Energy transition related noise and vibration issues and their health consequences Irene van Kamp 1 , National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, PoBox1, Postvak 10, 3720 BA Bilthoven ABSTRACT Climate change leads to architectural adaptations in urban areas, heat islands and increased use of ventilation/cooling systems, expansion of wind parks and behavioral changes. Most of these are part of the energy transition and could affect noise exposure and related perceptions and health/wellbeing. Against this background we explored the influence of adaptive measures on noise exposure since 2010 by means of a quick scan of the literature and secondary analysis of existing survey data. A recent review of the Netherlands Health Council (NHC) confirmed and partly expanded the importance of earlier detected noise issues related to energy transitions. Noise issue which came forward are insulation and ventilation and noise related to increased use and complexity of electronic appliances such as collective heating systems, heat pumps, and cooling systems. Noise characteristics of these sources have an equivalent-, and low frequency component in common. It could be argued that also the expansion of the wind park and freight transport via rail should be added to this list of noise issues due to climate change. Results confirm that energy saving measures and climate change related targets can lead to noise and vibration issues and thus affect well-being and health. Evidence is still scarce and the topic should be studied in a more integrated and systematic way and communication about the pro’s and con’s of adaptive measures is essential to increase acceptance.

Keywords: Climate change, adaptive measures, noise- low frequency noise, vibration

1 INTRODUCTION In 2010, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of housing, spatial planning and the environment we explored the consequences of energy saving and climate related adaptive measures for environmental noise [1][2]. Three issue emerged from this quick scan of the literature: 1) increased number of cooling systems, 2) increased energy saving ventilation systems and 3) enlargement of the wind turbine park. Based on this first orientation, more research was recommended into the effects of ventilation and cooling installations and wind turbine (WT) sound, including the different noise-spectra and vibration aspects and with specific attention for perceptions of, knowledge about and acceptance of these new energy saving measures. Although several publications saw light since then, most are focused on single sources and do not address the issue in an integrated manner. A recent review of the Netherlands Health Council (NHC) [3] confirms and partly extends this list, identifying noise issues related to

1 Irene.van.kamp@rivm.nl

1

Fh inter.noise 21-24 AUGUST SCOTTISH EVENT cans ee 2022

insulation and ventilation and increased use and complexity of electronic appliances (e.g. heat pumps, cooling systems and collective heat systems). Extension of the wind park and extension of rail traffic in Europe, in particular of nighttime freight trains, should be added as climate related adaptive measures. In order to integrate the knowledge currently available in the Netherlands, this paper summarizes the latest evidence, providing a brief update based on the NHC overview in 2020, and several recent studies into the acceptance of and annoyance from unwanted sound and vibration due to a range of energy saving measures. 2 OVERVIEW NHC Climate change measures are high on the agenda in the Netherland and elsewhere. The so called energy transition is assumed to positively affect people’s health and wellbeing: the air will be cleaner, traffic will be more quiet. The adaptations needed affect environmental factors such as noise, ventilation, temperature and indoor climate, while affecting health and wellbeing in a positive but sometimes also in a negative way. Ventilation systems, cooling systems and heat pumps, for example, may cause annoyance due to noise with potential long-term health effects. The same holds for the rapid expansion of the wind park and freight transport by rail. These sources are not mentioned in the NHC report, but can be considered as immediately related to the energy transition and climate change, both being aimed at achieving climate targets. These negative and unmeant for impacts can in their turn affect acceptance of measures. It is therefore advised by the NHC to include health and wellbeing in any energy saving strategy from the very beginning. The Council also advises to approach the issues in an integrated way, whilst taking the quality of the living environment into account. 3 MODERN HEALTH WORRIES Concern about the health effects of environmental exposure can be measured by means of the Modern Health Worry (MHW) index [4][5]. In this index, people can indicate to what extent they worry about a range of environmental issues on a 5-point Likert scale, in which 1 stands for ‘not at all’ and 5 for ‘extremely worried’. In a recent survey [6] among a random sample of people of 16 year and older in the Netherlands (N= 5269), a broad range of modern health worries was included, among which worries about health effects of noise from different sources, climate change, air pollution and ventilation. Figure 1 presents the percentage highly and extremely worried on several topics, ranging from the highest (38%) to the lowest (11%)

2

high to extreme worry

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 1: Percentage (%) of high and extremely high worry about the health effects of environmental stressors (Jansen et al., in preparation). In an earlier measurement of MHW in the Dutch population [7], the pattern was comparable. The percentage highly to extremely worried about air pollution and climate change were relatively high compared to the percentage highly to extremely worried about noise pollution (only one generic question at the time), also reflected in the mean scores (see table below). In Table 1, the mean scores on the MHW-studies are compared based on Furnham et al. [8] and Baliatsas et al. [7]. Table 1: Mean score on the modern health worry index in five studies 1 Mean scale score on Likert 1-5 I II III IV V VI Noise pollution 2.55 2.44 2.71 2.00 2.92 2.42 Poor building ventilation 2.70 2.08 2.87 2.13 3.25 2.73

Air pollution 3.40 2.98 3.49 3.11 3.44 2.95 Traffic fumes 3.55 2.98 3.60 2.99 3.49 2.93 Pandemic xx xx xx xx xx 3.17 Other environmental pollution/climate change

3.40 2.85 3.53 2.93 3.33 3.31

I Petrie et al. (2002) [4] II Furnham (2007) [9] III Jeswani en Furnham (2010) [10] IV I, II, II combined V Baliatsas et al. (2015) [7] VI Jansen et al, in preparation (2021) [6] In general, it can be concluded that within this limited range, climate change and air pollution created more worry than environmental noise, but the differences are not very large. This is not only the case in the Netherlands, but also in New Zealand and the UK. A factor analysis revealed comparable components. However the included worries vary in time, e.g. before 2014 climate change was not included as separate issue. The 2021 survey took place in the middle of the Covid-19-pandemic, and results show that some 35% of the respondents was indeed highly to

1 Sequence according to date of publication

3

extremely worried about the health effects of the virus (mean score of 3.17). In comparison, the percentage highly to extremely worried about the health effects of climate change was 38% and had a mean score of 3.31. 4 NOISE EFFECTS OF ENERGY SAVING MEASURES

Noise is still seldomly mentioned as a theme in relation to climate change and adaptive measures. Only a handful of publications mention the expected pursuits of air-conditioning systems as a consequence of rising temperature and related impacts on noise. The WHO Guidelines for environmental noise published in 2018 are based on reviews of the scientific literature between 2000 and 2014 [17]. These reviews, except for wind turbine noise, do not cover the noise sources we aim at here, such as low frequency noise (sound with a low pitch) from building services such as electronic appliances, heat pumps, cooling-and ventilation systems. To fill in this gap, a scoping review was prepared in 2020 commissioned by the UK Government [12][13]. Based on recent evidence in this domain, the evidence for a range of noise issues identified by the NHC (as described in paragraph 2) is summarized below.

4.1 Insulation and ventilation High quality insulation and ventilation can be considered as important indicators for a successful and healthy energy transition in the built environment. A well-insulated and ventilated building or dwelling enhances health and comfort. However this level of high quality indoor climate is not often reached. The systems are not always well designed or cannot be used in an optimal way [1][2][3]. The noise reducing elements are not always installed (due to financial considerations) and people are known to turn down the system when they experience noise annoyance [1][2]. A disadvantage of mechanical ventilation systems is also that people do feel no control in their own home, an important co-determinant with a strong association with health complaints [18]. And the negative effects of noise insulation do not always balance with the positive effects [19]. 4.2 Heat pumps and cooling systems The number of complaints and annoyance attributed to a broad range of low frequency noise sources (LFN) has increased since 2016 [11]. Heat pumps and cooling systems are important sources of LFN in people’s own dwelling or the neighbor’s dwellings. In addition, these devices also produce regular sound, especially when not well installed or worn out. In a review prepared in 2019 and published in 2020 [12][13], the authors identified only three observational studies on the association between annoyance and/or sleep and sources such as ventilation systems and heat/water pumps. These studies were of cross-sectional design conducted in Europe (Sweden) (N=2) and China (N=1). Exposure was assessed based on objective measurements, while outcome evaluation was self-reported. Only one study suggested a significant association between LFN and annoyance. Risk of bias appeared to be moderate to high. Among the most important limitations were the use of A-weighting, small sample sizes and limited adjustments for confounders. But the most prominent limitation was that the studies included only an estimate of exposed versus non-exposed individuals. No individual estimates of exposure are available, which enlarges the risk of exposure misclassification. Results are in agreement with the findings of a systematic review (focusing on the period 2000- 2015) on the association between everyday-life LFN and health effects, indicating that the “state of the art” has not changed much and that epidemiological research in this field remains very limited [14]. It can be concluded that evidence on the health effects of LFN related to heat pumps en cooling systems is scarce. More epidemiological research on LFN and health effects is needed and the assessment of the exposure needs and could hereby be improved [15].

4

4.3 Expansion of wind park The expansion of the wind park is controversial worldwide and declining acceptance might stand in the way of this [20]. In a recent literature review [16] the results of the WHO Guidelines [17][21] for WT sound are confirmed, showing that annoyance is the most important consequence of WT sound: the louder the sound (in dB) of wind turbines, the stronger the annoyance response is. The literature did not show that LFN results in extra annoyance on top of equivalent sound. Results of scientific research for other health effects are either not available or inconsistent and we can conclude that a clear association with wind turbine related sound levels cannot be confirmed. There is some evidence that long-term effects are related to the annoyance people experience. These results confirm earlier conclusions. There is increasing evidence that annoyance is lower when people can participate in the siting process[16]. Worries of residents should therefore be addressed at an early stage, by involving them in the process of planning and decision making. 4.4 Increase of rail traffic (passenger and freight trains). In 2019, RIVM investigated how people in the Netherlands, living within 300 meters of railways, experience vibration due to trains [22]. The results of this study were compared with measurements performed in 2013 [23] to determine how the related health effects had developed in this period. As was the case in 2013, more than 40% of respondents experienced high annoyance and 32% reported high sleep disturbance due to freight trains. This percentage is high but remained stable in the period under review. The percentage of respondents who experienced high annoyance due to passenger trains is low, but doubled (from 8 to 20%) in the period under review. This also applies to the percentage experiencing severe sleep disturbance (from 6 to 11%). The cause is not clear. From a national point of view, the average levels of vibration due to passenger trains remained the same, while at specific locations there were increases or decreases. During the study, respondents were also asked whether any other factors affect their quality-of-life in the vicinity of the railway. In general, they were just as satisfied with their living environment in 2019 as they had been in 2013. They have, however, become a little more negative about some matters, such as the neighborhood, the noise made by neighbors and road traffic, the available green space and vibration from sources other than trains. The acceptance of vibration due to rail traffic is low but has remained the same with a percentage of low-very low acceptance of 39,8% in 2013 and 40% in 2019. In conclusion it can be stated that especially the increase of freight traffic by rail is associated with an increase in annoyance and sleep disturbance due to vibrations. Repeated measurement shows that the percentage highly annoyed and sleep disturbed is high but stable, in specific for freight trains. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

This descriptive overview of evidence on climate change and energy transition related noise and vibration issues confirms that climate related adaptive measures can go together with environmental noise and accompanying effects on wellbeing and health. More recently this is also recognized as an issue in (public health) policy discussions about energy saving measures, at least in the Netherlands. A recent overview [3] identified several noise issues related to insulations and ventilation and to increased use and complexity of electronic appliances such as cooling, collective heating systems, and heat pumps. Low frequency noise and vibration seem to play an important role, but evidence on long term effects is still scarce. The rapid and worldwide extension of the wind park and increased freight transport by rail in Europe were not included in the analysis of the Netherlands Health Council. In our view these should also be considered, since both measures aim at climate change related targets. As in 2011, we

5

recommend further research into the noise aspects of different adaptive measures. But not only that: “ as the need for energy transition measures are becoming more and more urgent, the acceptance of these measures is becoming more urgent ”. The NHC recommends efforts to raise awareness about these needs and environmental concerns. Similar recommendation have been made by others [24]. Recent surveys show that a large percentage of people is aware of the urgencies, as illustrated here by a high percentage of people being very to-extremely worried about the health consequences of climate change. However acceptance of several adaptive measures is under pressure. From earlier studies we know that merely informing people is not enough [25]. Information tends to result in higher knowledge levels, but not necessarily in behavioral changes or higher acceptance. Especially for sources and measures lying outside people’s control, such as wind energy and freight transport by rail, other strategies might be needed to enhance acceptance. In all these efforts communication plays a crucial role.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The contribution to this manuscript by dr. Kim White is gratefully acknowledged

7 REFERENCES

[1] van Kamp I. Klimaatverandering en geluid; een verkennend onderzoek. Bilthoven: RIVM, 2010; RIVM Briefrapport 815120003/2010. [2] van Kamp, I. ; R. Bogers, R. Jongeneel(2011) Noise in relation to climate change; A first orientation INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, InterNoise11, Osaka JAPAN, pages 2173-2927, pp. 2607-2614(8). [3] Health Council of the Netherlands. Health and the energy transition in the built environment. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2020; publication no. 2020/13. [4] Petrie, K. J., B. Sivertsen, M. Hysing, E. Broadbent, R. Moss-Morris, H. R. Eriksen en H. Ursin (2001). "Thoroughly modern worries: The relationship of worries about modernity to reported symptoms, health and medical care utilization." Journal of Psychosomatic Research 51(1): 395-401. [5] Petrie, K. J. en S. Wessely (2002). "Modern worries, new technology, and medicine." BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 324(7339): 690-691. [6] Jansen, T. et al, in preparation [7] Furnham, A., L. Strait en D. J. Hughes (2012). "Modern health worries and personality." Personality and Mental Health, 2012 6(3): 242-254. [8] Baliatsas, C, I. van Kamp, E. Lebret en J. Yzermans (2015). "The relationship of modern health worries to non-specific physical symptoms and perceived environmental sensitivity: A study combining self-reported and general practice data." Journal of Psychosomatic Research 79(5): 355-361. [9] Furnham, A. (2007). "Are modern health worries, personality and attitudes to science associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine?" British Journal of Health Psychology 12(2): 229-243. [10] Jeswani, M. en A. Furnham (2010). "Are modern health worries, environmental concerns, or paranormal beliefs associated with perceptions of the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine?" 15(3): 599-609. [11] van Kamp Irene, et al. (2017) Burden of disease from exposure to low frequency noise: a Dutch inventory. ICBEN Proceedings, 2017. [12] van Kamp, I. S. Simon, H. Notley, C. Baliatsas, E. van Kempen (2020) Evidence Relating to Environmental Noise Exposure and Annoyance, Sleep Disturbance, Cardio-Vascular and Metabolic Health Outcomes in the Context of IGCB (N): A scoping review of new evidence. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17.9: 3016.

6

[13] van Kamp, I., S. Simon, H. Notley, C. Baliatsas, E. van Kempen (2020) Review of Evidence regarding sources other than transport noise Proceedings Internoise Int Congress Noise Control Engineer 2020; [14] Baliatsas, C., I. van Kamp, R. van Poll, J. Yzermans (2016). Health effects from low- frequency noise and infrasound in the general population: Is it time to listen? A systematic review of observational studies. Science of the Total Environment ; 557: 163-9. [15] Assink, J., R. Nusselder, K. White, O. den Ouden, E. de Graaff (2021) Methods for the assessment of low-frequency noise from mining activities in the Netherlands INTER- NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings 263 (1), 5175-5186 [16] van Kamp, Irene; van den Berg, (2021) Health effects related to wind turbine sound: An update. International journal of environmental research and public health. 18.17: 9133). [17] WHO, et al. Environmental noise guidelines for the European region. 2018. [18] Hatfield, J. et al. (2002) Human response to environmental noise. The role of perceived control. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, , 9.4: 341-359. [19] Schreckenberg, D., Aircraft noise annoyance and residents' acceptance and use of sound proof windows and ventilation systems. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings. Institute of Noise Control Engineering, 2012. p. 160-171. [20] Fishhandler, I. et al. The impact of community split on the acceptance of wind turbines. Solar Energy, 2021, 220: 51-62. [21] 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, 14.12: 1539. [22] van Kamp, et al (2021) Repeated measurement Living along the railroad track (2013- 2019) in Dutch, RIVM report# 2021-0103 [23] van Kamp, I. et al. (2015) Health effects of vibrations due to trains. Proceedings of the Euronoise, 31 May-3June, pp. 599e603. Maastricht. [24] Jia, J. . et al. (2018) Willingness to accept energy-saving measures and adoption barriers in the residential sector: An empirical analysis in Beijing, China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 95: 56-73. [25] Abrahamse, W. et al. (2005) A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of environmental psychology, 25.3: 273-291.

7