Can surrounding greenery reduce noise annoyance at home?

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 408, Issue 20, 2010, Pages 4376-4384

  Li, H N ^a   Chau, C K ^a   Tang, S K ^a  

^a HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Greenery; Noise annoyance; Ordered logit model

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NOISE; SURVEYS;

ACCURATE PREDICTION; FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW; GREENERY; NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS; NOISE ANNOYANCE; ORDERED LOGIT MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS;

NOISE POLLUTION;

GREENSPACE; HOME GARDEN; LOGIT ANALYSIS; NOISE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION;

ADULT; AIR QUALITY; ANNOYANCE; ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HONG KONG; HUMAN; INCOME; INTERVIEW; MALE; NOISE POLLUTION; NOISE REDUCTION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; HOUSING; IRRITABILITY; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PLANT; PREVENTION AND CONTROL;

ADULT; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND REMEDIATION; FEMALE; HOUSING; HUMANS; IRRITABLE MOOD; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PLANTS;

EID: 77955923931     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.06.025     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bangjun Z., Lili S., Guoqing D. The influence of the visibility of the source on the subjective annoyance due to its noise. Appl Acoust 2003, 64:1205-1215.
2. Bjørner T.B., Kronbak J., Lundhede T. Valuation of noise reduction - comparing results from hedonic pricing and contingent valuation. SØM publication no. 51 (research report) 2003, AKF Forlaget, Copenhagen.
3. Department of Transport, Welsh Office Calculation of road traffic noise 1988, HM Stationery Office.
4. EPD, HKSAR Government, Hong Kong Planning Standard and Guidelines, 1990.
5. Fields J.M., De Jong R.G., Gjestland T., Flindell I.H., Job R.F.S., Kurra S., et al. Standardized general-purpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a recommendation. J Sound Vib 2001, 242:641-679.
6. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A., Öhrström E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape Urban Plann 2007, 83:115-126.
7. Herzog T.R., Black A.M., Fountaine K.A., Knotts D.J. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. J Environ Psychol 1997, 17(2):165-170.
8. Hill R.C., Griffiths W.E., Judge G.E. Undergraduate econometrics 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2nd Edition.
9. ISO/TC43/WG49 Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. Technical Specification ISO/TS 15666 2003, ISO.
10. Jakovljevic B., Paunovic K., Belojevic G. Road-traffic noise and factors influencing noise annoyance in an urban population. Environ Int 2009, 35(3):552-556.
11. Jobs R.F.S., Hatfield J., Carter N.L., Peploe P., Taylor R., Morrell S. General scales of community reaction to noise (dissatisfaction and perceived affectedness) are more reliable than scales of annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 2001, 110(2):939-946.
12. Kastka J., Noack R. On the interaction of sensory experience, casual attributive cognitions and visual context parameters in noise annoyance. Dev Toxicol Environ Sci 1987, 15:345-362.
13. Klæboe R., Öhrström E., Turunen-Rise, Bendtsen H., Nykänen H. Vibration in dwellings from road and rail traffic - Part III: towards a common methodology for socio-vibrational surveys. Appl Acoust 2003, 64:111-120.
14. Klæboe R., Amundsen A.H., Fyhri A., Solberg S. Road traffic noise - the relationship between noise exposure and noise annoyance in Norway. Appl Acoust 2004, 65:893-912.
15. Kuttler W., Strassburger A. Air quality measurements in urban green areas - a case study. Atmos Environ 1999, 33(24-25):4101-4108.
16. Maffiolo V., Castellengo M., Dubois D. Quality judgments of urban soundscapes. Internoise 1999 1999, 1251-1254. Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
17. McPherson E.G., Scott K.I., Simpson J.R. Estimating cost effectiveness of residential yard trees for improving air quality in Sacramento, California, using existing models. Atmos Environ 1998, 32(1):75-84.
18. Miedema H.M.E., Vos H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1998, 104(6):3432-3445.
19. Miedema H.M.E., Vos H. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1999, 105(6):3336-3344.
20. Paunovič K., Jakovlijevič B., Belojevič Predictors of noise annoyance in noisy and quiet urban streets. Sci Total Environ 2009, 407(12):3707-3711.
21. Pedersen E., Larsman P. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. J Environ Psychol 2008, 28:379-389.
22. Shashua-Bar L., Hoffman M.E. Vegetation as a climatic component in the design of an urban street: an empirical model for predicting the cooling effect of urban green areas with trees. Energy Build 2000, 31(3):221-235.
23. Tang S.K., Tong K.K. Estimating traffic noise for inclined roads with freely flowing traffic. Appl Acoust 2004, 65(2):171-181.
24. Taylor A.F., Kuo F.E., Sullivan W.C. Coping with ADD: the surprising connection to green play settings. Environ Behav 2001, 33(1):54-77.
25. Tennessen C.M., Cimprich B. Views to nature: effects on attention. J Environ Psychol 1995, 15(1):77-85.
26. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Behavior and the natural environment 1983, 85-125. Plenum Press, New York. I. Altman, J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.).
27. Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 1991, 11(3):201-230.
28. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. J Environ Psychol 2003, 23:135-146.
29. Viollon S., Lavandier C., Drake C. Influence of visual setting on sound ratings in an urban environment. Appl Acoust 2002, 63(5):493-511.
30. Wong N.H., Yu C. Study of green areas and urban heat island in a tropical city. Habitat Int 2005, 29(3):547-558.