Next Article in Journal
Multi-Scenario Robust Distributed Permutation Flow Shop Scheduling Based on DDQN
Previous Article in Journal
Predictive Models for Single-Droplet Ignition in Static High-Temperature Air in Different Gravity Environments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimation of the Occurrence and Significance of Noise Effects on Pedestrians Using Acoustic Variables Related to Sound Energy in Urban Environments
 
 
Due to scheduled maintenance work on our database systems, there may be short service disruptions on this website between 10:00 and 11:00 CEST on June 14th.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Noise Annoyance in Physical Sciences: Perspective 2015–2024

by
Jacek Lukasz Wilk-Jakubowski
1,3,*,
Radoslaw Harabin
2,3,
Lukasz Pawlik
1 and
Grzegorz Wilk-Jakubowski
2,3
1
Department of Information Systems, Kielce University of Technology, 7 Tysiąclecia Państwa Polskiego Ave., 25-314 Kielce, Poland
2
Institute of Internal Security, Old Polish University of Applied Sciences, 49 Ponurego Piwnika Str., 25-666 Kielce, Poland
3
Institute of Crisis Management and Computer Modelling, 28-100 Busko-Zdrój, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 6559; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126559
Submission received: 17 April 2025 / Revised: 4 June 2025 / Accepted: 7 June 2025 / Published: 11 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Soundscape and Environmental Noise)

Abstract

:
The current level of civilization development results in the widespread presence of devices that generate sound waves. Even in the so-called quiet zones, infrasound can be recorded, which, despite the lack of audibility, causes undesirable physiological reactions or affects the environment. Research on noise pollution and its effects on human health and the environment is increasingly prevalent. Thus, the problem of noise should be considered an important and increasingly real problem. In the presented article, an advanced review of the literature on the noise was carried out in order to systematize the issues, diagnose trends, and identify research gaps. The literature review included 1952 articles present in the Scopus database. After selecting the material, 112 documents were qualified for full analysis. Publications were grouped based on selected categories, cross-analyzed for statistical correlations, and described on the basis of content. The findings indicate the dominant areas of research interest in noise and its sources and reveal the most widespread methodological trends such as increased interest in the area of engineering (66.67% increase) and air transport (19.04% increase); an increased frequency of use of the experimental method (28.12% increase); and the rising interest of noise annoyance in China (150% increase). On the other hand, the largest drops of interest occur in Earth and planetary sciences (decrease of 50%), in road transportation (21.87%), in conceptual papers (decrease of 16.21%), and a reduced number of affiliations of authors from Germany (decrease of 45.45%). Outcomes indicate a proposal for future research to fill the identified gaps in the literature.

1. Introduction

The tremendous dynamics of civilizational change over the past decade can be illustrated, for example, by the leap in the development of artificial intelligence [1]. Similarly rapid and radical changes have occurred in the development of devices that generate sound signals. The quality and quantity of signals—both audible and inaudible—in the spaces people inhabit have become subjects of growing discussion. Noise exposure is a current and relevant issue from various research perspectives. It appears in publications across environmental science, as well as in Earth and planetary sciences and engineering [2].
The problems of noise pollution in urban spaces and the emission of sound waves—capable of causing both physiological and psychological effects, including serious health problems [3,4]—are widely discussed. Therefore, it is not surprising that sound-related research is conducted in fields such as urban planning or building construction [5]. The development of cities and other human-inhabited spaces necessitates adaptation to the risks posed by sound waves. Plans to connect large metropolitan areas via urban air transport serve as a clear example of this issue. Research into low-emission noise pollution devices is also being conducted in the areas of rail transport, aviation, and electric vehicles [6]. Innovative research is being conducted on the use of metamaterials that would make it possible to reduce the harmfulness of sound in residential construction [7]. The issue is widely discussed in urban planning, especially if we consider not only the problem of how to reduce the harmfulness of sound, but also how to preserve the visual and ecological aspects of urban space [8]. All of this underlines the timeliness and significance of the noise problem across various scientific disciplines. The impact of noise extends to various settings, including academic environments where it negatively affects learning [9] and workplaces where it poses a risk of hearing loss [10]. The pervasive nature of urban noise as a public health concern further emphasizes the urgency of this issue.
In this context, a comprehensive review of the literature on noise annoyance was considered both necessary and cognitively valuable. The aim of this review was to describe the current state of research and to identify trends and potential research gaps. Mapping the current research landscape is valuable because it reveals different perspectives on the analysis of the same issue. One example is urban noise, whose intensity is influenced both by the type of building development and by the substrate on which the sound source occurs. Identifying trends and research gaps can help point to future directions for research. Furthermore, green urban systems are being explored for their potential in noise reduction.
To this end, 1952 publications from the Scopus database, spanning the years 2015 to 2024, were reviewed. The selection focused on works within the physical sciences. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted, based on five research categories: document type, subject area, affiliation, noise source, and research methodology. Within each category, subcategories were defined and used for cross-analysis. The findings were presented both descriptively and graphically. Data processing and analysis were carried out using PostgreSQL 16.2, SQL queries, and Python 3.12.2. In practice, by using the open-source relational database management system, partial data for identifying the publication were recorded.
As a result of the analysis, shifts in the distribution of interest across specific noise-related topics were identified. For example, there was a noticeable increase in research within the field of engineering, greater use of experimental methods, and a rise in the proportion of scientific articles featuring authors affiliated with Chinese institutions. A detailed discussion of these trends is provided in the Discussion and Conclusions sections. This paper aims to present the findings of this comprehensive bibliometric review of noise annoyance literature within the physical sciences between 2015 and 2024, outlining the identified trends, research gaps, and potential future directions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Selection

This article adopts the method of selecting research material already described and used in a previous article, taking into account the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standard and based on the approach developed by Inanov et. al. [11,12,13]. This study was divided into two stages. Firstly, advanced searches were conducted in the Scopus database by combining specific search words in the title, abstract, and keywords of publications. Secondly, based on the search, categories (domains) of divisions were distinguished and described.
The search was carried out in the following steps: in the first order, articles were narrowed down within the title, abstract, and keyword for the keyword “noise annoyance”, with these words having to occur in that order (“precedes by”, 0—distance between words). The search resulted in 1952 records. Next, a filter was applied regarding the time of publication PUBYEAR > 2014 AND PUBYEAR < 2025, which in effect narrowed the field of research interest to the period 2015–2024 and limited the search results to 960 items. In the next step, all subject areas that were not within the authors’ scope of interest were excluded. A SUBJAREA Filter was applied in the following form: (NOT SUBJAREA(MEDI OR NURS OR VETE OR DENT OR HEAL OR MULT OR AGRI OR BIOC OR IMMU OR NEUR OR PHAR OR ARTS OR BUSI OR DECI OR ECON OR PSYC OR SOCI OR CENG OR CHEM OR COMP OR MATE OR MATH OR PHYS). The result was as follows:
  • A total of 127 records qualified for further analysis, encompassing the following research areas: Earth and Planetary Sciences (EART), Energy (ENER), Engineering (ENGI), and Environmental Science (ENVI). This selection was driven by the focus of this review on the physical sciences’ perspective of noise annoyance, aiming to synthesize literature directly addressing the physical aspects, sources, and technological interventions related to noise. While we acknowledge that fields like medicine and social sciences offer valuable insights into the health and societal impacts of noise, their exclusion was a deliberate choice to maintain a focused analysis on the physical science domain (e.g., like medicine and social sciences). Future research could benefit from integrating findings from these excluded fields to provide a more holistic understanding of noise annoyance.
  • A total of 833 records were excluded, originating from research areas such as Health Sciences (Medicine (MEDI), Nursing (NURS), Veterinary Medicine (VETE), Dentistry (DENT), Health Professions (HEAL)); Life Sciences (Agricultural and Biological Sciences (AGRI), Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology (BIOC), Immunology and Microbiology (IMMU), Neuroscience (NEUR), Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmacy (PHAR)); Physical Sciences (Chemical Engineering (CENG), Chemistry (CHEM), Computer Science (COMP), Materials Science (MATE), Mathematics (MATH), Physics and Astronomy (PHYS)); Social Sciences (Arts and Humanities (ARTS), Business, Management, and Accounting (BUSI), Decision Sciences (DECI), Economics, Econometrics, and Finance (ECON), Psychology (PSYC), Social Sciences (SOCI)).
Further selection also excluded documents of the following types: review, conference review, and articles in Chinese. For this purpose, filters were applied: DOCTYPE filter (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “re”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “cr”)); document type: review, conference review, filter LANGUAGE (EXCLUDE (LANGUAGE, “Chinese”)) were excluded. This resulted in 112 publications.
The data was imported into a CSV (Comma-Separated Values) file and, additionally, into a text file. Consequently, the results can be viewed in terms of the information contained therein. The file has the following columns: “Authors”, “Author full names”, “Author(s) ID”, “Title”, “Year”, “Source title”, “Cited by”, “DOI”, “Link”, “Abstract”, “Author Keywords”, “Index Keywords”, “Document Type”, “Publication Stage”, “Open Access”. The data obtained in this way made it possible to identify the publication and provided a basis for conducting a pre-textual analysis of the documents, in order to identify the categories of division and assign the relevant articles to them. After analyzing 112 publications, 5 research categories were distinguished: specific document type (publication), subject area, affiliation, noise source, research methodology. Data processing and analysis was based on PostgreSQL, SQL query, Python, and data analysis by researchers. The data selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.

2.2. Data Analysis

The analysis of the retrieved publications took into account the type of publication (conference paper, journal article, book chapter), year of publication, and full bibliographic reference. The text of 112 publication was read and the following criteria were adopted for their classification:
  • Subject area—EART, ENER, ENGI, ENVI. These research areas result from the selection of articles. Research interests were located in the area of Physical Sciences limited to technical issues.
  • Noise source—the surveyed articles referred to the following sources of sound: Renewable Energy, Air Transport, Rail Transport, Road Transport, Urban Noise. Regarding Renewable Energy, the category encompasses sources of energy that are naturally replenished. The following noise sources that comprise this category occurred in the articles concerning Wind Farm, Wind Power, Wind Turbine, Wind Turbine Noise, Wind Turbines, Wind Energy, Wind Projects, Wind Turbine Annoyance Assessment, and Wind Turbine Sounds. Another highlighted category was Air Transport, which refers to all modes of transportation that occur above the ground, primarily using aircraft. The articles featuring the following noise sources that make up this category are on Aircraft, Aircraft Noise, Aircraft Landing, Airport, Airports, Air Traffics, Air Traffic Control, Aviation, and Aeroacoustics. Another category highlighted was Rail Transportation, which refers to transportation that occurs on rails, primarily using trains. The following articles featured the following noise sources that make up this category: Railroad Railroads, Railway Transport, and Railroad Transportation. Another category highlighted was Road Transport, which refers to all modes of transportation that occur on roads, including cars, buses, and trucks. The following articles featured the following noise sources that make up this category: Traffic Noise, Road Traffic, Roads and Streets, Road Traffic Noise, Traffic, Traffic Emission, Road Transportation, Transportation System, Vehicles, Noise, and Transportation. Another category highlighted was Urban Noise, which refers to all noise generated within urban environments, including residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The following articles featured the following noise sources that make up this category: Neighborhood, Urban Area, City, Cities, Urban Planning, Urban Environments, Urban Air, Residential Areas, and Housing. In order to better present the breakdowns of the first two categories, they are presented graphically in Figure 2.
  • Affiliation—the country of affiliation of the authors was taken into account. In the case of the occurrence of more than one author, all countries were noted. For example, if 2 authors were from Poland and 1 from France, then the category was marked as Poland, France. Based on the analysis of the texts, the following authors’ affiliations were noted: China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Other (category Other means that the country occurred only once).
  • Methodology—on the basis of text analysis, the following research methods were distinguished: experiment, survey, literature analysis, case study, and conceptual. For the purpose of the article, a manual qualification was made on the basis of abstracts and content of articles. Experiment was considered as an issue in which researchers independently measured noise. Survey meant a survey technique, but provided that the researchers independently conducted the survey. Literature analysis was assigned to articles that were based on literature or already published surveys or studies. Case study meant a description of the development and implementation of a particular solution to a problem. Analysis of data from a specific cohort (SAPALDIA) was also treated as a case study, especially in the context of long-term monitoring of participants. Conceptual worksheets meant developing a model (e.g., using linear regression), or developing a theoretical concept.
On the basis of the indicated criteria, the breakdowns and cross-tabulations of the studied publications were made. However, it should be noted that a single publication may involve several research categories. Therefore, the grouping of publications by classification criteria is not mutually exclusive. This article uses both quantitative and qualitative analysis of publications. Quantitative analysis is based on frequencies and cross tabulation. Qualitative analysis is based on content analysis of publications by research categories.

3. Results

The literature review identified several groups of publications. These include theoretical works, studies on psychological and physiological responses to noise, research in vehicle engineering, and urban planning.
Theoretical publications include works on the distinction between sound and noise as undesirable sound [14], reviews of international noise law [15], and analyses of noise annoyance indicators [16], including evaluations of noise nuisance indicators [17].
Regarding psychological processes, studies were noted that explore noise perception in terms of comfort [18] as well as annoyance and irritation [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Works on a new method of noise nuisance prediction and parametric sensitivity analysis were noted [21,26]. In a study of Brazil’s adult population, noise irritation was reported by 48.4% of respondents living in areas exposed to noise [20]. Similar results (44.6% of respondents indicated noise annoyance) were obtained by researchers from India in a study of noise levels in the airport region and their impact on two nearby communities [27]. Higher results on noise annoyance were indicated by studies on noise generated by construction work in direct contact with sound [33], which would indicate the need for further research into differences in the degree of irritation depending on the type and distance from sound sources. Research on the level of sound annoyance of people living along different types of roads [36], and also under circumstances of using traffic sound-absorbing rumble strips [35], were also noted. The literature review also noted studies addressed to satisfaction and perceived noise levels among users of urban green spaces [39,40,41,42]. There have been studies that indicate the absence of noise can contribute up to 71.4% to an overall sense of satisfaction in the urban environment [39]. Conclusions from a study of the relationship between sound perception and the presence of green spaces point to the soothing nature of plants. In this context, articles also examined the quality of life, such as studies on children’s cognitive impairment in environments exposed to aircraft noise [43], road noise level [44], and sleep disturbances [45,46,47]. For example, studies in Bratislava and Kosice (Slovakia) have shown interference with reading and mental work, sleep and falling asleep even at lower road noise values [47]. Subjective noise perceptions were also explored [45,48,49,50,51,52,53], including contextual noise sensitivity (i.e., considering socio-cultural conditions) [54,55,56,57,58]. For example, the results of a study on contextual perceptions of drone noise showed that drones flying over rural environments were perceived as significantly louder, more disruptive, and more noticeable compared to urban environments [57].
Researchers have also examined the relationship between noise exposure and mental health [48], using indicators such as the frequency of psychotropic drug use among noise-exposed individuals [59]. Further publications investigated post-exposure stress [60,61,62,63] and the occurrence of depression in noise-exposed populations [63,64,65,66]. In the mentioned studies, researchers have proposed new methods for scaling stress [61], and have begun a discussion on the lack of a sufficient method for assessing the impact of noise on mild mental disorders [64]. Notably, one study proposed an unconventional method—considering human perception capabilities—for assessing the environmental impact of new aviation technologies [67]. Also related to perception were studies on the link between adolescent mental health and road noise in their living environments [68], as well as the relationship between noise perception and the type of noise-generating substrate [69].
In addition to psychological reactions, physiological responses to noise were also studied. These include attempts to determine whether noise annoyance contributes to reduced physical activity [70], elevated blood pressure [71,72], sleep disturbances, and increased levels of irritation due to various noise sources [73,74,75]—such as school noise [76,77] or wind turbine exposure [78]. Associations between noise exposure and diseases, including cardiovascular [64,65,79] and respiratory conditions [80], were also identified. Studies focusing on physiological responses as potential indicators of noise impact were considered particularly insightful [81].
Some studies addressed both psychological and physiological responses to noise simultaneously, such as those examining reactions to changing urban noise conditions [82,83]. This type of research indicates the need for multiple scales to assess the noise correlation with psychological and physiological responses. Important are not only the type of sound and sound level, but also the time of exposure, or the gender of the recipient [83].
In addition to psychological and physiological studies, the literature review also revealed research on behavioral responses to noise. These included studies on work efficiency under distracting noise conditions [84], standards influencing drivers’ intentions to reduce noise [85], public opposition to wind farm construction [86,87], and human behavior in so-called quiet zones within cities [88].
In the context of urban planning, research explored the relationship between types of urban development and noise perception [89], as well as the relationship between vehicle speed and sound emission levels [90]. Other studies investigated the acoustic properties of residential buildings [91,92,93], including heating system designs and their susceptibility to sound transmission [94].
A further group of publications focused on vehicle design. These included studies on cars, such as active noise reduction systems [95], engine compartment insulation [96], and the detectability of low-emission (noise-wise) electric vehicles by pedestrians [97]. Aircraft noise reduction also formed a significant group, encompassing studies on aircraft structure optimization [98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107] and noise levels in specific ship compartments [108]. These topics are closely tied to engineering research, along with studies on helicopter noise [109,110,111,112], urban air transport [113,114,115,116], and the impulsiveness of noise generated by road warning strips [117,118]. Other works addressed noise emissions across various urban locations [119] and at airports [120]. Helicopter studies have investigated the importance of emission angles in determining noise sources [109], as well as the influence of wind [110]. This is an issue that should, according to the researchers, be reflected in plans over the development of air public transport, especially in the context of predicting noise from helicopter rotors [114].
Finally, several studies proposed noise modeling solutions, including active noise control [121], runway design [122,123], noise-reducing urban environments [50], and simulations of sonic wave propagation [124,125].
Table 1 presents the number of articles within the designated categories, segmented by the years of publication. To facilitate the systematization of the collected material, the publication years were grouped into two distinct periods: 2015–2019 and 2020–2024. Furthermore, the coefficient of dependence between individual categories was calculated using the chi-square (χ2) test. The underlying assumption was that if the resulting p-value is significantly lower than the established significance level of 0.05, the null hypothesis, which posits no association between the category distribution and the time periods, could be rejected. This rejection would indicate statistically significant differences in how the analyzed categories are distributed across the 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 intervals. Conversely, if the p-value significantly exceeds the assumed significance level, there would be no statistical basis to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting the absence of statistically significant differences in the distribution of the analyzed categories between the two time periods. However, to fully understand the statistical significance and the relationships presented, it is crucial to define the symbols used within the table, particularly the χ2 symbol representing the chi-square statistic and df indicating the degrees of freedom. Additionally, clarifying what each category name (e.g., conference paper, renewable energy, experiment) represents within the context of this study is essential for accurate interpretation by the reader.
After checking the chi-square coefficient value, only the document type category showed a p-value slightly higher than 0.05 (0.0518). The remaining categories are characterized by a significantly higher p-value than the assumed significance level. It should therefore be considered that there is no basis for rejecting the null hypothesis, which means that no statistically significant differences were detected.
Figure 3 presents bar charts illustrating the number of document types published across two distinct timeframes: 2015–2019 and 2020–2024. This division was strategically chosen to highlight potential shifts in publication trends within the most recent decade of research on noise annoyance in physical sciences, allowing for an examination of the evolution of knowledge dissemination in this field. Regardless of the specific five-year period, journal articles consistently constituted the largest proportion of the analyzed publications, totaling 73 across both periods (65.18% of all analyzed works). Conference papers formed the second largest category with 30 publications (26.79% of the total). Book chapters represented the smallest group, with nine publications overall (8.04%). Notably, this general distribution pattern remained consistent across both analyzed timeframes. The most significant change was observed in the book chapter category, which saw eight publications in the 2015–2019 period but only one in 2020–2024. This trend warrants further investigation in the Discussion section. In this context, the limitation of the article should be noted. Conference materials are usually not peer-reviewed, which weakens their scientific value. The distribution of document types across these periods is visually represented in Figure 3.
Based on Figure 4, it should be stated that, taking into account the subject area, the largest percentage of publications was recorded in Environmental Science—68 (60.71% of the total), Engineering—48 (42.86%), Energy—15 (13.39%), Earth and Planetary Sciences –9 (8.04%). At the same time, a decrease in interest in the discussed topics was noted in almost all of the selected categories. In Environmental Science, it was a decrease by two positions (5.71% compared to 2015–2019), Energy—one position (1.25% compared to 2015–2019), Earth and Planetary Sciences—three positions (50% compared to 2015–2019). An increase was noted only in the scope of publications concerning Engineering, i.e., 12 (66.67% compared to 2015–2019). The discussed results are presented in Figure 4.
A similar trend, a decrease in interest in the selected categories, was noted in the Noise Source category as well. Comparing the number of all publications published in 2015–2019 to the number of publications published in 2020–2024, a decrease was noted from 86 publications to 83 (by 3.49% compared to 2015–2019). The analysis of the texts showed a decrease in the number of publications in the area of Road Transport from 32 to 25 publications (by 21.86% compared to 2015–2019) and Renewable Energy from 10 to 6 (i.e., by 40% compared to 2015–2019). In other areas, an increase in the number of publications was noted: Air Transport by four (i.e., by 23.53% compared to 2015–2019), Rail Transport by one (16.67% compared to 2015–2019) Urban Noise by three (i.e., by 14.29% compared to 2015–2019). Taking into account the number of publications in individual areas, the most publications were recorded in Road Transport, i.e., 57 (50.89% of all publications in 2015–2024), Urban Noise—45 (40.18%), Air Transport—38 (33.93%), Renewable Energy—16 (14.29%), Rail Transport—13 (11.61%). Sound pressure measurements at various distances from the sound source have been reported in the literature [27], as well as reported public assessments on noise nuisance depending on the degree of exposure to the sound source [41]. It would be important to carry out experimental studies on the perceptibility of sounds with changes in their frequency and distance from the generator. Taking into account the range of possible types of sound generation by the indicated sources, it would be possible to determine the extent of their potential harmfulness. For example, by taking into account the degree of noise emissions generated by helicopter rotors and the range of harmful sound levels, the deployment of potential urban air transport can be planned [114]. The same problem should also be taken into account when planning traffic, railroads, or the deployment of wind turbines. The discussed results are presented in Figure 5.
Considering the methodology of text preparation, it should be noted that the largest percentage of the examined publications was based on an experiment—73 (65.18% of all publications in the years 2015–2024). The second largest group of publications were articles based on a conceptual method, i.e., 68 (60.71%). Many publications used a survey—49 (43.75%), literature analysis—25 (22.32%), and case study—16 (14.29%). The discussed results are presented in Figure 6.
From a cognitive point of view, the distribution of publications by individual author affiliations is also interesting. The statistical significance of changes in the distribution of publications in the 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 intervals was also checked. It was assumed that when p-values are significantly lower than 0.05, the zero hypothesis can be rejected, which means that there are statistically significant differences between the distribution of the analyzed categories in the years 2015–2019 and 2020–2024, while in the opposite case, when p-values are significantly higher than the assumed significance level, there is no basis for rejecting the zero hypothesis, which means that no statistically significant differences were detected. The results indicate a lack of statistically significant premises for rejecting the null hypothesis. The discussed results are presented in Table 2.
If a country appeared in no more than one publication, it was classified to the Other area, which occurred in 33 cases (29.46% of all publications). The largest representation in the examined articles was held by Germany—17 (15.18% of all publications), Switzerland—11 (9.82%), and France—10 (8.93%). The remaining affiliations concerned Great Britain—nine (8.04%), Spain—eight (7.14%), United States, United States, China, Italy—seven each (6.25% each), Netherlands, India, Malaysia—six each (5.36% each), and Poland—five (4.46%). The discussed results are presented in Figure 7.
Considering the above-mentioned results of the analysis (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7), some additional relationships can be observed. In the designated time intervals (2015–2019 and 2020–2024), the same number of publications were listed (56 in each), which initially might suggest a constant level of interest in the issue. However, a closer look at the yearly distribution reveals a more dynamic trend in publication output. Specifically, the number of documents fluctuated across the years: 2015 saw 6 publications, followed by a gradual increase to 11 in 2016 and 9 in 2017. A notable rise occurred in 2018 with 14 publications, peaking at 16 in 2019. The subsequent period (2020–2024) began with 7 publications in 2020, followed by a decrease to 6 in 2021, and then a steady increase to 16 in both 2022 and 2023, before slightly decreasing to 13 in 2024.
Despite the equal total number of publications in both five-year periods, changes in the distribution of interests in individual topics related to noise can be observed. There was a clear increase in interest in the engineering area (an increase of 66.67% compared to the years 2015–2019), which may be related to the increase in the frequency of using the experimental method (an increase of 28.12% compared to the period 2015–2019) and an increase in the percentage of scientific articles (an increase of 14.71% compared to the period 2015–2019). The experiment is naturally related to technical sciences, which may also be related to the increased number of affiliations of authors from China in the period 2020–2024 (an increase of 150% compared to 2015–2019), who are leaders in this field of technical science. In view of these observations, it was considered interesting to also statistically check the cross-correlations between the designated categories. For this purpose, cross-analysis was conducted, the results of which are presented below in Table 3 and Figure 8 and Figure 9.
By comparing the subject area with the noise source, it was determined that after checking the chi-square coefficient value, the p-value of 0.99 was determined, which is a significantly higher value than the assumed level of significance. It should therefore be considered that there is no basis for rejecting the null hypothesis, which means that no statistically significant differences were detected. The largest number of publications were located in Environmental Science and concerned Road Transport. i.e., 45 (40.17% of all) and Urban Noise—31 (27.69%), as well as Air Transport—18 (16.07%) and Rail Transport—11 (9.82%) and Renewable Energy—10 (8.93%). The second area in terms of the number of publications was Engineering, where publications concerned Air Transport—23 (20.53%), Urban Noise—15 (13.39%), Road Transport—12 (10.71%), Renewable Energy—5 (4.46%), and Rail Transport—3 (2.68%). The results clearly indicate that the dominant subject of Environmental Science is environmental noise, the source of which is transport and city sounds. In turn, engineering concerns the problems of aircraft noise. The remaining subject areas are exploited to a much lower extent. Publications from the Energy category are located mainly in Renewable Energy—6 (5.35%), which is an expected result (due to the convergence of topics). Air Transport and Road Transport were discussed in five publications each (4.46% each), and Urban noise in three (2.68%). In the Energy category, there were no publications from the scope of Rail Transport. Similarly, zero publications appeared in the Earth and Planetary Sciences category in the areas of Rail Transport and Renewable Energy. Urban Noise and Road Transport were discussed in five publications each (4.46% each). In contrast, Air Transport was discussed in only one publication (0.89%). In addition to stating the lack of interest in the indicated areas, research gaps in the field of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Energy and noise sources were revealed in this way. They constitute a potential place for future research. A detailed summary of the results is included in Figure 8.
Comparing the methodology with the noise source, it was determined that after checking the chi-square coefficient value, the p-value of 0.719 was determined, which is a significantly higher value than the assumed level of significance. It should therefore be considered that there is no basis for rejecting the null hypothesis, which means that no statistically significant differences were detected. The largest number of publications used an experiment in the research on Road Transport, i.e., 34 (30.36% of all publications). Slightly fewer publications were recorded in Road Transport, which were of a conceptual nature—32 (28.57%) or were based on a survey—32 (28.57%). A slightly lower frequency of using an experiment was also recorded in the research on Urban Noise—29 (25.89%) and Air Transport—28 (25%). The use of the conceptual method was similarly distributed in 31 publications in the field of Air Transport (27.68%) and Urban Noise—23 (20.54%), as well as a survey in the category of Urban Noise—25 (22.32%). The case study was used the least often, 16 times (14.29%), including in the scope of Renewable Energy—three (2.68%), Air Transport—7 (6.25%), Rail Transport—4 (3.57%), Road Transport—10 (8.93%), and Urban Noise—7 (6.25%). The literature analysis was used slightly more often, 25 times (22.32%), including Renewable Energy—5 (4.46%), Air Transport—9 (8.03%), Rail Transport—5 (4.46%), Road Transport—14 (12.5%), and Urban Noise—10 (8.93%). Based on the presented results, it should be concluded that the experiment is the most widely used method in research on Road Transport, Urban Noise, and Air Transport. This may be due to the possibility of testing solutions in safe and controlled conditions, which is not provided by real circumstances. This is a conclusion that corresponds to the results regarding the survey. This is a method that also does not expose the researcher. It is less common in the Air Transport category, probably due to less access (less common phenomenon) to people involved in this area. The lesser use of case studies may be related to the difficulty of reaching the cases studied.

4. Discussion

Taking into account the results of the analyses presented above, it should first be noted that there are no statistically significant differences in the distribution of publications between the periods 2015–2019 and 2020–2024. Despite quantitative variations, the calculation of the chi-square coefficient clearly indicated a lack of such relationships.
It is also worth noting that, regardless of the time period, the largest proportion of the analyzed publications were scientific articles published in journals, accounting for 65.18% of all works examined. This may be related to the faster publication process offered by scientific journals—such as through special issues—which is particularly important given the time-sensitivity (e.g., potential obsolescence) of research findings, especially in the context of experimental methods and survey-based studies. A similar explanation would apply to the decline in the publication of chapters in books (Figure 3). A total of 90% of them were theoretical (10% were survey-based articles). As the interest in experimentation and practical research increases, the interest in conceptual works drops down. This is a natural trend of research, where theoretical preparation precedes practical research.
The necessity of relatively quick publication may also explain the full convergence of the percentage of publications using the experimental method (65.18%) with the number of scientific articles (65.18%), especially since the experimental method was used in a wide range of topics of the analyzed publications. The most works used an experiment in research on Road Transport with 30.36% of all publications. They concerned both the inconvenience of road noise [20] and the direct impact on people’s health [65]. This shows the possibilities of a wide application of the indicated research method. It served both as a tool for drawing theoretical conclusions [17], as well as studying perception [67], or modeling aircraft engineering [110]. Therefore, it is not related to the specificity of any research category or subcategory.
It is also worth noting that the number of publications in the engineering area increased by 66.67% compared to the years 2015–2019 while the other categories decreased (Figure 4). The recorded increase can be connected to an increase in the use of the experimental method and a decrease in the conceptual method. Engineering, as an applied science, naturally uses the tools of experimental methods. Additionally, an experiment was considered as an issue in articles in which researchers independently measured noise. Measurements are most often made as part of engineering. Additionally, the largest number of publications was recorded in Road Transport—57 (50.89% of all publications in the years 2015–2024), Urban Noise—45 (40.18%), and Air Transport—38 (33.93%). Considering that engineering mainly concerns Air Transport (47.91% of publications in this category) and Urban Noise (31.25% of this category), the findings may indicate the current demand for articles from the engineering area, primarily in the field of Road Transport. This conclusion corresponds to the finding of a high level of saturation of the Environmental Science category indicated by the topics Road Transport—45 (40.17% of all) and Urban Noise—31 (27.69%). It therefore seems that the revealed trend indicates the potential development of engineering in the Road Transport area.
In the Energy category, there were no publications in the scope of Rail Transport. Similarly, zero publications appeared in the Earth and Planetary Sciences category in the areas of Rail Transport and Renewable Energy. This again highlights research gaps in these specific areas, particularly related to noise generated by Rail Transport. This is notable, especially considering that the primary research focus within Rail Transport has been on noise nuisance and vibrations affecting pedestrians [25,82].
It should also be noted that the content review revealed interesting, detailed research problems. From the point of view of each scientific discipline, it should be important to distinguish sound from noise. This was pointed out by Casali [14]. Noise should be defined as unwanted sound, which is why it often has a contextual character [54,55,56,57].
However, it is worth noting that research on sound should not be limited solely to socio-cultural contexts. From an engineering standpoint, the context refers to conditions that may influence design outcomes. A useful example is research on sonic fire extinguishers, where noise represents disruption in the generated sound wave. In this sense, sound pollution may not necessarily be a significant social phenomenon (i.e., perceptible to humans), but it remains highly relevant in experimental settings. It is interesting that, in the era of technological development, acoustic waves can be used in a desirable way to extinguish flames [126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133]. For flame detection, artificial intelligence systems and video cameras are commonly used as smart sensors [134,135,136,137,138]. Wireless communication can be used to transmit data [139]. The use of acoustic cameras in monitoring the complex harbor sounds can be noted here as well as an example of a broader, wider scope of conducting research [140].
A detailed literature review revealed a great research interest in psychological and physiological problems [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]. This topic was taken up in 58.03% of the analyzed publications. The dominant group of works in this field concerned the following sensations: comfort, nuisance, and irritation [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Taking into account that the literature review revealed works on human behavior [84,85,86,87,88], it should be concluded that researchers take an anthropocentric approach, especially since works on urban planning, modeling, and machine designing account for 32.17% of publications [89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125].

5. Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to describe the current state of research and to identify trends and potential research gaps. As a conclusion, it is worth it to point out the main shortcomings, trends, and recommendations for potential research. The issues of contextual research on sound and the (most underdeveloped) problem of research on noise sources from renewable energy sources were considered the most interesting areas of recommendation. Current research shows the dependence of noise perception on context, but it is suggested to deepen research on this topic, especially in the direction of developing a common measurement definition, which would be important especially for research on the harmfulness of sounds that are inaudible to humans, thus independent of conscious perception. Contextual studies, on the other hand, recommend conducting research on changes in noise perception depending on the changing context, taking into account additional contextual and extra-contextual factors (e.g., environmental, social, technological). Also, an important trend was observed in publications from the energy field. Previous research has focused mainly on wind turbines as sources of noise. It is worth expanding the area of interest to include other renewable energy technologies, such as photovoltaic panels, hydroelectric systems, and geothermal energy, which can also be considered a form of sound pollution, especially in the context of inaudible sounds.
As for the specific findings, the shortcomings of the literature include the following:
  • No publication was noted in the Energy category and in the Rail Transport subcategory. Likewise, no publication was noted in the Earth and Planetary Sciences category in the areas of Rail Transport and Renewable Energy. Thus, Rail Transport in Energy and Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Renewable Energy in Earth and Planetary Sciences should be considered as potential research areas that need to be completed.
  • A review of the literature revealed the following sources of sound: Renewable Energy, Air Transport, Rail Transport, Road Transport, and Urban Noise. However, it should be noted that these are not the only possible sources generating sound waves that can be treated as pollution. The listed noise sources appear to generate most of the disturbance; however, it is advisable to undertake research on sources not included in the list.
  • It is advisable to expand the contextual definition of noise. Context determines which sounds will be considered undesirable. In particular, sound engineering issues indicate that noise should be equated with a disturbance relevant to the measurement result, but not subjective human perception. No publications of this type have been reported.
Despite the lack of demonstration in the chi-square statistical analysis of significant differences within the selected categories between the periods 2015–2019 and 2020–2024, it is worth noting trends that require further analysis:
  • Trends were observed in the distribution of interest in individual research topics. There was a marked increase in interest in the areas of Engineering (66.67% increase), Air Transport (19.04% increase), an increase in the frequency of use of the experimental method (28.12% increase) and an increase in the percentage of scientific articles (14.71% increase), and an increased number of affiliations of authors from China during the period (150% increase relative to 2015–2019).
  • The largest in the distribution of interest in individual research topics was noted in Earth and Planetary Sciences (decrease of 50%) Road Transport (21.87%), a decrease in interest in conceptual papers (decrease of 16.21%), and a reduced number of affiliations of authors from Germany (decrease of 45.45%).
The recommendations that result from the research relate to both the problems noted and potential issues to be investigated.
  • In the field of the contextual perception of noise, it would be recommended to conduct research on changes in noise perception by using contextual changes. The noted studies indicate a contextual dependence of perception, but it seems that further research in that field may reveal additional contextual and extra-contextual factors shaping sound perception.
  • In terms of renewable sources as sound-generating factors, wind turbines were the dominant issue. Taking into account the development of renewable energy technologies, including photovoltaic panels, hydrogenic energy, or geothermal energy, it is worth investigating the spectra of ultrasound and infrasound generated by the associated equipment.
  • It is recommended to develop research on noise annoyance by modeling and simulation. A review of the literature notes a relatively small percentage of such studies. Due to the safe (conducted under controlled conditions) nature of this type of research, it allows for non-invasive testing of hypotheses.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.W.-J., R.H. and J.L.W.-J.; methodology, G.W.-J., R.H. and J.L.W.-J.; software, L.P.; validation, L.P.; formal analysis, G.W.-J.; investigation, L.P.; resources, L.P.; data curation, L.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L.W.-J. and L.P.; final writing—review and editing, R.H., G.W.-J. and J.L.W.-J.; visualization, L.P.; supervision, J.L.W.-J., G.W.-J. and R.H.; project administration, J.L.W.-J., G.W.-J. and R.H.; funding acquisition, J.L.W.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chen, Y.; Huang, L.; Gou, T. Applications and Advances of Artificial Intelligence in Music Generation: A Review. 2024. Available online: https://arxiv.org/html/2409.03715v1 (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  2. Stanovská, M.; Tomášková, H.; Šlachtová, H.; Potužníková, D.; Argalášová, L. Health Impact of Environmental and Industrial Noise—A Narrative Review. Med. Pr. Work. Health Saf. 2024, 75, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. The Health Effects of Transport Noise and Implications for Future Health Risk Assessments (Signal). Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/european-zero-pollution-dashboards/indicators/the-health-effects-of-transport-noise-and-implications-for-future-health-risk-assessments-signal (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  4. Gong, X.; Fenech, B.; Blackmore, C.; Chen, Y.; Rodgers, G.; Gulliver, J.; Hansell, A.L. Association between Noise Annoyance and Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rubino, C.; Liuzzi, S.; Fusaro, G.; Martellotta, F.; Scrosati, C.; Garai, M. Balancing ventilation and sound insulation in windows by means of metamaterials: A review of the state of the art. Build. Environ. 2025, 275, 112780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. How EVs Are Transforming Urban Soundscapes|GEODIS. Available online: https://geodis.com/blog/sustainable-logistics-and-decarbonation/how-evs-are-transforming-urban-soundscapes (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  7. Fusaro, G.; Barbaresi, L.; Guidorzi, P.; Garai, M. Investigation of the sound insulation and natural ventilation performance of a metamaterial-based open window. Build. Environ. 2024, 266, 112140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fusaro, G.; Garai, M. Acoustic Requalification of an Urban Evolving Site and Design of a Noise Barrier: A Case Study at the Bologna Engineering School. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Al-Asmar, A.M. Assessment of Noise Pollution and Specific Mitigation Measures to Reduce It in Educational Settings and Its Impact on Students’ Academic Performance: A Review. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2025, 25, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ayu, S.K. A Global Bibliometric Analysis of Hearing Loss in Ship’s Crew (2015–2024): Trends and Challenges. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 2025, 23, 5384–5389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Harabin, R.; Ivanov, S. Robotics in Crisis Management: A Review. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ivanov, S.; Gretzel, U.; Berezina, K.; Sigala, M.; Webster, C. Progress on robotics in hospitality and tourism: A review of the literature. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2019, 10, 489–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Casali, J.G. Sound and Noise: Measurement and Design Guidance. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 459–493. [Google Scholar]
  15. Luz, G.A. Noise Management: International Regulations. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 673–682. [Google Scholar]
  16. Can, A. Noise Pollution Indicators. In Environmental Indicators; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 509–513. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wszołek, T.; Mleczko, D.; Pawlik, P.; Kłaczyński, M.; Małecki, P.; Stępień, B. Experimental Verification of the Usefulness of Selected Infrasound and Low-Frequency Noise (ILFN) Indicators in Assessing the Noise Annoyance of Wind Turbines. Vib. Phys. Syst. 2022, 33, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aladdin, M.F.; Jalil, N.A.A.; Guan, N.Y.; Rezali, K.A.M.; Adam, S.A. Evaluation of Human Discomfort from Combined Noise and Whole-Body Vibration in Passenger Vehicle. Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng. 2019, 16, 6808–6824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brink, M.; Schäffer, B.; Vienneau, D.; Foraster, M.; Pieren, R.; Eze, I.C.; Cajochen, C.; Probst-Hensch, N.; Röösli, M.; Wunderli, J.-M. A Survey on Exposure-Response Relationships for Road, Rail, and Aircraft Noise Annoyance: Differences between Continuous and Intermittent Noise. Environ. Int. 2019, 125, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Paiva, K.M.; Cardoso, M.R.A.; Zannin, P.H.T. Exposure to Road Traffic Noise: Annoyance, Perception and Associated Factors among Brazil’s Adult Population. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 978–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gille, L.-A.; Marquis-Favre, C.; Morel, J. Testing of the European Union Exposure-Response Relationships and Annoyance Equivalents Model for Annoyance Due to Transportation Noises: The Need of Revised Exposure-Response Relationships and Annoyance Equivalents Model. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Radun, J.; Maula, H.; Saarinen, P.; Keränen, J.; Alakoivu, R.; Hongisto, V. Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise and Road Traffic Noise on People Living near Wind Turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zou, C.; Li, Q.; Luo, Y. Assessment of Ventilation Noise Impact from Metro Depot with Over-Track Platform Structure on Workers and Nearby Inhabitants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 9203–9218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cerletti, P.; Eze, I.C.; Schaffner, E.; Foraster, M.; Viennau, D.; Cajochen, C.; Wunderli, J.-M.; Röösli, M.; Stolz, D.; Pons, M.; et al. The Independent Association of Source-Specific Transportation Noise Exposure, Noise Annoyance and Noise Sensitivity with Health-Related Quality of Life. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, X.; Hu, Z.; Zou, C. Noise Annoyance and Vibration Perception Assessment on Passengers during Train Operation in Guangzhou Metro. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 4246–4259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tiwari, S.K.; Kumaraswamidhas, L.A.; Kamal, M.; Rehman, M. A Hybrid Deep Leaning Model for Prediction and Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Noise Annoyance. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 49666–49684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Al-Harthy, I.; Amoatey, P.; Al-Mamun, A.; Alabri, Z.; Baawain, M.S. Assessment of Noise Levels and Induced Annoyance in Nearby Residential Areas of an Airport Region in Oman. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 45596–45608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Darus, N.; Haron, Z.; Yahya, K.; Abd Halil, M.H.; Norudin, W.M.A.; Othman, M.H.; Hezmi, M.A. Impulsivity of Noise Due to Single Lightweight Vehicles Transit on Transverse Rumble Strip. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil & Environmental Engineering (CENVIRON 2017), Penang, Malaysia, 28–29 November 2017; Volume 34. [Google Scholar]
  29. Waye, K.P. Effects of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations: Environmental and Occupational Perspectives. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 264–277. [Google Scholar]
  30. Panulinova, E.; Harabinova, S. Noise annoyance from tram traffic in the urban environment. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2022, 18, 688–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Paszkowski, W. Advanced Methods of Acoustic Signal Analysis in Assessing Noise Annoyance in an Urbanized Environment. SGEM 2018, 18, 481–488. [Google Scholar]
  32. Radosz, J. Psychoacoustic Metrics in the Psychological Diagnosis of Noise Annoyance. Vib. Phys. Syst. 2023, 34, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yadav, A.; Mukherjee, A.K.; Roy, S.K.; Das, S. Assessment of Noise Levels at Renovation Site, Eastern India. Indian J. Environ. Prot. 2016, 36, 124–130. [Google Scholar]
  34. Purwanto, B. Potential Noise Annoyance from Ambient Air Quality Measurement Using High Volume Air Sampler (HVAS). In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 21 September 2021; Volume 909. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zaiton, H.; Khairulzan, Y.; Nadirah, D.; Nordiana, M.; Muhammad Azril, H.; Rosiah, A.S.; Abdul Mutalif, A.H.; Wan Mohammad Asyraf, N.; Muhammad Habab, A.H.; Zanariah, J.; et al. Noise Annoyance Produced by Commercial Vehicles Transit on Rumble Strips. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 34, 02023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Maula, H.; Hongisto, V.; Saarinen, P. Noise Annoyance from Road Traffic in Finland. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the International Society of Indoor Air Quality & Climate (ISIAQ), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 22–27 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yadav, A.; Parida, M.; Choudhary, P.; Kumar, B. Analysis of Traffic Noise Annoyance at Intersections in Mid-Sized Indian Cities; Springer: Singapore, 2024; Volume 551 LNCE, pp. 473–484. [Google Scholar]
  38. Siwapathomchai, N.; Aimyong, N.; Patthanaissaranukool, W.; Sihabut, T. Factors Affecting Traffic Noise and Annoyance from Different Types of Roads: A Case Study in Nakorn Pathom Province, Thailand. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2023, 21, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rey Gozalo, G.; Barrigón Morillas, J.M.; Montes González, D.; Atanasio Moraga, P. Relationships among Satisfaction, Noise Perception, and Use of Urban Green Spaces. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schäffer, B.; Brink, M.; Schlatter, F.; Vienneau, D.; Wunderli, J.M. Residential Green Is Associated with Reduced Annoyance to Road Traffic and Railway Noise but Increased Annoyance to Aircraft Noise Exposure. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dzhambov, A.M. More Residential Greenspace Is Associated with Lower Noise Annoyance: Results from a Quantitative Synthesis of the Literature. In Traffic Noise: Exposure, Health Effects and Mitigation; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 77–104. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nadri, F.; Mousavifard, Z.; Mohseni, S.M.S.; Nadri, H.; Tardideh, E. Investigation of Noise Annoyance and Audiometric Results of Tehran Subway Workers and Their Relation to Noise Exposure. J. Air Pollut. Health 2023, 8, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Klatte, M.; Spilski, J.; Mayerl, J.; Möhler, U.; Lachmann, T.; Bergström, K. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Reading and Quality of Life in Primary School Children in Germany: Results From the NORAH Study. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 390–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brink, M.; Mathieu, S.; Rüttener, S. Lowering Urban Speed Limits to 30 Km/h Reduces Noise Annoyance and Shifts Exposure–Response Relationships: Evidence from a Field Study in Zurich. Environ. Int. 2022, 170, 107651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Amoatey, P.; Al-Harthy, I.; Al-Mushaifari, M.A.; Al-Jabri, K.; Al-Mamun, A. Effect of Ambient Noise on Indoor Environments in a Health Care Facility in Oman. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 15081–15097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Argalasova, L.; Mihalcik, L.; Pultznerova, A.; Simonovic, J.; Matejakova, L.; Samohyl, M.; Hirosova, K.; Babjakova, J.; Jurkovicova, J. Noise annoyance and sleep disturbance in new buildings in bratislava. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2022, 18, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Argalasova, L.; Kimakova, T.; Panulinova, E.; Filova, A.; Pultznerova, A.; Jurkovicova, J. Sleep Disturbance and Noise Annoyance and Environmental Noise Exposure in Residents of Two Major Slovakian Cities. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2021, 17, 690–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gasco, L.; Clavel, C.; Asensio, C.; de Arcas, G. Beyond Sound Level Monitoring: Exploitation of Social Media to Gather Citizens Subjective Response to Noise. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 658, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Amoatey, P.; Al-Harthy, I.; Al-Jabri, K.; Al-Mamun, A.; Baawain, M.S.; Al-Mayahi, A. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Aircraft Noise Levels, Annoyance, and Health Effects in an Urban Area in Oman. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 23407–23418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abdul Mutalib, N.H.; Mashros, N.; Aminudin, E.; Zakaria, R.; Haron, Z.; Abd Talib, M.H.; Abdul Hamid, A.R. Disturbance of Traffic Noise: Evaluation on the Effects and Management on Road Corridors. In IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science; IOP: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 143. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sahai, A.K.; Snellen, M.; Simons, D.G. Objective Quantification of Perceived Differences between Measured and Synthesized Aircraft Sounds. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 72, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pleban, D.; Szczepański, G.; Kapica, Ł.; Alikowski, A.; Łada, K.; Włudarczyk, A. Subjective Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise Annoyance—Tests in Laboratory Conditions. Vib. Phys. Syst. 2023, 34, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barros, A.; Kampen, J.K.; Vuye, C. Noise Barriers as a Mitigation Measure for Highway Traffic Noise: Empirical Evidence from Three Study Cases. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 367, 121963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oiamo, T.H.; Baxter, J.; Grgicak-Mannion, A.; Xu, X.; Luginaah, I.N. Place Effects on Noise Annoyance: Cumulative Exposures, Odour Annoyance and Noise Sensitivity as Mediators of Environmental Context. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 116, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Klæboe, R. Noise and Health: Annoyance and Interference. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 661–672. [Google Scholar]
  56. Benocci, R.; Muchetti, S.S.; Salvi, D.; Angelini, F.; Brambilla, G.; Zambon, G. Spatial Analysis and Temporal Trend of Registered Noise Complaints in the City of Milan, Italy. Int. J. Mech. 2020, 14, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aalmoes, R.; De Bruijn, B.; Sieben, N. The Influence of Contextual Non-Auditory Factors on Drone Sound Perception. In Proceedings of the Noise and Vibration Conference & Exhibition, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 15–18 May 2023. [Google Scholar]
  58. Stansfeld, S.; Clark, C. Mental Health Effects of Noise. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 287–294. [Google Scholar]
  59. Okokon, E.O.; Yli-Tuomi, T.; Turunen, A.W.; Tiittanen, P.; Juutilainen, J.; Lanki, T. Traffic Noise, Noise Annoyance and Psychotropic Medication Use. Environ. Int. 2018, 119, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pohl, J.; Gabriel, J.; Hübner, G. Understanding Stress Effects of Wind Turbine Noise—The Integrated Approach. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hübner, G.; Pohl, J.; Hoen, B.; Firestone, J.; Rand, J.; Elliott, D.; Haac, R. Monitoring Annoyance and Stress Effects of Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents: A Comparison of U.S. and European Samples. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Müller, F.J.Y.; Leschinger, V.; Hübner, G.; Pohl, J. Understanding Subjective and Situational Factors of Wind Turbine Noise Annoyance. Energy Policy 2023, 173, 113361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Azhdari, S.S.; Yunesian, M.; Hassanvand, M.S.; Nodehi, R.N.; Darvishali, S.; Faridi, S.; Shamsipour, M. Associations of Combined Short-Term Exposures to Ambient PM2.5 Air Pollution and Noise Annoyance on Mental Health Disorders: A Panel Study of Healthy College Students in Tehran. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2022, 15, 1497–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Stansfeld, S.A.; Shipley, M. Noise Sensitivity and Future Risk of Illness and Mortality. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 520, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Khomenko, S.; Cirach, M.; Barrera-Gómez, J.; Pereira-Barboza, E.; Iungman, T.; Mueller, N.; Foraster, M.; Tonne, C.; Thondoo, M.; Jephcote, C.; et al. Impact of Road Traffic Noise on Annoyance and Preventable Mortality in European Cities: A Health Impact Assessment. Environ. Int. 2022, 162, 107160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Eze, I.C.; Foraster, M.; Schaffner, E.; Vienneau, D.; Pieren, R.; Imboden, M.; Wunderli, J.-M.; Cajochen, C.; Brink, M.; Röösli, M.; et al. Incidence of Depression in Relation to Transportation Noise Exposure and Noise Annoyance in the SAPALDIA Study. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pieren, R.; Bertsch, L.; Lauper, D.; Schäffer, B. Improving Future Low-Noise Aircraft Technologies Using Experimental Perception-Based Evaluation of Synthetic Flyovers. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 692, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dzhambov, A.; Tilov, B.; Markevych, I.; Dimitrova, D. Residential Road Traffic Noise and General Mental Health in Youth: The Role of Noise Annoyance, Neighborhood Restorative Quality, Physical Activity, and Social Cohesion as Potential Mediators. Environ. Int. 2017, 109, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Fuda, S.; Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Astolfi, A. Sound Perception of Different Materials for the Footpaths of Urban Parks. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Foraster, M.; Eze, I.C.; Vienneau, D.; Brink, M.; Cajochen, C.; Caviezel, S.; Héritier, H.; Schaffner, E.; Schindler, C.; Wanner, M.; et al. Long-Term Transportation Noise Annoyance Is Associated with Subsequent Lower Levels of Physical Activity. Environ. Int. 2016, 91, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Pitchika, A.; Hampel, R.; Wolf, K.; Kraus, U.; Cyrys, J.; Babisch, W.; Peters, A.; Schneider, A. Long-Term Associations of Modeled and Self-Reported Measures of Exposure to Air Pollution and Noise at Residence on Prevalent Hypertension and Blood Pressure. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 593–594, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, P.J.; Park, S.H.; Jeong, J.H.; Choung, T.; Kim, K.Y. Association between Transportation Noise and Blood Pressure in Adults Living in Multi-Storey Residential Buildings. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 105101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lefèvre, M.; Chaumond, A.; Champelovier, P.; Giorgis Allemand, L.; Lambert, J.; Laumon, B.; Evrard, A.-S. Understanding the Relationship between Air Traffic Noise Exposure and Annoyance in Populations Living near Airports in France. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cantuaria, M.L.; Brandt, J.; Løfstrøm, P.; Blanes-Vidal, V. Public Perception of Rural Environmental Quality: Moving towards a Multi-Pollutant Approach. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 170, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xie, H.; Li, H.; Liu, C.; Li, M.; Zou, J. Noise Exposure of Residential Areas along LRT Lines in a Mountainous City. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 1283–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Massonnié, J.; Frasseto, P.; Mareschal, D.; Kirkham, N.Z. Learning in Noisy Classrooms: Children’s Reports of Annoyance and Distraction from Noise Are Associated with Individual Differences in Mind-Wandering and Switching Skills. Environ. Behav. 2022, 54, 58–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Amoatey, P.; Al-Harthy, I.; Amankona, D.; Douban, S.; Izady, A.; Chen, M.; Al-Jabri, K.; Al-Alawi, M. Contribution of Outdoor Noise-Induced Health Risk in Schools Located in Urbanized Arid Country. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 48107–48119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Fredianelli, L.; Carpita, S.; Licitra, G. A Procedure for Deriving Wind Turbine Noise Limits by Taking into Account Annoyance. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 648, 728–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Flanagan, E.; Malmqvist, E.; Oudin, A.; Sunde Persson, K.; Alkan Ohlsson, J.; Mattisson, K. Health Impact Assessment of Road Traffic Noise Exposure Based on Different Densification Scenarios in Malmö, Sweden. Environ. Int. 2023, 174, 107867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Eze, I.C.; Foraster, M.; Schaffner, E.; Vienneau, D.; Héritier, H.; Pieren, R.; Thiesse, L.; Rudzik, F.; Rothe, T.; Pons, M.; et al. Transportation Noise Exposure, Noise Annoyance and Respiratory Health in Adults: A Repeated-Measures Study. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Sun, Z.; Liu, H.; Jiao, Y.; Zhang, C.; Xu, F.; Jiang, C.; Yu, X.; Wu, G. Machine Learning Noise Exposure Detection of Rail Transit Drivers Using Heart Rate Variability. Transp. Saf. Environ. 2024, 6, tdad028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Yu, B.; Wen, L.; Bai, J.; Chai, Y. Effect of Road and Railway Sound on Psychological and Physiological Responses in an Office Environment. Buildings 2022, 12, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Su, K.; Cao, R.; Wang, Q.; Zh, P. Progress of Research on the Effects of Traffic Noise on Human Health. Glob. Nest J. 2023, 25, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gilani, T.A.; Mir, M.S.; Gilani, M.I. A Study on the Impact of Road Traffic Noise Exposure on Work Efficiency of Housewives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 57434–57447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lauper, E.; Moser, S.; Fischer, M.; Matthies, E. Explaining Car Drivers’ Intention to Prevent Road-Traffic Noise: An Application of the Norm Activation Model. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 826–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ki, J.; Yun, S.-J.; Kim, W.-C.; Oh, S.; Ha, J.; Hwangbo, E.; Lee, H.; Shin, S.; Yoon, S.; Youn, H. Local Residents’ Attitudes about Wind Farms and Associated Noise Annoyance in South Korea. Energy Policy 2022, 163, 112847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Frantál, B.; Van Der Horst, D.; Kunc, J.; Jaňurová, M. Landscape Disruption or Just a Lack of Economic Benefits? Exploring Factors behind the Negative Perceptions of Wind Turbines. J. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 15, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rodrigues, R.C. Quiet Areas and Urban Sustainability. Energy Procedia 2018, 153, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Montes González, D.; Barrigón Morillas, J.M.; Rey-Gozalo, G. Effects of Noise on Pedestrians in Urban Environments Where Road Traffic Is the Main Source of Sound. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Vilniškis, T.; Naimušin, A.; Januševičius, T. Investigation and modeling of transport noise dependence on traffic speed and impact on population annoyance. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2022, 30, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Şentop Dümen, A.; Tamer Bayazıt, N. Enforcement of Acoustic Performance Assessment in Residential Buildings and Occupant Satisfaction. Build. Res. Inf. 2020, 48, 866–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bard, D.; Vardaxis, N.-G.; Sondergard, E. Acoustic Comfort Investigation in Residential Timber Buildings in Sweden. J. Sustain. Archit. Civ. Eng. 2019, 24, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wang, C.; Si, Y.; Abdul-Rahman, H.; Wood, L.C. Noise Annoyance and Loudness: Acoustic Performance of Residential Buildings in Tropics. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2015, 36, 680–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lee, J.; Mohamed, H.; Chang, J.D. The Effect of Positions of Vertical Glass Fins Inside a Double Skin Façade Air Cavity as Acoustical Barriers and Ventilation Potentials. Procedia Eng. 2016, 145, 892–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Abouel-Seoud, S.A. Active Control Analysis of Passenger Vehicle Interior Noise Produced from Tyre/Road Interaction. Int. J. Veh. Noise Vib. 2016, 12, 138–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ibarra, D. Noise Attenuation of the Engine Compartment of a Vehicle. Int. J. Veh. Noise Vib. 2017, 13, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Parizet, E.; Robart, R.; Pondrom, P.; Chamard, J.; Baudet, G.; Quinn, D.; Janssens, K.; Haider, M. Additional Efficient Warning Sounds for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. In Energy and Environment; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 501–510. [Google Scholar]
  98. Sahai, A.K.; Snellen, M.; Simons, D.G.; Stumpf, E. Aircraft Design Optimization for Lowering Community Noise Exposure Based on Annoyance Metrics. J. Aircr. 2017, 54, 2257–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pieren, R.; Le Griffon, I.; Bertsch, L.; Heusser, A.; Centracchio, F.; Weintraub, D.; Lavandier, C.; Schäffer, B. Perception-Based Noise Assessment of a Future Blended Wing Body Aircraft Concept Using Synthesized Flyovers in an Acoustic VR Environment—The ARTEM Study. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2024, 144, 108767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pieren, R.; Bertsch, L.; Blinstrub, J.; Schäffer, B.; Wunderli, J.M. Simulation Process for Perception-Based Noise Optimization of Conventional and Novel Aircraft Concepts. In Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 8–12 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
  101. Pereda Albarrán, M.Y.; Schültke, F.; Stumpf, E. Sound Quality Assessment of Over-the-Wing Engine Configurations Applied to Continuous Descent Approaches. In Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 25–29 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  102. Maury, C.; Bravo, T. Focussed Synthesis of a Turbulent Boundary Layer Excitation. In Proceedings of the 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Lyon, France, 30 May–1 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  103. Dieumegard, P.; Guntzer, F.; Caillet, J.; Cafieri, S. A Realistic Rotorcraft Noise Footprint Computation for Low-Noise Trajectory Optimization. In Proceedings of the 78th Vertical Flight Society Annual Forum, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 10–12 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  104. Kolb, A.; Mancini, S.; Rossignol, K.-S.; Ewert, R. Flap Side-Edge Noise Simulation Using Rans-Based Source Modelling. In Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum, Virtual Event, 15–19 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
  105. Oppenheimer, C.H. Tonality Perception Lessons Learned. SAE Int. J. Adv. Curr. Prac. Mobil. 2024, 6, 1000–1007. [Google Scholar]
  106. Modini, S.; Graziani, G.; Bernardini, G.; Gennaretti, M. Analytical Identification of Blade-Vortex Interaction Noise Controller Suited for Miniature Trailing Edge Effectors; American Helicopter Society: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2016; Volume 1, pp. 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  107. Barbosa, F.C. Aircraft Emissions and Noise Review—Technological Paths for Pursuing Sustainability in the Aviation Industry; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  108. Bocanegra, J.A.; Borelli, D.; Gaggero, T.; Rizzuto, E.; Schenone, C. Characterizing Onboard Noise in Ships: Insights from Statistical, Machine Learning and Advanced Noise Index Analyses. Ocean Eng. 2023, 285, 115273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Krishnamurthy, S.; Rizzi, S.A. Auralization of Amplitude Modulated Helicopter Flyover Noise. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 7–11 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
  110. Guntzer, F.; Caillet, J.; Cariou, C.; Pinacho, J.-P.; Dieumegard, P.; León, E.R. A Comprehensive Helicopter Acoustic Modeling Tool Based on Simulation and Experiment. In Proceedings of the Vertical Flight Society 80th Annual Forum & Technology Display, Montreal, QC, Canada, 7–9 May 2024. [Google Scholar]
  111. Monteiro, F.D.N.; Merino-Martínez, R.; Lima Pereira, L.T. Psychoacoustic Evaluation of an Array of Distributed Propellers Under Synchrophasing Operation. In Proceedings of the 30th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (2024), Rome, Italy, 4–7 June 2024. [Google Scholar]
  112. Torija, A.J.; Ramos-Romero, C.; Green, N. Acoustic and Psychoacoustic Characterisation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems as a Function of Vehicle Mass and Flight Procedure. In Proceedings of the 30th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference (2024), Rome, Italy, 4–7 June 2024. [Google Scholar]
  113. Rimjha, M.; Trani, A.; Hotle, S. Urban Air Mobility: Preliminary Noise Analysis of Commuter Operations. In Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, Virtual Event, 2–6 August 2021. [Google Scholar]
  114. Babetto, L.; Götz, J.; Stumpf, E. A Preliminary Acoustic Prediction Approach for Ducted Coaxial Rotors of eVTOL in UAM. In Proceedings of the AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 12–16 June 2023. [Google Scholar]
  115. Bauer, M. Noise Footprint Assessment at a Vertiport for Different Approach and Departure Procedures of a Tilt-Wing Air-Taxi. In Proceedings of the INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, NOISE-CON23, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 15–18 May 2023. [Google Scholar]
  116. Yuan, K.J.; Zachos, D.; Langelaan, J.W.; Greenwood, E.; Brentner, K. Flight Path Planning for Minimization of Total Noise Exposure in Urban Air Mobility Operations. In Proceedings of the AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA, 8–12 January 2024. [Google Scholar]
  117. Darus, N.; Haron, Z.; Bakhori, S.N.M.; Han, L.M.; Jahya, Z.; Hamid, M.F.A. Construction Noise Annoyance among the Public Residents. J. Teknol. 2015, 74, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zarate, D.I.I. The Issue of Road Traffic Noise and a Probable Solution. In Traffic Noise: Exposure, Health Effects and Mitigation; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 207–244. [Google Scholar]
  119. Dasarathy, A.K.; Tamilselvi, M. Sound Levels at Different Zones in Chennai as a Simple Case Study for Attenuation of Noise Pollution. Pollut. Res. 2016, 35, 869–872. [Google Scholar]
  120. Wu, C.; Redonnet, S. Assessing the Noise Annoyances by the Air Traffic around Hong Kong International Airport. In Proceedings of the 30th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Rome, Italy, 4–7 June 2024. [Google Scholar]
  121. Chen, H.; Gupta, G.; Gupta, S.H. An Exhaustive Study of Computer Simulation and Modeling for Active Noise Control. Electrica 2022, 22, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. van der Meijden, B.; Roling, P.; Curran, R. Flexible Runway Use Modeling Using Pairwise RECAT-EU Separation Minima. In Proceedings of the 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 25–29 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  123. Roling, P.C.; Lagerwij, S. Flexible Runway Scheduling with Non-Linear Noise Restrictions Using a Tabu Search Algorithm. In Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation Forum and Ascend 2024, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 29 July–2 August 2024. [Google Scholar]
  124. Paszkowski, W.; Sobiech, M. The Modeling of the Acoustic Condition of Urban Environment Using Noise Annoyance Assessment. Environ. Model. Assess. 2019, 24, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Graziani, S.; Petrosino, F.; Jäschke, J.; Glorioso, A.; Fusaro, R.; Viola, N. Evaluation of Sonic Boom Shock Wave Generation with CFD Methods. Aerospace 2024, 11, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Loboichenko, V.; Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L.; Levterov, A.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Statyvka, Y.; Shevchenko, O. Using the burning of polymer compounds to determine the applicability of the acoustic method in fire extinguishing. Polymers 2024, 16, 3413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Loboichenko, V.; Wilk-Jakubowski, J.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Harabin, R.; Shevchenko, R.; Strelets, V.; Levterov, A.; Soshinskiy, A.; Tregub, N.; Antoshkin, O. The Use of Acoustic Effects for the Prevention and Elimination of Fires as an Element of Modern Environmental Technologies. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2022, 26, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Vovchuk, T.S.; Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L.; Telelim, V.M.; Loboichenko, V.M.; Shevchenko, R.I.; Shevchenko, O.S.; Tregub, N.S. Investigation of the use of the acoustic effect in extinguishing fires of oil and petroleum products. SOCAR Proc. 2021, 2, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L.; Loboichenko, V.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Yılmaz-Atay, H.; Harabin, R.; Ciosmak, J.; Ivanov, S.; Stankov, S. Acoustic Firefighting Method on the Basis of European Research: A Review: Acoustic Firefighting Method. Akustika 2023, 46, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Loboichenko, V.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L.; Ciosmak, J. Application of Low-Frequency Acoustic Waves to Extinguish Flames on the Basis of Selected Experimental Attempts. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 8872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Xiong, C.; Wang, Z.; Huang, X. Acoustic Flame Extinction by the Sound Wave or Speaker-Induced Wind? Fire Saf. J. 2021, 126, 103479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Shi, X.; Tian, Z.; Lu, Y.; Ye, Q. Research Status and Progress of Acoustic Fire Extinguishing Technology. Fire 2025, 8, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Wilk-Jakubowski, J.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Loboichenko, V. Experimental Attempts of Using Modulated and Unmodulated Waves in Low-Frequency Acoustic Wave Flame Extinguishing Technology: A Review of Selected Cases. Stroj. Vestn.-J. Mech. Eng. 2024, 70, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Negi, P.; Pathani, A.; Bhatt, B.C.; Swami, S.; Singh, R.; Gehlot, A.; Thakur, A.K.; Gupta, L.R.; Priyadarshi, N.; Twala, B.; et al. Integration of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Fire and Safety Management. Fire 2024, 7, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L.; Loboichenko, V.; Divizinyuk, M.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G.; Shevchenko, R.; Ivanov, S.; Strelets, V. Acoustic Waves and Their Application in Modern Fire Detection Using Artificial Vision Systems: A Review. Sensors 2025, 25, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ivanov, S.; Stankov, S. The Artificial Intelligence Platform with the Use of DNN to Detect Flames: A Case of Acoustic Extinguisher. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Computing & Optimization 2021, Hua Hin, Thailand, 30–31 December 2021; Volume 371, pp. 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Azarenko, O.; Honcharenko, Y.; Divizinyuk, M.; Mirnenko, V.; Strilets, V.; Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L. The influence of air environment properties on the solution of applied problems of capturing speech information in the open terrain. Soc. Dev. Secur. 2022, 12, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Azarenko, O.; Honcharenko, Y.; Divizinyuk, M.; Mirnenko, V.; Strilets, V.; Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L. Influence of anthropogenic factors on the solution of applied problems of recording language information in the open area. Soc. Dev. Secur. 2022, 12, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wilk-Jakubowski, J. Total Signal Degradation of Polish 26-50 GHz Satellite Systems Due to Rain. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Bocanegra, J.A.; Borelli, D.; Gaggero, T.; Rizzuto, E.; Schenon, C. A novel approach to port noise characterization using an acoustic camera. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 808, 151903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Data acquisition.
Figure 1. Data acquisition.
Applsci 15 06559 g001
Figure 2. Categories of subject area and noise source.
Figure 2. Categories of subject area and noise source.
Applsci 15 06559 g002
Figure 3. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in document type category.
Figure 3. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in document type category.
Applsci 15 06559 g003
Figure 4. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in the subject areas.
Figure 4. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in the subject areas.
Applsci 15 06559 g004
Figure 5. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in the noise source category.
Figure 5. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in the noise source category.
Applsci 15 06559 g005
Figure 6. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in the methodology category.
Figure 6. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in the methodology category.
Applsci 15 06559 g006
Figure 7. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 divided into countries.
Figure 7. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 divided into countries.
Applsci 15 06559 g007
Figure 8. Publications by subject area and noise source categories.
Figure 8. Publications by subject area and noise source categories.
Applsci 15 06559 g008
Figure 9. Publications by methodology and noise source categories.
Figure 9. Publications by methodology and noise source categories.
Applsci 15 06559 g009
Table 1. Quantitative summary of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in all categories.
Table 1. Quantitative summary of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in all categories.
Name2015–20192020–2024All YearsShare [%]Chi-Square
Total5656112100.00.0
Document type
Conference paper14163026.79χ2 = 5.92
(df = 2, p = 0.0518)
Journal article34397365.18
Book chapter8198.04
Noise source
Renewable energy1061614.29χ2 = 0.476
(df = 4, p = 0.975)
Air transport17213833.93
Rail transport671311.61
Road transport32255750.89
Urban noise21244540.18
Subject area
Environmental science35336860.71χ2 = 3.875
(df = 3, p = 0.275)
Engineering18304842.86
Energy871513.39
Earth and planetary sciences6398.04
Research methodology
Experiment32417365.18χ2 = 2.858
(df = 4, p = 0.581)
Survey23264943.75
Literature analysis13122522.32
Case study1061614.29
Conceptual37316860.71
Table 2. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in various countries.
Table 2. Number of publications in 2015–2019 and 2020–2024 in various countries.
Country2015–20192020–2024All YearsShare [%]Chi-Square
All countries5656112100.0χ2 = 16.607
(df = 13, p = 0.218)
Germany1161715.18
Switzerland65119.82
France55108.93
United Kingdom6398.04
Spain4487.14
United States4376.25
China2576.25
Italy3476.25
Netherlands3365.36
India2465.36
Malaysia6065.36
Poland2354.46
Other13203329.46
Table 3. Publications by source of noise and other subcategories.
Table 3. Publications by source of noise and other subcategories.
NameRenewable EnergyAir TransportRail TransportRoad TransportUrban NoiseTotalChi-Square
Total1638135745112χ2
Subject area
Environmental science101811453168χ2 = 3.387
(df = 12, p = 0.99)
Engineering5233121548
Energy6505315
Earth and planetary sciences010559
Research methodology
Experiment7287342973χ2 = 12.352
(df = 16, p = 0.719)
Survey7107322549
Literature analysis595141025
Case study37410716
Conceptual7319322368
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wilk-Jakubowski, J.L.; Harabin, R.; Pawlik, L.; Wilk-Jakubowski, G. Noise Annoyance in Physical Sciences: Perspective 2015–2024. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6559. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126559

AMA Style

Wilk-Jakubowski JL, Harabin R, Pawlik L, Wilk-Jakubowski G. Noise Annoyance in Physical Sciences: Perspective 2015–2024. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(12):6559. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126559

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wilk-Jakubowski, Jacek Lukasz, Radoslaw Harabin, Lukasz Pawlik, and Grzegorz Wilk-Jakubowski. 2025. "Noise Annoyance in Physical Sciences: Perspective 2015–2024" Applied Sciences 15, no. 12: 6559. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126559

APA Style

Wilk-Jakubowski, J. L., Harabin, R., Pawlik, L., & Wilk-Jakubowski, G. (2025). Noise Annoyance in Physical Sciences: Perspective 2015–2024. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6559. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126559

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop