16:45 pm
3679 - Review of the effect of transport noise interventions on human health: policy implications and future research
Alan Lex Brown, Prof. Dr. | Griffith University | Australia
Show details
Authors:
Alan Lex Brown, Prof. Dr. | Griffith University | Australia
Irene van Kamp, PhD | RIVM - National Institute for Public Health and the Environment | Netherlands
A systematic literature review (1980-2014) of evidence on the effects of transport noise interventions on human health was performed in the framework of preparation of the WHO Environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. Sources considered were roadways, railways, and air traffic; health outcomes were sleep disturbance, annoyance, cognitive impairment of children and cardiovascular diseases. While evidence was thinly spread across different sources, outcomes and intervention types, the results of 43 individual transport source studies showed that interventions invariably lead to a measureable change in health outcomes. For road traffic noise (and some aircraft noise) studies, the changes in annoyance outcomes were either in line with those derived from relevant exposure-response functions, or exhibited excess response. This paper will discuss the implications of these findings for noise policy and management. It will also raise system-wide issues that need to be considered in evaluations of transport noise interventions. It will also provide guidance for future studies of interventions with a suggested protocol for their conduct, including repeat measures of outcomes and confounders, not merely of change in noise levels.
17:00 pm
4054 - Economic impacts of noise and hearing loss in America
Richard Neitzel, Prof. | University of Michigan | United States
Show details
Authors:
Richard Neitzel, Prof. | University of Michigan | United States
Tracy Swinburn | University of Michigan | Switzerland
Monica Hammer | University of Michigan | United States
Daniel Eisenberg, Prof. | University of Michigan | United States
Evaluations of noise exposures and the economic impacts of noise-related health effects have not been conducted in the United States for several decades. As a result, the prevalence of potentially harmful noise exposures to the American public, as well as the economic burden associated with auditory and non-auditory effects of noise, have not been sufficiently characterized. We created updated estimates of US noise exposures based on data from the 1980s, and used these estimated exposures to model the cost savings that could be achieved through the prevention of hypertension and myocardial infarction as a result of a hypothetical 5 dB reduction in noise exposures in America. We used similar exposure estimates to model the potential US wage losses that could be avoided through the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss. While our estimates of the economic impacts of auditory and non-auditory impacts of noise exposure contain substantial uncertainty, they nevertheless suggest that annual costs in the US could exceed $125 billion when avoidable healthcare costs from cardiovascular disease and avoidable wage and employment losses from noise-induced hearing loss are considered.
17:15 pm
3732 - Best practice for cost/benefit based decisions on abatement of traffic noise
Judith Doorschot | M+P | Netherlands
Show details
Authors:
Judith Doorschot | M+P | Netherlands
Gijsjan van Blokland | M+P | Netherlands
Noise from road, rail and air traffic is a major source of annoyance, causing serious health issues in Europe. Noise abatement measures exist at all levels, such as noise barriers, rerouting or investments in silent vehicles. Decision makers implementing these measures need to balance the costs of the measures and the benefits for society. The EPA Network Interest Group on Traffic Noise Abatement (IGNA) has investigated several methods for decision making, based on cost/benefit analysis. A survey shows that well-defined, sophisticated methods exist in some countries, while other countries have no regulations for noise abatement decisions.
The key elements from existing systems are explained. We show what costs are included and how to calculate these. We demonstrate how to quantify the benefits in terms of annoyance and public health, and recommend values to be used. We present how costs and benefits are balanced, including other criteria that may influence the decisions. From these investigations, we propose a best practice which could be a guideline for countries and organizations that wish to increase transparency and fairness in noise abatement policy.