Articles | Volume 10, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-579-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-579-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
20 Mar 2025
Research article |
| 20 Mar 2025
| 20 Mar 2025
Exploring noise annoyance and sound quality for airborne wind energy systems: insights from a listening experiment
Department of Flow Physics and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2629 HS, the Netherlands
Renatto M. Yupa-Villanueva
Department of Aircraft Noise and Climate Effects, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2629 HS, the Netherlands
Daniele Ragni
Department of Flow Physics and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2629 HS, the Netherlands
Roberto Merino-Martínez
Department of Aircraft Noise and Climate Effects, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2629 HS, the Netherlands
Piet J. R. van Gool
Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, 5612 AE, the Netherlands
Roland Schmehl
Department of Flow Physics and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2629 HS, the Netherlands
Related authors
No articles found.
Jelle Agatho Wilhelm Poland, Johannes Marinus van Spronsen, Mac Gaunaa, and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-77, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-77, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
We tested a small model of an energy-generating kite in a wind tunnel to study its aerodynamic behavior. By comparing measurements to computer simulations, we validated the models and identified where they match the real performance and where they fall short. These insights will guide more accurate aerodynamic modeling and inform design choices for kites used in airborne wind energy systems.
Abhratej Sahoo, Akshay Koodly Ravishankara, Wei Yu, Daniele Ragni, and Carlos Simao Ferreira
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-69, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-69, 2025
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
The paper proposes a new model to include the effects of vortex generators in the fast aerodynamic force calculation methods used for rotor blade sectional load calculations. The model is derived from the effects of vortex generators on turbulent boundary layers. The new model is more accurate than existing models in predicting the parametric impact of various vortex generator geometries on the stall delay and lift increase effects on airfoil aerodynamic polars.
Rishikesh Joshi, Dominic von Terzi, and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 695–718, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-695-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-695-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a methodology for assessing the system design and scaling trends in airborne wind energy (AWE). A multi-disciplinary design, analysis, and optimisation (MDAO) framework was developed, integrating power, energy production, and cost models for the fixed-wing ground-generation (GG) AWE concept. Using the levelized cost of electricity (LCoE) as the design objective, we found that the optimal size of systems lies between the rated power of 100 and 1000 kW.
Oriol Cayon, Simon Watson, and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-182, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-182, 2025
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study demonstrates how kites used to generate wind energy can act as sensors to measure wind conditions and system behaviour. By combining data from existing sensors, such as those measuring position, speed, and forces on the tether, a sensor fusion technique accurately estimates wind conditions and kite performance. This approach can be integrated into control systems to help optimise energy generation and enhance the reliability of these systems in changing wind conditions.
Dylan Eijkelhof, Nicola Rossi, and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-139, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-139, 2024
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares circular and figure-of-eight flight shapes for flying kite wind energy systems, assessing power output, stability, and system lifespan. Results show that circular patterns are ideal for maximizing energy in compact areas, while figure-of-eight paths, especially flying up in the centre of the figure, deliver smoother, more consistent power and have a longer expected kite lifespan. These findings offer valuable insights to enhance design and performance of kite systems.
Christoph Elfert, Dietmar Göhlich, and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 2261–2282, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-2261-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-2261-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This article presents a tow test procedure for measuring the steering behaviour of tethered membrane wings. The experimental set-up includes a novel onboard sensor system for measuring the position and orientation of the towed wing, complemented by an attached low-cost multi-hole probe for measuring the relative flow velocity vector at the wing. The measured data (steering gain and dead time) can be used to improve kite models and simulate the operation of airborne wind energy systems.
Rishikesh Joshi, Roland Schmehl, and Michiel Kruijff
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 2195–2215, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-2195-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-2195-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a fast cycle–power computation model for fixed-wing ground-generation airborne wind energy systems. It is suitable for sensitivity and scalability studies, which makes it a valuable tool for design and innovation trade-offs. It is also suitable for integration with cost models and systems engineering tools, enhancing its applicability in assessing the potential of airborne wind energy in the broader energy system.
Mark Schelbergen and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 1323–1344, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1323-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-1323-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel two-point model of a kite with a suspended control unit to describe the characteristic swinging motion of this assembly during turning manoeuvres. Quasi-steady and dynamic model variants are combined with a discretised tether model, and simulation results are compared with measurement data of an instrumented kite system. By resolving the pitch of the kite, the model allows for computing the angle of attack, which is essential for estimating the generated aerodynamic forces.
Livia Brandetti, Sebastiaan Paul Mulders, Roberto Merino-Martinez, Simon Watson, and Jan-Willem van Wingerden
Wind Energ. Sci., 9, 471–493, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-471-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-471-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This research presents a multi-objective optimisation approach to balance vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT) performance and noise, comparing the combined wind speed estimator and tip-speed ratio (WSE–TSR) tracking controller with a baseline. Psychoacoustic annoyance is used as a novel metric for human perception of wind turbine noise. Results showcase the WSE–TSR tracking controller’s potential in trading off the considered objectives, thereby fostering the deployment of VAWTs in urban areas.
Maaike Sickler, Bart Ummels, Michiel Zaaijer, Roland Schmehl, and Katherine Dykes
Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 1225–1233, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1225-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1225-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the effect of wind farm layout on the performance of offshore wind farms. A regular farm layout is compared to optimised irregular layouts. The irregular layouts have higher annual energy production, and the power production is less sensitive to wind direction. However, turbine towers require thicker walls to counteract increased fatigue due to increased turbulence levels in the farm. The study shows that layout optimisation can be used to maintain high-yield performance.
Mark Schelbergen, Peter C. Kalverla, Roland Schmehl, and Simon J. Watson
Wind Energ. Sci., 5, 1097–1120, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1097-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1097-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We have presented a methodology for including multiple wind profile shapes in a wind resource description that are identified using a data-driven approach. These shapes go beyond the height range for which conventional wind profile relationships are developed. Moreover, they include non-monotonic shapes such as low-level jets. We demonstrated this methodology for an on- and offshore reference location using DOWA data and efficiently estimated the annual energy production of a pumping AWE system.
Jan Hummel, Dietmar Göhlich, and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci., 4, 41–55, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-4-41-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-4-41-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We describe a tow test setup for the reproducible measurement of aerodynamic, structural dynamic and flight dynamic properties of tethered membrane wings. The test procedure is based on repeatable automated maneuvers with the entire kite system under realistic conditions. The developed measurement method can be used to quantitatively compare different wing designs, to validate and improve simulation models, and to systematically improve kite designs.
Johannes Oehler and Roland Schmehl
Wind Energ. Sci., 4, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-4-1-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-4-1-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We present an experimental method for aerodynamic characterization of flexible membrane kites by in situ measurement of the relative flow, while performing complex flight maneuvers. We find that the aerodynamics of this type of wing depend not only on the angle of attack, but also on the level of aerodynamic loading and the aeroelastic deformation. We recommend using the relative power setting of the kite as a secondary influencing parameter.
Tarek N. Dief, Uwe Fechner, Roland Schmehl, Shigeo Yoshida, Amr M. M. Ismaiel, and Amr M. Halawa
Wind Energ. Sci., 3, 275–291, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-275-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-275-2018, 2018
Related subject area
Thematic area: Electrical conversion, integration and impacts | Topic: Sustainability, environmental, and socio-economic aspects
Life Cycle Assessment of New Jersey Offshore Wind
Meghann Smith, Nawal Shoaib, and Pankaj Lal
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-143, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-143, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary
Short summary
This research estimates the environmental impact of New Jersey offshore wind under a domestic supply chain using life cycle assessment modelling.
Cited articles
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., and Culpepper, S. A.: Recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013, 10839, https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.10839abstract, 2013.
Alamir, M. A., Hansen, K. L., Zajamsek, B., and Catcheside, P.: Subjective responses to wind farm noise: A review of laboratory listening test methods, Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev., 114, 109317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109317, 2019.
Aures, W.: Procedure for calculating the sensory euphony of arbitrary sound signal, Acustica, 59, 130–141, 1985.
Bakker, R. H., Pedersen, E., van den Berg, G. P., Stewart, R. E., Lok, W., and Bouma, J.: Impact of wind turbine sound on annoyance, self-reported sleep disturbance and psychological distress, Sci. Total Environ., 425, 42–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.03.005, 2012.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Bojesen Christensen, R. H., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Scheipl, F., Grothendieck, G., Green, P., Fox, J., Bauer, A., Krivitsky, P. N., Tanaka, E., and Jagan, M.: Package “lme4” – Linear Mixed-Effects Models using “Eigen” and S4, http://dk.archive.ubuntu.com/pub/pub/cran/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf (last access: 11 June 2024), 2024.
Bednarek-Szczepańska, M.: The portrayal of wind energy and its social impacts in Poland's regional and local media, Czasopismo Geograficzne, 94, 263–288, https://doi.org/10.12657/czageo-94-11, 2023.
Bockstael, A., Dekoninck, L., De Coensel, B., Oldoni, D., Can, A., and Botteldooren, D.: Wind turbine noise: annoyance and alternative exposure indicators, in: Proceedings of Forum acusticum, Forum acusticum, Aalborg, Denmark, 26 June–1 July 2011, 345–350, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267248974_Wind_turbine_noise_Annoyance_and_alternative_exposure_indicators (last access: 12 May 2024), 2011.
Boucher, M. A., Christian, A. W., Krishnamurthy, S., Tracy, T., Begault, D. R., Shepherd, K., and Rizzi, S. A.: Toward a Psychoacoustic Annoyance Model for Urban Air Mobility Vehicle, Technical Memorandum, NASA, 26 pp., https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240003202 (last access: 3 July 2024), 2024.
Bouman, N.: Aeroacoustics of airborne wind energy systems, MS thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:390a153c-0114-44c8-8b43-d9efc3e8cdd1 (last access: 21 May 2024), 2023.
Brink, M., Schreckenberg, D., Vienneau, D., Cajochen, C., Wunderli, J.-M., Probst-Hensch, N., and Röösli, M.: Effects of scale, question location, order of response alternatives, and season on self-reported noise annoyance using ICBEN scales: A field experiment, Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., 13, 1163, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111163, 2016.
BVG Associates: Getting airborne – the need to realise the benefits of airborne wind energy for net zero/White Paper for Airborne Wind Europe, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7809185, 2022.
Casagrande Hirono, F., Robertson, J., and Torija Martinez, A. J.: Acoustic and psychoacoustic characterisation of small-scale contra-rotating propellers, J. Sound Vib., 569, 117971, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117971, 2024.
Cherubini, A., Papini, A., Vertechy, R., and Fontana, M.: Airborne Wind Energy Systems: A review of the technologies, Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev., 51, 1461–1476, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.07.053, 2015.
Dällenbach, N. and Wüstenhagen, R.: How far do noise concerns travel? Exploring how familiarity and justice shape noise expectations and social acceptance of planned wind energy projects, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 87, 102300, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2021.102300, 2022.
Daniel, P. and Weber, R.: Psychoacoustical roughness: Implementation of an optimized model, Acta Acust. United Ac., 83, 113–123, 1997.
Deutsches Institut für Normung: DIN 45692: Measurement technique for the simulation of the auditory sensation of sharpness, https://www.dinmedia.de/en/standard/din-45692/117635111 (last access: 5 September 2024), 2009.
Di, G.-Q., Chen, X.-W., Song, K., Zhou, B., and Pei, C.-M.: Improvement of Zwicker's psychoacoustic annoyance model aiming at tonal noises, Appl. Acoust., 105, 164–170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.12.006, 2016.
Fagiano, L., Quack, M., Bauer, F., Carnel, L., and Oland, E.: Autonomous Airborne Wind Energy Systems: Accomplishments and Challenges, Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 5, 603–631, https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-CONTROL-042820-124658, 2022.
Federal Aviation Administration: Noise Standards: Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification, AC 36-4D, https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1031948 (last access: 23 February 2024), 2017.
Godono, A., Ciocan, C., Clari, M., Mansour, I., Curoso, G., Franceschi, A., Carena, E., De Pasquale, V., Dimonte, V., Pira, E., Dallapiccola, B., Normanno, N., and Boffetta, P.: Association between exposure to wind turbines and sleep disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Heal., 254, 114273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2023.114273, 2023.
Greco, G. F., Merino-Martínez, R., Osses, A., and Langer, S. C.: SQAT: a MATLAB-based toolbox for quantitative sound quality analysis, in: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, 7172–7183, https://doi.org/10.3397/IN_2023_1075, 2023.
Green, N., Torija, A. J., and Ramos-Romero, C.: Perception of noise from unmanned aircraft systems: Efficacy of metrics for indoor and outdoor listener positions, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 155, 915–929, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0024522, 2024.
Griefahn, B.: Determination of noise sensitivity within an internet survey using a reduced version of the Noise Sensitivity Questionnaire, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 123, 3449, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2934269, 2008.
Haac, T. R., Kaliski, K., Landis, M., Hoen, B., Rand, J., Firestone, J., Elliott, D., Hübner, G., and Pohl, J.: Wind turbine audibility and noise annoyance in a national U.S. survey: Individual perception and influencing factors, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 146, 1124–1141, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5121309, 2019.
Hagen, L. van, Petrick, K., Wilhelm, S., and Schmehl, R.: Life-Cycle Assessment of a Multi-Megawatt Airborne Wind Energy System, Energies-Basel, 16, 1750, https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041750, 2023.
Hansen, K. L., Nguyen, P., Micic, G., Lechat, B., Catcheside, P., and Zajamšek, B.: Amplitude modulated wind farm noise relationship with annoyance: A year-long field study, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 150, 1198–1208, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0005849, 2021.
Hoen, B., Firestone, J., Rand, J., Elliot, D., Hübner, G., Pohl, J., Wiser, R., Lantz, E., Haac, T. R., and Kaliski, K.: Attitudes of U.S. Wind Turbine Neighbors: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey, Energ. Policy, 134, 110981, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110981, 2019.
Hong, O., Ronis, D. L., and Antonakos, C. L.: Validity of Self-Rated Hearing Compared With Audiometric Measurement Among Construction Workers, Nurs. Res., 60, 326–332, https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182281ca0, 2011.
Hübner, G., Pohl, J., Hoen, B., Firestone, J., Rand, J., Elliott, D., and Haac, R.: Monitoring annoyance and stress effects of wind turbines on nearby residents: A comparison of U.S. and European samples, Environ. Int., 132, 105090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105090, 2019.
IEA: Net Zero Roadmap – A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach, International Energy Agency, 225 pp., https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9a698da4-4002-4e53-8ef3-631d8971bf84/NetZeroRoadmap_AGlobalPathwaytoKeepthe1.5CGoalinReach-2023Update.pdf (last access: 9 September 2024), 2023.
International Organization for Standardization: Acoustics Methods for calculating loudness, Part 1: Zwicker method, ISO 532-1:2017, https://www.iso.org/standard/63077.html (last access: 13 June 2024), 2017.
International Organization for Standardization: Acoustics – Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys, ISO/TS 15666:2021, https://www.iso.org/standard/74048.html (last access: 4 May 2024), 2021.
IRENA: Offshore renewables: An action agenda for deployment, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 120 pp., ISBN 978-92-9260-349-6, https://www.irena.org/Publications/2021/Jul/Offshore-Renewables-An-Action-Agenda-for-Deployment (last access: 3 May 2024), 2021.
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., and Kenny, D. A.: Experiments with more than one random factor: designs, analytic models, and statistical power, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 68, 601–625, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702, 2017.
Junge, P., Lohss, M., Röben, O., Heide, D., and Kessler, A.: Abschlussbericht Verbundvorhaben SkyPower100, project report, SkySails Power GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, 68 pp., https://www.skypower100.de/deutsch/news/ (last access: 15 April 2024), 2023.
Kawai, C., Jäggi, J., Georgiou, F., Meister, J., Pieren, R., and Schäffer, B.: Short-term noise annoyance towards drones and other transportation noise sources: A laboratory study, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 156, 2578–2595, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0032386, 2024.
Kephalopoulos, S., Paviotti, M., Anfosso-Lédée, F., Van Maercke, D., Shilton, S., and Jones, N.: Advances in the development of common noise assessment methods in Europe: The CNOSSOS-EU framework for strategic environmental noise mapping, Sci. Total Environ., 482–483, 400–410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.031, 2014.
Ki, J., Yun, S.-J., Kim, W.-C., Oh, S., Ha, J., Hwangbo, E., Lee, H., Shin, S., Yoon, S., and Youn, H.: Local residents' attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea, Energ. Policy, 163, 112847, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112847, 2022.
Kirkegaard, J. K., Cronin, T. H., Nyborg, S., and Frantzen, D. N.: The multiple understandings of wind turbine noise: Reviewing scientific attempts at handling uncertainty, Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-34, in review, 2024.
König, R., Babetto, L., Gerlach, A., Fels, J., and Stumpf, E.: Prediction of perceived annoyance caused by an electric drone noise through its technical, operational, and psychoacoustic parameters, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 156, 1929–1941, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0028514, 2024.
Kryter, K. D.: The meaning and measurement of perceived noise level, Noise Control, 6, 12–27, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2369423, 1960.
Lee, S., Kim, K., Choi, W., and Lee, S.: Annoyance caused by amplitude modulation of wind turbine noise, Noise Control Eng. J., 59, 38–46, https://doi.org/10.3397/1.3531797, 2011.
Merino-Martínez, R., Pieren, R., Snellen, M., and Simons, D.: Assessment of the sound quality of wind turbine noise reduction measures, in: Proceedings of the 26th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, ICSV, Montreal, Canada, 7–11 July 2019, https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/assessment-of-the-sound-quality-of-wind-turbine-noise-reduction-m (last access: 17 July 2024), 2019a.
Merino-Martinez, R., Vieira, A., Snellen, M., and Simons, D. G.: Sound quality metrics applied to aircraft components under operational conditions using a microphone array, in: 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2513, 2019b.
Merino-Martínez, R., Pieren, R., and Schäffer, B.: Holistic approach to wind turbine noise: From blade trailing-edge modifications to annoyance estimation, Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev., 148, 111285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111285, 2021.
Merino-Martínez, R., von den Hoff, B., and Simons, D. G.: Design and acoustic characterization of a psycho-acoustic listening facility, in: Proceedings of the 29th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, ICSV, Prague Czech Republic, 9–13 July 2023, https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/design-and-acoustic-characterization-of-a-psycho-acoustic-listeni (last access: 3 May 2024), 2023.
Michaud, D. S., Feder, K., Keith, S. E., Voicescu, S. A., Marro, L., Than, J., Guay, M., Denning, A., McGuire, D., Bower, T., Lavigne, E., Murray, B. J., Weiss, S. K., and van den Berg, F.: Exposure to wind turbine noise: Perceptual responses and reported health effects, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 139, 1443–1454, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4942391, 2016a.
Michaud, D. S., Keith, S. E., Feder, K., Voicescu, S. A., Marro, L., Than, J., Guay, M., Bower, T., Denning, A., Lavigne, E., Whelan, C., Janssen, S. A., Leroux, T., and van den Berg, F.: Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 139, 1455–1466, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4942390, 2016b.
Miedema, H. M. E. and Vos, H.: Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 104, 3432–3445, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423927, 1998.
More, S. R.: Aircraft noise characteristics and metrics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, PhD thesis, https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI3453255/ (last access: 30 May 2024), 2010.
Müller, F. J. Y., Leschinger, V., Hübner, G., and Pohl, J.: Understanding subjective and situational factors of wind turbine noise annoyance, Energ. Policy, 173, 113361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113361, 2023.
Oliva, D., Hongisto, V., and Haapakangas, A.: Annoyance of low-level tonal sounds – Factors affecting the penalty, Build. Environ., 123, 404–414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.017, 2017.
Osses Vecchi, A., García León, R., and Kohlrausch, A.: Modelling the sensation of fluctuation strength, Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 28, 050005, https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000410, 2016.
Passer, M. W.: Research Methods: Concepts and Connections, 1st ed., Worth Publishers, New York, ISBN 0716776812, 2014.
Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, M., Dudarewicz, A., Zaborowski, K., Zamojska-Daniszewska, M., and Waszkowska, M.: Evaluation of annoyance from the wind turbine noise: A pilot study, Int. J. Occup. Med. Env., 27, 364–388, https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-014-0252-1, 2014.
Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, M., Zaborowski, K., Dudarewicz, A., Zamojska-Daniszewska, M., and Waszkowska, M.: Response to noise emitted by wind farms in people living in nearby areas, Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., 15, 1575, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081575, 2018.
Pedersen, E. and Larsman, P.: The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, J. Environ. Psychol., 28, 379–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.009, 2008.
Pedersen, E. and Persson Waye, K.: Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise – a dose-response relationship, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 116, 3460–3470, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815091, 2004.
Pedersen, E. and Persson Waye, K.: Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments, Occup. Environ. Med., 64, 480–486, https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2006.031039, 2007.
Pedersen, E., van den Berg, F., Bakker, R., and Bouma, J.: Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound, Energ. Policy, 38, 2520–2527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.001, 2010.
Pereda Albarrán, M. Y., Schültke, F., and Stumpf, E.: Sound Quality Assessments of Over-the-Wing Engine Configurations Applied to Continuous Descent Approaches, in: 2018 AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 25–29 June 2018, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-4083, 2018.
Pereda Albarrán, Mi. Y., Sahai, A. K., and Stumpf, E.: Aircraft noise sound quality evaluation of continuous descent approaches, in: 46th international congress and exposition of noise control engineering, Hong Kong, China, 27–30 August 2017, 2898–2909, https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:006f1dd2-708a-4375-bf8e-3d0715472f29 (last access: 4 June 2024), 2017.
Persson Waye, K. and Agge, A.: Experimental quantification of annoyance to unpleasant and pleasant wind turbine sounds, in: 29th international congress and exposition of noise control engineering, Nice, France, 27–30 August 2000, http://www.conforg.fr/internoise2000/cdrom/data/articles/000604.pdf (last access: 5 May 2024), 2000.
Persson Waye, K. and Öhrström, E.: Psycho-acoustic characters of relevance for annoyance of wind turbine noise, J. Sound Vib., 250, 65–73, https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.2001.3905, 2002.
Pieren, R., Bertsch, L., Lauper, D., and Schäffer, B.: Improving future low-noise aircraft technologies using experimental perception-based evaluation of synthetic flyovers, Sci. Total Environ., 692, 68–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.253, 2019.
Pockelé, J. S. and Merino Martínez, R.: Psychoacoustic Evaluation of Modelled Wind Turbine Noise, in: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Sound and Vibration Article 524, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 8–11 July 2024, https://iiav.org/content/archives_icsv_last/2024_icsv30/content/papers/papers/full_paper_524_20240331143239633.pdf (last access: 3 September 2024), 2024.
Pohl, J., Gabriel, J., and Hübner, G.: Understanding stress effects of wind turbine noise – The integrated approach, Energ. Policy, 112, 119–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.007, 2018.
Radun, J., Hongisto, V., and Suokas, M.: Variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance and sleep disturbance, Build. Environ., 150, 339–348, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.039, 2019.
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, https://www.r-project.org/ (last access: 17 March 2025), 2023.
Sahai, A. K.: Consideration of aircraft noise annoyance during conceptual aircraft design, Rheinisch–Westfälische Technische Hochschule, Aachen, PhD thesis, https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/668901/files/668901.pdf (last access: 19 March 2024), 2016.
Schäffer, B., Schlittmeier, S. J., Pieren, R., Heutschi, K., Brink, M., Graf, R., and Hellbrück, J.: Short-term annoyance reactions to stationary and time-varying wind turbine and road traffic noise: A laboratory study, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 139, 2949–2963, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4949566, 2016.
Schäffer, B., Pieren, R., Schlittmeier, S., and Brink, M.: Effects of Different Spectral Shapes and Amplitude Modulation of Broadband Noise on Annoyance Reactions in a Controlled Listening Experiment, Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., 15, 1029, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15051029, 2018.
Schäffer, B., Pieren, R., Wissen Hayek, U., Biver, N., and Grêt-Regamey, A.: Influence of visibility of wind farms on noise annoyance – A laboratory experiment with audio-visual simulations, Landscape Urban Plan., 186, 67–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2019.01.014, 2019.
Schmidt, H., Yupa Villanueva, R., Ragni, D., Merino-Martinez, R., van Gool, P., and Schmehl, R.: Noise Annoyance Ratings for Airborne Wind Energy Systems: Data from a Controlled Listening Experiment, EUMETSAT4TU.ResearchData [data set], https://doi.org/10.4121/2716b49f-b44c-400a-a873-eea276b081f6, 2025.
Schmidt, H., de Vries, G., Renes, R. J., and Schmehl, R.: The Social Acceptance of Airborne Wind Energy: A Literature Review, Energies-Basel, 15, 1384, https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15041384, 2022.
Schmidt, H., Leschinger, V., Müller, F. J. Y., de Vries, G., Renes, R. J., Schmehl, R., and Hübner, G.: How do residents perceive energy-producing kites? Comparing the community acceptance of an airborne wind energy system and a wind farm in Germany, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 110, 103447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103447, 2024.
Schutte, M., Marks, A., Wenning, E., and Griefahn, B.: The development of the noise sensitivity questionnaire, Noise Health, 9, 15–24, https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.34700, 2007.
Solman, H. and Mattijs, S.: D7.2: Reports with data from on and offline panels, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7143761, 2021.
Taylor, J. and Klenk, N.: The politics of evidence: Conflicting social commitments and environmental priorities in the debate over wind energy and public health, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 47, 102–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.001, 2019.
Tonin, R., Brett, J., and Colagiuri, B.: The effect of infrasound and negative expectations to adverse pathological symptoms from wind farms, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, 35, 77–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263092316628257, 2016.
Torija, A. J. and Nicholls, R. K.: Investigation of Metrics for Assessing Human Response to Drone Noise, Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., 19, 3152, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063152, 2022.
Torija, A. J., Roberts, S., Woodward, R., Flindell, I. H., McKenzie, A. R., and Self, R. H.: On the assessment of subjective response to tonal content of contemporary aircraft noise, Appl. Acoust., 146, 190–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.11.015, 2019.
Turunen, A. W., Tiittanen, P., Yli-Tuomi, T., Taimisto, P., and Lanki, T.: Self-reported health in the vicinity of five wind power production areas in Finland, Environ. Int., 151, 106419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106419, 2021.
UNFCCC: Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2015, United Nations, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf (last access: 5 March 2024), 2016.
van Kamp, I. and van den Berg, F.: Health Effects Related to Wind Turbine Sound: An Update, Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., 18, 9133, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179133, 2021.
Vermillion, C., Cobb, M., Fagiano, L., Leuthold, R., Diehl, M., Smith, R. S., Wood, T. A., Rapp, S., Schmehl, R., Olinger, D., and Demetriou, M.: Electricity in the air: Insights from two decades of advanced control research and experimental flight testing of airborne wind energy systems, Annu. Rev. Control., 52, 330–357, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARCONTROL.2021.03.002, 2021.
Vieira, A., Mehmood, U., Merino-Martinez, R., Snellen, M., and G. Simons, D.: Variability of Sound Quality Metrics for Different Aircraft Types During Landing and Take-Off, in: 25th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Delft, the Netherlands, 20–23 May 2019, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-2512, 2019.
Vos, H., Lombardi, F., Joshi, R., Schmehl, R., and Pfenninger, S.: The potential role of airborne and floating wind in the North Sea region, Environ. Res.: Energy, 1, 025002, https://doi.org/10.1088/2753-3751/ad3fbc, 2024.
Yokoyama, S. and Tachibana, H.: Perception of tonal components contained in wind turbine noise, in: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Hamburg, Germany, 21–24 August 2016, 2435–2446, ISBN 978-1-5108-2988-6, https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ince/incecp/2016/00000253/00000006/art00066 (last access: 17 June 2024), 2016.
Yonemura, M., Lee, H., and Sakamoto, S.: Subjective Evaluation on the Annoyance of Environmental Noise Containing Low-Frequency Tonal Components, Int. J. Environ. Res. Pu., 18, 7127, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137127, 2021.
Zwicker, E. and Fastl, H.: Psychacoustics: Facts and models, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-3540650638, 1999.
Short summary
This study investigates noise annoyance caused by airborne wind energy systems (AWESs), a novel wind energy technology that uses kites to harness high-altitude winds. Through a listening experiment with 75 participants, sharpness was identified as the key factor predicting annoyance. Fixed-wing kites generated more annoyance than soft-wing kites, likely due to their sharper, more tonal sound. The findings can help improve AWESs’ designs, reducing noise-related disturbances for nearby residents.
This study investigates noise annoyance caused by airborne wind energy systems (AWESs), a novel...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint