1. Factors influenced noise annoyance among Malay secondary students in Kota Bharu. Rohaida I, Mohd Hasni J Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, University Kebangsaan Malaysia

2. Noise annoyance Content Introduction Objectives Methodology Result Discussion Conclusion

3. Noise annoyance Introduction Negative emotional reaction towards noise Contributes to other health effects: Physiological Psychological Related to increase stress hormones Can be describe subjectively

4. Noise annoyance Introduction Rapid urbanization process Contributes to noise pollution Children and teenagers Sensitive group High noise exposure at schools (Noorhalieza et al. 2001; Noor Rasfanjani 2005) Need of a research of school environment and health effects (Mendell & Garvin 2003)

5. Noise annoyance Objectives Determine factors influenced prevalence of noise annoyance among secondary students in Kota Bharu.

6. Noise annoyance Methodology Study design: Cross sectional June 2008 to November 2008. Kota Bharu Target population: All form 4 Malay students in government funded schools in the urban area of Kota Bharu. Sampling: A conveniently selected secondary school 264 form 4 students Exclusion: Chronic diseases

7. Noise annoyance Methodology Noise exposure: integrated sound level meter, Model 2238 Bruel & Kjaer Measurement based on DOE guideline A weighted sound pressure level (dBA). Selected location (DOE 2004)

8. Noise annoyance Methodology Pretested questionnaire Modified version Tested questionnaire used in previous study on community in Kuala Lumpur Standard question on noise annoyance. (Mohd Shukri 2006; Öhrström 2004) Noise sensitivity: Weinstein Noise Sensitivity (WNS) scale. (Kishikawa et al 2006; Staples et al 1999)

9. Noise annoyance Results The ambient sound level (LAeq) based on 3 location points.

10. Noise annoyance Sociodemographic characteristics of the study population

11. Noise annoyance Noise annoyance scale

12. Noise annoyance Factors associated with noise annoyance score

13. Noise annoyance Discussion High noise level at schools near busy roads which was above the DOE limits for sensitive areas. (Noorhalieza et al. 2001; Noor Rasfanjani 2005) Community - higher noise level in the community expose to traffic and commercial noise up to 71.1 dB(A) (Mohd Shukri 2006)

14. Noise annoyance Discussion Higher annoyance level among students. reported high noise annoyance occurred in 14-25% population (Belojevic et al 2003; Michaud et al 2005; Niemann & Maschke 2004). No difference of noise annoyance/ health effects between employed parents, low socio economy family or between genders. (Stensfeld et al 2006)

15. Noise annoyance Discussion High perception of control reduced the health effects and there was a positive association between annoyance and perception of control (Michaud 2005) The person who coped would not be annoyed. (Jones and Chapman 1984)

16. Noise annoyance Conclusion Perception of high annoyance based on the score, was high among the secondary school children in Kota Bharu. More studies is needed to address this problem in preventing the health effects of noise annoyance among school children. The findings were beneficial in determining the mitigating and control measures in preventing high noise exposure especially traffic noise Buffer zone Improve present facilities.

17. Noise annoyance Thank you

18. Noise annoyance References Department of the Environment (DOE). 2004. Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control, Noise Labeling and Emission Limits of Outdoor Sources and Vibration Limits and Control. Mohd Shukri Mohd Aris. 2006. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi tahap pengetahuan mengenai pencemaran bunyi dan kesan pendedahannya ke atas kesihatan fisiologi dan psikologi komuniti di Kuala Lumpur. Disertasi Sarjana Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Öhrström, E. 2004. Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road traffic noise: effects on sleep assessed by general questionnaires and 3-day sleep logs, Journal of Sound and Vibration 276 :713–727. Mendell, M.J. & Garvin, A.H. 2003. Do Indoor Environments in Schools Influence Student Performance? A Review of the Literature. Indoor Environments Division of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Noorhalieza, A., Rashid, M. & Harun, A. 2001. Pencemaran bunyi trafik di sekitar kawasan persekolahan. 15th Symposium of Malaysia Chemical Engineering SOMChE. Noor Rasfanjani, A. 2005. Kajian kesan trafik terhadap pencemaran hingar di kawasan sekolah di Skudai, Johor Bahru. Tesis dalam Sarjana Muda Kejuruteraan Awam. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Kishikawa, H., Matsui, T., Uchiyama, I., Miyakawa, M., Hiramatsu, K., Stansfeld, S.A. 2006. The development of Weinstein noise sensitivity scale. Noise & Health 8(33): 154-160. Staples, S.L., Cornelius, R.R. & Gibbs, M.S. 1999. Noise Disturbance from a Developing Airport: Perceived Risk or General Annoyance? Environment and Behavior 31: 692-710. Michaud, D.S., Keith, S.E., McMurchy, D. 2005. Noise in Canada. Noise & Health 7(27): 39-47. Niemann, H. & Maschke, C. 2004. WHO Large Analysis and Review of European housing and health Status (LARES): Noise effects and morbidity. Europe: WHO Publication. Kishikawa, H., Matsui, T., Uchiyama, I., Miyakawa, M., Hiramatsu, K., Stansfeld, S.A. 2006. The development of Weinstein noise sensitivity scale. Noise & Health 8(33): 154-160. Stansfeld, S. A., Berglund, B., Clark, C., Lopez-Barrio, I., Fischer, P., Öhrström, E., Haines, M.M., Head, J., Hygge, S., Kamp, I. & Berry, B.F. 2005. Aircraft and road traffic noise and childrens cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet Jurnal 365: 1942–49.