1. Odour annoyance and coping with malodour Authors: Neudorfer Ernst (ernst.neudorfer@univie.ac.at) Cervinka Renate (renate.cervinka@univie.ac.at) Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna Head: Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Groll-Knapp http://www.univie.ac.at/umwelthygiene/ © Neudorfer & Cervinka, 2003 Malodour-specific coping strategies (Cavalini, 1992): 1. I close the window. 2. I don´t hang the laundrey outside. 3. I want to know where the malodour comes from. P 4. I think of ways of solving the malodour problem. 5. I go somewhere else to get a breath of fresh air. P 6. I call the environmental hotline to complain. 7. I try to think of something else. P 8. I complain at the source of the malodour. E 9. I put up with the situation of malodour. P 10. I try to do something to get rid of the malodour. E 11. I think it is okay. 12. I get a bit restless. 13. I talk about it with friends and relatives. 14. I try to look for a diversion. 15. I breathe trough my mouth instead of my nose. E 16. I try to adept to the situation as best I can. P=problemfocused strategy E=emotionfocused stratey References: Cavalini, P. M. (1992). It´s an ill wind that brings no good. Studies on odour annoyance and the dispersion of odorant concentrations from industries. University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Groningen: University Press. Cervinka, R. & Neudorfer, E. (2003). "Hilfe, es stinkt!" Geruchsbelästigung und Kanalsanierung in der Stadt. Umweltpsychologie, 7. Jg., Heft 1, 24-37. Cervinka, R. & Neudorfer, E. (in press). Geruchsemissionen kommunaler Abwässer - technische Sanierung und Reduktion der Belästigungswirkung. KA -Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser, Abfall. Steinheider, B. & Winneke, G. (1993). Industrial odours as environmental stressors: Exposure/annoyance-associations and their modification by coping, age and perceived health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 353-363. VDI (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure) (1997). Wirkung und Bewertung von Gerüchen. Psychometrische Erfassung der Geruchsbelästigung. Fragebogentechnik. VDI-Richtlinie 3883 Blatt 1. Objectives: Analyse, how residents cope with odour annoyance (effects of odour annoyance, coping strategies, differences between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping) Background: Odour emissions from a sewage collector (fig. 1) in Vienna (Austria) caused annoyance reactions of the local residents Beside situational characteristics personal variables - such as coping style - explain part of the variability of odour annoyance (Cavalini, 1992; Steinheider & Winneke, 1993) Method : Coping styles of local residents were investigated in the context of a technical odour mitigation project (Cervinka & Neudorfer, 2003, in press) Psychological assessment of odour annoyance by questionnaire according to VDI (1997) Malodour-specific coping scale: Cavalini, 1992 (fig. 2) Questioning of local residents in five streets along the sewage collector before applying the mitigation measure (street 1 & 2: 1999; street 3, 4 & 5: 2001) Sample: N = 568 households Main results: Participation: N=207 households/359 persons (return rate: 36%) (50,6% females, 49,4% males) Statistically significant correlation between odour annoyance and problem-focused coping (fig.3) problem-focused coping style: 12% of the participants, emotion-focused coping style: 31% (fig. 4) Persons with a problem-focused coping style (fig.5)...... were higher annoyed by odours... scored lower in well-being... reported higher impacts of odours to their well-being and their health... reported more somatic and socio-emotional effects of odour annoyance Fig.4: Coping style: Fig.3: Correlations between odour annoyance and coping: N=272, Pearson-correlation, **p<0,001 Distribution of persons with problem-focused and emotion-focused coping style. Split (low/high) at mean. N=255. Fig.5: Differences between persons with problem- focused coping and emotion-focused coping: P=problem-focused coping, E=emotion-focused coping, misc=miscellaneous; Data-analysis with ANOVA. 5 th Biannual Conference on Environmental Psychology, Eindhoven 2003 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Discussion: Due to the higher sensibility to odours of the problem-focused copers, their more frequent complaint behaviour and their small number within the sample it is recommended for mitigation programs to concentrate on this group. F=28,69 df=2/252 p<0,001 sign.