Noise from neighbours has been shown to be one of the most noise annoying sources in Germany, but research on the influencing factors for the annoyance ratings is scarce. Therefore, we investigated whether different personal and contextual (social, physical) factors contribute to neighbour noise annoyance to better understand the neighbour noise annoyance situation. A population-representative survey in four areas in Germany was conducted, with each area further stratified according to their density of agglomeration (inner city, urban outskirt, rural area). Randomly selected residents from each area were invited by mail to participate in the study, either online or via a paper–pencil mode. Noise annoyance was assessed for different noise sources (e.g., neighbourhood, road, railway, aircrafts, different types of industry). In total, 1973 questionnaires were completed. We identified several factors to be predictive of neighbour noise annoyance: satisfaction with the neighbourhood, relationship with neighbours, residential satisfaction, noise sensitivity, and density of agglomeration for people living in the inner city in comparison to rural areas. Particularly, social aspects such as the relationship with neighbours and satisfaction with the neighbourhood have been shown to affect neighbour noise annoyance.

Annoyance and sleep disturbances due to aircraft noise represent a major burden of disease. They are considered as health effects as well as part of the causal pathway from exposure to long-term effects such as cardiovascular and metabolic diseases as well as mental disorders (e.g. depression). Both annoyance and sleep disturbance are not only determined by the noise exposure, but also to a considerable extent by non-acoustic factors. This chapter summarises the most relevant non-acoustic factors and briefly explains their mechanisms on annoyance and sleep as well as the potential to address these factors via intervention methods aiming at the reduction of adverse noise outcomes and an increase in the quality of life of airport residents. Here, the focus is on airport management measures that are considered to help improve the residents’ coping capacity. Findings from the ANIMA case studies with regard to main aspects of quality of life in airport residents around European airports are briefly reported and recommendations for a community-oriented airport management are derived.

Aircraft noise exposure is an environmental stressor and has been linked to various adverse health outcomes, such as annoyance, sleep disturbance, and cardiovascular diseases. Aircraft noise can trigger both psychological (annoyance and disturbance) and physiological stress responses (e.g. activation of the cardiovascular system and release of stress hormones). People are usually able to deal with this kind of stressor. However, a constant exposure to aircraft noise can cause a continuous state of stress. This in turn can constrain a person’s ability to regenerate and restore its resources to cope with the noise situation. As a consequence, the risk for certain negative health outcomes can be increased. Within the ANIMA project, literature reviews on the effects of aircraft noise on health outcomes have been performed. This chapter gives an overview of the relevant health outcomes affected by aircraft noise and summarises the results of different reviews and studies on these outcomes. Additionally, the underlying mechanisms of how noise impacts health are explained for daytime as well as night-time aircraft noise exposure (i.e. while sleeping). Further, the relevance of considering not only the general population, but vulnerable groups as well (such as children and elderly people) is described. Lastly, open questions for further studies are presented and discussed.

Environmental noise exposure is omnipresent, but the type of noise source and its appraisal may differ in varying contexts. For instance, studies have found significant differences in annoyance ratings between urbanisation levels. In this article, a re-analysis of existing survey data is presented, assessing noise annoyance and sleep disturbance from road traffic and railway noise in a random sample stratified by rural, suburban, and inner-city areas. Noise exposure was estimated using modelled L_den and L_night levels. Exposure–response curves showed greater annoyance at lower road traffic noise levels compared to the WHO guidelines (10% highly annoyed at 35 dB L_den vs. WHO 53 dB L_den). Railway noise annoyance aligned with the WHO estimates; however, sleep disturbance was lower at comparable exposure levels (3% highly sleep-disturbed at 53 dB L_night vs. WHO 44 dB). This re-analysis provides robust exposure–response relationships. The findings indicate higher levels for road traffic noise annoyance in Germany compared to international standards. A resulting policy implication is to link regular population surveys to noise action planning as a form of public participation. This approach enables the development of measures tailored to local conditions and supports the estimation of potential impacts, such as the number of people who may benefit from reduced noise exposure.

Motorcycle noise along leisure routes constitutes a distinct environmental health burden poorly captured by standard road traffic noise indicators. This study derives source-specific exposure–response functions and examines non-acoustic predictors of residential motorcycle noise annoyance. A mixed-methods socio-acoustic design was applied in five study areas in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. A community survey (N = 493) assessed long-term annoyance (12-month recall); a smartphone-based experience-sampling study (MotoApp; N = 213; ten days in summer 2022) collected hourly ratings. Acoustic measurements provided vehicle-specific L_Aeq,1h, L_AFmax,1h, and N₆₀; exposure–response functions were estimated using logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. In the long-term survey, 46.5% were highly annoyed by motorcycle noise, compared with 18.4% for passenger cars. Motorcycle exposure–response curves were markedly shifted; the 25–highly-annoyed threshold was reached approximately 16 dB lower in L_Aeq,1h than for passenger cars on weekends. Negative attitudes towards motorcycle riders, low coping capacity, and noise sensitivity were significant independent predictors. Source-specific assessment is necessary for motorcycle leisure routes. The 25–highly-annoyed criterion maps to approximately 52 dB L_Aeq,1h and 78 dB L_AFmax,1h on weekends, and to 25 N₆₀ events per hour—substantially below current road traffic guideline values—providing actionable thresholds for noise action planning.