title: Do quiet areas afford greater health-related quality of life than noisy areas?
abstract: People typically choose to live in quiet areas in order to safeguard their health and wellbeing. However, the benefits of living in quiet areas are relatively understudied compared to the burdens associated with living in noisy areas. Additionally, research is increasingly focusing on the relationship between the human response to noise and measures of health and wellbeing, complementing traditional dose-response approaches, and further elucidating the impact of noise and health by incorporating human factors as mediators and moderators. To further explore the benefits of living in quiet areas, we compared the results of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire datasets collected from households in localities differentiated by their soundscapes and population density: noisy city, quiet city, quiet rural, and noisy rural. The dose-response relationships between noise annoyance and HRQOL measures indicated an inverse relationship between the two. Additionally, quiet areas were found to have higher mean HRQOL domain scores than noisy areas. This research further supports the protection of quiet locales and ongoing noise abatement in noisy areas.
authors.affiliation: School of Public Health, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. daniel.shepherd@aut.ac.nz
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Shepherd
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Welch
authors.forename: Kim N
authors.initials: KN
authors.lastname: Dirks
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: McBride
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002947:Cities; D003625:Data Collection; D005260:Female; D006798:Housing; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009520:New Zealand; D009622:Noise; D011788:Quality of Life; D012424:Rural Population; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 Sep;6(9):2332-43
references.pmid: 19826546
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2010 Feb;19(1):37-46
references.pmid: 20044782
references.citation: Noise Health. 2011 Sep-Oct;13(54):333-9
references.pmid: 21959113
references.citation: Health Place. 2010 Sep;16(5):893-902
references.pmid: 20493756
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Dec;130(6):3746-53
references.pmid: 22225031
references.citation: Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010 Oct;7(10):3579-94
references.pmid: 21139850
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2010 Oct 1;408(21):4935-42
references.pmid: 20708214
references.citation: Motiv Emot. 2000 Dec;24(4):237-258
references.pmid: 21731120
references.citation: Noise Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;15(65):224-30
references.pmid: 23771420
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2004 Mar;13(2):299-310
references.pmid: 15085902
references.citation: Noise Health. 2007 Jan-Mar;9(34):15-24
references.pmid: 17851223
references.citation: Noise Health. 2004 Jan-Mar;6(22):5-13
references.pmid: 15070524
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2009 Jun 1;407(12):3707-11
references.pmid: 19327817
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Dec;114(6 Pt 1):3007-15
references.pmid: 14714778
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2013 Aug;22(6):1451-7
references.pmid: 22983781