Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.gov.uk/defra
www.defra.gov.uk
National Noise Attitude Survey 2012 (NNAS2012) Summary Report December 2014
This report was authored by:
Hilary Notley Defra Colin Grimwood Bureau Veritas Gary Raw Bureau Veritas Associate GR People Solutions Charlotte Clark Queen Mary University London Georgia Zepidou Bureau Veritas Rik Van de Kerckhove Defra Nick Moon GfK NOP
This project was funded by Defra and this report is published with the Department’s consent. Any opinions given are those of the authors and not necessarily those of their employers.
The NNAS2012 project team would like to acknowledge the GfK Project, Field Work, and GfK teams, without whom this report would not be possible and last, but not least, each and every respondent who voluntarily devoted their time to the completion of the questionnaire, and without whom this research would not have been possible.
Signed
............................................................................
Date: ....................................18 December 2014
© Crown copyright 2014
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]
This document/publication is also available on our website at:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/
Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at:
Noise and Nuisance Technical and Evidence Team DEFRA Area 2C Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Email: [email protected]
Version control
Version Description Date
1 Final Summary Report 18th December 2014
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Method ............................................................................................................................. 1
Key Findings .................................................................................................................... 3
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
2. Format of this Report .................................................................................................... 8
3. Previous National Noise Attitude Surveys .................................................................... 9
4. Method ........................................................................................................................ 10
Survey Sample ............................................................................................................... 10
Questionnaire Design ..................................................................................................... 13
Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................ 15
Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 15
Respondent Characteristics ........................................................................................... 15
Interpretation of Findings ................................................................................................ 17
5. Results ........................................................................................................................ 18
Local Environment.......................................................................................................... 18
Noise Sources ................................................................................................................ 19
Perceived Noise Effects ................................................................................................. 21
Actions Taken about Noise ............................................................................................ 23
Quiet Areas .................................................................................................................... 24
Summary of Comparison with Previous Survey (NNAS2000) ........................................ 25
Comparison Between Countries ..................................................................................... 26
Factors Relating to a Negative Response to Noise ........................................................ 34
6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 35
References ........................................................................................................................ 37
Some Other Relevant Documents .................................................................................. 37
Executive Summary
Introduction The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the UK Government Department with overall responsibility for the policies designed to manage noise; the overarching policy in England is the Noise Policy Statement for England1. Noise is an inevitable consequence of a mature and vibrant society. For some the noise of city life provides a desirable sense of excitement and exhilaration, but for others noise is an unwanted intrusion that adversely impacts on their quality of life, affecting their health and well being. Furthermore, the cost of noise pollution in England from road traffic noise alone is estimated to be between £7 billion and £10 billion per year2, so this is an issue of some importance.
To support its work, Defra needs up-to-date information on current attitudes to noise among the population. Two large-scale surveys on attitudes to noise have been previously conducted on behalf of Defra and its predecessor body (the Department of the Environment), in 1991 and in 2000.
Defra commissioned a new survey to examine the 2012 experience of noise, and attitudes to it, and whether that has changed over the last decade. This project had two principal objectives:
• to provide the Government with a good estimate of current attitudes to various aspects of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise3 (including the percentage of the population affected); and • to allow the Government to detect any substantive changes in attitudes to noise in the UK since the 2000 survey.
Method The 2012 survey is as similar as possible to the 2000 survey, so as to permit valid comparison of the findings. The starting point for the 2012 questionnaire design was the one used in the National Noise Attitude Survey carried out in 2000 (NNAS2000). The
1 Noise Policy Statement for England, Defra, March 2010. UK Government website, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69533/pb13750-noise-policy.pdf, website accessed 8 December 2014. 2 UK Government website, www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-enhancing-our-urban-and-natural-environment-to-improve-public-health-and-wellbeing, website accessed 8 December 2014 3 Environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise as defined in the Noise Policy Statement for England
1
2012 questionnaire was adapted with three aims: to maintain comparability with the 2000 survey, to accommodate new information requirements, and to shorten the interview. In order to meet the latter two key requirements, it was accepted that confidence in backward compatibility would be high for some questions but other questions would be only broadly comparable. Some questions would not be comparable at all due to changes in survey design. The questionnaire covered the following topics:
• Questions on the area and neighbourhood, before any questions specifically about noise; • Overall ratings of amount of noise in the locality, sensitivity to noise, ranking of noise in comparison with other environmental issues, and how much the respondent was bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from each of 15 general sources of noise, and ranking of these sources; • Questions on ‘road traffic noise’, ‘neighbour noise’4 and up to three other noise sources if ranked in the respondent’s top three; • Rating of the extent to which noise overall spoils the respondent’s home life; • Impact on life at home (e.g. sleep and window-opening); • Actions taken by the respondent or someone in their household to do something about noise and selected other environmental issues, and the respondent’s use of outdoor places in order to find somewhere peaceful or quiet; and • Background information on the household and dwelling, and the interviewer’s observations on noise in the locality.
The sample was designed to be representative of adults in the UK. A random sample of addresses was drawn and interviewers randomly selected respondents from among those eligible5 at a selected address. Weightings were applied to the data collected to correct for the effect of this on an individual’s probability of being selected. Fieldwork ran from December 2011 to May 2012. The number of achieved interviews processed was 2,747 with an overall effective response rate of 44%.
When interpreting the findings, it should always be borne in mind that the final sample differed from the UK population (according to the 2011 Census) in the following ways:
4 ‘Neighbour noise’ is a combined category defined as noise from ‘neighbours inside their homes’, noise from ‘neighbours outside their homes’ and noise from ‘other people nearby’. 5 All people 16+ in the UK living in individual dwellings were eligible to be interviewed, excluding anyone who was profoundly deaf, but including partially deaf people.
2
• the NNAS2012 respondents tended to be more likely to be in the ‘higher and intermediate managerial / administrative / professional’ social groups than the national population. Those in these social groups (A/B) were found to be more likely to be annoyed by noise from ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ compared to the overall levels of annoyance from this source; • the NNAS2012 respondents tended to be more likely to be older and/or retired than the national population. Retired people were found to be less likely to report negatively about the amount of noise in their local environment and they reported reduced levels of annoyance towards ‘noise from road traffic’ and ‘neighbour noise’ compared to the overall reported levels of annoyance towards noise from these two key sources; and • the complexity of the methodology has prevented the calculation of confidence intervals around the estimates for any of the results. A confidence interval based on the assumptions of a simple random design would have overestimated the confidence and thus been misleading.
Key Findings In general 72% of respondents had a positive attitude to their local noise environment.
‘Road traffic noise’, ‘noise from neighbours and/or other people nearby’, ‘aircraft, airports and airfield noise’ and ‘noise from building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’ are the most frequently heard sources of noise for people in their homes in the UK. There has been no material change in the proportion of the population who report hearing noise from these four sources between 2000 and 2012.
However, over the same period there has been a strongly statistically significant6 increase in the proportion of respondents who report being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by these four most commonly heard sources of noise (‘road traffic’, ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’) despite no material increase in the proportion of the population hearing noise from these four sources.
The proportion of people that consider themselves to be significantly adversely affected7 by the four most commonly heard sources has not changed as much, with ‘road traffic’ remaining the same (8%), ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ increasing from 9% to 11%, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ (from 2% to 4%) and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’ (from 2% to 3%). Of these, only the increase seen for ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ is strongly statistically significant (see Figure 1). Of
6 Strongly statistically significant comparisons with p-values ≤ 0.001. 7 Significantly adversely affected is defined as those reporting being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ bothered, annoyed or disturbed by the noise source.
3
course, it must not be forgotten that a small percentage still equates to a large number of people.
In general, 48% of people feel their home life is spoilt to some extent by noise with 52% reporting that noise did “not at all” spoil their home life.
Respondents were shown a list of 12 environmental problems and asked which five they were most affected by. From 2000 to 2012, noise has moved up from ninth to fourth place in a list of twelve of environmental problems. Whilst, the list of environmental problems used in the survey is not exhaustive, respondents now rate noise broadly similarly to air quality (‘traffic exhaust fumes and urban smog’) in their perception of the relative concerns about environmental problems. Noise is selected more often than other environmental issues such as (lack of) recycling, quality of drinking water, sewage on beaches or in bathing water, and loss of plant life and/or animal life.
Respondents living in homes built before 1919 tend to report more negative responses to ‘road traffic’ noise and increased use of quiet areas compared with respondents in homes built between 1961-1990, after controlling for the other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors.
The NNAS2012 confirms that type of housing (bungalow, flat, detached, etc) is an important factor that should be taken into account when assessing the influence of noise exposure on attitudes and behaviour.
Statistically significant age differences were seen in how people respond to noise. Younger and older respondents were less likely to respond negatively to noise compared with mid-aged adults. Similarly, respondents who were retired were also less likely to respond negatively to noise, even after taking age into account.
The comparable findings from NNAS2012 and NNAS2000 are summarised in the report. A NNAS was also undertaken in England & Wales during 1991, however the changes made to the questionnaire and survey methodology since 1991 are such that reliable comparisons cannot be made.
Results are also presented for the individual nations (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) in the report.
Conclusions The National Noise Attitude Survey 2012 shows that 72% of respondents reported general satisfaction with their noise environment.
Between 2000 and 2012 there was an increase of between 11% and 17% (depending on the noise source) in the proportion of people surveyed who feel that they are to some extent adversely affected by the four most commonly heard sources of noise (‘road traffic’,
4
‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’).
Between 2000 and 2012 there was a decrease of between 10% and 16% (depending on the noise source) in the proportion of people surveyed who feel that they are not at all adversely affected by the four most commonly heard sources of noise (‘road traffic’, ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’). This suggests that the population may be less tolerant of noise than in 2000.
The proportion of those reporting themselves as being significantly adversely affected has remained broadly the same (see Figure 1 for actual proportions by source), i.e. the proportion of those experiencing potentially significant adverse effects has not worsened. The number reporting hearing the four most commonly heard sources of noise has also remained broadly the same(again, see Figure 1 for actual proportions by source).
In general, 48% of respondents said that their home life was spoilt to some extent by noise, with 52% reporting that noise did “not at all” spoil their home life.
5
Figure 1 - Key Findings Relating to Specific Sources and Comparison Between 2000 and 2012
2%
2%
8%
9%
15%
20%
37%
40%
49%
71%
81%
84%
3%
4%
8%
11%
29%
31%
54%
55%
48%
72%
83%
83%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works
aircraft, airports and airfields
road traffic
neighbours and/or other people nearby
building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works
aircraft, airports and airfields
neighbours and/or other people nearby
road traffic
building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works
aircraft, airports and airfields
neighbours and/or other people nearby
road traffic
“Ver
y or
ext
rem
ely”
bot
here
d,
anno
yed
or d
istur
bed
by n
oise
fr
om...
Bo
ther
ed, a
nnoy
ed o
r dist
urbe
d to
som
e ex
tent
by
noise
from
...He
arin
g no
ise fr
om...
2012 2000
6
[Page intentionally blank]
7
1. Introduction The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the UK Government Department with overall responsibility for the policies designed to manage noise; the overarching policy in England is the Noise Policy Statement for England [1]. Noise is an inevitable consequence of a mature and vibrant society. For some the sounds of city life provide a desirable sense of excitement and exhilaration, but for others noise is an unwanted intrusion that adversely impacts on their quality of life, affecting their health and well-being. Furthermore, the cost of noise pollution in England from road traffic noise alone is estimated to be between £7 billion and £10 billion per year8, so this is an issue of some importance.
To support its work, Defra needs information on current attitudes to noise among the England population. In addition, the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also require this information. Two large-scale surveys on attitudes to noise have been conducted on behalf of Defra and its predecessor body (the Department of the Environment), in 1991 [2] and in 2000 [3].
Defra commissioned a new survey to examine the 2012 experience of noise, and attitudes to it, and whether that has changed over the last decade. The new project had two principal objectives:
• to provide the Government with a good estimate of current attitudes to various aspects of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise9 (including the percentage of the population affected); and • to allow the Government to detect any substantive changes in attitudes to noise in the UK since a previous similar survey conducted in 2000 (NNAS2000).
2. Format of this Report This report contains a summary of the NNAS2012 research project and key findings. More detail is then contained within a series of volumes as follows.
• Volume 1 – Method • Volume 2 – Current Attitudes to Noise
8 UK Government website, www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-and-enhancing-our-urban-and-natural-environment-to-improve-public-health-and-wellbeing, website accessed 8 December 2014 9 Environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise as defined in the Noise Policy Statement for England
8
• Volume 3 – Comparison of Key Findings Between 2012 and 2000 • Volume 4 – Comparison Between Countries • Volume 5 – Dwelling, Sociodemographic and Geographic Factors Associated with Responses to Noise
This high level report directs the reader to the appropriate volume and contains cross references to ease navigation.
3. Previous National Noise Attitude Surveys In 1991, the UK Department of the Environment commissioned a National Noise Attitude Survey (NNAS) [2]. The principal aim of this survey was to sample the population of England and Wales to assess attitudes to environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise experienced at home. During 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) indicated its intention to carry out a further NNAS and commissioned a pilot study with the objective of reviewing previous work.
Following consideration of the pilot study, two further studies were commissioned:
• a survey of attitudes to environmental noise in England and Wales that would maintain backwards compatibility with the 1991 survey and hence allow the Government to track any changes in attitudes to noise; and • a UK-wide survey of attitudes to environmental noise that would utilise a revised questionnaire in order to provide the Government with an enhanced estimate of current attitudes to noise.
In 1999/2000, two sample groups, each approximately equivalent in size to that used in 1991, were interviewed in England and Wales, the first group with the 1991 questionnaire, and the second with a revised questionnaire. The revised questionnaire took a modular form with different sections being used according to how respondents ranked the various noise sources. During 2000, the survey using the new modular questionnaire was extended to include Scotland and Northern Ireland in order to enable UK estimates of attitudes to environmental noise to be made. The Final Report on the 2000 National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise was also presented in a number of volumes [3] and is referred to throughout this series of reports as NNAS2000.
9
4. Method To achieve the above principal objectives, certain priorities were placed on the study design, including that NNAS2012 should:
• use a representative UK population sample; • accommodate new information, e.g. new sources of noise such as mobile phones and current policy topics, such as Quiet Areas; • shorten the interview, as feedback from NNAS2000 was that the questionnaire took a fairly long time to complete; and • be as similar as possible to NNAS2000, so as to permit valid comparison of the findings. Where it was not possible to do this in any key aspects of the research, this is noted and the implications are discussed. Additional detail can be found in Volume 1.
Survey Sample A stratified random sampling approach with clusters at the lowest level was used.
The sample was designed to be representative of all people 16+ in the UK living in individual dwellings (i.e. excluding barracks, halls of residence, hospitals, care homes, prisons, etc.). Anyone who was profoundly deaf was not interviewed, but partially deaf people were included as they will also hear sounds. Virtually all probability surveys in the UK that set out to represent the adult population use the Postcode Address File (PAF) as the sampling frame, and that is what was used for NNAS2012. The residential PAF provides a list of almost all private residential addresses in the UK and is the most comprehensive frame available. Because it lists addresses, not individuals, interviewers were required to select respondents randomly from among those at each address if there was more than one dwelling at the address, more than one household in the dwelling or more than one eligible person in the household.
The total number of addresses initially issued to interviewers was 6,006, with a target of achieving 3,200 interviews. Because the overall response rate was lower than anticipated, an additional sample of 788 addresses was drawn by selecting the original points where response had been poor, and sampling in a neighbouring Lower level Census Super Output Area10, so that the same interviewer could be used. In each of these new points,
10 LSOA – A Census Output Area (OA) is the smallest unit for which census data are published. They contain at least 40 households and 100 persons, the target size being 125 households. They were built up from postcode blocks after the census data (from 2001) were available, with the intention of standardising population sizes, geographical shape and social homogeneity (in terms of dwelling types and housing tenure). Super Output Areas (SOAs) are a set of geographical areas developed with the aim to produce a set of areas of consistent size, whose boundaries would not
10
addresses were sampled in exactly the same way as the initial sample and additional interviews were conducted.
The final total of interviews available for processing was 2,747 with an overall effective response rate of 44% (45% on initial sample and 33% on additional sample).
Further information on the sample design and the achieved sample can be found in Volume 1, Section 2.
A map showing the distribution of the sampling across the UK can be seen in Figure 2. If reading this report electronically, hovering over the centre of the symbols will reveal the postcode sector for the relevant sample point. The cartographic distribution of each symbol provides an indication of the number of respondents within each of the postcode sectors.
change (unlike electoral wards). They are an aggregation of adjacent OAs with similar social characteristics. Lower level Census Super Output Areas (LSOAs) typically contain 4 to 6 OAs with a population of around 1500. Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOAs) also exist and have, on average, a population of 7,200. The hierarchy of OAs and the two tiers of SOAs have become known as the Neighbourhood Statistics Geography.
11
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
! !!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!
!!
!!!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
! !!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!!
!
! !!!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!!
!
! !!!!!
!!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!
National Noise Attitude Survey 2012 Survey Locations
© Crown Copyright and database right 2014.
12
All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100022861
Figure 2 - Map of UK Depicting Sampling Distribution
Questionnaire Design The starting point for the questionnaire design was the one used in NNAS2000. This questionnaire was adapted with three aims:
• to maintain comparability with the 2000 survey; • to accommodate new information requirements; and • to shorten the interview (in response to feedback from the previous survey).
In order to meet the latter two key requirements, it was accepted that confidence in backward compatibility could be made high for some questions but other questions would be only broadly comparable (i.e. quantitative trends should not be calculated or inferred). Some questions would not be comparable at all due to changes in survey design. Additionally, although a NNAS had also been undertaken in England & Wales during 1991, it was already accepted that the changes made to the questionnaire and survey methodology between 1991 and 2000 were such that reliable comparisons could not be made between any of the 1991 data and the 2012 data, so this was not a design consideration.
The questionnaire covered the following topics:
• attitudes to the area and neighbourhood, before any questions specifically about noise; • overall ratings of noise and sensitivity to noise, ranking of noise in comparison with other environmental issues, ratings of how much the respondent was bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from each of 15 sources of noise, and ranking of these sources;
- aircraft, airports or airfields; - trains or railway stations; - road traffic; - sea, river or canal traffic; - building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works; - neighbours (inside their homes); - neighbours (outside their homes); - other people nearby; - sports; - other entertainment or leisure; - industrial sites; - other commercial premises; - forestry, farming or agriculture; - community buildings; and
13
- any other noise;
• noise sources if ranked in the respondent’s top three. These questions asked about:
- the extent to which the respondent was bothered, annoyed or disturbed by specific types of noise from each source (e.g. different types of road and different types of vehicle); - how the noise makes the respondent feel and the activities the noise interferes with; - comparisons of different times of day and with the situation five years earlier; - the noise while it is actually happening and in general; and - how much the respondent was bothered, annoyed or disturbed by vibration from the noise source11;
• detailed attitudes to ‘road traffic noise’, ‘neighbour noise’12, and up to three other noise sources if ranked in the respondent’s top three; • rating of the extent to which noise overall spoils the respondent’s home life; • impact on life at home (e.g. disturbance of sleep, the effect of noise on opening and closing windows); • actions taken by the respondent or someone in their household to do something about noise and selected other environmental issues; • the respondent’s use of outdoor places in order to find somewhere peaceful or quiet; • background information on the household and dwelling; and • the interviewer’s observations on noise in the locality.
Whereas NNAS2000 had used a paper questionnaire, NNAS2012 was administered using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), although all show cards remained on paper. No identified implications of this change were considered to have a material impact on the backwards compatibility of the survey. The questionnaire was subject to extensive
11 Some sections included additional questions. In particular, the section on noise from neighbours and other people nearby also asked about the relative impact of the noise, depending on whether the neighbours are indoors or outdoors and whether the respondent is indoors or outdoors, and whether the noise is attributed to neighbours making an unreasonable amount of noise and/or not having good sound insulation. 12 Neighbour noise is a combined category defined as noise from ‘neighbours inside their homes’, noise from ‘neighbours outside their homes’ and noise from ‘other people nearby’.
14
internal review and testing by the project team, before field piloting in locations selected to represent a range of noise sources. The questionnaire required 48 minutes on average (median) to administer.
Further information about the questionnaire design and presentation are given in Volume 1, Section 3.
Fieldwork Fieldwork ran from December 2011 to May 2012. Interviewing was carried out by trained and experienced interviewers; all were personally briefed and were subject to quality control procedures in the field. Standard procedures for maximising response were followed, resulting in a total of 2,747 processed interviews. No incentive was offered to potential respondents.
Further details of the fieldwork and interviewer briefing are given in Volume 1, Section 4.
Data Preparation Weightings were applied to the data collected to correct for sampling approach artefacts; NNAS2000 used the Electoral Register to sample persons, but this was no longer viable in 2012. Therefore, the PAF was used and this lists addresses, not individuals. Weighting corrected for the fact that a person’s probability of being selected decreases as the household size increases, and as the number of dwellings or households at the same address increases.
Further details of data processing are given in Volume 1, Section 5.
Respondent Characteristics
Compared to the Current Population
The socio-demographic characteristics of the achieved sample were compared to those of the 2011 Census data. Census statistics provide the most detailed snapshot of the population and its characteristics and minor deviations from the census distribution can be warranted if this will not bias the key results of the study. Scotland and Northern Ireland have been excluded from the comparison, as the Census did not cover these regions.
The achieved sample was compared to the 2011 Census data for the relative distributions of employment status, social group, age category and tenure. Both samples were found to be very similar, although the achieved sample:
• contained an over-representation of retired respondents, along with a small under-representation of people in full time employment;
15
• over-represented the ‘higher and intermediate managerial / administrative / professional groups’ (A/B)13, and correspondingly under-represented the ‘semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers’ (D); • slightly under-represented the age group 25-35,while the 65-74 age group is slightly overrepresented; and • over-represented owner-occupiers.
Sensitivity analysis showed that the over-representation was unlikely to skew the overall picture as the over-represented groups do not tend to differ significantly in attitudes on key questions from the overall average.
The following three exceptions were identified and where these differences may affect the findings in this report, it is noted:
• the ‘higher and intermediate managerial / administrative / professional’ social groups are more likely to report a greater impact when being bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ compared to the overall sample. This may lead to an over-estimation of effects associated with noise from this source; • retired people tend to be more content with the amount of noise in their immediate neighbourhood and be less bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from ‘road traffic’ and ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ compared to the overall response of the sample. This may lead to a conservative estimate of any effects associated with noise from these sources; • owner-occupiers tend to be more content with the amount of noise in their immediate neighbourhood and be less bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from neighbours and/or other people nearby compared to the overall response of the sample. This may lead to a conservative estimate of any effects associated with noise from this source.
Compared to the Achieved Sample in the NNAS2000
The achieved sample was found to be broadly representative of the UK population in both 2000 and 2012. Therefore any changes in response between the 2 surveys can be considered to indicate changes in opinion of the population or the demographics of the population, rather than an artefact of the sampling. There is a strongly statistically
13 The NRS social grades are a system of demographic classification used in the United Kingdom. They have become a standard for market research and their definition is maintained by the Market Research Society.
16
significant increase14 in the proportion of males in the 2012 sample but further analysis (see Volume 5) suggests that the gender of the respondent does not generally affect reactions to noise (apart from females having moderately higher reports of being affected by neighbour noise15). In addition, the 2012 sample contains a strongly statistically significant increase in the proportion of respondents living in detached properties compared to the 2000 sample, a strongly statistically significant increase in the proportion with full or partial double glazing and an understandable increase in the proportion living in housing built after 1990. The analysis presented in Volume 5 shows that housing-related issues can be an important factor that should be taken into account when assessing the influence of noise exposure on attitudes and behaviour.
Interpretation of Findings As discussed earlier, to ensure every eligible member of the population had a chance of being selected, a stratified random sampling approach was employed. The sociodemographic characteristics of the achieved sample were compared to those of the Census 2011 as described above and hence, when interpreting the findings, it should always be borne in mind that:
• the NNAS2012 respondents tended to be more likely to be in the ‘higher and intermediate managerial / administrative / professional’ social groups when compared to the population as a whole. Those in these social groups (A/B) were found to be more likely to be annoyed by noise from ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ compared to the overall levels of annoyance from this source; • the NNAS2012 respondents tended to be more likely to be older and/or retired when compared to the population as a whole. Retired people were found to be less likely to report negatively about the amount of noise in their local environment and they reported reduced levels of annoyance towards ‘road traffic noise’ and ‘noise from neighbours and/or other people nearby’ compared to the overall reported levels of annoyance towards noise from these two key sources; and • the complexity of the methodology has prevented the calculation of confidence intervals around the estimates for any of the results. A confidence interval based on the assumptions of a simple random design would have overestimated the confidence and thus been misleading.
14 Strongly statistically significant comparisons with p-values ≤ 0.001. 15 Neighbour noise is a combined category defined as noise from ‘neighbours inside their homes’, noise from ‘neighbours outside their homes’ and noise from ‘other people nearby’.
17
5. Results The main findings are summarised in the following sections.
Additional information and more detailed data on current attitudes to noise can be found in Volume 2. One of the aims of the NNAS2012 survey was to maintain comparability with the 2000 survey so that a reliable backwards comparison could be made for selected questions. Volume 3 presents a comparison based on these questions of the UK-wide findings between 2000 and 2012.
Local Environment Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the area or neighbourhood that they lived in, with 88% expressing that they liked it. Over half of all respondents (54%) reported that they ‘definitely liked’ living in the area/neighbourhood (the most positive response option available); very few respondents reported that they ‘definitely did not like’ the area or neighbourhood (1% selecting the most negative response option available).
Allied to this, respondents were generally positive about the sound16 environment of their neighbourhood or home, with around two-fifths spontaneously mentioning something positive about their local sound environment (42%). However, 14% of respondents spontaneously mentioned something negative about noise in the area where they live, indicating that not all respondents felt positively about the sound environment of their neighbourhood or home. It should be borne in mind, that the survey respondents tended to be more likely to be older and/or retired compared to the population of the UK17, and that this group tends to be less likely to report negatively about the amount of noise in their local environment than the overall population (see Volume 1, Section 5).
Similar views were expressed when respondents were specifically asked about their attitudes towards the local noise environment: 72% of respondents had a positive attitude to and reported they liked their local noise environment at home in both 2000 and 2012. Only 14% of respondents did not like the amount of noise in 2012.
Noise was considered an important environmental problem by the respondents. Respondents were shown a list of 12 environmental problems and asked which five they were most affected by. Over one-fifth (22%) of all respondents included noise in their selection as shown in Figure 3. From 2000 to 2012, noise has moved up from ninth to fourth place in a list of twelve of environmental problems.
16 Note that the definition of noise is ‘unwanted sound’. People generally think more negatively if asked about noise rather than sound, hence the careful wording of these questions. 17 Based on comparison to Census 2011 data for England and Wales only.
18
Whilst the list of environmental problems is not exhaustive, the respondents place noise above many of the other environmental problems such as (lack of) recycling, quality of drinking water, sewage on beaches or in bathing water, and loss of plant life and/or animal life. Noise was rated just above traffic exhaust fumes and urban smog (which was placed 5th at 21% versus 22% for noise). This indicates the importance respondents place on both noise and air pollution as environmental problems.
Figure 3 – Proportion of Respondents Selecting Each Issue in their Top 5 Environmental Problems Most Affecting Them (chosen from a list of 12)
Noise Sources The respondents were asked about a series of different categories of noise (environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise as defined in the NPSE [1], i.e. excluding occupational/workplace noise).
The noise sources that were reported as being heard most often were ‘road traffic’; ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’18; ‘aircraft, airport or airfields’; and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works’. There has been no statistically
18 ‘Neighbour noise’ is defined as a combined category of ‘neighbours inside their homes’, ‘neighbours outside their homes’ and ‘other people nearby’ and is also referred to as ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’. Annoyance ratings are derived from the single highest rating from each of the 3 categories.
19
significant change in the proportion of the population who report hearing these noise sources between 2000 and 2012.
Over four-fifths of all respondents reported hearing ‘noise from road traffic’ and ‘neighbour noise’ (83% for each category). These noise sources also had the highest percentages giving ‘moderate’, ‘very’, or ‘extreme’ ratings for being bothered, annoyed or disturbed: 26% for ‘neighbour noise’ and 25% for ‘road traffic noise’. As mentioned before, it should be borne in mind that respondents tended to be more likely to be older and/or retired and/or owner-occupiers in the sample compared to the population which may result in some underestimation of the effect.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents reported hearing ‘aircraft, airport and airfield’ noise (72%), with 13% giving ‘moderate’, ‘very’ or ‘extreme’ ratings for being bothered, annoyed or disturbed. However, it should be borne in mind, that social groups A/B were over-represented in the sample compared to the population and that these groups tend to be more annoyed by noise from ‘aircraft, airports, and airfields’ than the overall population (see Volume 1, Section 5). This could have led to an over-estimation of effect.
Just under half of respondents said that they heard noise from ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation or road works’ (48%). This noise type was associated with ‘moderate’, ‘very’, or ‘extreme’ ratings for being bothered, annoyed or disturbed for 11% of all respondents. It is likely that the population exposed to this noise type will vary over a period of prolonged time, owing to the temporary nature of such works, whereas exposure to the other sources such as ‘road traffic noise ’; ‘aircraft, airport or airfield noise’; and in some cases ‘neighbour noise’, is likely to be less variable over time, albeit there will be daily variation.
From 2000 to 2012 there has been a strongly statistically significant increase in the proportion of respondents who report being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by the four most commonly heard sources of noise (‘road traffic’, ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’, and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’) despite no increase in the proportion of the population hearing these sources.
From 2000 to 2012 there has been a decrease in the proportion of respondents who report being not at all bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by the four most commonly heard sources of noise (‘road traffic’, ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’, and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’) despite no change in the proportion of the population hearing these sources.
These data indicate that the numbers of those reporting ‘moderate’, ‘very’ or ‘extreme’ ratings for being bothered, annoyed or disturbed by these noise sources are between 11-26% (depending on source) within the UK population.
20
The proportion of people that consider themselves to be significantly adversely affected19 by the four most commonly heard sources of noise has not changed as much, with ‘road traffic’ remaining the same (8%), ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ increasing from 9% to 11%, ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ (from 2% to 4%) and ‘building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’ (from 2% to 3%). Of these, only the increase seen for ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ is strongly statistically significant (see Figure 1), although it must not be forgotten that a small percentage still equates to a large number of people.
This ‘ranking’ of noise sources, both in terms of the most prevalent (most commonly heard) and also the extent of the effects they have, provides a useful source of information regarding the population’s priorities with regards to different noise sources.
When asked whether respondents felt that noise from the various sources had been getting better or worse over the past 5 years, the majority of respondents felt things had generally stayed much the same (41% of those who reported hearing ‘road traffic noise’, 46% of those who reported hearing ‘noise from neighbours and/or other people nearby’, 44% of those who reported hearing ‘aircraft, airport and airfield noise’ and 41% of those who reported hearing ‘noise from building, construction, demolition, renovation and road works’ – to focus on the four most commonly heard sources). 15%, 23%, 13% and 17% felt the noise from the four sources respectively had improved over the past 5 years. Conversely, 38%, 25%, 37% and 32% felt the noise from the four sources respectively had worsened over the past 5 years.
Perceived Noise Effects
Impact on Home Life
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the collective noise that they hear at home, spoils their home life and this was a particularly widely reported statistic from NNAS2000. In 2000, all respondents rated this question using a five-point scale with the following options: ‘Totally’ / ‘Quite a lot’ / ‘A little’ / ‘Not very much’ / ‘Not at all’. In 2012 the identical question was asked, however the same five-point response scale was deliberately only offered to 50% of respondents. In order to test different ways of asking the question, the other half were presented with a different response scale consisting of: ‘Completely’ / ‘A great deal’ / ‘A fair amount’ / ‘A little’ / ‘Not at all’ - see Volume 2, Section 10 for further discussion and full 2012 results.
In order to estimate the prevalence in the population of those reporting that noise spoils home life in 2012, the results from the two versions of the question were combined, to estimate those responding ‘not at all’ on either version versus those responding ‘completely, a great deal, a fair amount, or a little/totally, quite a lot, a little, not very much’.
19 Significantly adversely affected is defined as those reporting being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ bothered, annoyed or disturbed by the noise source.
21
Within the population, 48% reported that noise spoils their home life to some extent, compared with 52% reporting that noise did ‘not at all’ spoil their home life.
In both 2000 and 2012, the question was asked after the noise type modules so that respondents would have been reminded of all the types of noise and possible effects before being asked. However, this means that responses may have been influenced by changes in the noise type modules and therefore the two sets of results (from 2000 and 2012) are not comparable. Accordingly, comparisons between these values (and other questions considering perceived noise effects) are discouraged.
Sleep Disturbance
In terms of noise impacting upon the respondents’ sleep, 21% of all respondents reported that noise from outside had kept them awake or woken them up over the past year. One-tenth (11%) reported impacts on their sleep pattern due to noise inside their homes from their neighbours’ homes, coming in through the wall, ceiling or floor and a further 5% due to noise coming in through the windows from neighbours.
Of those respondents reporting sleep disturbance due to noise from neighbouring properties or other noise from outside, roughly half (49%) reported taking action by keeping the windows closed, which equates to around one-seventh of respondents overall (14%). One-sixth of those reporting sleep disturbance due to noise from outside or neighbouring properties (15%) reported making a complaint or doing something else to stop the noise, which is 4% of respondents overall. One-eighth of those affected by noise-induced sleep disturbance (14%) reported going to bed or getting up earlier/later as a result, equating to 4% of all respondents.
A small minority of all respondents reported that ‘road traffic noise’ (3%) and aircraft night flights (2%) interfered with their sleep pattern.
These findings emphasise the impact that noise can have upon sleep and the data confirm that respondents are often actively trying to avoid exposure to noise whilst trying to sleep. The data show the importance of ‘neighbour noise’20 at a societal level and it should also be noted that this survey is representative of the UK population, rather than populations living near sources such as major airports.
Window Opening and Closing
As expected, noise impacted upon respondents’ window opening behaviour. Noise coming in through the windows was the fourth most frequently mentioned reason for keeping windows closed (after outdoor conditions other than noise, keeping warm / saving energy and security), and was reported by one-quarter of all respondents (26%). One-
20 Neighbour noise is a combined category defined as noise from ‘neighbours inside their homes’, noise from ‘neighbours outside their homes’ and noise from ‘other people nearby’.
22
quarter of all respondents also stated that they had kept their windows closed to keep out noise, when they would rather have had them open for fresh air/odour prevention (26%), to keep cool (24%) and to avoid condensation (7%).
Actions Taken about Noise Attempts to resolve noise issues were quite frequent, with one-fifth of all respondents (22%) reporting that they or someone in their household had made a complaint or taken some other action about a noise issue within the past five years.
‘Neighbour noise’ was the most common cause for action within the last 5 years according to the 2012 survey, with 8% and 7% of all respondents having taken action about noise from neighbours inside or outside the neighbours’ homes respectively, and a further 3% of all respondents having taken action about noise from other people nearby.
Action had been taken in relation to ‘road traffic noise’ by 3% of all respondents.
The level of complaints and action taken about ‘neighbour noise’ indicate the importance of this source of noise in the day-to-day lives of the respondents. It may be the case that respondents are more likely to complain to neighbours about noise, as they know the cause of the noise and whom to complain to. They may also perceive that such noise can be more easily controlled.
Issues of ‘road traffic’ noise and ‘aircraft, airports and airfield’ noise exposure may be perceived as being more complicated in terms of both responsibility and ability to control the noise.
The 2000 and 2012 surveys both confirm that most people will contact the person(s) or organisation making the noise in order to seek to resolve a noise issue. This direct action was reported by nearly half (47%) of those who had taken action (10% of all respondents) in 2012.
In the UK, the Local Authority department with principal responsibility for noise complaints is the Environmental Health Department. However, whilst 15% of those who had taken action had complained to this Department, 18% had complained to another Local Authority department (respectively 3% and 4% of all respondents) or the Police (28% of those taking action and 6% of all respondents) in the 2012 study. It is clear that complaints are not always made to the organisation best equipped to deal with them. These are similar findings to the 2000 study, where a greater proportion of those people taking action about noise contact the police rather than specifically contacting Environmental Health Departments. The detailed pattern varies by specific type of noise.
Overall, respondents rated the effectiveness of taking an action to resolve a noise issue in mixed terms, with two-fifths of the respondents who had taken action (41%) feeling that it had been very effective, one-quarter (26%) feeling it had been slightly effective, and a further one-quarter (29%) feeling it had not been effective at all. Further evaluation of
23
what factors lead to positive and negative ratings of action effectiveness would inform organisations as to whether complaints to an incorrect organisation correlate with the perceived effectiveness of that complaint.
Quiet Areas Almost one-third of respondents (31%) reported visiting outdoor places in order to find somewhere peaceful and quiet. In contrast, about two-fifths of all respondents (44%) felt that they did not need to visit such places as they had no noise to get away from, and a further one-quarter of all respondents did not visit outdoor places to find somewhere peaceful or quiet (25%) regardless of their home noise environment.
Among those who did report visiting outdoor places to find peace and quiet (n=849), just over a one-quarter (27%) visited somewhere from a few days a week to every day (8% of all respondents). Just under a further one-third (31%) visited at least once a week (10% of all respondents) and just over one-quarter (27%) at least once a month (8% of all respondents). Overall, over one-quarter (26%) of all respondents visited once a month or more.
Two-thirds of all respondents did not wish to visit quiet places more often (67%). One-third would like to visit either a bit (25%) or a lot (8%) more often.
Nearly two-thirds (61%) of those who reported wanting to visit outdoor quiet places more often gave ‘lack of time’ as the reason they did not do so (20% of all respondents). Far fewer respondents gave reasons relating to expense, logistical difficulties, or lack of available places to visit.
Access to a garden, balcony or terrace was not significantly associated with use of quiet areas.
24
Summary of Comparison with Previous Survey (NNAS2000) The key findings from NNAS2012 and NNAS2000 are discussed in the relevant previous results sections. In addition, they are summarised and compared in Table 1 below.
Key Findings from 2012 and 2000 Compared UK Sample
NNAS2012 (n21 = 2747)
NNAS2000 (n = 2876)
Respondents reporting noise as one of the top five from a list of 12 environmental problems that personally affected them…
22% 18%
…placing noise in the list of 12 environmental problems 4th 9th Respondents reporting general satisfaction with their noise environment (i.e. liking the amount (or absence) of noise around them at home to some extent)
72% 69%
Respondents rating the sound environment of their neighbourhood or home negatively 14% 20%
Thinking about the last 12 months or so … Respondents reporting hearing noise from … road traffic22 83% 84% neighbours and/or other people nearby20, 22 83% 81% aircraft, airports and airfields23 72% 71% building, construction, demolition, renovation
or road works 48% 49%
Respondents reporting being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by noise from … road traffic***22 55% 40% neighbours and/or other people nearby***20, 22 54% 37% aircraft, airports and airfields***23 31% 20% building, construction, demolition, renovation
or road works*** 29% 15%
Respondents reporting being ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from … road traffic22 8% 8% neighbours and/or other people nearby*20, 22 11% 9% aircraft, airports and airfields***23 4% 2% building, construction, demolition, renovation
or road works† 3% 2%
Strongly statistically significant comparisons with p-values ≤ 0.001 are denoted ***. Those with p-values ≤ 0.01 are denoted ** and those with p-values ≤ 0.05 are denoted *. Marginally significant p-values ≤ 0.1 are denoted †.
Table 1 - Key Findings from NNAS2012 and NNAS2000 Compared (UK sample)
21 n = sample size 22 Respondents tended to be more likely to be older and/or retired in the 2012 sample compared to the population and that this group tends to report less annoyance towards noise from ‘road traffic’ and ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ compared to the overall reported levels of annoyance towards noise from these two key sources. 23 The social groups A/B were over-represented in the sample compared to the population and these groups tend to be more annoyed by noise from ‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ than the overall population.
25
A NNAS was also undertaken in England & Wales during 1991, however the changes made to the questionnaire and survey methodology since 1991 are such that reliable comparisons cannot be made.
Comparison Between Countries Volume 4 presents a breakdown of the responses to each question in NNAS2012 by country (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). This section summarises the results from certain key questions only.
Please note that reported results for each of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are associated with much larger uncertainties than those for either England or for the UK. This is because of the much smaller sample sizes in these countries (in turn due to their smaller populations; see Volume 1, Section 2). Although the UK sample is considered to be reasonably representative of the population of the UK (see Volume 1, Appendix 12, Section 3) the same cannot be said of the sample sizes for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Where comparisons have been made between countries, these usually take the form of comparing the results for each country to the overall UK results. Owing to the much larger population of England, the England results will dominate the UK value and hence no statistically significant differences are ever seen between England and the UK.
Local Environment
All respondents were asked to rank a number of environmental problems from a preselected list. The results are presented by region in Figure 4.
There is a notable similarity in the top five environmental problems from the list reported in each country; although there are differences in the proportions of respondents reporting each environmental problem between the various countries (see Figure 4). For example, fouling by dogs and litter/rubbish were reported as the top two environmental problems affecting respondents in all countries and the UK. Other environmental problems consistently ranked in the top five for almost all countries include losing green belt land, noise and traffic exhaust fumes/urban smog.
It is also interesting to note that sewage on beaches or in bathing water and chemicals put into the sea and rivers appear in the top five problems affecting respondents in Wales. However, this may be due to the fact that the entire sample in Wales was (randomly) drawn from coastal areas (see Figure 2). This is not an unexpected artefact of the sampling methodology, but represents the fact that the more densely populated areas of Wales are coastal.
In the UK, and all countries except Wales, noise appears in the top five environmental problems affecting respondents. Noise appears as the fourth problem in the list for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK whilst within Wales it ranks sixth.
26
Figure 5 indicates that the proportion of the population rating noise in the top five environmental problems affecting them is higher in England than each of the other three countries. It is also interesting to note that the proportions of respondents who ranked noise in the top five has increased since the previous 2000 survey (NNAS2000) for England, Scotland and the UK (by 4%, 8% and 4% respectively) while a decrease was noted for both Wales and Northern Ireland (by 6% and 16%). Please note that, when considering the above findings, the implications of the small samples in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland must be borne in mind.
27
Figure 4 – Proportion of Respondents Selecting Each Environmental Issue in their Top 5
Environmental Problems Most Affecting Them (chosen from a list of 12) by Region
50%
68%
45%
53%
49%
49%
67%
44%
43%
49%
25%
18%
8%
16%
27%
22%
11%
20%
10%
23%
21%
10%
18%
8%
22%
17%
10%
20%
9%
17%
13%
7%
6%
10%
14%
13%
6%
9%
6%
13%
11%
8%
9%
11%
12%
11%
7%
10%
15%
11%
8%
8%
4%
5%
9%
8%
10%
6%
4%
8%
5%
4%
8%
5%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
UK
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
England
Other problem mentioned spontaneously
Using up of natural resources
Use of insecticides and/or fertilisers
Sewage on beaches or in bathing water
Chemicals put into the rivers or seas
Loss of plant life and/or animal life
Quality of drinking water
Not enough recycling
Traffic exhaust fumes and urban smog
Noise
Losing green belt land
Litter and rubbish
Fouling by dogs
28
Figure 5 - Proportion of Respondents who Ranked Noise in the Top 5 of a list of 12 Environmental Problems by
Country
Noise Sources
Respondents were asked about a series of different categories of noise. The results are presented in Figure 6 – Figure 10 for the UK as a whole and each country, as:
• the proportion of respondents hearing each noise source, and • the proportion of respondents who reported being bothered, annoyed or disturbed (to any extent) by each noise source.
23
10
20
11
22
19
16
12
27
18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK
2012 2000
29
Figure 6 - Proportion of Respondents who Heard and/or Reported being Bothered, Annoyed or Disturbed by General Categories of Noise for the UK (n = 2747)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Road traffic
Neighbours (inside their homes)
Neighbours (outside their homes)
Other people nearby
Neighbours and/or other people nearby(combined category)
Aircraft/airports/airfields
Building, construction, demolition,renovation or road works
Trains or railway stations
Sports events
Other entertainment or leisure
Community buildings
Forestry, farming or agriculture
Industrial sites
Other commercial premises
Sea, river or canal traffic
Any other noise
Hear
Bothered, annoyed or disturbed tosome extent
Bothered, annoyed or disturbedmoderately, very or extremely
Bothered, annoyed or disturbedvery or extremely
30
Figure 7 - Proportion of Respondents who Heard and/or Reported being Bothered, Annoyed or Disturbed by General Categories of Noise for England (n = 2333)
Figure 8 - Proportion of Respondents who Heard and/or Reported being Bothered, Annoyed or Disturbed by General Categories of Noise for Wales (n = 180)
31
Figure 9 - Proportion of Respondents who Heard and/or Reported being Bothered, Annoyed or Disturbed by General Categories of Noise for Scotland (n = 158)
Figure 10 - Proportion of Respondents who Heard and/or Reported being Bothered, Annoyed or Disturbed by General Categories of Noise for Northern Ireland (n = 76)
32
The main findings for the comparison between countries relating specifically to the different noise sources are:
• ‘road traffic’ noise and noise from ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ were reported as the most common noise sources heard by respondents in all countries and the UK; • more respondents report being bothered, annoyed or disturbed to some extent by ‘road traffic’ noise and noise from ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ than by other noise sources, in all countries and the UK; • out of the options presented to respondents, sleeping is the aspect of home life most affected by ‘road traffic’ noise, ‘noise from neighbours and/or other people nearby’ and ‘aircraft, airports and airfield’ noise for all countries; and • approximately 50% of the respondents who heard ‘aircraft, airports and airfield’ noise in England reported hearing helicopters (private/commercial/police/ambulance) flying very low over their homes, and low-flying helicopters were also reported to be the most common aircraft type heard in Wales (37%) and Scotland (30%).
Impact on Home Life
The highest percentage of those who reported that their home life was spoilt to some extent by noise was recorded for England (50%). Respective percentages for other countries were recorded at 43% (Scotland), 40% (Wales) and 33% (Northern Ireland).
Actions Taken about Noise
Almost one-quarter of the respondents in England (22%) reported that they or someone in their household had made a complaint or taken some other action about a noise issue. Respective percentages in other countries were 21% (Wales), 17% (Scotland) and 16% (Northern Ireland).
When considering respondents who have taken action about noise across all countries, these were predominantly concerned with ‘neighbour noise’ and especially noise from neighbours inside their homes (38% England, 46% Wales, 47% Scotland and 37% Northern Ireland).
The most frequently cited action about noise for respondents in England, Wales and Scotland was speaking or writing directly to the person(s) or organisation making the noise (47%, 61% and 27% of respondents who have taken action respectively). The most frequently cited action about noise for respondents in Northern Ireland was installing double glazing, but as this equated to only six respondents compared to the four who spoke or wrote directly to the person(s) or organisation making the noise, no conclusions should be drawn.
33
Quiet Areas
The highest percentage of all respondents who reported visiting a park, country area or other open outdoor space for peace and quiet was recorded in England (33%), followed by 25% in Wales, 21% in Scotland and 12% in Northern Ireland.
In England, 36% of respondents reported that they would like to visit outdoor quiet places (a bit or a lot) more often. Smaller percentages were recorded for Wales (28%) and Scotland (20%), with only 8% of the respondents in Northern Ireland wishing to visit outdoor quiet places (a bit or a lot) more often.
The most frequently cited reason for not visiting quiet outdoor places (of those who would like to visit more often) for all countries was the ‘lack of time’ (63% England, 42% Wales, 38% Scotland and 56% Northern Ireland), regardless of whether respondents already visit them or not.
Please note that, when considering the above findings, the implications of the small samples in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland must be borne in mind.
Factors Relating to a Negative Response to Noise Volume 5 examines which groups within the population are most and least likely to have an adverse reaction to noise in the NNAS2012. Dwelling, sociodemographic, and geographical factors associated with negative responses to noise were statistically examined, to the extent that the data allow, to determine whether they were associated with a range of negative responses.
Several factors stood out as being associated with a range of the negative responses to noise in the logistic regression analyses. These analyses determined the effects of individual dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors, taking into account any effects of other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors.
Interviewer reports of noticeable noise from ‘road traffic’, ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ or ‘aircraft, airports or airfields’ were consistently associated with a negative response to noise such as feeling negatively about the amount of noise around here, reports of feeling bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise, and noise spoiling home life, after adjustment for other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors.
Several aspects of the respondent’s home were associated with negative responses to noise, after taking other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors into account. Respondents living in homes built before 1919 tend to report more negative responses to ‘road traffic’ noise and increased use of quiet areas compared with respondents in homes built between 1961-1990, after adjustment for the other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors.
34
Responses to noise were also strongly associated with the type of housing, most likely reflecting the fact that housing type affects exposure to noise. Bungalows were associated with lower reports of being bothered, annoyed or disturbed by noise from ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’; with noise spoiling home life; and sleep disturbance by ‘neighbour noise’ compared with respondents in detached houses. Respondents living in purpose built flat/maisonettes and mid-terrace houses had higher reports of being bothered, annoyed, or disturbed by ‘neighbour noise’ than those in other housing types.
Respondents living in converted flats/maisonettes had higher reports of sleep disturbance by ‘road traffic’ noise compared with respondents in detached houses. Respondents in purpose built flat/maisonettes and mid-terrace houses were statistically significantly more likely to report use of quiet areas compared with respondents living in detached houses.
The NNAS2012 confirms that type of housing is an important factor; associated with negative responses to noise that should be taken into account when assessing the influence of noise exposure on attitudes and behaviour.
There were statistically significant age differences in negative responses to noise. Younger and older respondents were less likely to respond negatively to noise compared with mid-aged adults. Similarly, respondents who were retired were also less likely to have negative responses to noise, even after taking age into account.
Few gender differences were observed in the negative responses to noise. Females had moderately higher reports of being bothered, annoyed or disturbed by ‘neighbour noise’ and of sleep disturbance by neighbour noise, after adjustment for other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors. This suggests that females may be more susceptible to noise annoyance and sleep disturbance by ‘neighbour noise’ in particular.
Few social group differences in negative responses to noise remained after adjustment for the other dwelling, sociodemographic and geographic factors. This is unsurprising, given that these other factors may themselves depend partly on social group.
Negative responses to noise varied with the location of the dwelling, with respondents in the countryside having statistically significantly lower reports of feeling negatively about the amount of noise around here; being bothered, annoyed or disturbed by ‘road traffic’ noise; and use of quiet areas compared with respondents living in a country village/small town. However, respondents in the countryside also reported being more bothered, annoyed, or disturbed by noise from ‘aircraft, airports or airfields’ compared with respondents living in a country village/small town, as did respondents living in the centre of a large city.
6. Conclusions This report presents the methodology applied and results found for a social survey of attitudes to noise (environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise) and to some extent sources of other potential statutory nuisances in the UK.
35
A robust sample size has been achieved which provided the opportunity for detailed analysis and investigation.
Noise is an inevitable consequence of a mature and vibrant society. With the increase in population over the past decade in the UK and the development of infrastructure to accommodate that increase, it follows that some noise must continue to occur, indeed as an inevitable consequence. Even so, there has been little change in the percentage of the population who report hearing each type of noise, and extreme reactions seem, in most cases, not to have increased suggesting that the management of those noise sources has not worsened. However, the results suggest that the population may be less tolerant of noise than in 2000.
The response to noise may not be steady-state however and there are only two points in time to compare here (2012 and 2000). There is no way of knowing whether the data supports a consistent trend over the past 12/13 years or whether there is a non-linear monotonic trend or peaks and troughs (e.g. depending on the state of the economy or recent events).
Results further indicate that ‘road traffic’ is the transportation noise source most commonly heard amongst the UK population. Noise from ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’ consistently shows itself to be as important to the public as ‘road traffic’ noise, and more so than noise from either rail or air transport.
36
References [1] Noise Policy Statement for England, Defra, March 2010. UK Government website, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69533/pb13750-noise-policy.pdf, website accessed 8 December 2014.
[2] C.J. Grimwood, ‘A National Survey of the Effects of Environmental Noise on People at Home’, Proc. I.O.A Vol. 15 Part 8 (1993) p.69-76.
[3] M.K. Ling, C.J. Skinner, C.J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw: Volume 1: Methodology
M.K. Ling, C.J. Skinner, C.J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw: Volume 2: Trends in England and Wales
C.J. Skinner, M.K. Ling, C.J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw: Volume 3: United Kingdom Results
M.K. Ling, C.J. Skinner, C.J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw: Volume 4: Questionnaires
C.J. Skinner, C.J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw: Volume 5: Questionnaire Comparison and Review
All part of ‘The 1999/2000 National Survey of Attitudes to Environmental Noise: BRE Client Report 205215f, 2002’. Website accessed 8 December 2014.
[4] Statutory Instrument: 2006 No 2238 The Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 (as amended) transposing Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, O.J. No. L 189, 18.07.2002. Website accessed 8 December 2014.
Some Other Relevant Documents [5] H. Notley, C.J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw, N. Moon, ‘The UK National Noise Attitude Survey 2012 – Description of the Survey Methodology and Questionnaire Design’, Internoise 2012.
[6] G.J. Raw, C.J. Grimwood, H. Notley, ‘The UK National Noise Attitude Survey 2012: evolution of the questionnaire design’, Euronoise 2012.
[7] H. Notley, C. J. Grimwood, G.J. Raw, C. Clark, R. Van de Kerckhove, G. Zepidou, ‘The UK national noise attitude survey 2012 – the sample, analysis and some results’, Internoise 2013.
37
