» Articles » PMID: 23624578

The Effects of Vision-related Aspects on Noise Perception of Wind Turbines in Quiet Areas

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2013 Apr 30
PMID 23624578
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Preserving the soundscape and geographic extension of quiet areas is a great challenge against the wide-spreading of environmental noise. The E.U. Environmental Noise Directive underlines the need to preserve quiet areas as a new aim for the management of noise in European countries. At the same time, due to their low population density, rural areas characterized by suitable wind are considered appropriate locations for installing wind farms. However, despite the fact that wind farms are represented as environmentally friendly projects, these plants are often viewed as visual and audible intruders, that spoil the landscape and generate noise. Even though the correlations are still unclear, it is obvious that visual impacts of wind farms could increase due to their size and coherence with respect to the rural/quiet environment. In this paper, by using the Immersive Virtual Reality technique, some visual and acoustical aspects of the impact of a wind farm on a sample of subjects were assessed and analyzed. The subjects were immersed in a virtual scenario that represented a situation of a typical rural outdoor scenario that they experienced at different distances from the wind turbines. The influence of the number and the colour of wind turbines on global, visual and auditory judgment were investigated. The main results showed that, regarding the number of wind turbines, the visual component has a weak effect on individual reactions, while the colour influences both visual and auditory individual reactions, although in a different way.

Citing Articles

Religious Belief-Related Factors Enhance the Impact of Soundscapes in Han Chinese Buddhist Temples on Mental Health.

Zhang D, Kong C, Zhang M, Kang J Front Psychol. 2022; 12:774689.

PMID: 35153901 PMC: 8825353. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.774689.


Perceptions of Wind Turbine Noise and Self-Reported Health in Suburban Residential Areas.

Qu F, Tsuchiya A Front Psychol. 2021; 12:736231.

PMID: 34526942 PMC: 8435591. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.736231.


Redefinition of Park Design Criteria as a Result of Analysis of Well-Being and Soundscape: The Case Study of the Kortowo Park (Poland).

Jaszczak A, Pochodyla E, Kristianova K, Malkowska N, Kazak J Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(6).

PMID: 33799383 PMC: 7999615. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18062972.


Room Acoustical Parameters as Predictors of Acoustic Comfort in Outdoor Spaces of Housing Complexes.

Taghipour A, Athari S, Gisladottir A, Sievers T, Eggenschwiler K Front Psychol. 2020; 11:344.

PMID: 32194486 PMC: 7065602. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00344.


Acoustic Comfort in Virtual Inner Yards with Various Building Facades.

Taghipour A, Sievers T, Eggenschwiler K Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(2).

PMID: 30654541 PMC: 6352178. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16020249.


References
1.
Pedersen E, Persson Waye K . Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med. 2007; 64(7):480-6. PMC: 2078467. DOI: 10.1136/oem.2006.031039. View

2.
Ruotolo F, Senese V, Ruggiero G, Maffei L, Masullo M, Iachini T . Individual reactions to a multisensory immersive virtual environment: the impact of a wind farm on individuals. Cogn Process. 2012; 13 Suppl 1:S319-23. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-012-0492-6. View

3.
Knopper L, Ollson C . Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature. Environ Health. 2011; 10:78. PMC: 3179699. DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-78. View

4.
Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J . Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009; 126(2):634-43. DOI: 10.1121/1.3160293. View

5.
Janssen S, Vos H, Eisses A, Pedersen E . A comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 130(6):3746-53. DOI: 10.1121/1.3653984. View