Background: One of the key indicators of the degradation of the environment is the noise level. This has necessitated this study on the evaluation of the public, perceptional awareness, sources, effects, and mitigation measures on environmental noise pollution.
Methods: The population was estimated and 385 structured questionnaires were estimated and administered by random purposive sampling. About 358 questionnaires were retrieved. Data were analyzed using SPSS and Excel statistical software.
Results: About 90.2% of the respondents had relevant awareness and its effects on environmental noise while 9.8% of the respondent did not. Traffic, generators, commercial and light industry sources of noise, and their severity were ranked in a descending order using the Likert scale. Hearing impairment, annoyance, stress, distraction during exposure were ranked in a descending order using the Likert scale. Single-factor ANOVA on the sources of noise and their severity, awareness of the various effects of noise, and responses during exposure showed that there were significant differences as P<0.05 using a confidence level of 95%. About 61.7% of respondents complained of environmental noise, 72.6% respondents received complaints about environmental noise, 87.7% of respondents were not aware of any government agency monitoring noise pollution, 72.2% of the respondents had done nothing regarding noise prevention, and 91.1% respondents wanted a proactive decision in mitigating environmental noise pollution.
Conclusion: There is an inadequate coping strategy. Strategic planning in mitigating environmental noise in urban and semi-urban areas is a necessity and there is a need for public enlightenment by government monitoring agencies.

Background: Spatial noise level mapping using a geographical information system (GIS) is essential for the visual colour representation of noise analysis, which is a necessity for strategic planning and mitigating measures.
Methods: Extech noise meter (model 407750) was used for sound measurement and a GIS (inverse distance weighted) was used in 54 study locations for the spatial interpolation. The study was classified into five categories based on Nigeria’s WHO standard and National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA).
Results: For the LDAY (D), LEvening (E), LNight (N), and LDEN, all the locations exceeded the WHO standard while 94.4%, 90.7%, 83.3%, and 83.3% of the locations exceeded the NESREA standard. The LDay (D) ranged from the minimum value of 67.6 dB (A) at the Ijaw residential area to the maximum value of 93.0 dB (A) at Kwangila site (1) intersection. The LNight ranged from the minimum value of 63.3 dB (A) at Dogorawa residential area to the maximum value of 92.1 dB (A) at Kwangila site (1). The LDEN ranged from the minimum value of 73.1 dB (A) at Hanwa residential areas to the maximum value of 97.2 dB (A) at Kwangila site (1). The noise quality rating ranged from satisfactory to unallowed noise quality grading. The selected intersections and residential areas with light commercial activities had the highest and lowest noise levels, respectively.
Conclusion: Efficient maintenance of silencers, planting trees with dense foliage, and strategic planning would be necessary panacea in curbing excessive noise.