORs representing the %HA increase by a certain noise level increase is moderate (aircraft noise), moderate/high (road and railway traffic), and low (wind turbines). Strengths and Limitations: The strength of the evidence is seen in the large total sample size encompassing the included studies (e.g., 18,947 participants in aircraft noise studies). Main limitations are due to the variance in the definition of noise levels and %HA. Interpretation: The increase of %HA in newer studies of aircraft, road and railway noise at comparable Lden levels of earlier studies point to the necessity of adjusting noise limit recommendations. Funding: The review was funded by WHO Europe.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijerph14121539

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Guski, 1999, The concept of noise annoyance: How international experts see it, J. Sound Vib., 223, 513, 10.1006/jsvi.1998.2173 · DOI
  2. Miedema, 1998, Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 104, 3432, 10.1121/1.423927 · DOI
  3. Miedema, 2001, Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure Metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals, Environ. Health Perspect., 109, 409, 10.1289/ehp.01109409 · DOI
  4. Janssen, S.A., Vos, H., Van Kempen, E.E.M.M., Breugelmans, O.R.P., and Miedema, H.M.E. (2008, January 21–25). Trends in annoyance by aircraft noise. Proceedings of the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Foxwoods, CT, USA.
  5. Heroux, M.-E., Babisch, W., Belojevic, G., Brink, M., Janssen, S., Lercher, P., Paviotti, M., Pershagen, G., Persson-Waye, K., and Preis, A. (2016, January 21–24). WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region—What Is New? 1. Policy Context and Methodology Used for Guideline Development. Paper Presented at the Inter-Noise 2016, Hamburg, Germany. (Unpublished). · DOI
  6. Stallen, 1999, A theoretical framework for environmental noise annoyance, Noise Health, 1, 69
  7. Fields, 2001, Standardized noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: Research and a recommendation, J. Sound Vib., 242, 641, 10.1006/jsvi.2000.3384 · DOI
  8. Schultz, 1978, Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 64, 377, 10.1121/1.382013 · DOI
  9. Brown, L.A., and Van Kamp, I. (2017). WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. A systematic review of transport noise interventions and their impacts on health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 14. · DOI
  10. Fields, 1997, Guidelines for reporting core information from community noise reaction surveys, J. Sound Vib., 206, 685, 10.1006/jsvi.1997.1144 · DOI
  11. Babisch, 2014, Updated exposure-response relationship between road traffic noise and coronary heart diseases: A meta-analysis, Noise Health, 16, 1, 10.4103/1463-1741.127847 · DOI
  12. Vienneau, 2015, The relationship between transportation noise exposure and ischemic heart disease: A meta-analysis, Environ. Res., 138, 372, 10.1016/j.envres.2015.02.023 · DOI
  13. Finegold, 1994, Community annoyance and sleep disturbance: Updated criteria for assessing the impacts of general transportation noise on people, Noise Control Eng. J., 42, 25, 10.3397/1.2827857 · DOI
  14. Vos, 2009, Annoyance from environmental noise across the lifespan, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 126, 187, 10.1121/1.3147510 · DOI
  15. Stansfeld, S.A., Berglund, B., Kephalopoulos, S., and Paviotti, M. (2017). Aircraft noise annoyance, Evidence Review on Aircraft Noise and Health, in press.
  16. Job, 1988, Community response to noise: A review of factors influencing the relationship between noise exposure and reaction, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 83, 991, 10.1121/1.396524 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Huss, 2010, for-the-Swiss-National-Cohort-Study-Group. Aircraft Noise, Air Pollution, and Mortality from Myocardial Infarction, Epidemiology, 21, 829, 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181f4e634 · DOI
  18. Sweeting, 2004, What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data, Stat. Med., 23, 1351, 10.1002/sim.1761 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Miedema, 1999, Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 105, 3336, 10.1121/1.424662 · DOI
  20. Guski, 1999, Personal and social variables as co-determinants of noise annoyance, Noise Health, 1, 45
  21. Flindell, 1999, Non-acoustical factors in environmental noise, Noise Health, 3, 11
  22. Janssen, 2011, Trends in aircraft noise annoyance: The role of study and sample characteristics, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 129, 1953, 10.1121/1.3533739 · DOI
  23. Lercher, P., de Greve, B., Botteldooren, D., and Rüdisser, J. (2008, January 21–25). A comparison of regional noise-annoyance-curves in alpine areas with the European standard curves. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN 2008), Foxwoods, CT, USA.
  24. Janssen, 2011, A comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 130, 3746, 10.1121/1.3653984 · DOI
  25. Kuwano, 2014, Social survey on wind turbine noise in Japan, Noise Control Eng. J., 62, 503, 10.3397/1/376246 · DOI
  26. Miedema, 2004, Noise annoyance from stationary sources: Relationships with exposure metric day evening night level (DENL) and their confidence intervals, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 116, 334, 10.1121/1.1755241 · DOI
  27. Brink, M. (2013, January 15–18). Annoyance Assessment in Postal Surveys Using the 5-point and 11-point ICBEN Scales: Effects of Sale and Question Arrangement. Proceedings of the 42nd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering 2013 (INTER-NOISE 2013): Noise Control for Quality of Life, Innsbruck, Austria.
  28. Brink, 2010, A field study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military shooting noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 127, 2301, 10.1121/1.3337234 · DOI

Cited by

See all 468

Metadata

Authors
Guski, R., Schreckenberg, D., & Schuemer, R.
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2017-12-08
Volume
14
Issue
12
Pages
1539
ISSN
1660-4601
DOI
10.3390/ijerph14121539
Cited by
468
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
WHO Europe (2014-403423)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/ijerph14121539
The paper
Guski, R., Schreckenberg, D., & Schuemer, R. (2017). WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121539

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.