Table 5.

New/Closed Infrastructure (Type C).

Authors	Intervention & Study		N, Response Rate & Method	Exposure Levels		Change in Levels and Distribution of Change across Participants	Outcome Measure(s) before and after Outcomes	Did Outcome Change with Change in Exposure? Yes/No (Significance Tested?)	Before/after Outcome Change Compared to That Estimated from an ERF	Comments	Confounders Adjusted for in Analyses
	Nature	Design		Before	After
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, Svensson, & Öhrström (2013) [8]	Stockholm Opening urban road tunnel reduced traffic on road system	B&A Exposure and control groups 1 year B & 1 year A Repeated measures	Exposure group: B:758 Response rate 55% A: 493 (75%) Control: B: 311 A: 165 Analysis based on 658 in both B&A Mail survey	LAeq,24 h, 48–71 Control: 52–66 Measured/some estimated	See next column	194 Ps: −11 to −17 dB 225 Ps: –3 to −5 dB Control: no change in levels	ISO scale (5 point verbal) %Annoyed (note: not %HA) calculated using top three points of scale Exposure group: B: 60% Annoyed A: 20% Annoyed Control: B: 24% Annoyed A: 29% Annoyed	Yes Intervention resulted in substantial and significant (McNemar-test, p < 0.001) reduction in annoyance over the exposure area—but no change in control area	Authors cite Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001) ERF [13]—but refer only to %Annoyed, not %HA (uses Lden = LAeq,24 h + 4) Authors also fitted a model of individual annoyance responses to exposure levels for all Ps, but using the exposure levels AFTER the intervention (n = 437: excluding Ps in one study sub area and control). Authors report that these modelled outcomes fit ERF for %Annoyed in Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001) [13] However, %Annoyed with exposures BEFORE the intervention was very much higher than indicated by ERF. Thus response to change in same direction as estimated by ERF, but steeper, indicating excess response	Authors suggest their modelling of %Annoyed on after-levels indicates no change-effect. They noted, but did not investigate, the excess response in the overall before-to-after change Authors reported ‘dramatic’ improvement in living environment for Ps with largest noise reduction (note: traffic on nearest road dropped from 60,000 veh/day to zero)
Öhrström (2004) [7] Öhrström & Skånberg (2000) [34]	Gothenburg Major traffic reduction by construction of tunnel + narrowing of surface roadway	B/A study + control 1 year. B&A tunnel opening. Repeated measure	50 (92 control) Response rate 62% ~15% between surveys Delivered survey forms	67 (range 56–69) Control Av. 45 Calculated Note range of before levels	Av. LAeq,24 h 55 (range 44–57) Control Av. 44 Calculated	–12 dB Av LAeq,24 h reduction Distribution of magnitude of the change across individual Ps not reported	%HA based on top category of 4 point verbal scale B: 58%HA A: 7%HA Control B&A 1.1%HA to 0%HA Mean Annoyance on ISO also reported (B: 8.9; A: 1.4)	Yes Sig. diff. (p < 0.001) in B&A %HA Sig. diff. (paired t-test, p < 0.001) in B&A mean annoyance scores	Author refers to ERF of Miedema & Vos (1998) [12]. This ERF indicated %HA should move from approx. 30%HA to approx. 10%HA for the change in exposure experienced in this study. Observed percentages were 58%HA to 7%HA measured in the study group Thus response to change much steeper than ERF indicating large excess response	Note: author claimed no excess response—based on after levels Author speculates large change in response may also be related to air quality, vibration and appearance changes