Laboratory experiments by Crichton and colleagues showed that framing wind-farm sound positively versus negatively strongly alters self-reported noise annoyance during controlled exposure to recorded audible wind-turbine sound plus studio-generated infrasound. Whether this expectation mechanism operates in the real world remains untested: no published study has delivered positively framed narratives to residents of operating wind-farm communities and measured annoyance against a neutral-information or no-narrative control. Recent observational field work shows that subjective appraisal factors, particularly perceived fairness of the planning process, predict annoyance better than measured sound levels, making the transfer question both pressing and tractable. The open problem is to establish, by controlled field evidence, whether positive framing reduces noise annoyance in actual wind-farm communities.

Background

Noise annoyance is the standardized self-reported adverse reaction to environmental noise used in most epidemiological acoustics surveys; it is measured with verbal-category rating scales (for example the percentage of respondents describing themselves as highly annoyed) and is treated as an early indicator of noise-related psychological distress. Wind turbines emit broadband aerodynamic sound whose loudness fluctuates periodically at the blade-passing frequency, a feature called amplitude modulation, together with infrasound, sound at frequencies below roughly 20 Hz that is inaudible at typical residential levels. Classic exposure-response studies such as Pedersen and Persson Waye's Swedish survey found that the share of residents highly annoyed by wind-turbine noise increases with sound level, but with large scatter: physical exposure explains only a modest part of who becomes annoyed, far less than for road or aircraft noise. A nocebo effect is the mirror image of a placebo effect: negative expectations about an exposure produce or intensify symptoms and annoyance even when the exposure itself is inert. Because internet material and local social discourse frequently attribute health risks to wind-turbine infrasound, expectation has been proposed as a principal psychological pathway to wind-farm annoyance. A series of randomized laboratory experiments at the University of Auckland established this mechanism under controlled conditions: participants shown negatively framed material about wind-farm infrasound reported more symptoms and more annoyance during subsequent exposure sessions than participants shown positively framed material, expectations alone produced symptom reports during sham infrasound, an explanation of the nocebo response reduced symptom reporting, and positive framing could even reverse an annoyance and symptom response previously induced by negative media-style information. The pivotal study in this line, 'Framing sound' (Crichton, Dodd, Schmid and Petrie, 2015), demonstrated the effect specifically for noise annoyance: sixty volunteers received either a positive or a negative framing presentation before listening to recorded audible wind-farm sound combined with studio-generated infrasound, and the positive-expectation group was significantly less annoyed, with noise sensitivity predicting annoyance only in the negative-framing group. The study's design carries clear limits: both groups received a framing narrative (there was no unframed control), so the isolated effect of the sound could not be estimated; the laboratory stimulus was not the lived experience of residents; and whether a positive narrative can be delivered effectively in real communities, especially those already holding negative perceptions or experiencing intra-community conflict about wind farms, was unknown. Subsequent field research has made the question sharper rather than answering it. Cross-sectional and scoping reviews report that annoyance is moderated by attitude toward turbines, economic benefit, and noise sensitivity. A three-year interdisciplinary field study around operating turbines (Müller and colleagues, 2025) found that measured sound pressure levels and ground vibration could not explain residents' annoyance reports, while a regression combining objective and subjective variables predicted annoyance only when perception of the planning process, a fairness appraisal, was included. Survey work on planned projects (Dällenbach and Wüstenhagen, 2022) shows that noise concerns spread far beyond where sound-propagation physics predicts any audible impact and are instead explained by familiarity with wind energy and procedural and distributional justice perceptions. Correlational analyses of complaint patterns in Australia support a 'communicated disease' account in which media discourse, not turbine distribution, drives complaints. Meanwhile a rigorous double-blind sham-controlled exposure study found no physiological effect of 72 hours of simulated wind-turbine infrasound, removing a direct physiological pathway and leaving expectation and appraisal as the leading candidate mechanisms. What is missing is the interventional link: a controlled test, in real wind-farm communities, of whether the framing effect that is robust in the laboratory transfers to the field, where residents already hold attitudes, have histories of local conflict, and are exposed to ongoing media discourse.

Problem Statement

Determine whether the expectation-framing mechanism demonstrated in the laboratory by Crichton, Dodd, Schmid and Petrie (2015) transfers to real wind-farm settings. The overarching objective is to establish, with controlled field evidence, whether deliberately delivering positively framed narratives about wind-turbine sound reduces residents' noise annoyance in actual communities hosting operating wind farms, relative to neutral-information or no-narrative delivery. Noise annoyance measured with standardized survey instruments is the primary outcome. The accepted deliverable is a controlled field-study design that specifies the positive-framing intervention, the neutral-information or no-narrative comparison, a standardized annoyance outcome, and the pre-specified analysis; without supplied field data, the task is resolved by such a design rather than by an executed study.

References

  1. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Petrie KJ (2015). Framing sound: Using expectations to reduce environmental noise annoyance. Environmental Research 142:609-614. DOI 10.1016/j.envres.2015.08.016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.08.016
  2. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Gamble G, Cundy T, Petrie KJ (2014). The power of positive and negative expectations to influence reported symptoms and mood during exposure to wind farm sound. Health Psychology 33(12):1588-1592. DOI 10.1037/hea0000037. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000037
  3. Crichton F, Dodd G, Schmid G, Gamble G, Petrie KJ (2014). Can expectations produce symptoms from infrasound associated with wind turbines? Health Psychology 33(4):360-364. DOI 10.1037/a0031760. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031760
  4. Crichton F, Petrie KJ (2015). Health complaints and wind turbines: The efficacy of explaining the nocebo response to reduce symptom reporting. Environmental Research 140:449-455. DOI 10.1016/j.envres.2015.04.016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.04.016
  5. Crichton F, Petrie KJ (2015). Accentuate the positive: Counteracting psychogenic responses to media health messages in the age of the Internet. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 79(3):185-189. DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.04.014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.04.014
  6. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise - a dose-response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(6):3460-3470. DOI 10.1121/1.1815091. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815091
  7. Freiberg A, Schefter C, Girbig M, Murta VC, Seidler A (2019). Health effects of wind turbines on humans in residential settings: Results of a scoping review. Environmental Research 169:446-463. DOI 10.1016/j.envres.2018.11.032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.11.032
  8. Chapman S, St George A, Waller K, Cakic V (2013). The pattern of complaints about Australian wind farms does not match the establishment and distribution of turbines: support for the psychogenic, 'communicated disease' hypothesis. PLoS ONE 8(10):e76584. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0076584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076584
  9. Chapman S, Joshi K, Fry L (2014). Fomenting sickness: Nocebo priming of residents about expected wind turbine health harms. Frontiers in Public Health 2:279. DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00279
  10. Dällenbach N, Wüstenhagen R (2022). How far do noise concerns travel? Exploring how familiarity and justice shape noise expectations and social acceptance of planned wind energy projects. Energy Research & Social Science 87:102300. DOI 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102300
  11. Müller FJY, Blumendeller E, Gaßner L, Cheng PW, Ritter J, Pohl J, Hübner G (2025). Wind turbine noise annoyance - an interdisciplinary three-year field study. Environment International 202:109614. DOI 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109614
  12. Müller FJ, Leschinger V, Hübner G, Pohl J (2023). Understanding subjective and situational factors of wind turbine noise annoyance. Energy Policy 173:113361. DOI 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113361
  13. Marshall NS, Cho G, Toelle BG, Tonin R, Bartlett DJ, D'Rozario AL, Evans CA, Cowie CT, Janev O, Whitfeld CR, Glozier N, Walker BE, Killick R, Welgampola MS, Phillips CL, Marks GB, Grunstein RR (2023). The health effects of 72 hours of simulated wind turbine infrasound: A double-blind randomized crossover study in noise-sensitive, healthy adults. Environmental Health Perspectives 131(3):037012. DOI 10.1289/EHP10757. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10757
  14. Ruddat M (2022). Public acceptance of wind energy - concepts, empirical drivers and some open questions. Wind Energy Science 7:1679-1691. DOI 10.5194/wes-7-1679-2022. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-1679-2022