Costs and benefits of noise abatement measures

Nijland, Hans; Kempen, E.E.M.M. van; Wee, G.P. van; Jabben, J

doi:10.1016/s0967-070x(02)00064-1

Cited by 45 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, even if noise emissions from traffic would have been constant during the last couple of decades, urbanization itself would have caused noise to be a bigger problem today than it was a couple of decades ago (ceteris paribus). Therefore, if efforts are not taken to reduce either noise emissions or people's reception of noise, the problem will probably increase as a result of more people being exposed to noise in the future [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since we believe that most readers are familiar with the subject of evaluation of non-marketed amenities, we dispense with a discussion on non-market evaluation methods. 2 In section 3.1, we briefly discuss the bad of interest to this study, i.e. noise, and how it is measured, which is followed by a description of how marginal noise is estimated in section 3.2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Andersson

Ögren²

2007

Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to mitigate the negative effects of transportation and to achieve a competitive transport sector, infrastructure charges in the European Union should be based on short-run marginal costs. This paper shows that railway-noise charges can be estimated using already obtained knowledge of monetary and acoustical noise evaluation. Most European countries have standardized calculation methods for total noise level, which can be used to estimate the marginal acoustical effect. Based on a Swedish case study (with a relatively high number of exposed individuals), railway-noise charges are estimated at 0.026, 0.099 and 0.89 e/km for commuter, high-speed and freight trains, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Andersson

Ögren²

2007

Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is caused by factors like high population density, increasing urbanization and mobility of people and increasing goods transport. Other factors are the increase in recreational activities and elevated possession, and the use of sound equipment (29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and Monetary Valuation of Traffic Noise Pollution by the Top-Down Method in Tabriz City

Roshan

Ahmadi

2015

Health Scope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Noise pollution is one of the most important problems of both developed and developing countries, especially in the recent decades, and is being exacerbated with industrialization and population growth. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to measure traffic noise pollution in Tabriz city and to evaluate its associated costs by applying the top-down method. Awareness about health costs associated with traffic noise could have great impacts on decision-making for traffic noise control measures. Materials and Methods:In order to obtain the noise level (L den ) at various hours of each day, noise level was first measured at 35 stations in 10 Regions of the city, during the morning, afternoon and night. Second, to obtain the number of people with a certain level of exposer to noise (L den ), the annoyance levels due to traffic noise were assessed by collecting a questionnaire from 300 residents. Results: Based on the study results, divisions eight, nine and two of the city (refer to the municipal division of the cities in Iran) had the highest L den value, with 74.5, 73.5 and 71 dB, respectively. Also, the questionnaire results indicated that 60% of the residents declared medium and high level of annoyance, due to traffic noise. Finally, the calculated cost was equal to 119 926 467 Euros (€). However most costs, namely € 24 727 290, were allocated to region three with the highest population, in spite of a relatively low L den (68.4 dB). Conclusions: Since traffic noise pollution is a high cost for Tabriz residents, extensive preventive measures and comprehensive control programs by managers and city authorities as unavoidable necessities are suggested. The measures have to be taken by urban managers and decision-makers to reduce the health impact of traffic noise on Tabriz residents.

show abstract

“…Prolonged exposure of noise is also a health problem, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than 1 million healthy life years are lost every year in western Europe due to noise exposure [7]. The transport sector is a principal contributor to society's noise problem, and the combination of increasing traffic volumes and urbanization means that the problem will increase if no measures are taken to curb it [14,15,34,49]. Road traffic is the largest single source of noise in the transport sector, but other modes such as aircraft and trains also contribute substantially to the noise emissions [33,39,67].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit measures for noise abatement: calculations for road and rail traffic noise

Andersson

Jönsson

Ögren

2013

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study is to estimate monetary abatement values for road and rail traffic noise that can be used for policy purposes. However, a main objective is to critically discuss the assumptions necessary to convert the monetary values elicited in willingness to pay (WTP) studies to values than can be use for policy purposes. Methods We employ the hedonic regression technique on Swedish data to elicit individuals' preferences for noise abatement. Our elicited values are then converted to policy values and critically examined based on findings from a literature review. Results We show that WTP for road and rail not only differs in levels but also that the relationship between the noise level and the marginal value differs between the two sources. We also show that a health cost component added to the WTP estimate, based on the assumption of uninformed property buyers, will be small but not negligible and that also modest differences in the assumption of the discount rates will have a significant effect on the estimated values. Conclusions The main implications from this study are: (i) WTP for road and railway noise abatement differs not only on absolute but also marginal levels, (ii) Even small differences in the chosen discount rate, which is necessary to convert WTP values from a hedonic price study to policy values, have large effects on the policy values, and (iii) We show how to add a health cost component to the WTP estimates in order for the monetary estimates to reflect the total social cost. However, we argue that the motivation for doing so is weak and that more research is needed on this issue.

show abstract

Costs and benefits of noise abatement measures

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Noise charges in railway infrastructure: A pricing schedule based on the marginal cost principle

Measurement and Monetary Valuation of Traffic Noise Pollution by the Top-Down Method in Tabriz City

Benefit measures for noise abatement: calculations for road and rail traffic noise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About