Environmental Noise Annoyance Trends in Selected Locations in Bratislava Ľubica Argalášová 1 , Alexandra Filová 1 , Katarína Hirošová 1 , Martin Samohýl 1 , Jana Babjaková 1 , Lenka Matejáková 1 , Jana Jurkovičová 1

1 Institute of Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia, Špitálska 24, 813 72 Bratislava, Slovakia

ABSTRACT The rapid development in traffic density and the economic transformation since 1989 has brought new problems concerning road traffic noise in Slovakia. The aim is to follow the time trends of noise annoyance in monitored localities in Bratislava at time intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years. We used the validated methodology for subjective assessment of noise annoyance in young and healthy individuals, as well as a method of objectification by direct measurement of sound levels. Respondents (n=3,675) were university students, living in the exposed and control dormitories representing a homogenous sample. The sharp increase in traffic noise burden in the exposed area was found at the first 10-year interval (1989–1999) (L Aeq =67.5 dB). A slight decrease occurred in 2019 up to L Aeq =63.9 dB and during lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic it dropped to L Aeq =62.5 dB. A sharp increase in road traffic noise annoyance was observed in the first 10-year interval (OR MH =2.56 (95 % CI=1.93–3.42) vs 6.01 (95% CI=4.97–7.95) with a slightly decreasing trend in 2020-2021. An increase in noise annoyance from entertainment facilities was observed as well. Despite a slightly declining trend, road traffic noise annoyance is still an important issue and there is a need for preventive measures to reduce such exposure in residential areas.

1. INTRODUCTION

The harmful effects of noise on human health and development have been underestimated for a relatively long time. This may be due to the fact that noise endangers human health in an indirect manner, as opposed to other harmful substances in the workplace or environment. However, noise is pervasive in everyday life and can cause both auditory and non-auditory health effects [1, 2, 3]. Environmental noise has traditionally been dismissed as an inevitable fact of life and has not been targeted and controlled to the same extent as other health risks. A growing body of research linking noise to adverse health effects coupled with proactive legislation, primarily in the EU, is now driving change [2, 4]. Environmental noise has often been referred to as the ‘forgotten pollutant’ but is now recognised as an environmental and public health issue which needs to be addressed in modern society [2, 3, 4].

Around 56 million people (54%) in the European Union live in places with more than 250 000 people, and they are subjected to road traffic noise of more than the average L DEN (day- evening-night) 55 dB per year, which is regarded health-threatening [2, 3]. According to the WHO, at least 1 million healthy life years (disability-adjusted life-years) are lost each year due to environmental noise in high-income European States (population around 340 million people) [2, 5]. More specifically, an estimated 113 million people are affected by long-term day-evening-night traffic noise levels of at least 55 dB. In addition, 22 million are exposed to high levels of railway

noise, 4 million to high levels of aircraft noise and less than 1 million to high levels of noise caused by industries [3].

Annoyance is the most prevalent community response in a population exposed to environmental noise. It is a psychic condition that occurs at involuntary perceptions of the effects or at subordination to circumstances to which the individual has the attitude of rejection, because they break his/her privacy, hinder the implementation of the activities or affect the quality of rest. The response are the feelings of resistance, irritability and, in some cases, psychosomatic disorders [1]. The level of noise annoyance, together with noise sensitivity are often used as the indicators of noise exposure in relation to extraaural (non-auditory) noise effects (especially in cardiovascular system) [6].

The adverse effects on sleep belong to the other adverse effects of noise. Noise alters not only the sleep quality but also the physiological response of the organism in the form of changes in blood pressure, heart rate or respiratory rate. With insufficient sleep the other symptoms are subsequently joined: difficulties to concentrate, fatigue, mood swings, headaches, etc. As several studies show, even when the man seems to get used to noisy surroundings, the actual adaptation of the organism to noise is not even after many years [1, 2, 7, 8, 9]. Sleep disturbance by noise (especially from road traffic) is the most serious environmental burden of disease, representing 903,000 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) [1, 2].

In Slovakia, the rapid development in traffic density connected with the economic transformation since 1989 has brought new problems in relation to environmental noise, particularly road traffic noise. The aim of the study is to follow the time trends of noise annoyance in long-time monitored localities in Bratislava at time intervals of 10, 20, and 30 years. We also focused on the situation during the global COVID-19 pandemic in the given locations. 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, we follow the time trends of noise load of selected population groups in Bratislava agglomeration at different time intervals (10, 20, 30 years). In addition to the overall degree of annoyance from different sources of environmental noise, we follow sleep disturbance and interference with various activities during the day, evening and night. We used the validated methodology for the subjective assessment of "annoyance" and psychosocial well-being, as well as the objectification of noise levels by direct measurement method using sound level analyzer with a module for frequency analysis. Statistical and epidemiological analyses have been based on bivariate, and stratified analyses. Major analytical tools were Epi Info™, different versions during decades, the latest version EPI-INFO 7.2.2.16 and SPSS, the latest version 25 (International Business Machines Corp., New Orchard Road, Armonk, NY, USA). 2.1 Exposure assessment

We have been monitoring equivalent noise levels (L Aeq ) at the exposed and control sites in Bratislava at various time intervals for a long time with Brüel-Kjaer measuring techniques (sound analyzer type 2230 in the period 1989-1999 and hand-held sound analyzer type 2250 with frequency analysis software BZ 7223 since 2004) (10). Two separate measurements were performed at both the exposed and control areas during the regular working week in spring and autumn. All measurements were recorded according to the valid legislation during the day (6.00–12.00), afternoon (12.00– 18.00), evening (18.00–22.00) and night (22.00–6.00) (11). The time interval of each measurement was 15 min. Measuring stations were situated 2 meters from the building facades. The average equivalent noise levels ( L Aeq,24h ) were calculated and compared for exposed and control areas.

The L DEN (day–evening–night noise indicator) was determined for each area and was used to assess the overall noise annoyance in the exposed and control areas. These were estimated from the Bratislava agglomeration strategic noise map, which is based on prediction methods and 3D-Models, and is compiled by the END [12].

Based on our measurements and strategic noise maps we determined the surroundings of the major university dormitory as the exposed location. This location is highly exposed to traffic noise from road and rail traffic (trams) throughout the day. The control site is located at the other university dormitories located in the quite pedestrian zone. The purpose of these measurements and estimations was to reasonably categorize the subjects by levels of noise exposure for epidemiological study purposes.

2.2 Subjective response and annoyance

Subjective response was assessed by a validated Noise Annoyance Questionnaire administered in person, modified in the course of 10, 20 and 30 years [10, 13]. We also focused on the situation during the global COVID-19 pandemic in the given locations and administered the questionnaire online.

Besides demographic (age, gender, education, occupation, nationality), behavioral (smoking, coffee and alcohol consumption) and housing characteristics (building construction and type of residence), it included questions on possible non-auditory noise effects (noise annoyance from different sources, interference with various activities and sleep disturbance). Window orientation to quiet or noisy streets, flat location, and length of stay in a dormitory (at least four years in the same place) were incorporated into the questionnaire as well.

We used a three graded scale (Not at all annoys; Moderately annoys; Annoys) in the period between 1989 – 1999 and a five-graded verbal scale (Not at all; Slightly; Moderately; Very; Extremely) during the years 2000–2022, that was developed and recommended by experts from the ICBEN (The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise) [14].

For statistical purposes, however, it was necessary to dichotomize (Not at all+Slightly; Moderately+Very+Extremely) or trichotomize (Not at all+Slightly; Moderately, Very+Extremely) the results.

2.3 Study samples

The source population was composed of students enrolled at Comenius University. The respondents represented a homogenous sample of young healthy individuals of comparable age, education and lifestyle. The response rate was 90%. Only those students living in Bratislava were eligible to participate in the study. The number of respondents living in the exposed and control area during 10, 20 and 30 years and during the period of COVID-19 pandemic (2020– 2021) is in Table 1. Respondents from exposed and control group did not differ significantly in terms of age (23± 2yrs), gender (30% males, 70% females), education, health and lifestyle. They differed in their residence location in relation to noise exposure (quiet, noisy area), flat position in the floor height, windows orientation, satisfaction with flat surrounding and noise annoyance.

Tab. 1. Number of respondents in individual years (n = 3,675)

Year Exposed group Control group Total

1989 166 (31%) 374 (69%) 540

1999 374 (44%) 483 (56%) 857

2009 280 (42%) 379 (58%) 659

2019 87 (31%) 195 (69%) 282

2020-2021 78 (37%) 132 (63%) 210

Total 1 331 (38%) 2 134 (62%) 3 675

2.4 Statistical analysis

Bivariate and stratified analyses (presented as crude odds ratio, Mantel–Haenszel weighted odds ratios) were used to calculate community noise annoyance risks and the risks of interference with road traffic noise. Mantel–Haenszel weighted odds ratio was used in

stratification analysis when the variables (Road traffic noise interference and annoyance) were trichotomized (Not at all+Slightly; Moderately, Very+Extremely).

The risks were followed at time intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years and the time trends were assessed.

Major analytical tools were Epi Info™, different versions during decades, the latest version EPI-INFO 7.2.2.16 and SPSS, the latest version 25 (International Business Machines Corp., New Orchard Road, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the results of measurements of noise exposure in the exposed and control site, we found a continuous increase in traffic noise burden in the exposed area at intervals of 10, 15, 20 years beyond the health risk zone (Figure 1). From the evaluation of noise levels during the day, we can assume that the highest values were recorded in the period 1999 to 2009, when they reached L Aeq = 67.5 dB (Fig. 1).

75

exposed location control location

70

65

dB

60

55

50

45

1989 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2020

Fig. 1 The development of noise levels in the observed areas (1989-2020)

According to Jansen [15], the negative effects of noise on health begin to manifest at values above L Aeq = 50 dB (annoyance, short-term communication disorders, negative effects on mental work). At values above 65 dB, there is serious annoyance and sleep disorders (awakening). Thus, the measured noise levels exceeded the permissible levels according to the national Decree No. 549/2007 Coll. as amended and can cause serious noise annoyance and sleep disturbance and later psychosomatic disorders. A slight decrease occurs after 2014, when the measured values fell to L Aeq = 65.7 dB and in 2019 to L Aeq = 63.9 dB. In 2020, during lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic they dropped to L Aeq =62.5 dB. However, they still reach higher values than allowed in residential areas and around school facilities. We observed a more significant decrease in environmental noise levels at the control site, where the noise level from L Aeq =58.7 dB in 1999 dropped to L Aeq = 50.2 dB in 2019 and L Aeq =46 dB in 2020 (Fig. 1). The

difference between the exposed and control locations was significant in each monitoring period (p <0.001).

The indicators L DEN (day–evening–night noise indicator) estimated from Bratislava agglomeration strategic noise map were (L DEN =65-70 dB) vs (L DEN =50 - 55 dB) in the year 2016 in the exposed and in the control site and the difference was significant as well (p<0.05) [12].

Table 2. Environmental noise annoyance risks from different sources (1989 – 2021)

Road traffic

Source of noise Industry

Aircraft

Railway OR MH (95 % CI)

Noise annoyance risks

Year

OR MH (95 % CI)

OR MH (95 % CI)

OR MH (95 % CI)

1989 2.56 (1.93–3.42) *** 1.62 (1.14–2.35) ** 0.46 (0.22–0.92 0.56 (0.31–0.98) *

1999 6.01 (4.97–7.95) *** 3.49 (2.48–4.21) ** 0.87 (0.62–1.22) 2.06 (1.58–2.71) **

2009

5.41 (4.28–7.25) ***

2.27 (1.76–2.98) ***

0.64 (0.44–0.91) *

1.41 (1.04–1.92) * 2019

5.41 (3.56–8.36) ***

1.72 (1.2–2.47) *

1.55 (0.94–2.53) **

3.05 (1.93–4.82) *** 2020-2021

4.37 (2.98–6.40) ***

2.07 (1.43 – 2.99) ***

1.32 (0.78 – 2.23)

1.48 (0.99–2.21) *

Legend: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 CI = confidence interval; OR MH = Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio

The most disturbing environmental noise source in the exposed locality was road traffic noise. Subjectively, we observed a sharp increase of value risks causing road traffic noise annoyance and interference with various activities over 10 years (OR MH =2.56 (95 % CI=1.93–3.42) in 1989 and 6.01 (95 % CI=4.97–7.95) in 1999) (Table 2,3). In addition to road traffic noise we observed an increase in noise annoyance from railways – trams (OR MH = 3.05 (95 % CI=1.93–4.82 in 2019). The important issue has been the noise annoyance from the entertainment facilities (OR MH =3.45 (95 % CI=2.32–5.13 in 2019), and from the neighborhood (OR MH = 1.69 (95 % CI=1.16–2.47 in 2019) (Table 2, 3).

During pandemic lockdown road traffic noise annoyance decreased, but not dramatically. Noise levels in the exposed location dropped by 2 dB and in control location by 5 dB. The German researchers recently analyzed the effect of lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic on noise levels in the city of Bochum similar to Bratislava (365,000 inhabitants), located in the densely populated and highly trafficked metropolitan Ruhr Area. They observed a significant reduction in levels in all territory, but the weakest decrease of 3.9 dB from 68.4 dB to 64.5 was found on the main street, comparing to strongest reduction in the formerly quite green urban area [16].

Subjectively, we observed a sharp increase of value risks causing road traffic noise annoyance and interference with various activities over 10 years (OR MH =2.56 (95 % CI=1.93– 3.42) in 1989 and 6.01 (95 % CI=4.97–7.95) in 1999). Interference with sleep and rest disturbance by road traffic noise has been currently the most important issue (OR MH =3.07 (95 % CI=2.43–3.89). The sharp increase of road traffic noise annoyance in 1989 and in 1999, and interference with several activities over 10 years could be attributed to the period of political and socio-economic transformation and the changes in traffic management in our country.

Our results are comparable with the other studies comparing "annoyance", distortion of psycho-social-well-being and sleep disturbances in the exposed (noisy) and control areas [6, 8, 17]. Noise annoyance showed strong correlation with noise levels, personal characteristics

and housing conditions according to authors in Belgrade, Serbia [6, 17]. The most annoying noise sources were construction, road traffic and leisure/entertainment activities in Skopje, Macedonia [8]. The contribution and strength of our study is in the time trend analysis in 10, 20 and 30 year interval.

Table 3. Environmental noise annoyance risks from different sources (1989 – 2021)

Neighborhood

Source of noise

House equipment OR MH (95 % CI)

Noise annoyance risks

Entertainment facilities

Year

OR MH (95 % CI)

OR MH (95 % CI)

1989 1.71 (1.29–2.27) *** 1.51 (0.90–2.52) 0.57 (0.40–0.80)

1999 2.43 (1.99–3.03) *** 3.90 (3.19–5.46) *** 1.25 (0.98–1.58) **

2.48 (1.99–3.19) ***

2.27 (1.76–2.98) ***

1.22 (0.94–1.58)

2009

1.69 (1.16–2.47) **

3.45 (2.32–5.13) ***

0.6 (0.36–0.96)

2019

2020–2021 1.74 (1.24 – 2.44) ** 2.89 (1.99–4.21) *** 1.45 (0.90–2.33)

Legend: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 CI = confidence interval; OR MH = Mantel–Haenszel odds ratio

4. CONCLUSION The study identified the association between environmental noise and noise annoyance in the course of 30 years with special focus on the situation during the global COVID-19 pandemic in the given locations. A sharp increase in road traffic noise annoyance was observed in the first 10-year interval. The sharp increase during the years 1989 and 1999 could be attributed to the political and socio- economic transformation and the changes in traffic management in our country. An increase in noise annoyance from entertainment facilities was observed as well. Despite a slightly declining trend, road traffic noise annoyance is still an important issue and there is a need for preventive measures to reduce such exposure in residential areas . The findings of our study indicate the need for preventive measures to reduce environmental noise exposure in residential areas and for future research in this field. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported in part by the grants KEGA 015UK-4/2022, Innovation of education in the field of health protection and promotion with an emphasis on e-learning and implementation of multimedia technologies and YABS (Youth and Parents Behavioral Survey in Slovakia) O-15-101- /0001-00. 6. REFERENCES

1. Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C., Janssen, S. & Stansfeld, S.. Auditory

and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet, 383, 154–168 (2014). 2. Fritschi, L., Brown, L.A., Kim, R., Schwela, D. & Kephalopoulos, S. Burden of disease from

environmental noise. Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe . World Health Organization, Geneva, 2011.

3. Peris, E. et al. Environmental noise in Europe–2020 . European Environment Agency,

Copenhagen, 2020. 4. Murphy, E. & King, E.A. Environmental Noise Pollution. Noise Mapping, Public Health, and

Policy . Elsevier, 2014. 5. WHO Europe. Environmental noise guidelines for the European region , World Health

Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 2018. 6. Paunovič, K., Jakovljevič, B. & Belojevič, G. Predictors of noise annoyance in noisy and quiet

urban streets. Science of the Total Environment , 1(12), 3707–3711 (2009). 7. Stansfeld, S.A. &Matheson, M.P. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. British Medical

Bulletin, 68 , 243–257 (2003). 8. Ristovska, G., Gjorgjev, D., Polozhani, A., Kocubovski, M. & Kendrovski, V. Environmental

noise and annoyance in adult population of Skopje: a cross-sectional study. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology , 60(3), 349–55 (2009). 9. Hume, K.I., Brink, M. & Basner, M. Effects of environmental noise on sleep. Noise and Health ,

14(61), 297-302 (2012). 10. Sobotová, Ľ., Jurkovičová, J., Štefániková, Z., Ševčíková, Ľ. & Ághová Ľ. Community noise

annoyance assessment in an urban agglomeration. Bratislava Medical Journal , 107(5), 214–2016 (2006). 11. STN ISO 1996–1, 2. Acoustics. Description, measurement and assessment of environmental

noise. Part 2: Determination of environmental noise levels. SSTN 2008. 12. EUROAKUSTIK: Web page Strategic noise maps, accessed on 28 April 2022:

http://www.hlukovamapa.sk/index.html 13. Argalášová, Ľ., Jurkovičová, J., Ševčíková, Ľ., Štefániková, Z., Hirošová, K., Babjaková, J.,

Kánovicsová, A. & Filová, A. Environmental Noise and Annoyance in the Urban Area at Different Time Intervals. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 617, 110–115 (2014). 14. Fields, J.M., de Jong, R.G., Gjestland, T. et al. “Standardized general-purpose noise reaction

questions for community noise surveys: Research and recommendation”. Journal of Sound and Vibration , 242 (4), 641–679 (2001). 15. Jansen, G. 1998. Health concepts and noise effects. In: Noise Effects `98 , Vol. 2, Sydney,

Australia: Noise Effects `98 Pty Ltd 1998, p. 697–702. 16. Hornberg, J., Haselhoff, T., Lawrence, B.T., Fischer, J.L., Ahmed, S., Gruehn, D. & Moebus, S.

Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown Measures on Noise Levels in Urban Areas-A Pre/during Comparison of Long-Term Sound Pressure Measurements in the Ruhr Area, Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9):4653 (2021). 17. Jakovljevic, B., Paunovic, K. & Belojevic G. Road-traffic noise and factors influencing noise

annoyance in an urban population. Environment International , 35(3), 552–556 (2009).