Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Relationship between loudness perception

and noise indices in Valdivia, Chile
Jorge Sommerho

a,*

, Manuel Recuero

b,1

, Enrique Suarez

a,2

a
b

Instituto de Acustica, Universidad Austral de Chile, Campus Miraflores, Valdivia, Chile

INSIA, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Km. 7 Ctra. de Valencia, Madrid 2803, Spain
Received 17 April 2005; received in revised form 18 July 2005; accepted 25 July 2005
Available online 19 September 2005

Abstract
Residents perception of road trac noise loudness in relation to the measured noise indices
close to their dwellings was studied. Percentile distributions of five loudness categories as a
function of the DayNight noise index LDN were obtained. Hearing sensitivity was considered
as a factor in loudness perception. In addition, the prevalence of people!s perception of trac
noise in the Extremely Loud loudness category was compared with percentage of people
stating that they were Highly Annoyed by noise. It is concluded that hearing sensitivity
for noise is one of the variables that explains the loudness classification dierence in dierent
LDN index ranges and that the percentages of people Highly Annoyed by noise are slightly
higher than the percentages obtained in the Extremely Loud category of loudness perception.
! 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Annoyance; Community; Noisiness; Sensitivity; Trac; Environment

Corresponding author: Tel.: +56 63 221339; fax: +56 63 221013.

E-mail addresses: jsommerh@uach.cl (J. Sommerho), mrecuero@insia.upm.es (M. Recuero),
enriquesuarez@uach.cl (E. Suarez).
1
Tel.: +34 91 336 5336; fax: +34 91 336 53 02.
2
Tel.: +56 63 221339; fax: +56 63 221013.
0003-682X/$ - see front matter ! 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.07.004

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

893

1. Introduction
The aim of this research is to obtain information that allows evaluation and
comparison of residents! perception of road trac noise loudness in relation to the
measured noise indices close to their dwellings. It is known that the capacity of noise
to induce annoyance depends on many acoustical and non-acoustical factors [1]. In
this case, it is of special interest to study the loudness that residents perceive from
road trac noise and it!s relation to the measured noise indices.
This work was carried out in Valdivia, a city located in the south of Chile in a
geographic zone characterised by its abundant rain. It has a population of around
130,000 inhabitants. As in many Chilean cities, the city!s layout is based on an
orthogonal chessboard design centered on a main square. Today, the city occupies
an approximate surface area of 14,500 m2 at an average height of 10 m above sea
level. In terms of the city!s surface area, 70% of its area is for residential usage, of
which approximately 35% corresponds to a mixture of commercial and residential
usage. About 10% of the city surface is for commercial use, 2% for industrial use,
and 7% for green areas and leisure [2].
As other Chilean cities, trac noise is the main source of noise [3]. There are
approximately 14,000 cars, 490 buses and 920 trucks that are registered by the City
Hall. Since the airport is located 30 km away from town, having two or three landings per day, and local rail transport has not worked for years, Valdivia is a good
experimental place to study road trac noise, as the other transportation noise
sources are not relevant.

2. Research methodology
2.1. Acoustic survey
In community noise studies, the daynight level LDN is commonly used for quantifying long-term environmental noise annoyance [46]. Therefore, LDN noise index
is used in this work, and is calculated by the following equation:
"
LD
LN
1 !
10
10
15 " 10 9 " 10 ;
LDN 10 log
1
24

where LD = A-weighted equivalent noise level from 07:00 to 22:00 h, and LN =

A-weighted equivalent noise level from 22:00 to 07:00 h plus 10 dB.
It is seen that LDN is similar to a 24-h A-weighted equivalent noise level but with a
10-dB penalty for nighttime noise levels because noise at night is deemed to be much
more disturbing than noise during the day.
A noise map of the city was built. A 400 m 400 m grid was randomly superimposed over the map of the city to determine the measurement points. The measuring
points correspond to the corners of the squares. Hundred and fifteen measuring
points were established in the city. The locations of the measurements points and
the noise map have been shown in a previous paper [7]. The percentile distribution

894

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

of LD, LN and LDN noise indices at the 115 points of the city, are presented in Fig. 1.
According to the measured values, the LDN noise indices were grouped in seven
intervals of 5 dB each: 5055, 5560, 6065, 6570, 7075, 7580 and 8085 dBA.
Community noise events that could distort the representative value of LDN index
were avoided in the measurement procedure (for example, a dog barking, a group of
children shouting, etc.). The microphone was placed at the sidewalk, 2 m away from
the road, so the measured noise level is representative of trac noise exposure at this
place. Urban sidewalks are usually 4 m wide and most of the houses in the city have
small front yards (less than 3 m in width) or none at all. So, it is important to point
out that in most cases the measured noise level corresponds approximately to the one
that people have in their front yard or at the facade of their homes.
2.2. Social survey
The common method for determining community response to noise is through a
social survey. A questionnaire with closed questions that used nominal categorical
variables and ordinal categorical variables was developed. In general, the social survey design has taken into account the recommendations given by Fields [8]. The sample frame considered all the dwellings of Valdivia at a distance no further than 50 m
from each noise measuring point, on the same road. Every questionnaire was
indexed to the noise measurement made close to the dwelling where it was delivered.
The questionnaire was given to only one person per dwelling. From a list of its
inhabitants (14 years old or older), one of them was chosen randomly. The questionnaire was left in the dwelling for at least 2 days.
From approximately 700 delivered questionnaires the final sample number was
473. The complete questionnaire contained common questions about demographic
issues, noise loudness perception, noise eects and residential environment opinions.
The set of questions about loudness perception at their dwellings were as follows:
when you are at the outside of your dwelling, how loud do you hear the road trac
noise? and, when you are inside your dwelling, how loud do you hear the road
trac noise? As Sommerho et al. [7] have noted, trac noise is the principal noise
source in the city.
50%

LD

40%
30%

LN

20%

LDN

10%
0%
45-50

50-55

55-60

60-65

65-70

70-75

75-80

80-85

dBA

Fig. 1. Percentile distribution of LD, LN and LDN noise indices at 115 points of the city.

895

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

For the measurement procedure of loudness variable, a verbal answer scale was
used as recommended by Fields et al. [9]: Not at all Loud, Slightly Loud,
Moderately Loud, Very Loud and Extremely Loud.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Demographic prevalence
The demographic prevalence of the survey agrees with the demographic census
values of the city [10]. As shown in Table 1, younger people are more numerous than
older one. An approximately equal quantity of males and females participated in
each age range.
3.2. Noise loudness perception
Fig. 2 shows the results of the cross tabulation of the loudness categories and 5 dB
LDN noise indices intervals. As expected, the trac noise outside the dwellings is perceived to be louder than the that inside the dwellings. An analysis of this dierence
could be a measure of the quality of the noise isolation properties of the dwellings.
Assigning a numerical value to each category (as shown on Fig. 2), the mean value
for the loudness outside the dwellings is 3.88 and for the inside is 3.31. In the southern part of Chile, the vast majority of low-priced houses have poor thermal and
sound insulation enclosures (Sound Transmission Class STC index lower than
47 dB [11]). Also, due to cold and rainy weather, closed windows and closed outside
doors are common.
Fig. 3 presents the percentile distribution of the four highest loudness categories in relation to the LND noise index. The Slightly Loud trac noise category
percentage decreases from 53% to 0% as LDN index increases from 5055 dB
range to 8085 dB range. The Moderately Loud trac noise category percentage has a maximum of 50% in 5560 dB LDN index range decreasing up to 9.1%
in 8085 dB LDN index range.
In 5055 dB LDN index range, none of the interviewed people considered the trac
noise as Very Loud or Extremely Loud. In 5560 dB LDN index range, only 17%
considered trac noise as Very Loud, but still, nobody considered it Extremely

Table 1
Age prevalence
Age

Range (years)

Total (%)

Frequency

1429
3049
5069
70 and older

16
20
20

38.6
37.7
18.1
5.6
100

182
178
86
27
473

896

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

Measured LDN

50 - 55

60%

55-60

60-65

65-70

70-75

75-80

80 - 85

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Traffic noise loudness outside

the dwelling
1 = Not at all loud

2 = Slightly loud

Traffic noise loudness inside

the dwelling

3 = Moderately loud

4 = Very loud

5 = Extremely loud

Fig. 2. Cross tabulation of loudness perception categories at the outside and inside of the dwelling for
dierent LDN noise index intervals.

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50-55

55-60

Extremely Loud

60-65

Very Loud

65-70

70-75

Moderately Loud

75-80

80-85 LDN
Slightly Loud

Fig. 3. Percentile distribution of the four highest loudness categories in relation to the LND noise index.

Loud. In 6065 dB LDN index range, Very Loud category percentage reaches
29.5% and Extremely Loud category appears with 9.1%. In 6570 dB LDN range,
Very Loud category percentage reaches 36.4% and Extremely Loud 18.2%. In
7075 dB LDN index range, Very Loud category reaches 37.8% and Extremely
Loud category increases up to 28.2%. In 7580 dB LDN index range, Very Loud
and Extremely Loud categories percentage reach values of 35.3% and 37.4%,
respectively. In 8085 dB LDN index range, the Extremely Loud category reaches
50% and Very Loud category 40.9%.

897

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

3.3. Loudness perception and hearing sensitivity

As loudness perception is of interest in this research, people!s subjective sensitivity
to noise was investigated. Of the whole sample, 25.1% say that they have a higher
sensitivity to noise than normal people, 61.7% say that they have a similar sensitivity
to the noise as normal people, and 13.2% say that they have less sensitivity than the
normal people. This percentage distribution is shown in Fig. 4. This distribution is
skewed to higher than normal category.
Fig. 5 shows the percentage cross tabulation of noise-hearing sensitivity with the
three higher loudness categories, in each range of LDN, for LDN indices between 60
up to 80 dB.
The percentage obtained by comparing the Higher than Normal hearing sensitivity category with the Extremely Loud loudness category is always equal or
higher than the percentage obtained with other hearing sensibilities in the same loudness category. This is particularly noticeable in index range 7075 dB LDN. In
general, the behaviour of the percentages distribution in the cross tabulation is as
expected. This suggests that the noise-hearing sensitivity could be one of the variables that explains the loudness classification dierence in a certain LDN index range.
Loudness Hearing Sensitivity

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Higher than
normal

Equal to
normal

Lower than
normal

Fig. 4. Loudness hearing sensitivity distribution.

70%

65 - 70 dB

60 - 65 dB

60%

70 - 75 dB

75 - 80 dB

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Higher than Normal

1 = Extremely Loud

Equal than Normal

2 = Very Loud

Lower than Normal

3 = Moderately Loud

Fig. 5. Percentage cross tabulation of noise-hearing sensitivity, three higher loudness categories, and LDN
ranges: 6065, 6570, 7075, 7580 dBA.

898

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

3.4. Loudness perception and annoyance

As defined by Berlung et al. [12], loudness refers directly to sound intensity
whereas annoyance refers to how much people are bothered by sound. Loudness
and annoyance may have dierent relationship to the physical descriptors of the
noises, and dierences may exist with regard to the type of noise. When measuring
loudness, emphasis is placed on evaluating how much the noise sounds, whereas for
measuring annoyance, emphasis is placed on describing the reaction to noise [13].
Hellman [14,15] has suggested that annoyance is more closely related to loudness
whereas noisiness is associated more with sound quality.
But, is the community loudness judgment of trac noise closely related to the
annoyance reaction for the same LDN trac noise exposure? This work attempts
to give a first approach to answer this question, by comparing the prevalence of community loudness perception with the prevalence of community annoyance for the
same LDN trac noise exposure.
In 1978, Schultz [16] synthesized a relationship between community noise exposure and the prevalence of annoyance from findings in several social surveys. This
relationship was updated in 1991 by Fidell et al. [17], using the findings of social surveys conducted since the former publication. The 1978 relationship provided a good
fit to new data and this quantitative dosageeect relationship has been adopted as a
standard means for predicting noise-induce annoyance. The percentage of Highly
Annoyed persons (%HA) exposed to road trac noise given by the most lately
revised equation is [5,6]:
3

%HA 9.994 " 10&4 LDN & 42 & 0.01523LDN & 42 0.538LDN & 42.

Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the percentile distribution of people Highly
Annoyed by road trac noise and the percentile distribution of Extremely Loud
loudness perception.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
51.2
57.8
50 55 55 60

62.2
60 65

% Highly Annoyed

68.5
72.4
65 70 70 75

76.7
80.1 <LDN> for %HA
75 80 80 85 LDN range

Extremely Loud

Fig. 6. Comparison between percentage distribution of people Highly Annoyed by road trac noise
and percentile distribution of Extremely Loud category loudness perception.

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

899

In this case, for each LDN index interval, the mean of the measured LDN value in
front of the interviewee!s dwelling was used for calculating %HA. The obtained
mean value for calculating %HA in each LDN range is shown in the abscissa of
Fig. 6 (LDN for %HA).
The two curves are very similar in the middle and high range of the LDN scale. In
the range of LDN values higher than 60 dB, the Extremely Loud curve is 3.6%
points lower than %HA curve in average. This average dierence increases to
6.5% at levels below 60 dB. Unfortunately, the number of samples was not enough
at both LDN interval scale ends to conclude that this would be the usual case.

4. Conclusions
The percentile distribution obtained with the cross tabulation of loudness categories and LND noise index clearly indicates that as we move to higher values of LDN
the Extremely Loud category prevalence increases on one hand, and the Slightly
Loud category prevalence decreases on the other.
The percentage distribution obtained with the cross tabulation of hearing sensitivity categories and loudness categories were as one could expect. Therefore, noisehearing sensitivity is one of the variables that explains the loudness classification difference in each LDN index range.
The comparison of the percentage of people Highly Annoyed by noise (%HA),
quantified by Schulz!s or Midiema!s equation are a few points higher than the percentages obtained in the Extremely Loud category curve of loudness perception.

References
[1] Guidelines for Community Noise. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.
[2] Varela C. Serie ciudades intermedias. Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Geoespacios 6; 1993.
[3] CONAMA. Medicion de ndices

de contaminacion acustica en Iquique, Vina y Temuco. Santiago:

Comision Nacional del Medio Ambiente CONAMA; 2000.
[4] Schultz T. Community noise ratings. Essex: Applied Science Publishers, Ltd; 1982.
[5] Miedema HME, Vos H. Exposureresponse relations for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am
1998;104(6):343244.
[6] Miedema HME, Vos H. Supplement to J Acoust Soc Am 104 (6), December 1998 Exposureresponse
relations for transportation noise; 1999.
[7] Sommerho J, Recuero M, Suarez E. Community noise survey of the city of Valdivia, Chile. Appl
Acoust 2004;65:64356.
[8] Fields JM. Pitfalls to avoid in noise reaction survey designs. In: Proceedings of the 7th international
congress on noise as a public health problem, Sydney; 1998.
[9] Fields JM, De Jong RG, Gjestland T, Flindell IH, Job RFS, Kurra S, et al. Standardized generalpurpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a recommendation. J
Sound Vib 2001;242(4):64179.
[10] Instituto Nacional de Estadstica. INE, Chile; 2004.
[11] Sommerho J. Aislamiento Acustico Tabiques (Memoria. Valdivia: Instituto de Acustica; 2002.
[12] Berlung B, Berlung U, Lindvall T. Scaling loudness, noisiness, and annoyance of community noises. J
Acoust Soc Am 1976;60(5):111925.

900

J. Sommerho et al. / Applied Acoustics 67 (2006) 892900

[13] Hellman RP. Loudness, annoyance, and noisiness produced by single-tonenoise complexes. J Acoust
Soc Am 1982;72(1):6273.
[14] Hellman RP. Growth rate of loudness, annoyance, and noisiness as a function of tone location within
the noise spectrum. J Acoust Soc Am 1984;75(1):20918.
[15] Hellman RP. Perceived magnitude of two-tonenoise complexes: loudness, annoyance, and nosiness.
J Acoust Soc Am 1985;77(4):1497504.
[16] Schultz TJ. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;74:377405.
[17] Fidell S, Barber DS, Schultz TJ. Updating a dosageeect relationship for the prevalence of
annoyance due to general transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;89(1):22133.