Table 2.
Overview of the characteristics of the selected studies on WT sound and annoyance.
| Author | Country | Design † | Sample Size (Response Rate) ‡ | Quality | Exposure Type and Assessment | Outcome Type and Assessment | Confounders Considered in Analyses | Reported Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klæboe and Sundfor, 2016 [18] | Norway | CS (after) | 90 (38) | Moderate | WT sound pressure level (37–47 dBA LAeq) | Annoyance (ISO 5-point standard scale) |
Attitudes, demographics, visual judgements, NS | Noise from WTs evaluated as 17–18 dBA more annoying than road traffic noise (within range of 11–26 dBA reported by [19,20]). Role of non-acoustical factors large |
| Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyń ska, 2018 [21] | Poland | CS | 517 (78) | Moderate | WT calculated sound levels and randomly verified by in situ measurement A-weighted SPL (LAeq,T), A and G-weighted sound pressure levels (LCeq,T and LGeq,T) |
Annoyance (ISO 5-point standard scale) |
Satisfaction, visual aspects, demographics, attitude |
%HA and WT sound level (OR > 1.00) and negative attitude towards WTs; decrease %HA with increasing distance (OR < 1.00), |
| Radun et al., 2019 [22] | Finland | CS | 429 (57) 318 eligible for participation |
High | WT A-weighted equivalent SPL, LAeq, and categorized [25–30], [30–35], [35–40] and [40–46] |
Annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance (indoor, outdoor) |
Trust in authorities and operators, visibility, economic benefits, age, gender, education, type of dwelling, distance | WT sound level and annoyance outdoor OR 1.41 (1.14, 1.74) < 0.01 (R2 = 0.71) Indoor: none Sleep OR = 1.38 (1.16, 1.65) < 0.01(R2 = 0.50) |
| Song et al., 2016 [23] | China | CS | 227 (77) | Moderate | WT A-weighted equivalent SPL, LAeq, sound levels (44.1–56.7 dBA) |
Annoyance, Sleep disturbance (self-reported) |
Gender, age residence time, visibility, NS, attitude, general opinion about WTs | %HA increased from 39.5% (95% CI: 28.4–51.4%) to 75.0% (95% CI: 50.9–91.3%. Sleep disturbance and LAeq r2 = 0.209 |
| Michaud et al., 2018b [24] | Canada | CS | 1238 (79) | High | WT calculated sound levels A- and C-weighted Distance; Blinking warning lights, vibrations, visual impact and shadow flicker |
Integrated Annoyance score | Age, gender, education, lifestyle, chronic illness, stress, quality of life, dwelling characteristics, | Explained variance 58–69% Annoyance significantly increased in areas between 1 km and 550 m (mean 1.59; 95% CI 1.02, 2.15) and was highest within 550 m (mean 4.25; 95% CI 3.34, 5.16). |
| Michaud et al., 2018c [25] | Canada | CS | 1238 (79) | High | Integrated Annoyance score | Blood pressure Cortisol levels), symptoms Quality of life Nonspecific |
Age, gender, education, lifestyle, chronic illness, stress, quality of life, dwelling characteristics, | Total annoyance differed significantly between people reporting one or more symptoms (mean score 2.53 to 3.72) versus those without symptoms (0.96 to 1.41). No association with cortisol concentrations, systolic blood pressure, and rated quality of life was confirmed. |
| Botelho et al., 2017 [26] | Portugal | CS | 80 | Moderate | SPL LAeq | Annoyance, noise mitigating measures | Attitude, NS, visibility, co-ownership | Decisions to insulate house related to WT sound levels, not to annoyance. |
| Hongisto et al., 2017 [27] | Finland | CS | 429 (55) | Moderate | Laeq modelled 26.7–44.2 dB LAeq | Annoyance (4-point scale) | Demographics, NS, residential satisfaction, attitude towards WTs, visibility of WTs, trust towards authorities or operators |
Below 40 dB LAeq large WTs (>3 MW) lead to similar indoor noise annoyance levels as smaller ones (<1.5 MW) do |
| Haac et al., 2019 [30] | USA | CS | 1043 (14–28) | Moderate | L1 hr max | Audibility, annoyance (not ISO standard) | Attitude, NS, moving into the area before or after the wind park was operationalized | Audibility annoyance: OR: 11.0; 95% CI: 4.8–25.4). |
| Schäffer et al., 2018 [28] | Switzerland | EXP | 52 | Moderate | AM, Laeq | Annoyance 11-point ISO standard scale | Perceived loudness, perceived sound characteristics | Effect of sound level, AM and visuals |
| Schäffer et al., 2019 [29] | Switzerland | EXP | 43 | High | WT sound (33–49 dBA) synthesized for distances 100–600 m, with and without periodic AM | Annoyance 11-point ISO standard scale | Gender, age, attitude towards WTs, NS and visual aspects | Increase in sound level and AM increased annoyance, presence of visualized landscape decreased annoyance, visibility of WT increased annoyance. Effect of attitude, not of other factors |
| Hübner et al., 2019 [31] | Germany/USA | CS | USA 900 (22%) Germany1029 (28%) | Moderate | Distance A-weighted LAeq-sound pressure level |
Health symptoms, annoyance, stress, coping, sleep time, REM, self-reported disturbance | Range of confounders | Distance and SPL not correlated to noise annoyance; NS and attitude regarding fairness strongly associated with stress and annoyance |
| Pohl et al., 2018 [32] | Germany | LO | 212/133 (Before/after 38% |
Moderate | A-weighted LAeq sound pressure levels, recordings, distance |
Annoyance (5-point ISO standard scale), stress |
Attitude | Distance to closest WT (r = –0.13) and ISO SPL: r = 0.27) according to ISO 9613-2 (1993), r = 0.27). |
| Krogh et al., 2019 [33] | Canada | CS | 67 | Na | Distance | Tendency to move | Loss, grief, anxiety | Not mentioned |
† Design: CS, cross-sectional study; LO, longitudinal; EXP, experiment; ‡: the number of people (N) and the response rate (in case of a cross-sectional study) (%).