What is the reason for the inclusion of this second predictor?

The inclusion of this second predictor is based on the idea that for large weapons with considerable low frequency content, the A-weighted level alone does not sufficiently account for the variation in annoyance.

(Open Access) A field study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military shooting noise. (2010) | Mark Brink

Q: What are the contributions in "A field study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military shooting noise" ?

This article reports a field study on noise annoyance from military shooting with small, midsize, and heavy weapons that was carried out among 1002 residents living near eight different training grounds of the Swiss army. The goal of the study was to derive the exposure-annoyance relationship for military shooting noise in communities in the vicinity of average military training grounds. The inclusion of the C-A frequency weighting difference as a second explaining variable, as suggested earlier, did not substantially enhance the predictability of high annoyance.

A ﬁeld study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military

shooting noise

Mark Brink

a兲

D-MTEC Public and Organizational Health, ETH Zurich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland

Jean-Marc Wunderli

Laboratory of Acoustics, Empa Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, CH-8600

Duebendorf, Switzerland

共Received 20 April 2009; revised 15 December 2009; accepted 6 February 2010兲

This article reports a ﬁeld study on noise annoyance from military shooting with small, midsize, and

heavy weapons that was carried out among 1002 residents living near eight different training

grounds of the Swiss army. The goal of the study was to derive the exposure-annoyance relationship

for military shooting noise in communities in the vicinity of average military training grounds.

Annoyance was determined in a telephone survey by means of the 5-point verbal and 11-point

numerical annoyance scale recommended by the International Commission on Biological Effects of

Noise. Exposure was calculated using acoustical source models of weapons and numbers of shots

ﬁred, as recorded by the army. Annoyance predictor variables investigated were L

, L

−L

, number of shots above threshold, as well as individual moderators. Exposure-annoyance

relationships were modeled by means of linear and logistic regression analyses. The sound exposure

level L

of shooting noise better explained variations in annoyance than other operational and/or

acoustical predictors. Annoyance on the 5-point scale was more closely related to noise exposure

than expressed on the 11-point scale. The inclusion of the C-A frequency weighting difference as a

second explaining variable, as suggested earlier, did not substantially enhance the predictability of

PACS number共s兲: 43.50.Qp, 43.50.Pn, 43.50.Sr 关BSF兴 Pages: 2301–2311

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Study rationale

Exposure-response relationships are commonly used to

assess the annoyance impact of many kinds of trafﬁc or in-

dustrial noise. In their most common form, they relate noise

exposure to the percentage of highly annoyed persons

共%HA兲. As military shooting noise 共as a result of military

training activities in times of peace兲 is less of a problem for

the majority of the population, there exist only a few ﬁeld

studies in the literature that investigated its effects. Hence the

impact of military shooting noise from training grounds of

armies is far less well understood than effects of other noise

sources. The goals of the current study were thus the estab-

lishment of a statistical model that explains variation of com-

munity annoyance by operational and acoustical descriptors

of military shooting activity and to provide an exposure-

effect function for high annoyance 共%HA兲 among residents

in the vicinity of typical military training grounds in Swit-

zerland.

Despite a relatively large body of literature, which

mostly pertains to laboratory studies 共

Meloni and Rosen-

heck, 1995

; Schomer et al., 1994; Vos, 2001, 2003; Vos and

Geurtsen, 2003

兲, there have only few exposure-effect func-

tions for 共military兲 shooting noise been published so far 共e.g.,

Schomer, 1985兲. In the real-world situation, people use

adaptive mechanisms that try to ignore noise as much as

possible, whereas in a laboratory setting they do the opposite

and inevitably concentrate on the noise. This provides a

strong rationale to investigate shooting noise effects in the

ﬁeld, at the homes of the affected population.

The current study was carried out in Switzerland, where

one can ﬁnd several multipurpose training grounds where

military shooting activity comprises small, middle, and

heavy weapon shooting in one and the same place, and, be-

cause plain space is very scant, often in close vicinity to

inhabited areas. This speciﬁc geographic situation therefore

appears to be well suited to investigate military shooting

noise annoyance by means of a ﬁeld study. At this point, the

notion is relevant that this study is not primarily about the

effects of large army weapons such as tanks or artillery, since

the number of rounds of such types of weapons each year is

considerably lower than from small caliber arms.

B. Shooting noise descriptors and exposure-effect

relationships

While exposure assessment following the equal energy

principle has been adopted for the most distinctive noise

sources, at least pertaining to annoyance as dependent vari-

able, no commonly accepted noise descriptor for assessing

community annoyance to shooting noise has successfully es-

tablished itself to date. Of the few ﬁeld studies on commu-

nity annoyance due to weapon noise at hand 共

Buchta and

Vos, 1998

; Bullen and Hede, 1982; Fidell et al., 1983; Lev-

ein and Ahrlin, 1988; Rylander and Lundquist, 1996;

a兲

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail:

brink@ethz.ch

EMPA20100095

Schomer, 1985; Schomer et al., 1994; Sorensen and Magnus-

son, 1979

兲, only few exposure-effect functions explaining

annoyance due to a mixture of different kinds of army weap-

ons emerged.

In the literature, noise descriptors that were identiﬁed to

yield the highest degrees of explained variance of annoyance

from impulsive sounds vary from accumulated peak level

共

Bullen et al., 1991兲, maximum sound pressure level 共Levein

and Ahrlin, 1988

兲, A-weighted FAST maximum sound pres-

sure level 共

Sorensen and Magnusson, 1979兲, number of shots

above a C-weighted threshold level 共

Rylander and Lun-

dquist, 1996

兲, C-weighted average day-night level L

CDN

共

Schomer, 1985兲, and Schomer’s 共Schomer, 1994兲 “new de-

scriptor for high-energy impulsive sounds” 共

Buchta and Vos,

1998

兲, the L

Aeq

, to even surrogate measurements of ground

vibration in the case of blast noise from surface mines 共

Fidell

et al., 1983

兲. Most of these studies investigated the noise

effect from particular source 共weapon兲 types, either from,

e.g., riﬂe shooting ranges or from large weapon training fa-

cilities. Shooting with ﬁrearms on multipurpose training

grounds with different combinations of small to very large

caliber weapons creates a complex blend of different sounds.

It therefore appears that the construction of an all-purpose

exposure-effect curve regarding military shooting noise is

much more difﬁcult than for other more uniform noise types.

Depending on the predominant weapon type used, one or the

other noise descriptor probably better predicts community

annoyance. For example, noise annoyance from large weap-

ons which also elicit rattle and vibrations might better be

predicted using a C-weighted measure than an A-weighted

measure. The question which predictor best accounts for the

variation of military shooting noise annoyance in general,

that means for any kind and combination of weapons, cannot

easily be answered.

C. Frequency weighting

The question of the choice of frequency weighting to

best predict impulsive or weapon noise annoyance respec-

tively has received considerable attention in the literature.

Insights into the relationship between shots of weapons and

annoyance, especially with regard to impulse correction and

frequency weighting have been collected in a series of labo-

ratory studies 共

Meloni and Rosenheck, 1995; Schomer and

Wagner, 1995

; Schomer et al., 1994; Vos, 1990, 2001兲. The

use of the A-weighting is widespread in the evaluation of

gunﬁre noise from small arms, usually including a penalty

correction of between 5 and 12 dB for the added annoyance

of impulsive sounds 共

Buchta, 1990; Vos, 1990兲. However,

for the assessment of large caliber or high-energy weapon

noise, the C weighting and the measure L

共or L

CDN

兲 have

been suggested in the past 共

Schomer, 1986兲 or are recom-

mended in ISO 1996-1 共

International Standards Organisa-

tion, 2003

兲. The assessment methodology applied in many

European countries uses L

AF,max

共Germany, Switzerland兲 or

AI,max

共Austria, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden兲

for small arms, and C-weighted measures such as L

共Fin-

land, Norway, Sweden兲 and L

Ceq

共Germany, The Nether-

lands, and Denmark兲 for large weapons.

For the whole set of impulse sound types produced by

various ﬁrearms ranging in caliber from 7.62 to 155 mm, the

annoyance rating in the laboratory study of

Vo s 共2001兲 was

almost entirely determined by the “outdoor” L

of the im-

pulses, as long as the artiﬁcial laboratory situation reﬂected a

scenario with open windows. Similar results were reported

Meloni and Rosenheck 共1995兲 who found that if shooting

noise is predominantly heard through open windows, the

A-weighted sound exposure level is appropriate for predict-

ing annoyance.

Vo s 共2001兲 suggested to include the difference between

the C- and A-weighted levels as a second annoyance predic-

tor alongside the A-weighted level as principal predictor

共

Vos, 2001兲. Because the addition of the C-weighted level in

the regression equations in most instances only very slightly

increased the explained variance of the exposure-effect rela-

tionship, it remains arguable, whether the additional effort of

C-weighted measurements and/or calculations is justiﬁed,

particularly for the assessment of the “outside situation,” as

Vo s 共2001, 2003兲 demonstrated in his laboratory studies. It is

therefore desirable to empirically test the advantage of the

incorporation of C-weighted measurements not only in the

laboratory but also within the scope of community reaction

surveys in the ﬁeld, such as the present one.

II. METHODS

A. Sampling procedure

Depending on the site-speciﬁc combinations of

weapons/ammunition used, average distances of dwellings

from the shooting ground, the degree of visibility of army

activities in the surrounding neighborhood, involvement with

the army 共e.g., as employee兲, and many other factors, one

would expect exposure-effect relationships for annoyance to

show a rather wide variation. As the primary goal of the

study was collecting data for constructing an exposure-effect

relationship, a representative amount of residents near the

eight largest training grounds of the Swiss army, that were

located sufﬁciently close to inhabited areas to potentially

evoke annoyance reactions from noise, were sampled. The

corresponding sites were the army training grounds of Bière,

Thun, Wangen an der Aaare, Gehren-Erlinsbach, Krähtal-

Riniken, Walenstadt, Herisau-Gossau, and Chur. At each of

these eight sites, the exposure contours from preliminary ex-

posure calculations 共that did not account for elevation above

ground and shielding effects from neighboring buildings兲

were used to assign exposure values to building addresses

using a GIS system provided by the Swiss statistics ofﬁce.

The exposure was calculated as the yearly sound exposure

level L

, i.e., the total acoustic energy resulting from shoot-

ing activity during an entire year. At each of the eight sites,

the primary sampling area was deﬁned as the area that was

enclosed by the 104 dB L

exposure contour. Each address

was then assigned an exposure stratum 共104–107, 107–110,

110–113, 113–116, 116–119, 119–122, 122–125, 125–128,

and ⬎128 dB兲. Over all eight sites, a total of 5901 building

addresses within the 104 dB共A兲 contour were identiﬁed.

These addresses were aligned with a commercial address da-

tabase to yield all available landline telephone numbers of

2302 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 127, No. 4, April 2010 M. Brink and J. M. Wunderli: Annoyance from military shooting noise

households. 5851 individual telephone numbers were identi-

ﬁed. The telephone numbers were stored together with their

exposure level category and served as the primary sample.

The survey was carried out by computer assisted telephone

interviews 共CATIs兲. Within each household, one person over

16 years of age was selected using a modiﬁed Troldahl–

Carter method 共

Troldahl and Carter, 1964兲. The CATI soft-

ware was conﬁgured to try to sample equal amounts of sub-

jects in the different exposure strata, as far as possible. 5851

individual numbers were called. A total of 1002 interviews

could be realized. 2137 calls were either never answered or

were not valid due to technical reasons 共e.g., a FAX device at

the other end of the line兲. Of the 3714 remaining calls that

resulted in a voice contact, the following statistics apply:

Valid interviews conducted: 27%; interview scheduled, but

did not take place for unknown reasons: 8%; communication

or language problems make interview impossible: 4%; no

target person living in household: 2%; person called refused

interview: 59%.

B. Telephone interviews

Interviews lasted about 15–20 min and took place during

the evening hours of September, October, and November

2007. The schedule moved gradually from questions about

the satisfaction with the immediate environment to the topic

of military shooting noise. The true aim of the survey was

disclosed to all interviewees only after the interview was

ﬁnished and they were given the opportunity to withdraw, an

option no one exercised.

For the interviews, a questionnaire was used that ﬁrst

asked about various criteria of living quality of the inter-

viewee, among them, noise exposure and annoyance from

different sources 共ﬁve-point verbal scale, including military

shooting noise兲. These were asked in random order of the

sources, followed by the items of the short form of the

“Lärmempﬁndlichkeitsfragebogen” 共LEFK; English: “Noise

sensitivity questionnaire”兲 by

Zimmer and Ellermeier 共1998兲

to assess noise sensitivity. In the middle of the interview, the

main block about military shooting noise exposure and an-

noyance was placed. This main block of questions included

the German version of the 11-point annoyance scale from 0

to 10 recommended by the International Commission on

Biological Effects of Noise 共ICBEN兲 that were published by

Fields et al. 共2001兲, a question about strategies to cope with

the noise, and three items about the respondent’s attitude

toward the army 共these items were “Switzerland does need

an army,” “The Swiss army sufﬁciently cares for the envi-

ronment,” and “Military shooting noise is a necessary evil”兲

that had do be answered ona1to5scale with the end points

“totally agree” and “totally disagree.”

C. Exposure assessment

After the selection of the eight study sites and the col-

lection of the survey data, the relevant source data for the

ﬁnal 共high detail兲 noise exposure calculations were collected

from army ofﬁcials that were in command of the respective

training grounds. Their task basically encompassed the re-

porting of the weapons and ammunitions used, the corre-

sponding number of shots and shooting days, as well as the

distribution of shots ﬁred between day and evening 共night

shootings were very rare兲. Each weapon/ammunition combi-

nation was assigned one of the following categories: small

caliber 共⬍10 mm, e.g., assault riﬂes兲, middle caliber 共10–

100 mm, e.g., antiaircraft guns兲, large caliber 共⬎ = 100 mm,

e.g., large tank cannons兲, grenades and explosive charges,

mortars, and practice ammunition.

For all receiver points in the survey, the exposure from

every emplacement/weapon/ammunition combination of the

respective study site was calculated using the “WL04”

source and propagation model developed by the Swiss Fed-

eral Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research 共Empa兲.

This model delivers exposure spectra in octave bands from

31.5 Hz to 4 kHz of direct and reﬂected sounds as well as for

each source and receiver combination and for up to 16 dis-

tinct weather conditions that were derived for each study site

based on long-term weather statistics 共the 16 Hz octave band

was omitted as it does not relevantly contribute to the total

exposure, even for large weapons兲. The model accounts for

three types of sound sources: muzzle blasts, sonic booms,

and detonations. Receiver points were set on the facade of

the building aiming at the shooting ground. The height of the

receiver points was set to 1.8 m for detached houses and

ground ﬂoor apartments. For each additional ﬂoor, the height

was increased by 2.6 m. Exposure calculations were per-

formed separately for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 and

separately for daytime and evening shootings. Shootings in

the night past 23:00 h were extremely rare, as were shootings

during weekends.

The total yearly exposure levels were calculated as the

sum of the energetic products of each emplacement/weapon/

ammunition sound exposure level with their corresponding

number of shots ﬁred in the respective year.

As the timely distribution of the intensity of shooting

often varies considerably across a year, a 共daily兲 average

exposure value, e.g., a 12 h L

ora24hL

, does not in

most cases reﬂect a meaningful description of the noise ex-

posure residents are affected with. Dose values in this article

are therefore simply given as L

values, representing the to-

tal 共integrated兲 energy of shooting noise exposure in a year

共or as the average over 3 years兲. A corresponding energy

equivalent continuous level over a particular time period can

be obtained by transforming the given L

value, e.g., using

= L

− 10 log共N

⫻ N

⫻ 3600兲,

共1兲

where L

is equivalent sound level for a particular number

of hours of a particular number of days 共within a year兲, N

is number of days in a year when shootings/trainings take

place, N

is number of hours per day for which the average

sound level should be calculated 共e.g., 12兲. For example, the

average daily 12 h L

would thus be L

−10 log共365⫻12

⫻3600兲.

III. RESULTS

A. Sample description

A total of 460 male 共46%兲 and 542 female 共54%兲 par-

ticipants constituted the sample of 1002 residents. Shooting

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 127, No. 4, April 2010 M. Brink and J. M. Wunderli: Annoyance from military shooting noise 2303

noise exposure was calculated for 918 distinct receiver

points. For a small number of the receiver points, more than

one respondent were interviewed 共e.g., more than one family

member living in the same apartment兲. 232 interviews were

made in the French speaking part of Switzerland. Respon-

dents were in the age range from 16 to 94 years. The average

age of the respondents was 50 years. The age class distribu-

tion was as follows 共in parentheses are the percentages of the

population older than 16兲: between 16 and 20 years: 5%

共5%兲; 20–40: 25% 共34%兲; 40–60: 37% 共34%兲; and older

than 60 years: 33% 共26%兲.

The respondents experienced yearly military shooting

noise exposure levels at their homes between 92 and 130 dB

or 98 and 141 dB L

, respectively. Unlike the 共quite

simple兲 preliminary calculations that were used for sample

stratiﬁcation and deﬁnition of the address sampling areas, the

deﬁnitive exposure calculation for each respondent ac-

counted for the elevation above ground and shielding effects

from other buildings; thus yearly L

levels down to 92 dB

were reached in the sample. Table

I shows the distribution of

the number of telephone interviews that were realized per

exposure level category 共as 3 year energetic average兲

and study site.

Table

II shows the yearly average number of shots as

well as the number of shots above the 50, 60, 70, and 80 dB

thresholds per weapon type, as experienced at the 918

receiver points in the sample. The ﬁgures given in the last

four columns represent the average number of shots above

the respective threshold, which is deﬁned as the average

A-weighted sound exposure level of one individual shot of a

distinct source 共more clearly the emplacement/weapon/

ammunition combination兲 at the receiver points within the

study sample, as the average of the 3 years 2004, 2005, and

2006.

The average shooting activity per year was about the

same for all 3 years and no substantial changes have oc-

curred at any of the eight grounds between 2004 and 2006.

B. Annoyance ratings and exposure metrics

In light of the different approaches to deﬁne high annoy-

ance and for reasons of comparability, both ICBEN scales to

assess 共high兲 annoyance in the respondent 共

Fields et al.,

2001

兲 were part of the interview. Concerning the ﬁve-point

verbal scale, ICBEN’s recommendation is to use the upper

two categories 共the verbal marks “very” and “extremely”兲 as

indicators of high annoyance. This corresponds to a cutoff

point at 60% of the scale. No recommendation is given for

the 11-point scale, but according to common practice, the

upper three points on the numerical scale 共8, 9, 10兲 deﬁne the

presence of “high annoyance” in the respondent. In this case,

the cutoff lies at 72.7% 共see Schultz, 1978兲. In total, on the

11-point numerical scale, 170 of 1002 respondents qualiﬁed

as highly annoyed, on the 5-point scale 241 of 1002.

The annoyance questions were asked in the following

order: the ﬁrst time during the interview using the 5-point

verbal scale with the marks “not at all,” “slightly,” “moder-

ately,” “very,” and “extremely” within a block of noise an-

noyance questions for different noise sources, and the second

time later during the interview using the 11-point numerical

scale. For all further quantitative analyses, the verbal answer

alternatives of the ﬁve-point scale have been transformed to

numerical values 1–5 and treated as continuous.

TABLE I. Number of interviews conducted at each study site and per exposure category.

Study

site

90–95 dB

关L

兴

95–100 dB

关L

兴

100–105 dB

关L

兴

105–110 dB

关L

兴

110–115 dB

关L

兴

115–120 dB

关L

兴

120–125 dB

关L

兴

125–130 dB

关L

兴

Bière 14 21 50 42 51 42 10

Chur 1 15 62 56 23 2

Gehren-Erlinsbach 2 6 11 8 2

Herisau-Gossau 11 25 20 7 1 2

Krähtal-Riniken 1 5 25 16 10 1

Thun 72759925234 8

Wangen an der Aare 15 10 8 12 3

Walenstadt 25 28 46 34

Total 16 101 233 258 237 102 45 10

Percent 1.60 10.08 23.25 25.75 23.65 10.18 4.49 1.00

TABLE II. Number of shots and number of shots above threshold at the 918 receiver points in the sample 共all values represent the yearly average over the

years 2004, 2005, and 2006兲.

Type of weapon/

ammunition

No. of shots

during day

No. of shots

during evening

No. of shots

⬎L

=50 dB

No. of shots

⬎L

=60 dB

No. of shots

⬎L

=70 dB

No. of shots

⬎L

=80 dB

Large caliber 5 088 179 2 119 1 701 834 207

Middle caliber 336 351 11 808 38 141 18 954 17 194 14 699

Small caliber 8 554 533 532 128 303 277 179 902 73 783 0

Practice ammunition 32 650 4 862 0000

Grenades/explosive charges 17 163 1 065 2 356 1 712 816 471

Mortars 6 443 583 1 514 1 271 1 266 737

2304 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 127, No. 4, April 2010 M. Brink and J. M. Wunderli: Annoyance from military shooting noise

Using linear regression models, it was ﬁrst assessed

which exposure metrics appear to be the best predictors of

annoyance. The following potential predictors were investi-

gated: Total energetic and arithmetic average 共over 3 years兲

sound exposure levels 共L

and L

兲, energetic and arith-

metic average sound exposure level 共L

and L

兲 during

day and during evenings, energetic average sound exposure

level 共L

and L

兲 of small caliber shots and of large caliber

shots, total number of small caliber shots over 50 dB L

and total number of large caliber shots over 98 dB L

. From

these preliminary analyses, it became evident that the basic

energetic dose measures L

and L

are the best predictors

for shooting noise annoyance. Table

III tabulates the mean

annoyance rating per exposure level category as well as the

percentage of highly annoyed persons 共%HA兲 in each cat-

egory, according to the “standard” cutoff points 共5-point:

60%; 11-point: 72.7%兲 on the scales.

Annoyance is an increasing function of the sound expo-

sure level up to the exposure level category of 115–120 dB

. Contrary to expectation, within the higher level catego-

ries 共120–125 and 125–130 dB L

兲, mean annoyance as

well as the percentage of highly annoyed persons 共%HA兲

drop to a level close to the level reported by respondents that

are 15 or even 20 dB less exposed. This could be explained

by some types of self-selection process being at work insofar

as people not being annoyed by military shooting noise are

over-represented in areas close to military shooting grounds,

maybe because they are less sensitive to noise and/or have a

more positive attitude toward the army, e.g., because they are

army employees that live in the vicinity of their employer.

This explanation appears feasible since 共a兲 noise sensitivity

共as measured by the LEFK兲 is a signiﬁcant negative predictor

of the exposure, as expressed in the L

in linear regression

analysis 关

␤

=−0.11, t共1000兲 = −2.33, p = 0.02兴; 共b兲 annoy-

ance, as measured using the ﬁve-point verbal scale, and atti-

tude toward the army 共an index value between 1 and 5 with

higher values denominating a more positive attitude, derived

from items of the questionnaire, see Sec. II B兲 is negatively

correlated within the sample 关r=−0.28; p ⬍ 0.0001兴. 共b兲

Furthermore, in general linear modeling of annoyance 共ﬁve-

point verbal scale兲, both L

and attitude independently pre-

dict annoyance 关L

:F共1兲= 94.23, p ⬍ 0.0001; attitude:

F共1兲= 89.64, p ⬍ 0.0001兴, whereas attitude is negatively re-

lated to annoyance in this model.

The annoyance ratings showed considerable variability

as can bee estimated from the conﬁdence intervals reported

in Table

III. Linear regression results of the individual data

共not the grouped data兲 for the 11-point numerical scale

yielded R

values of less than 0.05, and the 5-point verbal

scale yielded an adjusted R

value of 0.08 for both L

and

as predictor. While with transportation noise, on the in-

dividual level, R

values between 0.1 and 0.2 are common,

the marginal relationship found with military shooting noise

is no surprise, assuming that individual moderators more

strongly inﬂuence the annoyance rating than would be the

case with transportation noise.

TABLE III. Mean annoyance and percent highly annoyed 共%HA兲 for different degrees of exposure. The

categories are deﬁned based on the L

metric, the average exposure values 쏗-L

and 쏗-L

pertain to the

arithmetic average of all cases within the category boundaries. N refers to the number of cases in each exposure

level category.

Level category

共range of L

values兲 Scale Mean annoyance CI −95% CI +95% St. dev. %HA

90–95 共N =16兲 11-point 关0,…,10兴 3.38 2.12 4.63 2.36 6.25

쏗-L

=93.64 5-point 关1,…,5兴 1.81 1.46 2.16 0.66 0.00

쏗-L

=114.87

95–100 共N =101兲 11-point 关0,…,10兴 2.83 2.27 3.40 2.86 7.92

쏗-L

=98.07 5-point 关1,…,5兴 2.10 1.89 2.31 1.05 7.92

쏗-L

=111.50

100–105 共N =233兲 11-point 关0,…,10兴 3.83 3.47 4.19 2.77 10.73

쏗-L

=102.67 5-point 关1,…,5兴 2.41 2.26 2.55 1.12 15.45

쏗-L

=116.37

105–110 共N =258兲 11-point 关0,…,10兴 4.14 3.77 4.51 3.00 16.28

쏗-L

=107.53 5-point 关1,…,5兴 2.53 2.38 2.68 1.20 23.26

쏗-L

=119.66

110–115 共N =237兲 11-point 关0,…,10兴 4.65 4.26 5.03 3.03 22.78

쏗-L

=112.30 5-point 关1,…,5兴 2.97 2.82 3.13 1.24 32.07

쏗-L

=123.77

115–120 共N =102兲 11-point 关0,…10兴 5.35 4.78 5.92 2.91 28.43

쏗-L

=117.32 5-point 关1,…,5兴 3.41 3.18 3.65 1.20 43.14

쏗-L

=129.21

120–125 共N =45兲 11-point 关0,…,10兴 5.09 4.30 5.88 2.63 22.22

쏗-L

=122.21 5-point 关1,…,5兴 3.11 2.78 3.44 1.09 35.56

쏗-L

=131.40

125–130 共N =10兲 11-point 关0…10兴 3.90 1.68 6.12 3.11 10.00

쏗-L

=127.74 5-point 关1,…,5兴 2.60 2.00 3.20 0.84 10.00

쏗-L

=134.09

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 127, No. 4, April 2010 M. Brink and J. M. Wunderli: Annoyance from military shooting noise 2305

A field study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military shooting noise.

Figures

Citations

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

The association between road traffic noise exposure, annoyance and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL)

Human response to vibration in residential environments

Effects of Scale, Question Location, Order of Response Alternatives, and Season on Self-Reported Noise Annoyance Using ICBEN Scales: A Field Experiment.

Effect of situational, attitudinal and demographic factors on railway vibration annoyance in residential areas.

References

Maximising response rates in household telephone surveys

On the annoyance caused by impulse sounds produced by small, medium-large, and large firearms.

A field survey on the annoyance caused by sounds from large firearms and road traffic.

A- and C-weighted sound levels as predictors of the annoyance caused by shooting sounds, for various façade attenuation types

Community Reaction to Noise from an Artillery Range

Related Papers (5)

Standardized general-purpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a recommendation

Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise

Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals

A first-principles model for estimating the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise exposure.

Assessing aircraft noise-induced annoyance around a major German airport and its predictors via telephone survey – The COSMA study

Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Q1. What are the contributions in "A field study of the exposure-annoyance relationship of military shooting noise" ?

Q2. What is the reason for the inclusion of this second predictor?

Q3. What was the main block of questions used?

Trending Questions (1)