Odour annoyance and coping with malodour Authors: Neudorfer Ernst Cervinka Renate Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna Head: Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Groll-Knapp © 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, 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, 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.