| Jansen et al. [33] 2011(meta analysis ofPedersen et al.2004,2007,2009[38]–[40]. |
1820 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects. |
Noise sensitive subjects (↑)Visiblewind turbines (↑)Age (↑)Economicbenefits (↓) |
| Pedersen 2011 [35]. (Asubpopulation of samestudy populations asJansen et al. 2011 [33]). |
1755 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects. |
Economic benefits (↓) – analyseswere adjusted for economic benefits,but only in analyses with data from Pedersen et al. 2009. |
| Pedersen and Larsman2008 [34] (meta-analysisof Pedersen et al. 2004 and 2007 [38], [39]. |
1095 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects.Effect was independenton terrain. |
Negative evaluation of wind turbines(↑)Visual attitude towards windturbines for subjects who could seethe wind turbines and to a lowerdegree for subjects who could notsee the wind turbines (↑)Increasedvertical visual angel is correlated towind turbine noise and annoyance (↑) |
| Pedersen et al.2009Bakker et al.2012 [36], [40], [41]. |
725 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects. |
Noise sensitive subjects (↑)Visiblewind turbines (↑)Economic benefit(↓)Build-up area opposed to ruralarea without main road (↑)Ruralarea with main road (↓) |
| Pedersen et al. 2004[38], [41], [47]. |
341 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects. |
Noise sensitive subjects (↑)Negativeattitude to visible wind turbines(↑)Negative attitude to windturbines in general (↑) |
| Pedersen et al 2007[39], [41], [47]. |
754 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects. |
Noise sensitive subjects (↑)Attitudeto visible wind turbines (↑)Attitudeto wind turbines in general (↑) |
| Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska et al.2014 [46]. |
156 |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjectsmore annoyed comparedto less exposed subjects. |
Noise sensitive subjects (↑)Attitudeto visible wind turbines (↑)Attitude to wind turbines in general(↑)Sensitivity to landscape littering(↑)Negative self-assessment ofphysical health (↑)Wind turbineswere found to be the most annoying sound source. |
| Aslund et al. 2013 [67].Based on calculationsfrom Pedersen et al.2009 and Bakker et al. 2012 andJansen et al. 2011[33], [36], [40]. |
8123 theoretically exposedsubjects.522 areparticipatingreceptors. |
Yes (Dose-response relationship derived from other studies). |
Highly exposed subjects close to wind turbines calculated to be more frequently annoyed and very annoyed. |
Participating residents in wind farmprojects (↑)Annoyance outdoorcalculated to be higher thanannoyance indoor. |
| Shepherd et al.2011 [42]. |
39 subjects.158controls. |
Not related to sound – related to distance. |
Annoyance not directlycompared between subjects and controls. |
Annoyance decreased perceivedgeneral health as well as physical,social and environmental qualityof life scores for the control grouponly. Subjects reported, however,lower environmental quality of life scores compared to controls. |
| Kuwano et al. 2013 [43]. |
747 subjects.332 controls. |
Not related to sound. |
Proportion of annoyed subjectshigher in wind turbine exposed subjects |
All kinds of noise sourcesincreased annoyance in bothgroups. Subjects in the windturbine group found wind turbinesas the most annoying sound source. |
| Yano et al. 2013 [44]. |
747 subjects. |
Yes |
Highly exposed subjects moreannoyed compared to less exposed subjects. |
No difference in dose-responsecurves between cold and warmareas. Living near the sea (↓).(Waves may mask wind turbine sounds). Noise sensitivity (↑)Landscapedisturbing (↑)Environmental interest (↑) |
| Morris 2012 [50], [51]. |
93 households. |
Not related to sound. |
56% of households are annoyedduring night time within 0–5 km. from the wind turbinescompared to 40% ofhouseholds living within 0–10 km from wind turbines. |
No influencing factorswere investigated. |
| Schafer 2013 [54]. |
23 households. |
Not related to sound. |
66% of subjects affected bynoise at night. |
No influencing factorswere investigated. |
| Schneider 2012 [55], [56]. |
23 households, 25 household in follow-up. |
Not related to sound. |
85.7%/(87.7% in follow-up study) were disturbed from daytime noise. 100% fromnight time noise in follow-up. |
No influencing factorswere investigated. |
| Thorne 2012 [52]. |
25 |
Not related to sound, but sound levels measured. |
91% were annoyed indoor. |
No influencing factorsexcept living near wind turbines wereinvestigated. |
