Evaluation of Noise
pollution in the
schools of Birjand city and
its administrative solutions, in 2011
Sayadi MH, PhD 1, Movafagh A, MSc 2*, Kargar R,
MSc 3, Movafagh Kh, BSc 4
1- Assistant
Prof., Dept. of Environmental
Sciences, Natural Resource and Environment School, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran. 2- Student
of Environments and Energy School,
Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. 3- Student
of Dept. of Civil Engineering, Engineering School, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.4- Teacher
of Department of Education, District 4 of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract Received:
April 2013, Accepted: December 2013
|
Background: Educational
centers have higher standards for controlling noise pollution as it has been
shown that noise pollution is a major cause of discomfort for teachers and
students. Noise pollution reduces concentration, interferes in the
conversation, and leads to dropouts and lower grades especially in
mathematics. The present study aimed to evaluate noise pollution in the
schools of Birjand and its administrative solutions in 2011. Materials and Methods: This study examined the level of
noise pollution in the schools of Birjand city and suggested implementation
to reduce noise pollution. The Casellacel model Cel-450 was used in
accordance with international standards. Through exhaustive field visits and
interviews with school authorities; 12 schools (4 each from primary, middle
and high schools) were randomly selected in the different parts of the city. Results: The results showed
that the schools under study were badly affected by noise pollution, as these
noise levels were higher than the standard levels (35 dB). The maximum noise level during class time
was recorded as 72.3 dB, while the maximum noise level during recess time was
recorded as 87.4 dB. Ineluctably, the schools with high student/class ratio
showed a higher noise pollution level. Conclusion: It can be
concluded that, the schools in different regions of Birjand have problems in
terms of noise pollution. Fortunately, all school authorities were aware of
this issue and with all facilities and special arrangements tried to resolve
the problem. However, the major factors responsible for the noise pollution
were out of their control. |
Key
Words: Schools, Noise pollution, Educational.
Introduction
In
the
age of technology, noise pollution is
recognized as the most common cause
of acquired hearing loss. When the
hearing is hurt, it is not treatable.
Unfortunately, patients become aware
of their disease when
it reaches an acute stage
and is irreversible (1). Many of the damages of bustle and
noise pollutions are the biological stressors, irritations and damages to the
nervous systems and devastating effects on the auditory system and the mind (2,
3). Most people have gradually become accustomed to their surrounding noises.
This may be due to the simple reason that not only noise pollution has
compelled masses to know it as an inherent part of* life but also accustomed them to its discomforts. Ultimately, a
hormonal disorder and consequent hearing loss are hallmarks of its objectives.
Moreover, its after-effects are a patient’s inability to communicate
effectively and efficiently with the surrounding community, thus reducing the
quality of life besides mental and emotional health (4, 5).
School
and classroom noise (scraping sounds from tables and chairs) hinder
concentration of students at schools (6). People’s talking, singing and even
their expressions of short words and crosswords hurt IQ of an individual. It as
well weakens a student’s ability to write, read, understand and solve
mathematical problems and learn vocabularies. So, it is an effective step to
keep the place quiet and calm whenever a student is learning or doing his or
her homework (7).
Bronzaft
and McCarthy (1975) found significant differences in reading scores of primary
school children studying in a quiet classroom as compared to those nestled in
the classroom with high levels of railway noise (8). Optimal acoustics in
classrooms prevents students to clearly listen to the teacher’s speech.
Inevitably, in the classes devoid of carpets, and curtains but consisting
wooden or metal chairs, noise remains for a longer period of time. In addition,
such classes are packed with chattering voices, paper rustles and the collision
of pencils with chairs thus compelling a teacher to speak very loud which is
consequently inappropriate for students. Although when teachers speak loud,
most of the students hear the voice clearly; but under these conditions their
concentrations and abilities are hampered (9, 10).
The
aim of the present study was to examine the level of noise pollution in the
selected schools of Birjand city and subsequently implement efficacious
strategies to reduce noise pollution, which has a significant impact on health
and learning of the students.
Materials
and Methods
This
descriptive study evaluated the level of noise pollution in the selected
schools of Birjand city in 2011. This research examined the efficiency of
students in the selected primary, middle and high schools of Birjand city. In
this study, the Casellacel “sound meter” model Cel-450 was used which is in
accordance with international standards (11). In order to get the permission
from the Department of Education of Birjand city; the necessary information was
collected from primary, middle and high schools. Simultaneously, through field
visits and interviews with school, authorities and considering the geographical
locations, the city was divided into 4 districts. Then, among 177 schools in
Birjand city, 12 schools (4 each from primary, middle and high schools) were
randomly selected. It should be noted that stability was achieved between sex
ratios and the number of schools. The sound meter device was installed in the
school buildings at their entrance halls. Then an analysis was conducted
considering the level of equivalent sound pressure during class time and recess
time. Leq index was used to determine the average noise levels.
Equivalent
Noise Level Leq:
Equivalent
noise level is the average noise level changes in a specified period of time.
This time can be considered a second up to twenty-four hours but in the
instruction set it is 30 minutes. Equivalent noise level is obtained from the
following equation (12).
Where:
T:
Time measured in seconds
P
(t): Sound pressure moment on the square in Newton
P0:
Reference sound pressure, equal to (2 × 10-5) N/m2
Before
each measurement, the accuracy of the sound level meter was ensured and, the
accuracy of the measuring device was calibrated with standard tools. Since many
factors can affect the accuracy of the noise level meter, the calibration of
the device was ensured before each use. Calibration was performed by frequency
and relative levels of 1 KHz and 114 dB respectively (12). The average noise
level was measured and the data were stored in the Microsoft excel software.
The descriptive analysis and regression correlation was calculated using SPSS
software and 95% confidence interval was reported.
Results
Table
1 shows the characteristics of the schools under study. The average number of
students was 327.8 ±94 while the average number of classes was 12.2±2.6. The maximum
and minimum student/class ratio were 32 and 20.5 respectively, with an average
of 26.6±3.4.
Analysis of the equivalent sound pressure level
(LAeq 30 min) during class and recess time in the different school is given in
Table 1. It reveals from the results that all schools under study were badly
affected by noise, as these noise levels were higher when compared with the
standards of the National Building Regulations standard (35 dB). These findings are similar to those reported
in other cities of Iran like, Tehran, Karaj, Ilam (10,13,14).
Table 1: The characteristics of the schools
with level of equivalent sound pressure level
|
LAeq (30min) in
during recess time (dB) |
LAeq (30min) in
during class time (dB) |
ratio
Student/class ratio |
Number of
Classes |
Number of
Students |
School |
|
76.6 |
64.08 |
20.5 |
10 |
205 |
1 |
|
71.67 |
58.8 |
22.3 |
9 |
201 |
2 |
|
84.4 |
72.3 |
29.6 |
14 |
414 |
3 |
|
82.69 |
61.9 |
32.0 |
15 |
480 |
4 |
|
78.88 |
63.8 |
30.5 |
12 |
366 |
5 |
|
81.25 |
61.8 |
24.5 |
14 |
343 |
6 |
|
79.9 |
68.8 |
25.0 |
8 |
200 |
7 |
|
74.6 |
62.3 |
26.8 |
15 |
402 |
8 |
|
79.3 |
65.6 |
27.8 |
9 |
250 |
9 |
|
79.8 |
65.5 |
27.0 |
12 |
324 |
10 |
|
87.4 |
70.7 |
28.6 |
14 |
401 |
11 |
|
85.1 |
68.9 |
24.9 |
14 |
348 |
12 |
|
80.1 |
65.4 |
26.6 |
12.2 |
327.8 |
Mean |
|
4.5 |
4.1 |
3.4 |
2.6 |
94.0 |
SD |
|
87.4 |
72.3 |
32.0 |
15 |
480 |
Max |
|
71.7 |
58.8 |
20.5 |
8 |
200 |
Min |
Discussion
The monitoring of the schools
showed that the maximum noise level during class time was recorded in school
number 3, while the maximum noise level during recess time was recorded in
school number 11. The result showed that the schools with high student/class
ratio had approximately high noise pollution level. It is interesting to note
that school number 2 had lowest noise level during class and recess time which
is far away from out-of-school noise pollution resources. In
general, the noise pollution level during recess time was higher than class
time (Table 1).
Similarly, the higher noise level
recorded in the hallways during recess time has been reported by many
researchers worldwide (15, 16).
Figure1. The correlation of LAeq (30min) dB during class and
recess time with student/class ratio
Figure
1 examined the relations between noise exposure at school and student/class
ratio and it clearly showed that there is no significant relationship (R2=0.064)
between LAeq (30min) during class time and student/class ratio, whereas it
considerably showed a more significant relationship (R2=0.24) during
recess time. Therefore, it can be suggested that the main sources of noise
pollution in schools are out-of-school sources such as traffic pollution,
commercial and residential centers besides
school resources like teachers and students’ voices in addition to the
voices of entertainments and sports. Acoustical properties of structural walls,
windows, doors, floors, schools and their internal coverage can appreciably
affect the noise pollution level (10). It is important to mentione here that
school floors were covered with mosaic and stone. Surprisingly, the 20 schools
in Saudi Arabia studied for noise level pollution exhibited an Laeq between
60-89.2 dB(16). Undoubtedly, the noise levels of schools near streets and
crowded urban areas were higher. It can be suggested here that the type of
window and acoustical properties of structural walls, and doors in addition to
school building acoustics are responsible for noise pollution (10).
Figure 2 Average noise pollution level in Teaching hours and
threshold level of WHO
As
shown in Figure 2 the noise pollution level in all the schools were above the
threshold limit values (65 dB) as suggested by the World Health Organization
(1997) to prevent interference with speech and sound effects (17).
As
far as the higher noise pollution levels in relation to threshold limits are
concerned, it can be safely mentioned that the students in the selected Birjand
city schools suffer from noise pollution which in turn affects their reading
comprehension and concentrations in the classrooms. The reading comprehension
could be referred as children’s reading ability skills, for example attention,
episodic memory and working memory (18).
The results from other researches demonstrated that the schools with high
levels of noise pollution are generally deprived, and children from the similar
high social deprivation schools depict poor performance on reading
comprehension tasks, leading to potential confounding (6).
Recommendations
for reducing or eliminating noise pollution in schools are explained as
follows:
·
Transition of schools up to the levels that are standardized in
terms of noise pollution.
·
Transition of commercial and industrial centers away from school.
·
Utilization of acoustic noise barriers such as walls, green spaces
between schools and noise pollution sources.
·
Provision of the soundproof doors and insulated windows and doors
for classes.
·
Shutting the class doors during the teaching period.
·
Separate placement of land sports, school workshops and laboratories
from classrooms.
·
Conducting elaborative studies in the future to locate noise
pollution reduction ways in schools.
Conclusion
In
the present study we can conclusively suggest that excessive noise persecutes
everyone, especially school students and teachers. Generally, educational
centers often have higher standards to control noise pollution but this study
satisfactorily evaluated that the noise pollution is a major cause of
discomfort for the teachers and students. Therefore, the present study safely
concludes that the schools in different regions of Birjand have problems in
terms of noise pollution. Fortunately, all school authorities were aware of
this issue and with all facilities and special arrangements had tried to
resolve the debilitating. Problem nevertheless, the major factor responsible
for the noise pollution is out of their control.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to appreciate
the Department of Environment, Head Office, South Khorasan and University of
Birjand authorities for their cooperation and support. Special thanks to the
school authorities who helped. We also like to thank Dr. Mrs. Mahavash F.
Kavian for editing the paper.
Conflict of interest: Non declared
References
1.
Caciari T, Rosati MV,
Casale T, Loreti B, Sancini A, Riservato R, et al. Noise-induced hearing loss
in workers exposed to urban stressors. Sci Total Environ 2013; 463-464:302-8.
2.
Kasimonje BM. Impact of
aircraft noise and language on primary school learners' reading comprehension
in KwaZulu-Natal [MSc Thesis]. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand; 2013.
3.
Franssen EAM, Staatsen BAM,
Lebret E. Assessing health consequences in an environmental impact assessment: The
case of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2002; 22(6):633-53.
4.
Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP.
Noise pollution: Non-auditory effects on health. Br Med Bull 2003; 68:243–57.
5.
van Kempen E, Fischer P,
Janssen N, Houthuijs D, van Kamp I, Stansfeld S, et al. Neurobehavioral effects
of exposure to traffic-related air pollution and transportation noise in
primary school children. Environ Res 2012; 115:18-25.
6.
Ali SAA. Study effects of
school noise on learning achievement and annoyance in Assiut city, Egypt. Applied Acoustics 2013; 74(4):602-6.
7.
Haines MM, Stansfeld SA,
Brentnall S, Head J, Berry B, Jiggins M, et al. The West London Schools Study:
The effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health. Psychol Med
2001; 31(8):1385–96.
8.
Bronzaft AL, McCarthy DP.
The effects of elevated train noise on reading ability. Environ Behav 1975; 7(4):517–28.
9.
Murthy VK, Majumder AK,
Khanal SN, Subedi DP. Assessment of traffic noise pollution in banepa, a semi
urban town of Nepal. Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology 2007; 1(4):1-9.
10. Golmohammadi R, Ghorbani F, Mahjoub H, Daneshmehr Z. Study of
the noise pollution indices and acoustic properties of building schools in
Tehran. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2011; 12(1):29-38.
11. Dehqan A, Scherer RC. Objective voice analysis of boys with
profound hearing loss. Journal of Voice 2011; 25(2):e61-5.
12. Environment Protection Authority. Protection of the Environment
Operations (Noise Control).
Sydney: Environment Protection Authority (EPA); Regulation 2008.
13. Nasiri P, Abbaspoor M, Mahmoodi M, Babaei A. Assessment of
noise pollution in schools of the central Division of Karaj city. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2006; 7(4):16-29.
14. Nasiri P, Sajadi J. Sound pollution in schools study Eilam
and administrative solutions and the clarity of the words Indices. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2009;
32(1):215-20.
15. Koszarny Z, Jankowska D. Determination of acoustic climate inside
high schools in
comparison with elementary schools. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig 1996; 47(4):423-9.
16. Noweir MH, Ikhwan MA. Study of noise pollution in Jeddah
schools. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 1994;
69(3-4):149-62.
17. World Health Organization 1980. Environmental Health Criteria12:
Noise. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization. P42.
18. Clark C, Martin R, Van Kempen E, Alfred T, Head J, Davies HW,
et al. Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure
at school and reading comprehension: The RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163(1):27–37.
*
Corresponding
author:
Afsaneh Movafagh, Student of Environments and Energy School, Islamic Azad University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail: Afsaneh_movafagh@yahoo.com