IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v12y2015i3p2486-2500d46113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relation between Self-Reported Worry and Annoyance from Air and Road Traffic

Author

Listed:
  • Frits Van den Berg

    (GGD Amsterdam Public Health Service, P.O. Box 2200, 1000 CE Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Claudia Verhagen

    (GGD Amsterdam Public Health Service, P.O. Box 2200, 1000 CE Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Daan Uitenbroek

    (GGD Amsterdam Public Health Service, P.O. Box 2200, 1000 CE Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Negative perceptions such as fear or worry are known to be an important determinant of annoyance. Annoyance caused by noise and odour has been analysed in relation to worry about safety or health due to environmental hazards, using responses to a health survey. In the survey area high environmental impacts come from air and road traffic. The survey results show a correlation between worry due to the airport or passing aircraft and noise and odour annoyance from aircraft (correlation coefficient (c.c.) close to 0.6). For the relation between worry about a busy street and annoyance from road traffic the correlation is lower (c.c. 0.4–0.5). Worries about different situations, such as living below sea level, close to an airport, busy street or chemical industry, are highly correlated (c.c. 0.5–0.9), also for situations that are not obviously related. Personal factors can also lead to more worry: being female, above 35 years of age, having a high risk for anxiety/depression and being in bad health increase the odds for being worried. The results thus suggest that worry about safety or health is correlated to both personal and environmental factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Frits Van den Berg & Claudia Verhagen & Daan Uitenbroek, 2015. "The Relation between Self-Reported Worry and Annoyance from Air and Road Traffic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:3:p:2486-2500:d:46113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/3/2486/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/3/2486/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frits Van den Berg & Claudia Verhagen & Daan Uitenbroek, 2014. "The Relation between Scores on Noise Annoyance and Noise Disturbed Sleep in a Public Health Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Huang, Yi, 2021. "Salience of hazard disclosure and house prices: Evidence from Christchurch, New Zealand," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Sarah-Kristina Wist & Sinika-Marie Steinhilber & Ulrike Triemer, 2014. "Using participation to create resilience: how to involve citizens in designing a hospital system?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 208-223, June.
    6. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    7. KASHIWAGI Yuzuka & TODO Yasuyuki, 2022. "Trade Disruption and Risk Perception," Discussion papers 22086, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    9. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    10. Shuolin Geng & Qi Zhou & Mingjie Li & Dianxing Song & Yanjun Wen, 2021. "Spatial–temporal differences in disaster perception and response among new media users and the influence factors: a case study of the Shouguang Flood in Shandong province," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 2241-2262, January.
    11. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    13. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    14. Fateh Mamine & Noure El Imène Boumali & Etienne Montaigne, 2020. "Why Farmers Adopt Agro-Industrial By-Products in Animal Feed? Lesson Learned in Algerian Case," Post-Print hal-02966547, HAL.
    15. Meiyan Gao & Zongmin Wang & Haibo Yang, 2022. "Review of Urban Flood Resilience: Insights from Scientometric and Systematic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Mertens, Kewan & Jacobs, Liesbet & Maes, Jan & Poesen, Jean & Kervyn, Matthieu & Vranken, Liesbet, 2017. "Lower risk reduction intentions among households exposed to landslide risk: a tentative explanation," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261170, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    18. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    19. Costa-Font, Joan & Vilaplana-Prieto, Cristina, 2023. "Health System Trust and Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions," IZA Discussion Papers 15961, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Meredith T. Niles & Jeroen A. Veraart & Saskia E. Werners & Fiona C. Korporaal & Bob C. Mulder, 2020. "Communicating Climate Change Risk: A Content Analysis of IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:3:p:2486-2500:d:46113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.