thesis statement on noise pollution

• My Shodhganga
• Receive email updates
• Edit Profile

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET

• Shodhganga@INFLIBNET
• Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute
• Department of Civil Engineering

Items in Shodhganga are licensed under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

• Systematic Map
• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2020

Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map

• Romain Sordello 1 ,
• Ophélie Ratel 1 ,
• Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle 2 ,
• Clément Leger 3 ,
• Alexis Dambry 1 &
• Sylvie Vanpeene 4  

Environmental Evidence volume  9 , Article number:  20 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

48k Accesses

52 Citations

59 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Systematic Map Protocol to this article was published on 12 February 2019

Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Indeed, many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to the persistence of many species. The present work is a systematic map of the evidence of the impacts of all anthropogenic noises (industrial, urban, transportation, etc.) on biodiversity. This report describes the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables presenting the characteristics of the selected articles.

The method used was published in an a priori protocol. Searches included peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases were searched using English terms and search consistency was assessed with a test list. Supplementary searches were also performed (using search engines, a call for literature and searching relevant reviews). Articles were screened through three stages (titles, abstracts, full-texts). No geographical restrictions were applied. The subject population included all wild species (plants and animals excluding humans) and ecosystems. Exposures comprised all types of man-made sounds in terrestrial and aquatic media, including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes were considered (space use, reproduction, communication, etc.). Then, for each article selected after full-text screening, metadata were extracted on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.).

Review findings

Our main result is a database that includes all retrieved literature on the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species and ecosystems, coded with several markers (sources of noise, species concerned, types of impacts, etc.). Our search produced more than 29,000 articles and 1794 were selected after the three screening stages (1340 studies (i.e. primary research), 379 reviews, 16 meta-analyses). Some articles (n = 19) are written in French and all others are in English. This database is available as an additional file of this report. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge. It can be used for primary research by identifying knowledge gaps or in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. It can also be helpful for scientists and researchers as well as for practitioners, such as managers of transportation infrastructure.

The systematic map reveals that the impacts of anthropogenic noises on species and ecosystems have been researched for many years. In particular, some taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, fishes), types of noise (transportation, industrial, abstract) and outcomes (behavioural, biophysiological, communication) have been studied more than others. Conversely, less knowledge is available on certain species (amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates), noises (recreational, military, urban) and impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems). The map does not assess the impacts of anthropogenic noise, but it can be the starting point for more thorough synthesis of evidence. After a critical appraisal, the included reviews and meta-analyses could be exploited, if reliable, to transfer the already synthesized knowledge into operational decisions to reduce noise pollution and protect biodiversity.

For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Species are disappearing [ 1 ], populations are collapsing [ 2 ], species’ ranges are changing (both shrinking and expanding) at unprecedented rates [ 3 ] and communities are being displaced by invasive alien species [ 4 ]. All of the above is caused by human activities and scientists regularly alert the international community to our responsibility [ 5 ]. In particular, urban growth is one of the major reasons for biodiversity loss [ 6 , 7 ] in that it destroys natural habitats, fragments the remaining ecosystems [ 8 ] and causes different types of pollution, for example, run-off, waste and artificial light impacting plants and animals [ 9 , 10 ]. Similarly, man-made sounds are omnipresent in cities, stemming from traffic and other activities (industrial, commercial, etc.) [ 11 ] and they can reach uninhabited places [ 12 ]. Anthropogenic noise can also be generated far from cities (e.g. tourism in a national park, military sonar in an ocean, civil aircraft in the sky).

Many studies have shown that such sounds may have considerable impact on animals. However, sound is not a problem in itself. A majority of species hear and emit sounds [ 13 ]. Sounds are often used to communicate between partners or conspecifics, or to detect prey or predators. The problem arises when sounds turn into “noise”, which depends on each species (sensitivity threshold) and on the type of impact generated (e.g. disturbances, avoidance, damage). In this case, we may speak of “noise pollution”. For instance, man-made sounds can mask and inhibit animal sounds and/or animal audition and it has been shown to affect communication [ 14 ], use of space [ 15 ] and reproduction [ 16 ]. This problem affects many biological groups such as birds [ 17 ], amphibians [ 18 ], reptiles [ 19 ], fishes [ 20 ], mammals [ 21 ] and invertebrates [ 22 ]. It spans several types of ecosystems including terrestrial [ 23 ], aquatic [ 24 ] and coastal ecosystems [ 25 ]. Many types of sounds produced by human activities can represent a form of noise pollution for biodiversity, including traffic [ 26 ], ships [ 27 ], aircraft [ 28 ] and industrial activities [ 29 ]. Noise pollution can also act in synergy with other disturbances, for example light pollution [ 30 ].

Despite this rich literature, a preliminary search did not identify any existing systematic maps pertaining to this issue. Some reviews or meta-analyses have been published, but most concern only one biological group, such as Morley et al. [ 31 ] on invertebrates, Patricelli and Blickley [ 32 ] on birds and Popper and Hastings [ 33 ] on fishes. Other syntheses are more general and resemble somewhat a systematic map, but their strategies seem to be incomplete. For instance, Shannon et al. [ 34 ] performed their literature search on only one database (ISI Web of Science within selected subject areas) and did not include grey literature. As another example, we can cite Rocca et al. in 2016, a meta-analysis that limited its population to birds and amphibians and its outcome to vocalization adjustment [ 35 ]. As a consequence, a more comprehensive map, covering all species and ecosystems, all sources of man-made sounds and all outcomes, and implementing a deeper search strategy (e.g. several databases, grey literature included) is needed to provide a complete overview for policy and practice.

This report presents a systematic map of evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity based on an a priori method published in a peer-reviewed protocol [ 36 ]. It describes the mapping process and the evidence base. It includes aggregate data and tables presenting the characteristics of the selected articles to highlight gaps in the literature concerning the issue. A database was produced in conjunction with this report, containing metadata for each selected article including key variables (species, types of sound, effects, etc.).

Stakeholder engagement

The current systematic map is managed by the UMS Patrimoine Naturel joint research unit funded by the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB), the National Scientific Research Center (CNRS) and the National Museum of Natural History (MNHN), in a partnership with INRAE. Our institutions act on behalf of the French Ecology Ministry and provide technical and scientific expertise to support public policies on biodiversity.

We identified noise pollution as an emergent threat for species and ecosystems that public authorities and practitioners will have to mitigate in the coming years. Indeed, for decades, noise regulations have focused primarily on the disturbances for humans, but we expect that public policies for biodiversity conservation will start to pay more attention to this threat. Already, in 1996, for the first time, the European Commission’s Green Paper on Future Noise Control Policy dealt with noise pollution from the point of view of environmental protection. Quiet areas are also recommended to guarantee the tranquility of fauna in Europe [ 37 ]. Since 2000 in France, an article in the Environmental Code (art. L571-1) has contained the terms “harms the environment” with respect to disturbances due to noise. To achieve these objectives, a knowledge transfer from research to stakeholders is needed for evidence-based decisions. We expect that concern for the impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity will develop along the same lines that it did for light pollution, which is now widely acknowledged by society. Anticipating this progress, we proposed to the French Ecology Ministry that we produce a systematic map of the impacts of noise on biodiversity in view of drafting a report on current knowledge and identifying sectors where research is needed to fill in knowledge gaps.

Objective of the review

The objective of the systematic map is to provide a comprehensive overview of the available knowledge on the impacts of noise pollution on species and ecosystems and to quantify the existing research in terms of the taxonomic groups, sources of noise and impact types studied.

The systematic map covers all species and ecosystems. In that we are currently not able to say exactly when a sound becomes a noise pollution for species (which is precisely why a systematic map and reviews are needed on this topic), this map covers all man-made sounds, regardless of their characteristics (e.g. frequency, speed, intensity), their origin (road traffic, industrial machines, boats, planes, etc.), their environment or media (terrestrial, aquatic, aerial) and their type (infrasound, ultrasound, white noise, etc.), and in most cases here uses the term “noise” or “noise pollution”. It does not include sounds made by other animals (e.g. chorus frogs) or natural events (e.g. thunder, waterfalls). The systematic map deals with all kinds of impacts, from biological to ecological impacts (use of space, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). It encompasses in situ studies as well as ex situ studies (aquariums, laboratories, cages, etc.). The components of the systematic map are detailed in Table  1 .

The primary question is: what is the evidence that man-made noise impacts biodiversity?

The secondary question is: which species, types of impacts and types of noise are most studied?

The method used to produce this map was published in an a priori peer-reviewed protocol by Sordello et al. [ 36 ]. Deviations are listed below. The method follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management [ 38 ] unless noted otherwise, and this paper conforms to ROSES reporting standards [ 39 ] (see Additional file 1 ).

Deviation from the a priori protocol published by Sordello et al. [ 36 ]

Method enhancements.

We reinforced the search strategy with:

a search performed on both CORE and BASE, whereas the protocol was limited to a search on only one of these two search engines,

export of the first 1000 hits for each search string run on Google Scholar, whereas the protocol foresaw the export of the first 300 hits,

extraction of the entire bibliography of 37 key reviews selected from the previously provided corpus whereas the protocol did not foresee this option.

Method downgrades

Because of our resource limitations:

we could not extract the design comparator (e.g. CE, BAE, BACE),

we could not split each article included in the map into several entries (i.e. a book with several chapters, a proceeding with multiple abstracts, a study with several species, sources of noise or outcomes). Consequently, we coded the multiple aspects of these articles on one line in the map database.

Search for articles

Searches were performed using exclusively English search terms. The list of search terms is presented below (see “ Search string ”).

Only studies published in English and in French were included in this systematic map, due to limited resources and the languages understood by the map team.

Search string

The following search string was built (see Additional file 2 , section I for more details on this process):

((TI = (noise OR sound$) OR TS = (“masking auditory” OR “man-made noise” OR “anthropogenic noise” OR “man-made sound$” OR “music festival$” OR ((pollution OR transportation OR road$ OR highway$ OR motorway$ OR railway$ OR traffic OR urban OR city OR cities OR construction OR ship$ OR boat$ OR port$ OR aircraft$ OR airplane$ OR airport$ OR industr* OR machinery OR “gas extraction” OR mining OR drilling OR pile-driving OR “communication network$” OR “wind farm$” OR agric* OR farming OR military OR gun$ OR visitor$) AND noise))) AND TS = (ecolog* OR biodiversity OR ecosystem$ OR “natural habitat$” OR species OR vertebrate$ OR mammal$ OR reptile$ OR amphibian$ OR bird$ OR fish* OR invertebrate$ OR arthropod$ OR insect$ OR arachnid$ OR crustacean$ OR centipede$)).

Comprehensiveness of the search

A test list of 65 scientific articles was established (see Additional file 2 , section II) to assess the comprehensiveness of the search string. The test list was composed of the three groups listed below.

Forty relevant scientific articles identified by the map team prior to the review.

Eight key articles identified using three relevant reviews: Brumm, 2010 (two articles) [ 40 ], Cerema, 2007 (three articles) [ 41 ] and Dutilleux and Fontaine, 2015 (three articles) [ 42 ].

Seventeen studies not readily accessible or indexed by the most common academic databases, submitted by subject experts contacted prior to the review (29 subject experts were contacted, 7 responded).

Bibliographic databases

The two databases below were searched (see Additional file 2 , section III for more details on database selection):

“Web of Science Core Collection” on the Web of Science platform (Clarivate) using the access rights of the French National Museum of Natural History, using the search string described above. The search covered SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI and CCR-EXPANDED (see Additional file 2 , section III for the complete list of citation indexes). A first request was run on 14 December 2018, without any timespan restriction, and returned 7859 citations. Secondly, an update request, restricted to 2019, was performed, using the same search string and citation indexes, on 6 May 2020, to collect the documents published in 2019. 685 citations were exported.

Scopus (Elsevier). The search string described above was adapted to take into account differences in the search syntax (see Additional file 2 , section IV). A first search was run on 14 December 2018, without any timespan restriction, using the access rights of the University of Bordeaux and returned 11,186 citations. Secondly, a new request restricted to 2019 was performed on 6 May 2020, using the same search string, using the access rights of the CNRS, to collect the documents published in 2019. 859 citations were exported.

Web-based search engines

Additional searches were undertaken using the three following search engines (see Additional file 2 , section V for more details):

Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.com/ ). Due to the limitations of Google Scholar, four search strings were constructed with English terms to translate the search string used for the bibliographic databases described above in a suitable form for Google Scholar. The first searches were performed on 11 June 2019 and the first 1000 citations (as a maximum, when available), sorted by citation frequency, were exported to a .csv file for each of the four search strings. Secondly, an update search was performed on 6 May 2020 with the same four search strings to collect the documents published in 2019; all hits (110) were exported;

BASE ( https://www.base-search.net ). Searches were performed on 12 April 2019. Given certain limitations of this search engine (maximum number of string characters), the search string built for the bibliographic databases described above was split into two search strings. Searches were performed on the titles of the articles, with no restriction to open access articles, on all types of documents and without any timespan restriction. The first 300 citations, sorted by relevance, were exported for each of the two search strings to a .csv file;

CORE ( https://core.ac.uk/ ). Searches were performed on 12 February 2019. The search engine allowed the use of the original search string used for the bibliographic databases. Searches were performed on the title of the articles and without any timespan restriction. The first 327 articles were manually downloaded, excepting the duplicates and the dead links.

Specialist websites

The following websites were manually searched for relevant articles, including grey literature:

Achieve QUieter Oceans by shipping noise footprint reduction website: http://www.aquo.eu/ .

Association for biodiversity conservation: http://www.objectifs-biodiversites.com .

Document portal of the French Ecology Ministry: http://www.portail.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ .

Document database of the French General commission for sustainable development: http://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ .

European Commission websites: http://ec.europa.eu/ and http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ .

European parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ .

French forum against noise: https://assises.bruit.fr/ .

Information and Documentation Center on Noise: http://www.bruit.fr .

We collected nine articles from these specialist websites that we included in the mapping process.

Supplementary searches

A call for literature was conducted via different channels from January 2019 to April 2019 to find supplementary literature, in particular non peer-reviewed articles, published in French or in English.

Specialized organizations were contacted via their networks, their web forums or their mailing lists:

the “IENE—Infra Eco Network Europe” ( http://www.iene.info/ ),

the French program on transportation infrastructure ITTECOP “Infrastructures de Transports Terrestres, ECOsystèmes et Paysages” ( http://www.ittecop.fr/ ),

the French national council for the protection of nature “Conseil national de protection de la nature (CNPN)”,

the Green and blue infrastructure policy, a French public policy ( http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr ),

the “Société Française d’Ecologie” ( https://www.sfecologie.org/ ),

the French national mailing list EvolFrance managed by INRAE on biological evolution and biodiversity ( https://www6.inra.fr/reid_eng/News/Evolfrance ).

The following social media were also used to alert the research community to the systematic map and to request non peer-reviewed articles: ResearchGate ( http://www.researchgate.net ), Twitter ( http://www.twitter.com ), LinkedIn ( http://www.linkedin.com ).

A total of 83 articles were sent to us in response to the call for literature.

Bibliographies from relevant reviews

After having collected the literature from the different sources described above, we selected 37 relevant reviews from our corpus. Then, we extracted all their bibliographic references, resulting in 4025 citations (see the list of the 37 reviews and their corresponding number of extracted citations in Additional File 3 ). Among these citations we excluded all duplicates (intra-duplicates and duplicates between these bibliographies and our previous literature collection). We screened the titles of the remaining citations, we retrieved the pdf file of the selected titles and then we screened their full-texts.

Testing the comprehensiveness of the search results

Among the 65 articles included in the test list, the number of articles retrieved from the main sources are (see Additional file 4 for more details on the comprehensiveness values): WOS CC 55, Scopus 56, Google Scholar 41, CORE 5, BASE 3, Relevant reviews 43.

The low comprehensiveness levels reached with CORE and BASE can be explained by the fact that these two search engines index mostly grey literature (they were included in the search strategy for this reason) such as reports, theses or books, whereas this type of literature is absent from the test list that mainly contains journal articles.

The overall comprehensiveness of the map search strategy is 95% (62 articles out of the 65 articles in the test list were retrieved by the different bibliographic sources, see in Additional file 4 the 3 unretrieved articles).

Manually added articles

Finally, some articles were added manually to the corpus:

the 3 articles included in the test list that were not retrieved by the search strategy,

36 relevant articles identified by the team that were found in other publications, but not retrieved by the search strategy. For example, these articles were detected in proceedings or books from which other articles had already been added to the map and that we discovered during the screening process or the full-text collection.

Duplicate removal

Duplicate removal was carried out throughout the mapping process using Excel (duplicate conditional formatting and visual identification line by line). Duplicates were removed from each corpus (e.g. intra Scopus duplicates) and between bibliographic sources (e.g. duplicates between Scopus and Google Scholar). The selected citation was systematically the one from Web of Science Core Collection because the metadata linked to the citations extracted from this database are more complete compared to the Scopus database and supplementary literature sources (BASE, CORE, Google Scholar, call for literature).

Article screening and study-eligibility criteria

Screening process.

Using the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria detailed below, all articles were screened using Excel, first on titles, then on abstracts and finally on the full-texts.

When there was any doubt regarding the presence of a relevant inclusion criterion or if there was insufficient information to make an informed decision, articles were retained for assessment at a later stage. In particular, articles retained after title screening, but that did not have an abstract were immediately transferred to full-text screening. Given that titles and abstracts in grey literature do not conform to scientific standards, assessment of grey literature was performed during the full-text screening phase. Care was taken to ensure that reviewers never screened their own articles.

The three screening stages were conducted by three reviewers (RS, SV, AD). To assess the consistency of the inclusion/exclusion decisions, a Randolph’s Kappa coefficient was computed before screening the full search results. To that end, a set of articles was randomly selected (respectively composed of 200 articles for title screening, 20 articles for abstract screening and 15 articles for full-text screening) and screened by each reviewer independently. The process was repeated until reaching a Kappa coefficient value higher than 0.6. But even after reaching the necessary Kappa value, all disagreements were discussed and resolved before beginning the screening process.

During calibration of the map protocol, a scoping stage was conducted in the “Web of Science Core Collection” and the three stages of the screening process were tested by one reviewer (RS) in order to refine the eligibility criteria. For these articles, a second reviewer (SV) examined all the rejected articles. Disagreements were discussed and, in some cases, articles were re-included. At the title screening stage, 4692 titles rejected by RS were checked by SV and 156 (3%) were re-included. At the abstract screening stage, 180 abstracts rejected by RS were checked by SV and none were re-included. At the full-text screening stage, 95 full-texts rejected by RS were checked by SV and none were re-included.

Eligibility criteria

Article eligibility was based on the list of criteria detailed in Table  2 , with no deviation from the a priori protocol.

The language was considered as an eligibility criteria only at the full-text screening stage. This means that if an article had an abstract written in another language than French or English, it was not excluded for this reason and it was transferred to the full-text screening stage.

During the three screening stages, rejected articles were systematically classified into four categories (see Table  3 for examples). When an article topic obviously lay outside the scope of this map, it was marked “D” (for Diverse); otherwise it was marked P for irrelevant Population, E for irrelevant Exposure or O for irrelevant Outcome.

Study-validity assessment

No study validity assessment was performed because the intention of the map was not to examine the robustness of the study designs. Critical appraisals of study validity are usually conducted in the case of systematic reviews, not for systematic maps. Footnote 1

Data-coding strategy

All the articles passing the three screening stages were included in the mapping database, apart from those published in 2019 or 2020. This is because some literature searches did not cover 2019 and others covered only a part of it. Consequently, we decided not to include articles published in 2019 (or in 2020) to maintain consistency in the map statistics. Accepted full-texts published in 2019 or 2020 were not coded and were grouped in an additional file for a possible later update of the map.

Each article included in the map was coded based on the full-text using keywords and expanded comment fields describing various aspects. The key variables are:

Article description:

Article source (WOS research, Scopus research, Google Scholar research, etc.);

Basic bibliographic information (authors, title, article date, journal, DOI, etc.);

Language (English/French);

Article type (journal article, book, thesis, conference object, etc.);

Article content (four possibilities: study, review, meta-analysis, other). A study consists of an experiment or an observation, it can be field based (in situ or ex situ) or model based. A review is a collection of studies, based or not on a standardized method. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis based on several previously published studies or data;

Article characteristics:

Type of population (taxonomic groups). First, we classified the articles according to four taxa: prokaryotes, vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Then, for vertebrates and invertebrates, we classified the articles as concerning respectively amphibians/birds/fishes/mammals/reptiles/others or arachnids/crustaceans/insects/mollusks/others. This classification is based on different prior evidence syntheses on noise pollution [ 34 , 53 , 54 ], including more details concerning invertebrates. In addition, it is usual in biodiversity documentation and facilitates understanding by stakeholders;

Type of exposure (sources of noise, see Fig.  1 for more details);

Categories to code the sources of noise (exposure)

Type of outcomes (types of impacts, see Fig.  2 for more details).

Categories to code the impacts of noise (outcomes)

Here again, to categorize the exposure (sources of noise) and the outcomes (types of impacts), we used previously published evidence syntheses on noise pollution and biodiversity, in particular the review by Shannon et al. (2016) (see in this publication Table  2 , page 988 on the sources of noise and Table  3 , page 989 on the impacts of noise) [ 34 ].

For studies only:

Country where the study was conducted;

Type of habitat (terrestrial or aquatic);

Study context: in situ (field)/ex situ (laboratory, aquariums, etc.);

Experimental (causal)/observational (correlative) study;

Origin of noise (artificial, real, recorded).

These metadata were coded according to an a priori codebook (see Additional file 6 in Sordello et al. [ 36 ]) that was marginally adjusted. The final version of this codebook is included as a sheet in the provided database file (see below the corresponding Additional file 9 ).

As far as possible, controlled vocabularies were used to code the variables (e.g. article type, dates, country, etc.), using thesauri or ISO standards (e.g. ISO 639-1 for the language variable and the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code for the country).

Coding was performed by three coders (OR, AD and RS). Because of time and resource limitations in our project, we could not undertake double coding and not all the articles could be coded by a single coder. Coding was carried out by three persons who successively coded a part of the articles. RS began, AD continued and OR finished. One coder coded all variables for the articles included in his/her group of articles (i.e. an article was not coded by several coders). There was no overlap in article coding. To understand the coding rules, explanation was given by RS to AD and OR before they started to code their group of articles. Also, to better understand the coding rules, AD could use the articles previously coded by RS and OR could use the articles previously coded by RS and AD. The three coding steps were monitored by RS who discussed with the two other coders in case of doubt. Finally, when the three groups of articles had been coded, RS reviewed the entire database to identify any errors and homogenize the terminology.

Data-mapping method

By cross-tabulating key meta-data variables (e.g. population and outcomes), summary figures and tables of the article characteristics were produced for this map report to identify knowledge gaps (un- or under-represented subtopics that warrant further primary research) and knowledge clusters (well-represented subtopics that are amenable to full synthesis by a systematic review). Based on these results, recommendations were made on priorities for policy makers, practitioners and research.

Literature searches and screening stages

During the screening process, reviewers did not screen articles that they had authored themselves, except the protocol of this systematic map and it was excluded during the title-screening stage.

The ROSES flow diagram below (Fig.  3 ) provides an overview of the screening process and shows the volumes of articles at the different stages. Detailed screening results are explained in Additional file 5 and illustrated with a full flow diagram in Additional file 6 . The list of all collated and screened articles is provided as an Excel sheet attached to this map report (Additional file 7 ). It contains information on the three screening stages (names of screeners, date of screening, inclusion/exclusion decisions, reason for exclusion, etc.). This file was drafted according to a codebook that describes each variable and the available values and that is included as a sheet in the provided file. In a separate sheet, it also contains the list of excluded full-texts and the reason for exclusion.

ROSES flow diagram of the systematic map process from the searching stage to the map database. Details are given in the Additional files 5 and 6

Among the 29,027 articles initially collected, 9482 were deleted because they were duplicates, 14,503 were excluded on titles, 947 on abstracts and 1262 on full-texts. A total of 1887 articles were definitively selected after the three screening stages. Among them, 1746 were included in the map to be coded (with 48 more articles manually added or coming from specialist websites) and 141 were grouped in a separate additional file because they were published in 2019–2020 (Additional file 8 ). The systematic-map database contains 1794 relevant articles on the impacts of anthropogenic noises on species and ecosystems (Additional file 9 ), of which 19 are written in French and 1775 in English.

General bibliometrics on the database

Article sources.

The systematic-map database is composed of 1794 articles that come (see Table  4 ):

mainly from bibliographic databases: 65% (48% from WOS CC and 17% from Scopus);

from the bibliography of relevant reviews in a significant proportion: 19%;

from web-based search engines: 12% (in particular 8% from Google Scholar).

Articles coming from the call for literature or the specialist websites and manually added articles represent less than 5% of the map.

Regarding the efficiency of the searches, the call for literature, CORE search engine and Web of Science CC database stand out as the most relevant sources of bibliography for this map (Table  4 ). For instance, 27% of the literature received from the call was included in the map as was 15% from CORE, however these two sources represent a very small part of the final map (1% and 3%, respectively). On the contrary, articles collected from Scopus represent 17% of the final map whereas only 3% of the total number of articles collected from this database were actually relevant. Concerning the key reviews from which citations were extracted, some of these reviews proved to be very useful for the map. For instance, 30% of the bibliography (47 articles) from Gomez et al. [ 55 ] were included in the map (see Additional file 3 for the percentage of extracted/included citations for each key review).

Article types and contents

Figure  4 a shows the distribution of article types. The systematic-map database is mainly composed of journal articles (1333, which represent more than 74%). The second highest proportions of article types in the map are book chapters and reports that each represent 8% of the map.

Types ( a ) and contents ( b ) of articles included in the systematic-map database

Figure  4 b shows the distribution of article contents. The systematic-map database is mainly composed of studies (1340, which represent more than 75% of the map), then, reviews (379, 21%) and meta-analyses (16, 1% with one article that is a mixed review/meta-analysis).

Not surprisingly, the majority of studies (1096/1340, 82%) and meta-analyses (13/16, 81%) were published as journal articles. Reviews are more spread over the different types of bibliographic sources even if they are also mainly published as journal articles (186/379, 49%).

Chronological distribution

The systematic-map database contains articles from 1932 to 2018 included. Figure  5 shows that production truely started around 1970 and then strongly increased starting around 2000 (Fig.  5 ).

Chronologic number of articles since 1950

Map characteristics on the population, exposure and outcomes

Taxonomic groups.

The systematic map contains articles almost exclusively on vertebrates (1641/1794, 91%). Invertebrates represent 9% of the map and plants and prokaryotes together form less than 1% (however, it should be noted here that our search string did not include “plant” nor “prokaryote” which may partly explain these results).

Mammals, birds and fishes are the three most studied taxonomic groups in the map (see Fig.  6 ), with respectively 778/1794 (43%), 524/1794 (29%) and 437/1794 documents (24%) (the sum of mammals, birds and fishes exceeds the number of vertebrates because one article counted as “vertebrates” can include several vertebrate sub-groups).

Number of articles for each type of taxonomic group (population), with details for studies and reviews/meta-analyses

These observed patterns regarding the population for the whole map are the same for studies and for reviews/meta-analyses. Mammals, birds and fishes are also the three taxonomic groups most considered in the studies (respectively 40%, 28% and 22%) and in the reviews/meta-analyses (respectively 52%, 33%, 30%).

Among invertebrates, crustaceans represent the most examined group (4% of the map, 3% of the studies, 6% of the reviews/meta-analyses) followed closely by mollusks.

Sources of noise

For 69 articles (4%), we could not precisely code the source of noise in any exposure class. Indeed, these articles use imprecise expressions such as “anthropogenic noise”. Among the others, 619 articles (35% of the map, see Fig.  7 ) deal with transportation noise, followed by industrial noise (27%) and abstract noises (25%). Few articles deal with recreational noise (5% of the map).

Number of articles for each source of noise (exposure) with details for studies and reviews/meta-analyses

Focusing on the 1340 studies, transportation noise (32%), abstract noise (30%) and industrial noise (23%) are also the three sources of noise most considered, but the ranking was different from that found for all articles. Regarding the reviews/meta-analyses, transportation (43%) and industry (40%) are the two first sources of noise most considered and military noise (27%) comes in as the third source instead of abstract noises.

Types of impacts

The articles included in the map mainly deal with behavioural impacts of noise (985/1794, 55% of the map, see Fig.  8 ). Biophysiology is also frequently considered in the articles (704/1794, 39%) and then communication (424/1794, 24%). For 19 articles (1% of the map) we could not code the outcome because it was not detailed by the authors.

Number of articles for each type of impact (outcomes), with details for studies and reviews/meta-analyses

With a focus on the 1340 studies, impacts of noise on behaviour (51%), on biophysiology (34%) and on communication (22%) are the most considered, similar to the situation for reviews/meta-analyses (respectively 66%, 56% and 31%). On the contrary, space use is the least studied outcome.

Knowledge gaps and knowledge clusters

We combined the results (number of studies) between two of the three characteristics (population, exposure and outcome), resulting in Figs.  9 , 10 and 11 .

Taxonomic groups (P) and sources of noise (E) in studies

Taxonomic groups (P) and types of impacts (O) in studies

Sources of noise (E) and types of impacts (O) in studies

For each of the three combinations of data, we extracted the top four results (those with the highest number of studies), resulting in 12 knowledge clusters presented in Table  5 . This analysis confirms the knowledge clusters previously noted in the results on population (in Fig.  6 , namely mammals, birds, fishes), exposure (in Fig.  7 , transportation, industrial, abstract noises) and outcomes (in Fig.  8 , behaviour, biophysiology and communication).

Concerning knowledge gaps, the analysis between population, exposure and outcomes reveals that many combinations have never been studied and it is difficult to identify any knowledge gaps in particular. We can refer to separate results on population, exposure and outcomes that show that few studies were conducted on amphibians (61), reptiles (18), all invertebrates (in particular arachnids: 3) and plants (8) in terms of population (see Fig.  6 ); recreational (57), military (106) and urban noises (131) in terms of exposure (see Fig.  7 ); space use (94), reproduction (149) and ecosystems (167) in terms of outcomes (see Fig.  8 ).

Study characteristics

Study location.

Almost one third of all studies (441/1340, 33%) were carried out in the USA (Fig.  12 ). A substantial proportion of the studies were also conducted in Canada (121/1340, 9%), Great Britain (84/1340, 6%), the Netherlands (70/1340, 5%) and even Australia (698/1340, 5%). The country is unknown in 135 studies (10%).

Tree-map representation of the countries where at least 10 studies were included in the map. Values: USA: 441; CAN (Canada): 121; GBR (Great Britain): 84; NLD (Netherlands): 70; AUS (Australia): 69; DEU (Germany): 41; NOR (Norway): 37; FRA (France): 27; ITA (Italia): 27; BRA (Brazil): 26; ESP (Spain): 24; CHN (China): 22; DNK (Denmark): 20; SWE (Sweden): 17; NZL (New-Zealand): 15; MEX (Mexico): 14; POL (Poland): 11; RUS (Russia): 10

Noise source and media

Studies mainly deal with real noise (632/1340, 47%). Around a third of the studies (378/1340, 28%) are based on artificial noise and 16% of the studies (221/1340) use real recorded noise (Fig.  13 a top). The distribution between terrestrial or aquatic media through which noise is broadcast is virtually equivalent (see Fig.  13 b bottom, respectively 47% and 51%).

Number of studies included in the map in terms of the noise generated (a; top) and noise media (b; bottom)

Study context and design

Figure  14 shows that 95% of studies (1274/1340) are field based whereas only 3% (40/1340) are model based and less than 1% (9/1340) are combined (field and model based studies). Among the 1283 studies that are totally or partially field based, 56% (720) are in situ whereas 42% (537) are ex situ (zoos, aquarium, cages, etc.) and 2% (26) are combined (Fig.  14 left). Also, a majority are experimental (856/1283, 67%), 32% (411/1283) are observational and less than 1% (12/1283) are combined (experimental and observational) (Fig.  14 right).

Number of studies included in the map in terms of the context and design protocol

Reviews and meta-analyses

The high number of reviews included in the systematic map (379) can be explained by our methodology. Indeed, some articles were retrieved by our search strategy because they contain only one chapter or one paragraph that reviews the bibliography on impacts of anthropogenic noise on biodiversity. As a consequence, they were included in the map during the screening process even if the document as a whole does not deal with our map’s main issues. Nevertheless, the map does include many reviews that fully address the impacts of noise pollution on species and ecosystems. This means that, contrary to what was assumed beforehand, a huge amount of synthesis work has in fact already been invested in this topic. However, our results confirm that, for the moment, no prior systematic map—as broad and comprehensive as the present one—has been published yet, even if after the date of our literature search, a systematic-map protocol has been published on the impact of noise, focusing on acoustic communication in animals [ 56 ].

Some of the collected reviews are general syntheses and provide an overview of the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species (i.e. Kight and Swaddle [ 57 ]; Dufour [ 58 ]). However, most of reviews are focused on one or more population(s), exposure(s) and outcomes(s) or even a combination of these three parameters. For instance:

concerning taxonomic groups (population): some reviews deal with specific taxa—such as fishes [ 59 ], marine mammals [ 60 ] or crustaceans [ 61 ]—or with wider groups—such as invertebrates [ 31 ] or even terrestrial organisms [ 62 ];

concerning types of noise (exposure): Pepper et al. [ 63 ] address aircraft noise, Patricelli and Blickley [ 32 ] urban noise and Larkin [ 64 ] military noise;

concerning types of impacts (outcomes): De Soto et al. [ 65 ] (which is a proceeding) focus on physiological effects, Brumm and Slabbekoorn [ 66 ] target communication and Tidau and Briffa [ 67 ] (which is also a proceeding) deal with behavioural impacts.

Five reviews are presented as “systematic reviews” by their authors. One of them is Shannon et al. [ 34 ], which is indeed a wide synthesis of the effects of noise on wildlife. Another is dedicated to behavioural responses of wild marine mammals and includes a meta-analysis (quantitative synthesis) [ 55 ]. Two other systematic reviews include noise effects in a wider investigation of the impacts of some human activities, respectively seismic surveys [ 68 ] and wind energy [ 69 ]. The fifth is more specific and deals with the impact of prenatal music and noise exposure on post-natal auditory cortex development for several animals such as chickens, rats, mice, monkeys, cats and pigs [ 70 ]. Two other reviews—Radford [ 54 ] and Williams et al. [ 71 ]—could be qualified as “systematic” because their method is standardized (e.g. search string, screening process), but their authors have not done so.

Among the meta-analyses included in the map, we can cite in particular Cox et al. [ 72 , 73 ] on fishes, Roca et al. [ 35 ] on birds and anurans and Gomez et al. [ 55 ] on marine mammals. Birds are particularly considered since two more meta-analyses deal with this taxonomic group [ 74 , 75 ]. We can also note Cardoso et al. [ 76 ] on the impact of urban noise on several species.

Finally, regarding books, five of them are particularly relevant to the map topic, chronologically:

“Effects of Noise on Wildlife” [ 77 ];

“Marine Mammals and Noise” [ 78 ];

“Animal Communication and Noise” [ 79 ];

“The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life” (Popper and Hawkins), published in two volumes 2012 and 2016 [ 80 , 81 ];

“Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals” [ 82 ] which is the newest book on noise pollution and wildlife with syntheses for taxonomic groups such as fishes [ 83 ], reptiles and amphibians [ 84 ], birds [ 85 ] and marine mammals [ 86 ].

Some other books can be very general in discussing noise pollution, for instance “Railway ecology” [ 87 ]. Lastly, some other books can contain entire chapters specifically on noise pollution, e.g. “Avian Urban Ecology: Behavioural and Physiological Adaptations” [ 88 , 89 ] or “The Handbook of Road Ecology” [ 90 , 91 ]. We can also cite the “Ornithological Monographs” N°74 which is dedicated to noise pollution and contains one review [ 92 ] and several studies that are all included in the map [ 93 , 94 ].

Recently, some relevant syntheses were published in 2019 (not included in the map; see Additional file 8 ). A meta-analysis was performed on the effects of anthropogenic noise on animals [ 53 ] and a systematic review was published on intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise [ 95 ]. In addition, one review on the impact of ship noise on marine mammals includes a systematic literature search [ 96 ]. Two non-systematic reviews can also be cited, one about invertebrates [ 97 ] and the other about fishes [ 98 ].

Among all these bibliographic syntheses (including those from 2019), we selected those whose literature collection is based on a standardized approach (e.g. search string, database request, screening process)—which includes meta-analyses and systematic reviews/maps or similar—and whose topic is as close as possible to our systematic map (e.g. focused on noise and not on wider human pressures). We summarized the main features (topic delimitation, search strategy, number of citations) for the 12 selected evidence syntheses in Table  6 with more details in Additional file 10 .

In most cases, these reviews and meta-analyses contain far fewer articles than what we collected, which can be explained by their topic restrictions (P, E, O) as well as their search strategy (e.g. number of databases, complementary searches or not, screening criteria). In terms of topics, Shannon et al. [ 34 ] would appear to be the only standardized evidence synthesis as wide as ours (all wildlife, all sources of noise, all impacts), but the authors gathered 242 articles from 1990 to 2013. The synthesis published by Radford [ 54 ]—which, as a report, is grey literature—also provides an overview of the state of knowledge with descriptive statistics, according to a standardized method, although it focuses on non-marine organisms and it is based on 86 articles. In 2019, Kunc and Schmidt published a meta-analysis that covers all impacts of noise on animals and they collected 108 articles [ 53 ].

General comments

This map reveals that the literature on the impact of anthropogenic noise on species and ecosystems is already extensive, in that 1794 relevant articles were collected, including 1340 studies, 379 reviews and 16 meta-analyses. Studies are mainly located in North America, in particular in the United States and Canada. In Europe, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have produced the largest numbers of articles. Australia is also active in this field.

This high volume of bibliography highlights the fact that this issue is already widely studied by scientists. The production on this topic started many years ago, around 1970, and has surged considerably since 2000. More than one hundred articles a year since 2012 are listed in our map.

This chronological pattern is quite usual and can be encountered for other topics such as light pollution [ 99 ]. It can be due to practical reasons such as better dissemination and accessibility of articles (e.g. database development), but it also certainly reflects a real increase in research activity on the topic of “noise pollution” in response to social concern for environmental issues.

The articles are mainly provided through academic sources (i.e. journal articles), but grey literature is also substantial. 461 articles included in the map (i.e. around a fourth of the map) can be grouped as ‘‘grey literature’’ (books and book chapters, reports, theses, conference objects). In particular, 36 theses from all over the world address this issue.

Regarding the population, the systematic map confirms that a very broad range of species is the topic of literature on the effects of noise pollution. Indeed, all of the 11 population classes of our coding strategy contain articles. Nevertheless, a high proportion of the map concerns mammals and, to a lesser extent birds and fishes. Among the 778 articles targeting mammals, many infrataxa are concerned (e.g. Cetacea [ 100 ], Carnivora [ 101 ], Cervidae [ 102 ], Chiroptera [ 103 ], Rodentia [ 104 ]), but the highest proportion of the articles on mammals deals with aquatic noise (500/778, 64%), which suggests that many may concern Cetacea (e.g. dolphins, whales, beluga).

The other taxonomic groups receive far less attention. Amphibians, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, reptiles and arachnids each represent 5% or less of the whole map. However, comparing these knowledge gaps to contemporary biodiversity issues, we can say, for instance, that amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates are highly threatened species [ 105 , 106 ] and noise pollution around the world is probably part of the threats [ 31 , 84 ]. These taxonomic groups are likely impacted by noise depending on the sense used. In particular, amphibians communicate extensively using sounds (i.e. chorus frogs) [ 107 ], insects demonstrate hyperacuity in directional hearing [ 108 ], reptiles (in particular snakes) and spiders can feel vibrations [ 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ].

In terms of exposure, the map confirms that a very wide variety of anthropogenic activities generate noise and that the effects of these emissions have already been studied.

Transportation (that includes terrestrial infrastructure as well as civil aircraft and boats) is the source of noise most considered. It is closely followed by industrial sources among which high diversity is observed (e.g. pile-driving [ 113 ], seismic surveys [ 114 ], wind turbines [ 115 ], mining [ 116 ], constructions [ 117 ]). Abstract noises are in third position. This category does not necessary correspond to any precise human activities but comprises a large set of computer or machinery sounds (e.g. alarms [ 118 ], pingers [ 119 ], tones [ 120 ], pulses [ 121 ], bells [ 122 ]). Often, articles in this category do not contain many details about the source of noise. Military noise is especially studied for mammals and urban noise is significantly considered for birds (but not otherwise). Recreational noise is the least studied, however a certain diversity of sources is observable (e.g. zoo visitors [ 123 ], music festivals [ 124 ], sporst activities [ 125 ], tourists in natural habitats [ 126 ], Formula one Grand Prix racing [ 127 ], whale-watching [ 128 ]). However, urban and recreational sources of noise are important and will increase in the future because, on the one hand, urbanization is spreading all over the word and, on the other, human presence in natural habitats is also becoming more and more frequent (e.g. recreational activities in nature). For example, the expansion of Unmanned Aircraft could be a serious threat for biodiversity [ 129 ].

In terms of outcomes, the map also confirms a very wide range of impacts of noise on species and ecosystems. The most studied are the behavioural impacts involving measurements on movement [ 130 ], foraging [ 131 ], hunting [ 132 ], social behaviour [ 133 ], aversive reaction [ 134 ], etc. Biophysiology and communication are also well covered, especially the impacts on the biophysiology of mammals and fishes and on the communication birds. Biophysiological outcomes can be very diverse (e.g. hormonal response [ 135 ], heart rate [ 136 ], blood parameters [ 137 ], organ development [ 138 ]). On the other hand, the lack of literature on ecosystems, reproduction and space use is of concern. Ecosystems are a very significant aspect of biodiversity and will be increasingly integrated in public policies and scientific research, notably concerning ecosystem services in the context of global changes [ 139 , 140 ]. Reproduction and mobility of species are essential for the sustainability of their population and we already know that noise can impair them [ 141 , 142 ].

Concerning the systematic map, at the moment, we are not able to conclude whether this very rich literature provides strong evidence on impacts of anthropogenic noise on animals. Indeed, we do not know if the studies and other articles confirm or invalidate such impacts and if the studies are sufficiently robust for that purpose. However, our database highlights that a majority of studies are experimental field-based studies. This is a very good point in planning further meta-analyses or systematic reviews with the prospect of quantifying the level of impacts because these studies would probably be selected following critical analysis. For future systematic reviews/meta-analyses, we identified that the three outcomes comprising the highest number of experimental studies (which are the type of content that systematic reviews or meta-analyses would use) are: behaviour (453), biophysiology (391), communication (145).

Given the scope of our map resulting in a high number of population (P), exposure (E) and outcome (O) classes, there is a wide range of possible PEO combinations. Therefore, it is difficult to go further in this report in terms of identifying knowledge gaps and clusters and possible specific questions for future systematic reviews. At the same time, this large number of PEO combinations offers stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, decision-makers) an opportunity to gain information on the combination of interest to them.

Comparison to other evidence syntheses

It is interesting to check whether other evidence syntheses previously published have arrived at the same results, knowledge clusters and knowledge gaps as those highlighted by our map. However, given the differences in terms of methodology, topic delimitation and volume of the existing reviews, exposed in the results section, it is difficult to make such comparisons for all reviews. But we can compare our results to those from two other reviews, namely Shannon et al. [ 34 ] and Radford [ 54 ] (see Fig.  15 ).

Comparison between our map results (SM) and two other standardized reviews [ 34 , 54 ] on population ( a ; top) and exposure ( b ; bottom). A = Transportation; B = Industrial; C = Military; D: Recreational

Concerning population (Fig.  15 a), mammals are the most studied species in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] (39%) as they are in our map (40%). In Radford [ 54 ], birds greatly surpass mammals (65% vs. 9%), but that can be explained by the exclusion of marine species (among which there are many mammals) in the synthesis. Fishes are more represented in our map (22%) than in the two other reviews (Shannon et al.: 15%, Radford: 10%).

Regarding exposure (Fig.  15 b), transportation is the greatest source of noise in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] for terrestrial activities (30%), similar to our map (15%). For aquatic activities, industrial noise is the exposure most frequent in our map (20%) as in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] (28%). In Radford [ 54 ], transportation noise is by far the foremost exposure (more than 75% exclusively for road and aircraft noise). These results seem to be quite consistent.

Concerning outcomes, in Shannon et al. [ 34 ], vocalization is the most frequent for terrestrial studies (44%) whereas behavioural outcomes come first in our map (19%). Behavioural is the most frequent outcome for aquatic studies in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] (more than 40%) whereas biophysiology comes first in our map (24%). Here, our results are more consistent with Radford [ 54 ], where behavioural outcomes are the most frequent (approximately 65%, compared to approximately 54% in our database).

Limitations of the systematic map

Search strategy.

We are aware that two academic databases (WOS CC and Scopus) in our search strategy is a minimum according to the CEE guidelines [ 38 ]. Nevertheless, WOS CC is the most used database in Ecology and Scopus is probably the second. Furthermore, our overall strategy includes eight bibliographic sources (see Table  4 ) and in particular three search engines. In addition, a large number of hits were exported from each of the search engines (e.g. 1000 citations for each search string on Google Scholar instead of the 300 initially expected). We also completed our search strategy with the extraction of all the bibliographic references from 37 relevant reviews. Finally, when a reference was a part of a more comprehensive article (i.e. a meeting abstract inside a proceeding with multiple abstracts), we checked whether other parts of the article could be also interesting for the map (i.e. other meeting abstracts from the same conference proceeding). We could not check systematically due to our limited resources but, nevertheless, this verification produced 36 articles that were added manually to the map.

In conclusion, although our search strategy is robust for journal articles/studies, we may have missed some relevant articles in other formats (e.g. conference papers, books, chapters). That being said, studies are the most important documentation for conducting further systematic reviews.

In addition, in light of the considerations exposed in “ Results ” and “ Discussion ” sections), our systematic map would seem to be wide-ranging and complete because it does not restrict the population, the exposure or the outcomes, contrary to the majority of reviews included in the map. The number of articles collected in the 12 systematic reviews/meta-analyses described in Table  6 shows that our map (1794 articles) constitute a very important dataset.

Full-text searching

In order to facilitate a possible additional full-text research, we have compiled a list of the unretrieved full-text texts in a dedicated Additional file 11 (Sheet 1). We could retrieve 90% of the searched full-texts which means that we had to exclude 376 articles from the map process because we could not get their full-texts. We are aware that this volume of unretrievable full-texts is not a satisfactory result, however there is no standard minimum in the CEE guidelines [ 38 ] and we did everything we could to find the full-texts. First, we benefited from different institutional accesses thanks to our map team (MNHN, CNRS, INRAE). We even performed an additional search during the Covid period when some publishers suspended their paywall. Secondly, we also asked for French and even international interlibrary loans and, when necessary, we went to the libraries to collect them. We also asked for the missing full-texts on ResearchGate. A large number of unretrieved full-texts come from the extracted relevant reviews, from Scopus and from Google Scholar (see Additional file 11 , Sheet 2 for more details on retrieved/not retrieved full-texts depending on the bibliographic sources). In the end, we could obtain some explanations for a majority of the unretrieved full-texts, i.e. 25 (7%) are available online but behind an embargo, a paywall or another access restriction, 124 (33%) are not accessible to the map team (unpublished thesis or report, unlocatable conference proceedings, only available in a print journal, etc.), 47 (13%) would be excluded during screening because of their language (according to Scopus information), 19 (5%) were requested on ResearchGate without any response.

Languages accepted at full-text screening stage

We are aware that we accepted only two languages, English and French. Nevertheless, among the 3219 screened pdf files, only 54 articles were rejected at the full-text stage because of their language. This represents less than 2%. In the end, to facilitate a possible additional screening of these full-texts, we listed them in Additional file 12 . It should also be noted that when a title or an abstract was not in English or in French, it was not rejected for this reason during the title/abstract screening, it was sent directly to abstract and/or full-text screening to check its effective language.

Coding strategy

Due to resource limitations, we were not able to perform double coding of each article by two reviewers, as requested by the CEE guidelines. We are aware that this is not a totally rigorous approach, but we anticipated it in our a priori protocol [ 36 ] because we knew that time and resources would be limited. We think that our approach did not affect coding consistency because the three coders (RS, AD, OR) followed the same coding rules and one person (RS) was present throughout the coding process to explain the rules to the other coders and to help them if necessary. In addition, at the end of the coding procedure, RS reviewed the entire map for analysis purposes.

Regarding the coding strategy, we are aware that our classification (in particular for exposure and outcome classes) is not perfect, but it is difficult to achieve a perfect solution. We decided to use published reviews such as Shannon et al. [ 34 ] or Radford [ 54 ], but different strategies exist. For example, Radford [ 54 ] split the transportation sources of noise (e.g. road, rail, boat), whereas Shannon et al. [ 34 ] grouped them in a “transportation” class. Such classes may appear too broad, but this strategy produces an initial overview of the available literature, which is certainly one of the objectives of a systematic map. As another example, the outcome class “Reproduction” was also difficult to delimit because it can include reproduction in the strictest sense (e.g. number of eggs) as well as other impacts that can influence reproduction (e.g. physiological impacts on adults in a breeding colony). In such cases, we coded the article for the different outcomes (i.e. biophysiology/reproduction).

This systematic map collated and catalogued literature dealing with the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species (excluding humans) and ecosystems. It resulted in a database composed of 1794 articles, including 1340 studies, 379 reviews and 16 meta-analyses published worldwide. Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses have already been published and were collected, however, no systematic map has yet been produced with so few topic restrictions (all wildlife, all sources of noise, all kinds of impacts) and using such a large search strategy (two databases, three search engines, etc.).

This map can be used to inform policy, provide the evidence for systematic reviews and demonstrate where more primary research is needed. It confirms that a broad range of anthropogenic activities can generate noises which may produce highly diverse impacts on a wide array of taxa. To date, some taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, fishes), types of noise (transportation, industrial, abstract) and outcomes (behavioural, biophysiological, communication) have undergone greater studies than others. Less knowledge is available on certain species (invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians), noises (recreational, urban, military) and impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems). Currently, this map cannot be used to determine whether the included studies demonstrate that noise does indeed produce impacts. However, it can be the starting point for more thorough syntheses of evidence. Included reviews and meta-analyses should be exploited to transfer this synthesized knowledge into operational decisions to reduce noise pollution and protect biodiversity.

Implications for policy/management

Given the volume of bibliographic data, we obviously do not face to a totally unexplored topic. But surprisingly, this rich literature on the impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity does not seem to be exploited by practitioners and decision-makers. Indeed, to date, noise pollution has been considered in terms of impacts on human health, but very little or no consideration has been given to impacts on other species and ecosystems. Two key implications emerge from this map.

First, the high volume of reviews and meta-analyses collected in this map can facilitate the immediate integration of these evidence syntheses into public policies on the national and international levels. Some reviews and the meta-analyses have quantified the level of impacts concerning the species, sources of noise and outcomes they considered. A strategy should be defined to assess the quality of these syntheses (critical appraisal) and, if reliable, transfer this already synthesized knowledge to institutional texts (e.g. regulations, guidelines, frameworks). Thanks to the exposure categorization undertaken in this map, many stakeholders and practitioners (urban planners, transport infrastructure owners, airlines and airports, military authorities, tour operators, manufacturing companies, etc.) will be able to directly identify the articles that concern their activities/structures. Such knowledge may also be useful for the European Commission, which intends to produce indicators to monitor the reduction of submarine noise pollution, as part of a new strategy for biodiversity [ 143 ].

Secondly, several knowledge clusters identified in this map may be used for new systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assess the evidence of impacts. Resources should be invested in evidence syntheses capable of exploiting the full range of the mapped literature. In particular, these analyses could determine sensitivity thresholds for guilds of species representing several natural habitats. These thresholds are essential in taking noise pollution into account for green and blue infrastructures in view of preserving and restoring quiet ecological networks. Practitioners (e.g. nature reserves and local governments) in France have started to implement this type of environmental policy and this will increase in the future [ 144 ].

Implications for research

New research programs should initiate studies on knowledge gaps, using robust experimental protocols (such as CE—Control/Exposure, BAE—Before/After/Exposure, B(D)ACE—Before(/During)/After/Control/Exposure) [ 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 ] and taking into account different types of bias [ 149 , 150 , 151 ]. In particular, studies should be started on some taxonomic groups (amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates), on certain sources of noise (recreational, military and urban) and to assess particular impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems) because these populations, exposures and outcomes have received little study to date. Many PEO combinations have never been studied. In addition, the findings of the current map show that research is not evenly spread worldwide, with main areas of research being in North America (United States, Canada). This finding may have an operational impact because some results may not be transposable to other contexts. Articles on further studies could also be more detailed by the authors. Indeed, some meta-data were unavailable in a significant percentage of the mapped literature. For example, the study location was unknown for 10% of the studies and approximately 1% of the articles did not indicate the source of noise or the outcome that they studied.

The map findings show that research in ecology has already addressed the issue of noise pollution. Deeper analysis is needed to assess the validity of the literature collected in this map, whether primary studies or reviews, in order to produce new syntheses and to transfer this knowledge to the applied field.

Availability of data and materials

All data, generated or analyzed during this study, are included in this published article and its addition information files.

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/guidelines/section-8 .

Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJB, Collen B. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science. 2014;345(6195):401–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(10): e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(30):E6089–96. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Menon M, Mohanraj R. Temporal and spatial assemblages of invasive birds occupying the urban landscape and its gradient in a southern city of India. J Asia-Pac Biodivers. 2016;9(1):74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2015.12.005 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, et al. World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. Bioscience. 2017;67(12):1026–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125 .

Mcdonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RTT. The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 2008;141(6):1695–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025 .

Reis E, López-Iborra GM, Pinheiro RT. Changes in bird species richness through different levels of urbanization: implications for biodiversity conservation and garden design in Central Brazil. Landsc Urban Plann. 2012;107(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.009 .

Xu X, Xie Y, Qi K, Luo Z, Wang X. Detecting the response of bird communities and biodiversity to habitat loss and fragmentation due to urbanization. Sci Total Environ. 2018;624:1561–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.143 .

Bennie J, Davies TW, Cruse D, Gaston KJ. Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. J Ecol. 2016;104(3):611–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12551 .

Gaston KJ, Bennie J, Davies TW, Hopkins J. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol Rev. 2013;88(4):912–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12036 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Warren P, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A. Urban bioacoustics: it’s not just noise. Anim Behav. 2006;71(3):491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.07.014 .

Hempton G, Grossmann J. One square inch of silence: one man’s quest to preserve quiet. New York: Atria Books; 2010 (Reprint) .

Google Scholar  

Romer H, Bailey WJ. Insect hearing in the field. Camp Biochem Physiol. 1990;97A(4):443–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(90)90110-E .

Sun JWC, Narins PM. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol Conserv. 2005;121(3):419–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.017 .

Drolet A, Dussault C, Côté SD. Simulated drilling noise affects the space use of a large terrestrial mammal. Wildl Biol. 2016;22(6):284–93. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00225 .

Bernath-Plaisted J, Koper N. Physical footprint of oil and gas infrastructure, not anthropogenic noise, reduces nesting success of some grassland songbirds. Biol Conserv. 2016;204(B):434–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.002 .

Lazerte SE, Slabbekoorn H, Otter KA. Learning to cope: vocal adjustment to urban noise is correlated with prior experience in black-capped chickadees. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2016;283(1833). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1058 .

Cunnington GM, Fahrig L. Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol. 2010;36(5):463–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2010.06.002 .

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mancera KF, Murray PJ, Lisle A, Dupont C, Faucheux F, Phillips CJC. The effects of acute exposure to mining machinery noise on the behaviour of eastern blue-tongued lizards ( Tiliqua scincoides ). Anim Welf. 2017;26(1):11–24. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.1.011 .

Amoser S, Wysocki LE, Ladich F. Noise emission during the first powerboat race in an Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(6):3789–97. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1808219 .

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Shannon G, Crooks KR, Wittemyer G, Fristrup KM, Angeloni LM. Road noise causes earlier predator detection and flight response in a free-ranging mammal. Behav Ecol. 2016;27(5):1370–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw058 .

Bunkley JP, McClure CJW, Kawahara AY, Francis CD, Barber JR. Anthropogenic noise changes arthropod abundances. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(9):2977–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2698 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Koper RP, Erbe C, du Preez DR, Plön S. Comparison of soundscape contributors between two neighboring southern right whale nursing areas along the South African coast. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland, 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 070014. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000303 .

Jacobsen L, Baktoft H, Jepsen N, Aarestrup K, Berg S, Skov C. Effect of boat noise and angling on lake fish behaviour: disturbance and lake fish behaviour. J Fish Biol. 2014;84(6):1768–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12395 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Thompson PM, Lusseau D, Barton T, Simmons D, Rusin J, Bailey H. Assessing the responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind turbines. Mar Pollut Bull. 2010;60(8):1200–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.030 .

Lengagne T. Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea . Biol Conserv. 2008;141(8):2023–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.017 .

Vasconcelos RO, Amorim MCP, Ladich F. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. J Exp Biol. 2007;210:2104–12. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.004317 .

Brown AL. Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environ Int. 1990;16(4–6):587–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(90)90029-6 .

Mason JT, McClure CJW, Barber JR. Anthropogenic noise impairs owl hunting behavior. Biol Conserv. 2016;199:29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.009 .

Newport J, Shorthouse DJ, Manning AD. The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecol Manag Restor. 2014;15(3):204–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12120 .

Morley EL, Jones G, Radford AN. The importance of invertebrates when considering the impacts of anthropogenic noise. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281(1776):20132683. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2683 .

Patricelli GL, Blickley JL. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. The Auk. 2006;123(3):639-649. https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2006)123[639:ACIUNC]2.0.CO;2 .

Popper AN, Hastings MC. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol. 2009;75(3):455–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02319.x .

Shannon G, McKenna MF, Angeloni LM, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM, Brown E, et al. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife: effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife. Biol Rev. 2016;91(4):982–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12207 .

Roca IT, Desrochers L, Giacomazzo M, Bertolo A, Bolduc P, Deschesnes R, et al. Shifting song frequencies in response to anthropogenic noise: a meta-analysis on birds and anurans. BEHECO. 2016;27(5):1269–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw060 .

Sordello R, Flamerie De Lachapelle F, Livoreil B, Vanpeene S. Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019;8:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0146-6 .

Nugent C, Paviotti M, Bloomfield A, Kephalopoulos S, Rasmussen S, Blanes N, et al. Good practice guide on quiet areas. Luxembourg: Publications Office; 2014.

Guidelines for Authors | Environmental Evidence. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors . Accessed 8 June 2020.

Haddaway N, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin A. ROSES flow diagram for systematic reviews. Version 1.0. 2018. https://figshare.com/articles/ROSES_Flow_Diagram_Version_1_0/5897389 . Accessed 8 June 2020.

Brumm H. Anthropogenic noise: implications for conservation. In: Breed MD, Moore J, editors. Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Academic Press; 2010. p. 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045337-8.00289-8 .

Dutilleux G, Guillard Y. Bruit urbain et faune sauvage - Synthèse bibliographique. CETE de l’Est; 2007. p. 24.

Dutilleux G, Fontaine A. Bruit routier et faune sauvage. 2015. p. 32.

Keil P, Herben T, Rosindell J, Storch D. Predictions of Taylor’s power law, density dependence and pink noise from a neutrally modeled time series. J Theor Biol. 2010;265(1):78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.04.014 .

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Calderone GJ, Butler RF. The effects of noise due to random undetected tilts and paleosecular variation on regional paleomagnetic directions. J Geophys Res. 1991;96(B3):3973–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/90JB02457 .

Rhud JL, Meagher MW. Noise stress and human pain thresholds: divergent effects in men and women. J Pain. 2001;2(1):57–64. https://doi.org/10.1054/jpai.2000.19947 .

Lipscomb DM, Son AA, Vertes D, Roettger R, Carroll J. The effect of high level sound on hearing sensitivity, cochlear sensorineuroepithelium and vasculature of the chinchilla. Acta Otolaryngol. 1977;84(1–6):44–56. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016487709123941 .

Krebs H, Macht M, Weyers P, Weijers H-G, Janke W. Effects of stressful noise on eating and non-eating behavior in rats. Appetite. 1996;26(2):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0015 .

Kuang X. Study on environment effect of construction in Huairou District. In: Proceedings of the international conference on education, management, commerce and society, Shenyang, China. Atlantis Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.2991/emcs-15.2015.90 .

Bee MA. Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus. Anim Behav. 2007;74(3):549–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.12.012 .

Dunlop R, Noad M, Cato DH. Modification of humpback whale social sound repertoire and vocal source levels with increased noise. In: Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2013. ICA 2013, Montreal, Canada, 2–7 June 2013, vol. 19, 010058. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4799213 .

Castellote M. General review of protocols and guidelines for minimizing acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys. J Int Wildl Law Policy. 2007;10(3–4):273–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290701769262 .

Karbalaei SS, Karimi E, Naji HR, Ghasempoori SM, Hosseini SM, Abdollahi M. Investigation of the traffic noise attenuation provided by roadside green belts. Fluct Noise Lett. 2015;14(4):1550036. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219477515500364 .

Kunc HP, Schmidt R. The effects of anthropogenic noise on animals: a meta-analysis. Biol Lett. 2019;15(11):20190649. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0649 .

Radford A. The effects of noise on biodiversity (no0235)—final report for defra. 2012. p. 27.

Gomez C, Lawson JW, Wright AJ, Buren AD, Tollit D, Lesage V. A systematic review on the behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity between science and policy. Can J Zool. 2016;94(12):801–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2016-0098 .

Berger-Tal O, Wong BBM, Candolin U, Barber J. What evidence exists on the effects of anthropogenic noise on acoustic communication in animals? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019;8:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0165-3 .

Kight CR, Swaddle JP. How and why environmental noise impacts animals: an integrative, mechanistic review: environmental noise and animals. Ecol Lett. 2011;14(10):1052–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01664.x .

Dufour PA. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals—review of research since 1971. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1980. p. 102.

Mickle MF, Higgs DM. Integrating techniques: a review of the effects of anthropogenic noise on freshwater fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2018;75(9):1534–41. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-0245 .

Nowacek DP, Thorne LH, Johnston DW, Tyack PL. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Rev. 2007;37(2):81–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2007.00104.x .

Edmonds NJ, Firmin CJ, Goldsmith D, Faulkner RC, Wood DT. A review of crustacean sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: data needs for effective risk assessment in relation to UK commercial species. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;108(1–2):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.006 .

Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(3):180–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.002 .

Pepper CB, Nascarella MA, Kendall RJ. A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environ Manag. 2003;32(4):418–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-3024-4 .

Larkin RP, Pater LL, Tazik DJ. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. Report no.: USACERL Technical Report 96/21. 1996. p. 111.

Aguilar de Soto N, Gkikopoulou K, Hooker S, Isojunno S, Johnson M, Miller P, et al. From physiology to policy: a review of physiological noise effects on marine fauna with implications for mitigation. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 040008. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000299 . 

Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. Acoustic communication in noise. In: Advances in the study of behavior, vol. 35. Academic Press. 2005. p. 151–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(05)35004-2 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Tidau S, Briffa M. Review on behavioral impacts of aquatic noise on crustaceans. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 010028. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000302 .

Nelms SE, Piniak WED, Weir CR, Godley BJ. Seismic surveys and marine turtles: an underestimated global threat? Biol Conserv. 2016;193:49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.020 .

Wang S, Wang S. Impacts of wind energy on environment: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;49:437–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.137 .

Khairunnisa Z, Jusuf AA, Furqanita D. Differential effects of prenatal music versus noise exposure on posnatal auditory cortex development: a systematic review. J Phys: Conf Ser. 2018;1073(4):042048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1073/4/042048 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Williams R, Wright AJ, Ashe E, Blight LK, Bruintjes R, Canessa R, et al. Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean Coast Manag. 2015;115:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.021 .

Cox KD, Brennan LP, Dudas SE, Juanes F. Assessing the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology: a meta-analysis approach. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 010024. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000291 .

Cox K, Brennan LP, Gerwing TG, Dudas SE, Juanes F. Sound the alarm: a meta-analysis on the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology. Glob Change Biol. 2018;24(7):3105–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14106 .

Cardoso GC. Nesting and acoustic ecology, but not phylogeny, influence passerine urban tolerance. Glob Change Biol. 2014;20(3):803–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12410 .

Francis CD. Vocal traits and diet explain avian sensitivities to anthropogenic noise. Glob Change Biol. 2015;21(5):1809–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12862 .

Cardoso GC, Hu Y, Francis CD. The comparative evidence for urban species sorting by anthropogenic noise. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5(2):172059. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172059 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fletcher JL, Busnel RG. Effects of noise on wildlife. Academic Press; 1978. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-260550-5.X5001-9 .

Richardson WJ, Greene JCR, Malme CI, Thomson DH. Marine mammals and noise. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2013. ISBN 978-0-12-588441-9.

Brumm H, editor. Animal communication and noise. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41494-7 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Popper AN, Hawkins A, editors. The effects of noise on aquatic life. New York: Springer; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7311-5 .

Popper AN, Hawkins A, editors. The effects of noise on aquatic life II. New York: Springer; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8 .

Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6 .

Hawkins AD, Popper AN. Effects of man-made sound on fishes. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 145–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_6 .

Simmons AM, Narins PM. Effects of anthropogenic noise on amphibians and reptiles. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_7 .

Halfwerk W, Lohr B, Slabbekoorn H. Impact of man-made sound on birds and their songs. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 209–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_8 .

Erbe C, Dunlop R, Dolman S. Effects of noise on marine mammals. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_10 .

Borda-de-Água L, Barrientos R, Beja P, Pereira HM, editors. Railway ecology. Cham: Springer; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7 .

Gil D, Brumm H. Acoustic communication in the urban environment: patterns, mechanisms, and potential consequences of avian song adjustments. In: Gil D, Brumm H, editors. Avian urban ecology: behavioural and physiological adaptations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199661572.003.0006 .

Halfwek W, Slabbekoorn H. The impact of anthropogenic noise on avian communication and fitness. In: Gil D, Brumm H, editors. Avian urban ecology: behavioural and physiological adaptations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199661572.003.0007 .

Parris KM. Ecological impacts of road noise and options for mitigation. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C, editors. Handbook of road ecology. Chichester: Wiley; 2015. p. 151–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch19 .

Abbott I, Berthinussen A, Stone E, Boonman M, Melber M, Altringham J. Bats and roads. In: Handbook of road ecology. 2015. p. 290–9. ISBN 978-1-118-56818-7.

Ortega CP. Effects of noise pollution on birds: a brief review of our knowledge. In: Ornithological monographs, vol. 74. 2012. p. 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2012.74.1.6 .

Francis CD et al. Behavioral responses by two songbirds to natural-gas-well compressor noise. In: Ornithological monographs, vol. 74. 2012. p. 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2012.74.1.36 .

Blickley JL, Patricelli GL. Potential acoustic masking of Greater Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) display components by chronic industrial noise. In: Ornithological monographs, vol. 74. 2012. p. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2012.74.1.23 .

Harding HR, Gordon TAC, Eastcott E, Simpson SD, Radford AN. Causes and consequences of intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise. Behav Ecol. 2019;30(6):1501–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz114 .

Erbe C, Marley SA, Schoeman RP, Smith JN, Trigg LE, Embling CB. The effects of ship noise on marine mammals—a review. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606 .

Raboin M, Elias DO. Anthropogenic noise and the bioacoustics of terrestrial invertebrates. J Exp Biol. 2019;222(12):jeb178749. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.178749 .

Popper AN, Hawkins AD. An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. J Fish Biol. 2019;94(5):692–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13948 .

Davies TW, Smyth T. Why artificial light at night should be a focus for global change research in the 21st century. Glob Change Biol. 2018;24(3):872–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13927 .

Kendall LS, Širović A, Roth EH. Effects of construction noise on the cook inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) vocal behavior. Can Acoust. 2013;41(3):3–14.

Chosy J, Wilson M, Santymire R. Behavioral and physiological responses in felids to exhibit construction: felid response to exhibit construction. Zoo Biol. 2014;33(4):267–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21142 .

Espmark Y. Behaviour reactions of reindeer exposed to sonic booms. Deer. 1972;2(7):800–2.

Tressler J, Smotherman MS. Context-dependent effects of noise on echolocation pulse characteristics in free-tailed bats. J Comp Physiol A. 2009;195:923–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-009-0468-x .

Plassmann W, Kadel M. Low-frequency sensitivity in a gerbilline rodent, Pachyuromys duprasi . Brain Behav Evol. 1991;38:115–26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000114382 .

Böhm M, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bowles P, Chanson J, Cox N, et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol Conserv. 2013;157:372–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015 .

Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science. 2004;306(5702):1783–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103538 .

Bee MA. Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs ( Rana sylvatica ) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007;61(6):955–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0324-8 .

Römer H, Schmidt AKD. Directional hearing in insects with internally coupled ears. Biol Cybern. 2016;110(4–5):247–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-015-0672-4 .

Christensen CB, Christensen-Dalsgaard J, Brandt C, Madsen PT. Hearing with an atympanic ear: good vibration and poor sound-pressure detection in the royal python, Python regius . J Exp Biol. 2012;215(2):331–42. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.062539 .

Shamble PS, Menda G, Golden JR, Nitzany EI, Walden K, Beatus T, et al. Airborne acoustic perception by a jumping spider. Curr Biol. 2016;26(21):2913–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.041 .

Chapuis L, Kerr CC, Collin SP, Hart NS, Sanders KL. Underwater hearing in sea snakes (Hydrophiinae): first evidence of auditory evoked potential thresholds. J Exp Biol. 2019;222(14):jeb198184. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.198184 .

Mortimer B. A spider’s vibration landscape: adaptations to promote vibrational information transfer in orb webs. Integr Comp Biol. 2019;59(6):1636–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icz043 .

Bolle LJ, de Jong CAF, Bierman SM, van Beek PJG, van Keeken OA, Wessels PW, et al. Common sole larvae survive high levels of pile-driving sound in controlled exposure experiments. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e33052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033052 .

Heide-Jørgensen MP, Hansen RG, Westdal K, Reeves RR, Mosbech A. Narwhals and seismic exploration: is seismic noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments? Biol Conserv. 2013;158:50–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.005 .

Larsen JK, Guillemette M. Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk: wind turbines and wintering common eiders. J Appl Ecol. 2007;44(3):516–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01303.x . 

Alvarez-Berríos N, Campos-Cerqueira M, Hernández-Serna A, Amanda Delgado CJ, Román-Dañobeytia F, Aide TM. Impacts of small-scale gold mining on birds and anurans near the Tambopata Natural Reserve, Peru, Assessed using passive acoustic monitoring. Trop Conserv Sci. 2016;9(2):832–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291600900216 .

Sutter GC, Davis SK, Skiffington JC, Keating LM, Pittaway LA. Nesting behaviour and reproductive success of sprague’s pipit ( Anthus spragueii ) and vesper sparrow ( Pooecetes gramineus ) during pipeline construction. Can Field Nat. 2016;130(2):99–109. https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v130i2.1833 .

Culik B, Koschinski S, Tregenza N, Ellis G. Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;211:255–60. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps211255 .

Watkins WA, Schevill WE. Sperm whales ( Physeter catodon ) react to pingers. Deep Sea Res Oceanogr Abstr. 1975;22(3):123–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-7471(75)90052-2 .

Finneran JJ, Carder DA, Schlundt CE, Ridgway SH. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) exposed to mid-frequency tonesa). J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118(2696):10. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2032087 .

Richard JD. Fish attraction with pulsed low-frequency sound. J Fish Res Bd Can. 1968;25(7):1441–52. https://doi.org/10.1139/f68-125 .

Fride E, Weinstock M. Alterations in behavioral and striatal dopamine asymmetries induced by prenatal stress. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1989;32(2):425–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(89)90174-3 .

Woolway EE, Goodenough AE. Effects of visitor numbers on captive European red squirrels ( Sciurus vulgaris ) and impacts on visitor experience. Zoo Biol. 2017;36(2):112–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21357 .

Shirley MDF, Armitage VL, Barden TL, Gough M, Lurz PWW, Oatway DE, et al. Assessing the impact of a music festival on the emergence behaviour of a breeding colony of Daubenton’s bats ( Myotis daubentonii ). J Zool. 2001;254(3):367–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836901000863 .

Graham AL, Cooke SJ. The effects of noise disturbance from various recreational boating activities common to inland waters on the cardiac physiology of a freshwater fish, the largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ). Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2008;18(7):1315–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.941 .

Price M, Lill A. Behavioural responses of breeding Silver Gulls to tourist traffic. Aust Zool. 2011;35(3):810–21. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2011.032 .

Payne CJ, Jessop TS, Guay P-J, Johnstone M, Feore M, Mulder RA. Population, behavioural and physiological responses of an urban population of black swans to an intense annual noise event. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e45014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045014 .

Rossi-Santos MR. Whale-watching noise effects on the behavior of humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) in the Brazilian breeding ground. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 040003.   https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000271 .

Mulero-Pázmány M, Jenni-Eiermann S, Strebel N, Sattler T, Negro JJ, Tablado Z. Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0178448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178448 .

Marley SA, Salgado Kent CP, Erbe C, Parnum IM. Effects of vessel traffic and underwater noise on the movement, behaviour and vocalisations of bottlenose dolphins in an urbanised estuary. Sci Rep. 2017;7:13437. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13252-z .

Senzaki M, Yamaura Y, Francis CD, Nakamura F. Traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in wild owls. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30602. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30602 .

Gomes DGE, Page RA, Geipel I, Taylor RC, Ryan MJ, Halfwerk W. Bats perceptually weight prey cues across sensory systems when hunting in noise. Science. 2016;353(6305):1277–80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7934 .

Bruintjes R, Radford AN. Context-dependent impacts of anthropogenic noise on individual and social behaviour in a cooperatively breeding fish. Anim Behav. 2013;85(6):1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.025 .

Phillips S. Aversive behaviour by koalas ( Phascolarctos cinereus ) during the course of a music festival in northern New South Wales, Australia. Aust Mammal. 2016;38(2):158–63. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM15006 .

Owen MA, Swaisgood RR, Czekala NM, Steinman K, Lindburg DG. Monitoring stress in captive giant pandas ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ): behavioral and hormonal responses to ambient noise. Zoo Biol. 2004;23(2):147–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10124 .

Borneman TE, Rose ET, Simons TR. Minimal changes in heart rate of incubating American Oystercatchers ( Haematopus palliatus ) in response to human activity. The Condor. 2014;116(3):493–503. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14-48.1 .

Buscaino G, Filiciotto F, Buffa G, Bellante A, Stefano VD, Assenza A, et al. Impact of an acoustic stimulus on the motility and blood parameters of European sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax L.) and gilthead sea bream ( Sparus aurata L.). Mar Environ Res. 2010;69(3):136–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.09.004 .

Li ZZ, Burke WH. Influence of 12 hours of sound stimuli on gonad development and plasma luteinizing hormone in Japanese Quail ( Cotumix coturnix japonica ) exposed to 6 hours of daily light. Poult Sci. 1987;66(6):1045–52. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0661045 .

Malhi Y, Franklin J, Seddon N, Solan M, Turner MG, Field CB, et al. Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2020;375(1794):20190104. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0104 .

Van der Biest K, Meire P, Schellekens T, D’hondt B, Bonte D, Vanagt T, et al. Aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in spatial planning: focus on ecosystem processes. Sci Tot Environ. 2020;712:136350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136350 .

Chen HL, Koprowski JL. Animal occurrence and space use change in the landscape of anthropogenic noise. Biol Conserv. 2015;192:315–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.003 .

Nabi G, McLaughlin RW, Hao Y, Wang K, Zeng X, Khan S, et al. The possible effects of anthropogenic acoustic pollution on marine mammals’ reproduction: an emerging threat to animal extinction. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25:19338–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2208-7 .

European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. COM(2020) 380 final, Brussels, 20 May 20 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-annex-eu-biodiversity-strategy-2030_en.pdf .

Bougnec AL. Mémoire de première année de Master Gestion territoriale du développement durable. 2018. p. 79.

Tyack P, Gordon J, Thompson D. Controlled exposure experiments to determine the effects of noise on marine mammals. Mar Technol Soc J. 2003;37(4):41–53. https://doi.org/10.4031/002533203787537087 .

Smokorowski KE, Randall RG. Cautions on using the before-after-control-impact design in environmental effects monitoring programs. FACETS. 2017;2:212–32. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0058 .

De Palma A, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Martin PA, Chadwick A, Gilbert G, Bates AE, et al. Challenges with inferring how land-use affects terrestrial biodiversity: study design, time, space and synthesis. In: Advances in ecological research. Elsevier; 2018. p. 163–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2017.12.004 .

Christie AP, Amano T, Martin PA, Shackelford GE, Simmons BI, Sutherland WJ. Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56(12):2742–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13499 .

Faulkner RC, Farcas A, Merchant ND. Guiding principles for assessing the impact of underwater noise. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55(6):2531–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13161 .

Wade L, Whitehead H, Weilgart L. Conflict of interest in research on anthropogenic noise and marine mammals: does funding bias conclusions? Mar Policy. 2010;34(2):320–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.009 .

Stebbins WG, Moody DB, Serafin JV. Some principal issues in the analysis of noise effects on hearing in experimental animals. Am J Otolaryngol. 1982;3(4):295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0709(82)80069-0 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The map team thanks:

Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo (MNHN) and Yorick Reyjol (OFB) for providing comments on earlier versions of the manuscript;

Marc Morvan, Magali Morvan and Benoît Pichet from the library of the National Museum of natural History for their help during the pdf search;

All the institutions that transmitted full-texts to us during the pdf search, namely the library of the “Arts-et-Métiers” (Isabelle FERAL), the library of the “Ecole de Médecine” (Isabelle Beaulande), the library of the “Maison des Sciences de l’Homme” (Amélie Saint-Marc), the library of the “École Polytechnique” (Claire Vandermeersch), the library of “Sorbonne Université” (Isabelle Russo and Peggy Bassié), the library of “Paris 13 Villetaneuse”, ZeFactory ARTELIA (Magalie Rambaudi);

all the organizations that relayed our call for literature through their websites or mailing lists, namely the “Centre de ressources Trame verte et bleue”, the IENE, the ITTECOP;

everyone who transmitted literature to us during the call, namely Vital Azambourg (MNHN), Ludivine Boursier (FRB), Fabien Claireau (MNHN), Patricia Detry (CEREMA), Cindy Fournier (MNHN), Philippe Goulletquer (IFREMER), Aurelie Goutte, Anne Guerrero (SNCF Réseau), Eric Guinard (CEREMA), Heinrich Reck, Antonin Le Bougnec (PNR Morbihan), Barbara Livoreil (FRB), Sylvain Moulherat (TerrOïko), Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo (MNHN), Marc Thauront (Ecosphère), Dennis Wansink (BUWA);

Barbara Livoreil (FRB) for her help with the protocol of this map;

Cary Bartsch for his proofreading and corrections concerning the English language.

This research was undertaken as current work of UMS Patrimoine Naturel, a joint research unit funded by the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB), the National Scientific Research Center (CNRS) and the National Museum of Natural History (MNHN), on behalf of the French Ecology Ministry.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UMS Patrimoine Naturel (PATRINAT), OFB-CNRS-MNHN, 36 rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire CP41, 75005, Paris, France

Romain Sordello, Ophélie Ratel & Alexis Dambry

Université de Bordeaux, 33400, Talence, France

Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle

Direction générale déléguée aux collections - Bibliothèque centrale - Service Recherche, enseignement, expertise, Museum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), 75005, Paris, France

Clément Leger

Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE PACA Centre d’Aix-en-Provence), 13182, Aix-en-Provence, France

Sylvie Vanpeene

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RS originated the idea of the systematic map and was the scientific coordinator of the map. RS conducted the first scoping stage. FF participated in the search strategy. RS, SV and AD screened the articles. RS searched the full-texts with help from FF and CL. OR, AD and RS extracted the metadata. RS analysed, interpreted and discussed the results, helped by the rest of the team. RS wrote the draft of the manuscript and the rest of the team contributed to it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romain Sordello .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

ROSES form.

Additional file 2.

Search strategy.

Additional file 3.

Key reviews from which bibliographic references were extracted.

Additional file 4.

Comprehensiveness of databases and search engines.

Additional file 5.

Detailed screening process.

Additional file 6.

Full flow diagram.

Additional file 7.

Inclusion/exclusion decisions during the three screening stages and extraction of rejected full-texts.

Additional file 8.

Accepted full-texts published in 2019–2020.

Additional file 9.

Systematic map database.

Additional file 10.

Information on standardized evidence syntheses.

Additional file 11.

List and statistics on missing full-texts.

Additional file 12.

Rejected full-texts (language exclusion).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sordello, R., Ratel, O., Flamerie De Lachapelle, F. et al. Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map. Environ Evid 9 , 20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00202-y

Download citation

Received : 17 March 2020

Accepted : 25 August 2020

Published : 11 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00202-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Man-made sounds
• Anthropogenic sounds
• Auditory masking
• Acoustic stimuli
• Urbanization
• Species loss
• Natural habitats

Environmental Evidence

ISSN: 2047-2382

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Noise Pollution, Its Sources and Effects: A Case Study of University Students in Delhi

(2018), EPRA International Journal of Economic and Business Review, 6 (2), pp. B15-B23

9 Pages Posted: 26 Mar 2018

Saba Ismail

Jamia Millia Islamia

Shahid Ahmed

Jamia Millia Islamia - Economics

Date Written: 2018

Noise is a type of pollution and impacts on our health and wellness. The prevalence of noise is increasing in magnitude and severity because of urban life style and no or bad governance of noise in NCR region as the rules is flouted routinely. Noise pollution leads to many chronic and socially significant impacts. The present study investigates the level of awareness about noise pollution in Delhi, its causes, its health impacts and solutions among the youth in Delhi. The paper has used primary data collected through a schedule from university/college students in Delhi. The study concludes that the majority of educated youth is aware about noise pollution, its causes and probable health effects but the vast majority of educated youth did not perceive noise pollution as environmental challenge and ranked it as least important threat to the health and environment. The study reveals that the female youth are more sensitive compared to male youth about noise pollution in Delhi. The study identified vehicular pollution as one of the most important causes of noise pollution and loud music as the second most important cause of noise pollution. It implies that the majority of educated youth understand the health related implications of noise pollution in Delhi. Finally, the study suggests of awareness campaign involving citizens and strict enforcement of environment laws by concerned agencies as the appropriate solution to control environment degradation.

Keywords: Environment Sustainability, Noise Pollution, Health Effects

JEL Classification: Q50, Q53, I12

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Jamia Millia Islamia ( email )

Jamia Nagar, New Delhi Delhi, 110025 India

Shahid Ahmed (Contact Author)

Jamia millia islamia - economics ( email ).

Jamia Nagar New Delhi, 110025 India

HOME PAGE: http://jmi.ac.in/economics/faculty-members/Prof_Shahid_Ahmed-1783

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, pollution ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Biology & Sustainability eJournal

Ecosystem ecology ejournal, global ecological change & pollution ecology ejournal, political economy - development: environment ejournal, geography of human settlements, populations & movements ejournal, environmental pollution & prevention ejournal.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Autonomous Vehicle and Smart Traffic

Vehicular Noise Pollution: Its Environmental Implications and Strategic Control

Submitted: 12 February 2019 Reviewed: 07 March 2019 Published: 09 September 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.85707

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Autonomous Vehicle and Smart Traffic

Edited by Sezgin Ersoy and Tayyab Waqar

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

1,472 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Overall attention for this chapters

Noise pollution has been recognized as one of the major hazard that impacts the quality of life all around the world. Because of the rapid increase in technology, industrialization, urbanization and other communication and transport systems, noise pollution has reached to a disturbing level over the years which needs to be studied and controlled to avoid different health effects like high blood pressure, sleeplessness, nausea, heart attack, depression, dizziness, headache, and induced hearing loss. To address this situation, different countries have different strategies like vehicular noise limits and their regulation, vehicles physical health checkup, different time of operations for noisy traffic like trucks in the evening or night time, and noise pollution fines for noisy vehicles.

• traffic noise
• environment
• community effects
• human health

Author Information

Zia ur rahman farooqi *.

• Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan

Muhammad Sabir

Nukshab zeeshan, ghulam murtaza, muhammad mahroz hussain, muhammad usman ghani.

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

A sound is termed as noise when it becomes continuous and above the threshold limits of the ears [ 1 ]. A vehicular noise is the resultant of the vibrating body of the vehicle plus its engine operating sound [ 2 ]. Noise has different types including impulsive noise, continuous noise, intermittent noise and low frequency noise. All above mentioned types of noise are dangerous to human and animals if their limits are exceeded [ 3 ]. Noise affects people so badly that at some places policy makers were compelled to said that there should be restrictions on noisy vehicles for reducing noise pollution as in New Delhi, India [ 4 ] and Guangzhou district, China [ 5 ]. Noise is a common problem in urban areas as compared to the villages because of the mechanization and more vehicles on the road [ 6 , 7 ]. All types of noise altogether affect the same irrespective of the sources and cause headache to the high blood pressure and other heart diseases [ 8 ]. Some noise types like aircraft and train noise also has the negative effects on property prices [ 9 , 10 ]. The noises from cracks in a refrigerator, fan and air conditioner affects evenly as a loud noise of train or aircraft because of its continuity. These results were obtained by a study that the noises in household appliances operations are one of the main sources of noise [ 11 ]. It is one of the big problems in industrial areas. It is produced from mechanical operations, transportation vehicles and different sirens within the industry [ 12 ]. Noise also disturbs mining worker and their operations [ 13 ]. Due to this noise, workers face different health issues including hearing loss, dizziness, headaches, high blood pressure and anxiety [ 14 , 15 ]. It is a fact that noise in the vicinity of airports is a public health issue and its exposure affect sleep quality, restlessness and headache [ 16 ]. This noise also increases vascular and cerebral oxidative stress and triggers vascular dysfunction [ 17 , 18 ]. In addition to the above, cargo ships are also the source of nuisance and sleep disturbance. However, these are usually not sources of noise as they affect only small communities living in harbors [ 19 ]. Low frequency noise is also included in the noise types and effects humans by annoyance and sleep disturbances [ 20 ]. Migraines, tinnitus, nausea, sleep disorders, insomnia, quality of life and minor stress strokes are the result of low frequency noise [ 21 ]. Household and community noise is also a health issue. As we live in houses for the major part of the day and we are exposed continuously to different noise types like lawn mower noise, dogs barking, kitchen grinder operation and sound systems/television which seems dangerous. It is given in the documented form that there is an association with several diseases and the growing number of exposed persons all over the world with this type of noise. The effects are ranged from cardiovascular diseases to metabolic disorders [ 22 , 23 ]. It also has impacts on animals including frogs to the whales and elephants by affecting their reproduction, communication within and with environmental factors, habitat loss and even death [ 24 ], and plays important role in geographical distribution of these animals [ 25 ].

From all above discussion, it can be clearly seen that health effects of the noise are common as hypertension, myocardial infarction, stroke, mortality, dizziness, high blood pressure and cognitive diseases, irrespective of the noise sources, suggesting the control of all the noise sources [ 26 ]. To control the noise, different methods and equipment are made to control or minimize noise from different places like hospitals, educational institutions and workplaces [ 27 ]. Adaptive noise control, [ 28 ], active noise control, [ 29 ], shelter belts [ 30 ], equipment and home insulations [ 31 ] and active vibration noise control devices are made for this purpose and to reduce the risks of noise [ 32 ].

2. Sources of noise pollution

Noise pollution has many sources of which the traffic noise could be a major source. Other types include community noise, household, industrial, aircraft and ships noise [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ].

2.1 Traffic vehicles

Traffic noise, as depicted by the name, is the noise originated from the traffic vehicles specially the old vehicles with no maintenance and those vehicles which have not been physically cleared to be driven on the roads. Heavy traffic vehicles also contribute in noise generation due to their heavy engines and load [ 42 , 43 ]. Traffic noise represents the important environmental risk factors in mechanized areas [ 44 ] and it is one of the fastest growing and most ubiquitous types of environmental pollution [ 1 ]. It is associated with high blood pressure, but the long-term impact may lead to hospitalization and rare chances of death. In a study among London’s 8.6 million residents, traffic noise was associated with cardiovascular defects in all adults (≥25 years) and the elderly (≥75 years). It shows that long-term exposure to road traffic noise increases the risk of death and the risk of cardiovascular disease in the population [ 45 ].

2.2 Commercial and Industrial noise

Different commercial activities like transportation of goods from one place to other using ships and heavy trucks create considerable noise in the respective areas. Ocean noise levels are increasing as a result of major growth in global trading activities which shows that if this activity continued to grow, which is by 1.9% each year, the contribution of commercial shipping to ambient ocean noise levels will be expected to intensely increase [ 46 ]. In addition to the ships, commercial aircrafts are also contributors in commercial and industrial noise. The main source of noise in aircrafts is the engine which generates more noise if the load on it is more [ 47 , 48 ]. It is a well-known fact that all the machines produce noise and it is called as industrial noise. Different industries have different machinery like textile industry, wood industry and steel mills [ 49 ].

To assess the industrial noise effects on workers, all the workers of an industry in Jordan were included in a study. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data. Results revealed that out of total 191 workers, 145 (exposed to higher noise levels) had the issues of hypertension compared to those exposed to noise level lower than the permissible limit indicating that exposure to high level of noise is associated with elevated health risks [ 50 ].

2.3 Community noise

Community noise comprised of the noise during a match in the ground, traffic vehicle noise during waste collection, children playing in the streets, dogs barking, and noise during parties [ 51 ]. Musical instruments being played can also be a source of noise for someone not interested in music [ 52 , 53 ]. One study assessed the noise and noise sensitivity of 364 adults living in the South African community and compared them with similar studies conducted in Switzerland. Compared to Swiss research, the proportion of people with high levels of noise sensitivity is higher (women: 35.1% vs. 26.9%, men: 25% vs. 20.5%), people are very angry about road traffic noise (women: 20, 5% compared to 12.4%; male: 17.9% vs. 11.1% were observed in South Africa). Although women in South Africa are more averse to community noise than Switzerland (21.1% vs. 9.4%), this is not the case for men (7.1% vs. 7.8%), suggesting that the noise pollution can seriously affect the inhabitants of the population noise [ 54 ].

2.4 Air craft noise

Airplanes such as army, navy and commercial aircraft are noise sources [ 55 ]. Airplanes, including army, naval and commercial aircraft, have become one of the most important environmental factors in terms of noise, and industry has identified much of their efforts and concerns. Noise abatement is the focus of modern research and development. Too much noise obviously damages our physical and mental health, so it makes sense to make a technical assessment of the noisy technology. Conflicts of interest in connection with aircraft noise are known. Propeller aircraft are the dominant noise. Many factors that contribute to the sound field in the propeller aircraft lead to extensive research to identify and improve the internal noise reduction techniques as noise sources [ 56 ].

2.5 Shipping noise

Anthropogenic noise is now considered a global problem, and recent research has shown that many animals have a multitude of negative effects. Marine underwater noise is increasingly considered an important and omnipresent pollutant that can affect marine ecosystems globally [ 57 ]. Ships and sea vessels are the source of this noise. Noise exposure varies markedly between the sites according to the number of the ships and sea vessels [ 58 ]. Due to the shipping noise, marine mammals and other marine life is vulnerable to be at risk as they require relatively quiet place to live but shipping noise could have substantial impacts on them and cause migration [ 59 ] ( Figure 1 ).

Different noise sources.

3. Types of noise

Noise has different types according to the intensity, duration and frequency as continuous noise, intermittent noise, impulsive noise and low frequency noise.

3.1 Continuous noise

Continuous noise means the same noise frequency, intensity and quantity which is supplied to people and workers for longer periods of time like machinery operation in textile industry has the same amount, frequency and intensity for 6–8 hours of a working shift [ 60 ]. It is the noise which affects the industrial workers health badly by causing headaches to high blood pressure and other heart problems [ 61 ].

3.2 Intermittent noise

Noise which can occur at regular or irregular intervals is intermittent. This type of noise includes all the traffic vehicles noise and community noise as these are not the regular and continuously produced and varies with source [ 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ].

3.3 Impulsive noise

This type of noise is produced instantly and reduced in the same way. Its types include ticking of clock, striking of hammer on something, water drops falling from height, and all the other noises in impulse forms. This type of noise also disturbs communication between people, induces stress, and anxiety in experimental population [ 66 ]. Mitigation of impulsive noise is extensively studied in wireline, wireless radio, and powerline communication systems [ 3 , 67 , 68 ].

3.4 Low frequency noise

Low frequency noise is common with background noise in urban environments and comes from road vehicles, aircraft, industrial machinery, artillery and mining explosions, wind turbines, compressors and ventilation or air conditioning systems. The effects of low-frequency noise are worrying because they are universal (effective propagation) compared to many structures, and many structures (home, wall and hearing protection) are less effective at attenuating low-frequency noise than other sounds. Intense low-frequency sounds seem to produce obvious symptoms, including respiratory disorders and hearing pain. Although it is difficult to determine the effect of low-frequency noise for methodological reasons, there are indications that some of the adverse effects of noise are usually due to low-frequency noise: loudness ratings and disturbing responses are sometimes given for equal sound pressure levels. Low frequency noises are greater than other noises, hum or vibration caused by low frequency noise amplify problems, and speech intelligibility can be reduced by low frequency noise more than other sounds, except for noise in the frequency range of the speech itself due to the upward propagation of the masking [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ] ( Table 1 ).

Noise level limits in different categorized areas of the city (Pakistan).

4. Health effects of noise

In light of the in-depth studies presented in Table 2 , it can be concluded that traffic accounts for 80% of the environmental impact of noise [ 73 ]. It is generally believed that deafness, high blood pressure, ischemic heart disease, discomfort and insomnia, as well as effects on the immune system, are the cause of the noise pollution. In addition to the above diseases, headaches, dizziness, sleeplessness, high blood pressure and hypertension are the common diseases caused by noise.

4.1 On humans

Traffic noise emissions consist of complex components, including horns, engine noise and tire friction. It is estimated that the noise pollution is affected by traffic noise [ 74 ], learning disabilities, loss of communication and lack of attention [ 75 , 76 ]. Epidemiological studies have shown that traffic noise increases the frequency of arterial diseases, hypertension and strokes as well as vascular dysfunctions [ 77 ]. Non-hearing effects such as activity, sleep and communication disorders can trigger a range of emotional reactions, including nuisance and subsequent stress, increased blood pressure and dyslipidemia, increased blood viscosity and blood sugar, and activation of the blood coagulation factor [ 78 , 79 ]. Due to noise pollution, also higher memory disturbances and oxidative stress were observed [ 80 ].

4.1.1 On industrial workers

Occupational noise exposure to workers have adverse effects on workers’ health by increasing hypertension, sleep disturbance [ 81 ], cardiovascular diseases, blood pressure, hypertension [ 82 , 83 ], exhaustion and overworking, mistakes performed in various operations due to noise disturbance [ 84 ], memory impairment [ 85 ], increased pulse rate [ 86 ], hearing loss and diabetes [ 87 , 88 ].

4.1.2 On public

Technology, modernization and residential complexes usually occur near the population, so that the resulting increase in noise is recorded. The environmental impact of noise is closely related to health consequences, including discomfort, sleep disorders and cardiovascular disease [ 89 , 90 ]. In addition, noise can seriously damage communication, memory function and hearing [ 91 ].

4.2 On animals

Noise levels are steadily increasing worldwide and may potentially affect many animal species. Short-term exposure can affect the behavior and physiology of birds, reproductive system as birds avoid reproduction in noisy places [ 92 ]. Animals also suffer human like disabilities like hearing loss, loss in responsiveness, dizziness and disturbance [ 93 ]. Traffic noise reduced foraging efficiency in most bats [ 94 ]. Monkeys also live in noise free areas as exhibited by a study in which continuous noise was supplied in the habitat of the monkeys in Brazil, monkeys moved from that area to noise free area indicating that they also do not like noise [ 95 ]. Noise effects on wildlife have also been widely studied and results indicated that they also prefer to live away from noise like bears, wolves, ants, lions and larger animals like elephants and whales [ 96 ] ( Table 2 ).

Noise induced health effects on humans and plants.

5. Noise control and minimization

As it is widely discussed that noise has different negative effects on almost all the inhabitants of the planet, it is also one of the priorities that noise should be minimized to avoid the negative health impacts on the humans and animals. Due to its different sources, same technology cannot be used to address all types of noise. So, different technologies are adopted worldwide to overcome the noise impacts. Some of them are discussed below.

5.1 In industrial areas

The incorporation of sustainable industrial planning and development cannot be achieved without proper addressing of the noise pollution. Despite the proven impacts of noise pollution on the worker’s health, there remains a lack of systematic methods to reduce the impacts of noise within the industries [ 118 , 119 ]. One of the major advances have been recently demonstrated for the long-term noise minimizing technology from the Department of Defense, Australia to reduce the workplace exposure from military and industrial noise sources [ 120 ]. Application of personal protective equipment like ear plugs and ear mufflers are the general safety measures which are taken by the employer and workers themselves [ 121 ]. Sealing of the machinery by using rubber is also used to minimize the vibrations and noise of the machinery in some industries [ 122 ]. Glass industry is among the loudest noise producing industries and the workers in these industries are advised to use hearing protection equipment like ear plug or mufflers [ 123 ].

A recent technology called operating room technology is set up to address the occupational noise effects in which all the workers of the operating team are issued headsets with microphones. The headsets filter out background noise and the microphones enable interactive communication among and between [ 124 ].

5.2 In residential areas

Noise in residential areas is produced by traffic, celebration parties, loud music and playgrounds. Although the noise is a non-market good, the attempts of its evaluation have been increasing, usually by estimating the economic costs arising from exposure to noise, lost prices of property and medical expenses. It is estimated that plots located in the zone with noise exceedance the limits are 57% cheaper than those located in silent zone [ 125 , 126 ]. The noise in the residential areas can be minimized by shifting to silent zones, using porous materials for house building or porous filters and planting hedges. In addition to this, some suggestion are also given by the authorities like exclusion of the traffic and train horn in or near residential areas, inclusion of noise barriers and removal of the railway tracks [ 127 , 128 , 129 ].

5.3 In commercial areas

There is an urgent need to reduce commercial noise being increased day by day due to increased commercial activities [ 130 , 131 ]. Noise in these areas can be controlled or minimized by limiting transportation activities in markets in daytime, limiting commercial aircraft flights or changing the flight time to night [ 132 ].

5.4 In hospitals

Problems related to environmental noise are not confined outside the hospitals, but it became a major issue in the hospitals too. It needs to be solved because silence and peace in hospitals is a major contributor in healing of the patients [ 133 ]. Noise pollution in the operating rooms is one of the remaining challenges. Both patients and physicians are exposed to different sound levels during the operative cases, many of which can last for hours. For noise monitoring and control, sound sensors can be installed in patient bed spaces, hallways, and common areas to measure the noise levels and its control accordingly [ 134 , 135 ]. Reactive noise barriers can also be installed in hospital facilities [ 136 ]. As we know that noise is produced from vibration, friction, collision and shocks, so by avoiding these phenomena’s, we can avoid noise by using rubber and proper lubrication in machinery [ 137 ].

5.5 In educational institutions

The learning environment dramatically affects the learning outcomes of students. Noise is a major factor which can distract students [ 138 ], induce attention loss and concentration difficulties, anxiety and headache [ 139 ]. To address these problem in educational institutions, traffic noise should be regulated, and traffic can be banned accordingly if found exceeding. School and college bus-stands should be away from the school and colleges. Educational institutions should not be established near the railway tracks, stations and airports [ 140 , 141 , 142 ].

6. Conclusion and recommendations

There is a little difference between noise and a sound. A sound can be a noise when it is loud and intensive. Categorization of a sound and noise is also depending upon the choice of the listener and the circumstances. For example, rock music can be pleasurable sound to one person and could be an annoying noise to another person. Likewise, dog’s barking is not a noise, but when it becomes continuous and disturbs people, it can be regarded as noise.

Noise has different sources and it can cause hearing loss, dizziness, heat diseases, headaches, high blood pressure, hypertension and nausea based upon the its intensity. To control environmental noise, different techniques and equipment are used according to the situation and requirement. In industries, ear plugs, and mufflers are used, rubber sealing and noise sensors are used in hospitals and shelter belts are used in residential areas for protection against adverse effects of noise. For future, it is necessary to work on reducing the vehicular sources of environmental noise by developing low noise producing automobile vehicles, aircrafts and ships.

Acknowledgments

The authors are highly acknowledged to Mr. Junaid Latif and Mr. Waqas Mohy Ud Din for their precious time given to review this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest for this chapter’s publishing.

• 1. Zhao J et al. Assessment and improvement of a highway traffic noise prediction model with L eq (20s) as the basic vehicular noise. Applied Acoustics. 2015; 97 :78-83
• 2. Nakashima H, Shinkai T, Kakinuma T. Vehicular suction noise transmission system. Google Patents; 2018
• 3. Liu S et al. Double kill: Compressive-sensing-based narrow-band interference and impulsive noise mitigation for vehicular communications. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 2016; 65 (7):5099-5109
• 4. Garg N et al. Effect of odd-even vehicular restrictions on ambient noise levels in Delhi city. In: 2017 International Conference on Advances in Mechanical, Industrial, Automation and Management Systems (AMIAMS); 2017
• 5. Cai M et al. Road traffic noise mapping in Guangzhou using GIS and GPS. Applied Acoustics. 2015; 87 :94-102
• 6. NIOSH. Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss—A Practical Guide. Cincinnati, Ohio: DHHS (NIOSH) Publication; 1996. pp. 96-110
• 7. Klein A et al. Spectral and modulation indices for annoyance-relevant features of urban road single-vehicle pass-by noises. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2015; 137 (3):1238-1250
• 8. Cole JA, Luthey-Schulten Z. Careful accounting of extrinsic noise in protein expression reveals correlations among its sources. Physical Review E. 2017; 95 (6):062418
• 9. Beimer W, Maennig W. Noise effects and real estate prices: A simultaneous analysis of different noise sources. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2017; 54 :282-286
• 10. Geraghty D, O’Mahony M. Urban noise analysis using multinomial logistic regression. Journal of Transportation Engineering. 2016; 142 (6):04016020
• 11. Koruk H, Arisoy A. Identification of crack noises in household refrigerators. Applied Acoustics. 2015; 89 :234-243
• 12. Ismail Y, Shadid N, Nizam A. Development of green curtain noise barrier using natural waste fibres. Journal of Advanced Research in Materials Science. 2016; 17 (1):1-9
• 13. Sun K, Neitzel RL. What can 35 years and over 700,000 measurements tell us about noise exposure in the mining industry? AU - Roberts, Benjamin. International Journal of Audiology. 2017; 56 (Suppl 1):4-12
• 14. Wang Z et al. Noise hazard and hearing loss in workers in automotive component manufacturing industry in Guangzhou, China. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi ye Bing za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Diseases]. 2015; 33 (12):906-909
• 15. Rizkya I et al. Measurement of noise level in enumeration station in rubber industry. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2017; 180 :012121
• 16. Nassur A-M et al. The impact of aircraft noise exposure on objective parameters of sleep quality: Results of the DEBATS study in France. Sleep Medicine. 2019; 54 :70-77
• 17. Schmidt FP et al. Crucial role for Nox2 and sleep deprivation in aircraft noise-induced vascular and cerebral oxidative stress, inflammation, and gene regulation. European Heart Journal. 2018; 39 (38):3528-3539
• 18. Lawton RN, Fujiwara D. Living with aircraft noise: Airport proximity, aviation noise and subjective wellbeing in England. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2016; 42 :104-118
• 19. Badino A et al. Airborne noise emissions from ships: Experimental characterization of the source and propagation over land. Applied Acoustics. 2016; 104 :158-171
• 20. Van Kamp I et al. Burden of disease from exposure to low frequency noise: A Dutch inventory. In: ICBEN Proceedings; 2017
• 21. Michaud DS et al. Exposure to wind turbine noise: Perceptual responses and reported health effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2016; 139 (3):1443-1454
• 22. Recio A et al. Road traffic noise effects on cardiovascular, respiratory, and metabolic health: An integrative model of biological mechanisms. Environmental Research. 2016; 146 :359-370
• 23. Baliatsas C et al. Health effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound in the general population: Is it time to listen? A systematic review of observational studies. Science of the Total Environment. 2016; 557-558 :163-169
• 24. Tennessen JB, Parks SE, Langkilde TL. Anthropogenic Noise and Physiological Stress in Wildlife. New York, NY: Springer; 2016
• 25. Shieh B-S et al. Interspecific comparison of traffic noise effects on dove coo transmission in urban environments. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6 :32519
• 26. Stansfeld SA. Noise effects on health in the context of air pollution exposure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015; 12 (10):12735
• 27. Ferrer M et al. Active noise control over adaptive distributed networks. Signal Processing. 2015; 107 :82-95
• 28. Wurm M. Adaptive noise control. Google Patents; 2015
• 29. Christoph M, Wurm M. Active noise control system. Google Patents; 2016
• 30. Dhillon GS et al. Spectroscopic investigation of soil organic matter composition for shelterbelt agroforestry systems. Geoderma. 2017; 298 :1-13
• 31. Van Renterghem T. Green roofs for acoustic insulation and noise reduction. In: Nature Based Strategies for Urban and Building Sustainability. United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann-Elsevier; 2018. pp. 167-179
• 32. Ohta Y et al. Active vibration noise control device. Google Patents; 2015
• 33. Abbaspour M et al. Hierarchal assessment of noise pollution in urban areas—A case study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2015; 34 :95-103
• 34. Aso N et al. Moulins detected as ambient noise sources at the Kaskawulsh Glacier. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts; 2016
• 35. Droitcour AD et al. Sources of noise and signal-to-noise ratio. In: Doppler Radar Physiological Sensing. New Jersey: John Willey and Sons; 2016. pp. 137-170
• 36. Zannin PHT et al. Evaluation of environmental noise generated by household waste collection trucks. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 2018; 20 (04):1850010
• 37. Antoniali M, Versolatto F, Tonello AM. An experimental characterization of the PLC noise at the source. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. 2016; 31 (3):1068-1075
• 38. Dale LM et al. Socioeconomic status and environmental noise exposure in Montreal, Canada. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15 (1):205
• 39. Li S-Q , Xiao W, Sun X-X. Household appliance fault detection based on wavelet denoising and HHT. In: DEStech Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering; 2018
• 40. Yang W, Moon HJ. Effects of recorded water sounds on intrusive traffic noise perception under three indoor temperatures. Applied Acoustics. 2019; 145 :234-244
• 41. Clark C et al. Association of long-term exposure to transportation noise and traffic-related air pollution with the incidence of diabetes: A prospective cohort study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2017; 125 (8):087025-087025
• 42. Wang X et al. Development of a road shoulder’s equivalent sound source traffic noise prediction model. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Transport. 2019; 0 (0):1-10
• 43. Ware HE et al. A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112 (39):12105-12109
• 44. Schmidt FP et al. Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: Part I—Epidemiologic evidence supporting a role for noise and air pollution and effects of mitigation strategies. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38 (8):550-556
• 45. Halonen JI et al. Road traffic noise is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality in London. European Heart Journal. 2015; 36 (39):2653-2661
• 46. Kaplan MB, Solomon S. A coming boom in commercial shipping? The potential for rapid growth of noise from commercial ships by 2030. Marine Policy. 2016; 73 :119-121
• 47. Hu Y et al. Commercial aircraft cabin noise reduction based on SEA and transfer-matrix method. Noise Control Engineering Journal. 2018; 66 (4):362-374
• 48. Meng Q , Sun Y, Kang J. Effect of temporary open-air markets on the sound environment and acoustic perception based on the crowd density characteristics. Science of the Total Environment. 2017; 601-602 :1488-1495
• 49. Bozkurt TS, Demirkale SY. The field study and numerical simulation of industrial noise mapping. Journal of Building Engineering. 2017; 9 :60-75
• 50. Nserat S et al. Blood pressure of Jordanian workers chronically exposed to noise in industrial plants. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2017: 8 (4):217-223
• 51. Weuve J et al. Long-term exposure to community noise in relation to Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. In: ISEE Conference Abstracts; 2018
• 52. Slater J et al. Music training improves speech-in-noise perception: Longitudinal evidence from a community-based music program. Behavioural Brain Research. 2015; 291 :244-252
• 53. Keith S, Michaud D. Estimating community tolerance for wind turbine noise annoyance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2017; 141 (5):3727-3727
• 54. Sieber C et al. Comparison of sensitivity and annoyance to road traffic and community noise between a South African and a Swiss population sample. Environmental Pollution. 2018; 241 :1056-1062
• 55. Khozikov V et al. Synergetic noise absorption and anti-icing for aircrafts. Google Patents; 2017
• 56. Ommi F, Azimi M. Low-frequency interior noise in prop-driven aircrafts: Sources and control methodologies. Noise & Vibration Worldwide. 2017; 48 (7-8):94-98
• 57. Williams R et al. Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: Publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2015; 115 :17-24
• 58. Merchant ND et al. Soundscape and Noise Exposure Monitoring in a Marine Protected Area Using Shipping Data and Time-Lapse Footage. New York, NY: Springer; 2016
• 59. Halliday WD et al. Potential impacts of shipping noise on marine mammals in the western Canadian Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2017; 123 (1):73-82
• 60. Han J-H, Dimitrijevic A. Continuous noise maskers reduce cochlear implant related artifacts during electrophysiological testing. The Journal of Health Science. 2017; 7 (2):61-62
• 61. Usenko VC, Filip R. Trusted noise in continuous-variable quantum key distribution: A threat and a defense. Entropy. 2016; 18 (1):20
• 62. Nichols TA, Anderson TW, Širović A. Intermittent noise induces physiological stress in a coastal marine fish. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (9):e0139157
• 63. Khoshnevisan D, Kim K. Nonlinear noise excitation of intermittent stochastic PDEs and the topology of LCA groups. The Annals of Probability. 2015; 43 (4):1944-1991
• 64. Biao W et al. An adaptive data detection algorithm based on intermittent chaos with strong noise background. Neural Computing and Applications. 2018; 0 :1-8
• 65. Zhou H, Li W. Stabilisation of stochastic delayed systems with Lévy noise on networks via periodically intermittent control. International Journal of Control. 2018:1-14
• 66. Radford AN et al. Repeated exposure reduces the response to impulsive noise in European seabass. Global Change Biology. 2016; 22 (10):3349-3360
• 67. Kuai X et al. Impulsive noise mitigation in underwater acoustic OFDM systems. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. 2016; 65 (10):8190-8202
• 68. Ma W et al. Sparse least mean p-power algorithms for channel estimation in the presence of impulsive noise. Signal, Image and Video Processing. 2016; 10 (3):503-510
• 69. Silva MBD et al. A physics-based statistical RTN model for the low frequency noise in MOSFETs. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices. 2016; 63 (9):3683-3692
• 70. Fogarty MA et al. Nonexponential fidelity decay in randomized benchmarking with low-frequency noise. Physical Review A. 2015; 92 (2):022326
• 71. Van Kamp I. Determinants of Annoyance from Humming Sound as Indicator of Low Frequency Noise. Acoustics. 2017; 0 :1-7
• 72. Li H et al. A method for low-frequency noise suppression based on mathematical morphology in microseismic monitoring. Geophysics. 2016; 81 (3):V159-V167
• 73. Tobías A et al. Health impact assessment of traffic noise in Madrid (Spain). Environmental Research. 2015; 137 :136-140
• 74. Franklin M et al. Assessing the contribution of noise to the association between traffic-related air pollution and children’s respiratory health. In: ISEE Conference Abstracts; 2018
• 75. Connolly D et al. The effects of classroom noise on the reading comprehension of adolescents. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2019; 145 (1):372-381
• 76. Mayor S. Noise Pollution: WHO Sets Limits on Exposure to Minimise Adverse Health Effects. London, UK: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2018
• 77. Ullmann E et al. Effects of noise on vascular function, oxidative stress, and inflammation: Mechanistic insight from studies in mice. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38 (37):2838-2849
• 78. Münzel T et al. The adverse effects of environmental noise exposure on oxidative stress and cardiovascular risk. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. 2018; 28 (9):873-908
• 79. Injaian AS, Taff CC, Patricelli GL. Experimental anthropogenic noise impacts avian parental behaviour, nestling growth and nestling oxidative stress. Animal Behaviour. 2018; 136 :31-39
• 80. Sikandaner HE et al. Neuroprotective effects of sildenafil against oxidative stress and memory dysfunction in mice exposed to noise stress. Behavioural Brain Research. 2017; 319 :37-47
• 81. Zare S et al. Evaluation of the effects of occupational noise exposure on serum aldosterone and potassium among industrial workers. Noise & Health. 2016; 18 (80):1-6
• 82. Assunta C et al. Noise and cardiovascular effects in workers of the sanitary fixtures industry. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 2015; 218 (1):163-168
• 83. Lie A et al. Systematic review of the cardiovascular effects of occupational noise. Occupational Medicine. 2016; 66 (1):10-16
• 84. Simion S et al. Estimation, Assessment and Effects of Workers Exposure to Physical Noxae. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018
• 85. Burgess M, Molesworth B. Effects of noise for workers in the transportation industry. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2017; 141 (5):3804-3804
• 86. Yousif KM, Ali FM. Effects of occupational noise exposure on blood pressure and other aspects of health for workers in selected industrial places in Zakho City, Iraq. Science Journal of University of Zakho. 2017; 5 (1):136-141
• 87. Lie A et al. Occupational noise exposure and hearing: A systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2016; 89 (3):351-372
• 88. Cantley LF et al. Association between ambient noise exposure, hearing acuity, and risk of acute occupational injury. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 2015; 41 (1):75-83
• 89. Hays J, McCawley M, Shonkoff SBC. Public health implications of environmental noise associated with unconventional oil and gas development. Science of the Total Environment. 2017; 580 :448-456
• 90. Lusk SL et al. Position statement: Harmful effects of environmental noise exposures. Nursing Outlook. 2016; 64 (4):395-396
• 91. Zhidkov SV. Statistical characterization and modeling of noise effects in near-ultrasound aerial acoustic communications. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2018; 144 (4):2605-2612
• 92. Halfwerk W, Slabbekoorn H, Both C. Noise affects nest-box choice of 2 competing songbird species, but not their reproduction. Behavioral Ecology. 2016; 27 (6):1592-1600
• 93. Lai J, Bartlett EL. Masking differentially affects envelope-following responses in young and aged animals. Neuroscience. 2018; 386 :150-165
• 94. Luo J, Siemers BM, Koselj K. How anthropogenic noise affects foraging. Global Change Biology. 2015; 21 (9):3278-3289
• 95. Duarte MHL et al. Mining noise affects loud call structures and emission patterns of wild black-fronted Titi monkeys. Primates. 2018; 59 (1):89-97
• 96. Meillere A et al. Traffic noise exposure affects telomere length in nestling house sparrows. Biology Letters. 2015; 11 (9):20150559
• 97. Lambert GA, Zagami AS. Does somatostatin have a role to play in migraine headache? Neuropeptides. 2018
• 98. Kim J et al. The relationship between occupational noise and vibration exposure and headache/eyestrain, based on the fourth Korean Working Condition Survey (KWCS). PLoS One. 2017; 12 (5):e0177846
• 99. Sha S-H, Schacht J. Emerging therapeutic interventions against noise-induced hearing loss. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs. 2017; 26 (1):85-96
• 100. Elsheshtawy M, Yang F, Prabhu S. Dizziness spells: Should one suspect the pacemaker? The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018
• 101. Lyamin OI et al. Cardiorespiratory responses to acoustic noise in belugas. In: The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2016. pp. 665-672
• 102. Michaud DS et al. Personal and situational variables associated with wind turbine noise annoyance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2016; 139 (3):1455-1466
• 103. Da Fonseca J et al. Noise-induced duodenal lesions. European Journal of Anatomy. 2019; 9 (1):29-33
• 104. Schmidt F et al. Nighttime aircraft noise impairs endothelial function and increases blood pressure in patients with or at high risk for coronary artery disease. Clinical Research in Cardiology. 2015; 104 (1):23-30
• 105. Dähne M et al. Bubble curtains attenuate noise from offshore wind farm construction and reduce temporary habitat loss for harbour porpoises. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2017; 580 :221-237
• 106. Fuks KB et al. Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and traffic noise and incident hypertension in seven cohorts of the European study of cohorts for air pollution effects (ESCAPE). European Heart Journal. 2017; 38 (13):983-990
• 107. McCormick MI et al. Effect of elevated CO 2 and small boat noise on the kinematics of predator–prey interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2018; 285 (1875):20172650
• 108. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss. Hearing Research. 2015; 330 :191-199
• 109. Ferrari MC et al. School is out on noisy reefs: The effect of boat noise on predator learning and survival of juvenile coral reef fishes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2018; 285 (1871):20180033
• 110. Seidler A et al. Association between aircraft, road and railway traffic noise and depression in a large case-control study based on secondary data. Environmental Research. 2017; 152 :263-271
• 111. Nabi G et al. The possible effects of anthropogenic acoustic pollution on marine mammals’ reproduction: An emerging threat to animal extinction. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018; 25 (20):1-8
• 112. Kageyama T. Adverse effects of community noise as a public health issue. Sleep and Biological Rhythms. 2016; 14 (3):223-229
• 113. Kim M et al. Regulatory evolution and voltage-gated ion channel expression in squid axon: Selection-mutation balance and fitness cliffs. PLoS One. 2015; 10 (4):e0120785
• 114. Aminuddin R, Sharkey A. Does interacting with a robot reduce your physiological stress response. New Friends. 2016; 0 (0):1-2
• 115. Schneider S et al. Structure-borne noise based diesel engine control. MTZ Worldwide. 2017; 78 (11):76-81
• 116. Le Prell CG, Clavier OH. Effects of noise on speech recognition: Challenges for communication by service members. Hearing Research. 2017; 349 :76-89
• 117. Geravandi S et al. Noise pollution and health effects. Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences. 2015; 7 (1):e60312
• 118. Hammad A, Akbarnezhad A, Rey D. Accounting for noise pollution in planning of smart cities. In: Smart Cities as a Solution for Reducing Urban Waste and Pollution. IGI Global; 2016. pp. 149-196
• 119. Nasir MS et al. Evaluation and analysis of traffic noise in different zones of Faisalabad—An industrial city of Pakistan. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes. 2017; 1 (4):232-240
• 120. Teague P, Conomos J, Jennings M. Noise reduction advances at major defence facilities in Australia. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings. Institute of Noise Control Engineering; 2016
• 121. Nawi NM et al. Occupational Noise Exposure of Construction Workers at Construction Sites in Malaysia. Singapore: Springer; 2018
• 122. Hammad AWA, Akbarnezhad A, Rey D. A multi-objective mixed integer nonlinear programming model for construction site layout planning to minimise noise pollution and transport costs. Automation in Construction. 2016; 61 :73-85
• 123. Lim MH et al. Strategic noise mapping prediction for a rubber manufacturing factory in Malaysia. In: E3S Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences; 2018
• 124. Friedrich MG et al. New technical solution to minimise noise exposure for surgical staff: The ‘silent operating theatre optimisation system’. BMJ Innovations. 2017; 3 (4):196-205
• 125. Łowicki D, Piotrowska S. Monetary valuation of road noise. Residential property prices as an indicator of the acoustic climate quality. Ecological Indicators. 2015; 52 :472-479
• 126. Hao Y et al. On the relationship between traffic noise resistance and urban morphology in low-density residential areas. Acta Acustica united with Acustica. 2015; 101 (3):510-519
• 127. Morandi F et al. Standardised acoustic characterisation of sonic crystals noise barriers: Sound insulation and reflection properties. Applied Acoustics. 2016; 114 :294-306
• 128. Bunn F, Zannin PHT. Assessment of railway noise in an urban setting. Applied Acoustics. 2016; 104 :16-23
• 129. Van Renterghem T et al. Using natural means to reduce surface transport noise during propagation outdoors. Applied Acoustics. 2015; 92 :86-101
• 130. Williams R et al. Approaches to reduce noise from ships operating in important killer whale habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2019; 139 :459-469
• 131. Fang Y, Huang J. Resolving weak light of sub-picowatt per square centimeter by hybrid perovskite photodetectors enabled by noise reduction. Advanced Materials. 2015; 27 (17):2804-2810
• 132. Nelson JP. Airport noise, location rent, and the market for residential amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1979; 6 (4):320-331
• 133. Gallo LF, Olivera J. Noise pollution control system in the hospital environment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2016; 705 :012942
• 134. Kawai Y et al. Quality improvement initiative to reduce pediatric intensive care unit noise pollution with the use of a pediatric delirium bundle. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 2019; 34 (5):383-390
• 135. Fiedler PEK, Zannin PHT. Evaluation of noise pollution in urban traffic hubs—Noise maps and measurements. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2015; 51 :1-9
• 136. Monazzam M, Babamahmoodi A, Naderzadeh M. Reactive noise barrier optimization plan for noise pollution reduction in fifteen districts of Tehran. Journal of Air Pollution and Health. 2016; 1 (1):27-34
• 137. Korka ZI et al. Gearboxes noise reduction by applying a fluoropolymer coating procedure. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal. 2015; 14 (6):1433-1439
• 138. Gilavand A, Jamshidnezhad A. The effect of noise in educational institutions on learning and academic achievement of elementary students in Ahvaz, South-West of Iran. International Journal Of Pediatrics. 2016; 4 (3):1453-1463
• 139. Bitar ML, Calaço Sobrinho LF, Simões-Zenari M. Ações para a melhoria do conforto acústico em instituições de educação infantil. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2018; 23 :315-324
• 140. Gupta A et al. Noise pollution and impact on children health. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics. 2018; 85 (4):300-306
• 141. Yucel M, Kahveci B, Colakkadioglu D. Modelling the adverse health effects of road traffic noise: A case study in Adana, Bulent Angin Boulevard. Journal of International Environmental Application & Science. 2017; 12 (4):325-333
• 142. Yadav S, Bilas R. Effect of noise pollution on exposed people of Gorakhpur City. Indian Journal of Scientific Research. 2017; 8 (1):99-107

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License , which permits use, distribution and reproduction for non-commercial purposes, provided the original is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Edited by Sezgin Ersoy

Published: 09 September 2020

By Sylvie Mira Bonnardel, Fabio Antonialli and Daniel...

748 downloads

By Fatma Ben Salem

757 downloads

By Ishak Ertugrul and Osman Ulkir

1048 downloads

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Environ Health Perspect
• v.122(2); 2014 Feb

Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States: Developing an Effective Public Health Response

Monica s. hammer.

1 The Network for Public Health Law—Mid-States Region, The University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Tracy K. Swinburn

2 The Risk Science Center, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Richard L. Neitzel

3 The Department of Environmental Health Sciences, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Background: Tens of millions of Americans suffer from a range of adverse health outcomes due to noise exposure, including heart disease and hearing loss. Reducing environmental noise pollution is achievable and consistent with national prevention goals, yet there is no national plan to reduce environmental noise pollution.

Objectives: We aimed to describe some of the most serious health effects associated with noise, summarize exposures from several highly prevalent noise sources based on published estimates as well as extrapolations made using these estimates, and lay out proven mechanisms and strategies to reduce noise by incorporating scientific insight and technological innovations into existing public health infrastructure.

Discussion: We estimated that 104 million individuals had annual L EQ(24) levels > 70 dBA (equivalent to a continuous average exposure level of >70 dBA over 24 hr) in 2013 and were at risk of noise-induced hearing loss. Tens of millions more may be at risk of heart disease, and other noise-related health effects. Direct regulation, altering the informational environment, and altering the built environment are the least costly, most logistically feasible, and most effective noise reduction interventions.

Conclusion: Significant public health benefit can be achieved by integrating interventions that reduce environmental noise levels and exposures into the federal public health agenda.

Citation: Hammer MS, Swinburn TK, Neitzel RL. 2014. Environmental noise pollution in the United States: developing an effective public health response. Environ Health Perspect 122:115–119;  http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307272

Introduction

Noise, or unwanted sound, is one of the most common environmental exposures in the United States ( García 2001 ). In 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that nearly 100 million people in the United States (about 50% of the population) had annual exposures to traffic noise that were high enough to be harmful to health ( Simpson and Bruce 1981 ). However, despite the widespread prevalence of exposure, noise has historically been treated differently than pollutants of a chemical or radiological nature, and especially air pollution. Congress has not seriously discussed environmental noise in > 30 years, although noise exposure is a large public concern. For example, in New York City noise is consistently the number one quality of life issue, and authorities there received > 40,000 noise complaints in 2012 ( Metcalfe 2013 ). Very few communities appear to consider the health risks of noise in their policy making ( Network for Public Health Law 2013 ) despite the fact that the health effects of noise have been explored over many decades, and the body of evidence linking noise to various health effects is, therefore, more extensive than for most other environmental hazards ( Goines and Hagler 2007 ; Passchier-Vermeer and Passchier 2000 ).

Even when cities and counties do address noise in their planning efforts, the results are disappointing. The Health Impacts Project (HIP) provides guidance for policy makers to identify the health consequences of potential projects by making public a national sample of health impact assessments ( HIP 2013 ). Dozens of recent health impact statements in the HIP database have incorporated noise, but none appeared to assess changes in sleep disturbance, learning, hypertension, or heart disease. Although HIP does not provide a complete picture of U.S. health impact assessments, it does indicate that decision makers lack the information they need to protect communities from noise-related health effects. Environmental impact statements that calculate changes in noise levels also do not necessarily provide information about adverse health impacts resulting from these changes ( U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration/Michigan Department of Transportation 2008 ).

In this commentary, we examine scientific and policy aspects of noise exposure. We first provide an overview of the relationship between high-impact health effects and noise. We then describe the most prevalent sources of noise and estimate prevalence of exposure. Finally, we explore policy approaches that can reduce the harmful effects of noise.

Chronic Noise: A Biopsychosocial Model of Disease

Chronic environmental noise causes a wide variety of adverse health effects, including sleep disturbance, annoyance, noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), cardiovascular disease, endocrine effects, and increased incidence of diabetes ( Passchier-Vermeer and Passchier 2000 ; Sørensen et al. 2013 ). This commentary is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of all noise-related health effects, which is available elsewhere ( Goines and Hagler 2007 ). Rather, we focus on several highly prevalent health effects: sleep disruption and heart disease, stress, annoyance, and NIHL ( Figure 1 ). It is important to note that the levels of noise exposures associated with these health effects range widely; as a result, the prevention of different health effects involves specification of different exposure limits and metrics.

Select effects of noise.

Sleep and heart disease . People in noisy environments experience a subjective habituation to noise, but their cardiovascular system does not habituate ( Muzet 2002 ) and still experiences activations of the sympathetic nervous system and changes from deep sleep to a lighter stage of sleep in response to noise. The body’s initial startle response to noise is activation of the sympathetic (fight or flight) part of the nervous system, similar to the preparations the body makes just before waking in the morning. Although blood pressure normally drops during sleep, people experiencing sleep fragmentation from noise have difficulty achieving a nadir for any length of time because blood pressure rises with noise transients and heart rate increases with noise level ( Haralabidis et al. 2008 ). Decreased quality and quantity of sleep elevates cardiovascular strain, which manifests as increased blood pressure and disruptions in cardiovascular circadian rhythms ( Sforza et al. 2004 ).

Disordered sleep is associated with increased levels of stress hormones ( Joo et al. 2012 ). Microarousals appear to be associated with increased lipids and cortisol levels, and feed into the same pathway of disordered sleep, even priming the neuroendocrine stress response in some individuals to be more at risk for disorders such as depression ( Meerlo et al. 2008 ). Increased blood lipid, heart rate, blood pressure, and stress levels from noise lead to atherosclerosis, which is causally related to heart disease ( Hoffman et al. 2013 ).

Stress . The effects of noise on conscious subjects are insidious and result at least in part from increased psychosocial stress and annoyance. Annoyance from continuous sound appears to vary substantially by individual ( Babisch et al. 2013 ; Stansfeld 1992 ), and there are a number of factors that may influence annoyance ( Babisch et al. 2012 ) and subsequent stress. Annoyance increases sympathetic tone, especially in noise-sensitive individuals ( Sandrock et al. 2009 ), and may be the non–sleep-mediated pathway that is present in individuals with high occupational noise exposures who subsequently develop heart disease ( Ha et al. 2011 ).

Environmental noise is not only a health risk to people who report being annoyed by noise, but these individuals are also at risk for additional health effects ( Sandrock et al. 2009 ). Children in noisy environments have poor school performance, which leads to stress and misbehavior ( Lercher et al. 2002 ). They also have decreased learning, lower reading comprehension, and concentration deficits ( Stansfeld et al. 2005 ).

NIHL . Long-term exposures to noise levels > 75 dBA ( U.S. EPA 1974 ) can cause metabolic changes in sensory hair cells within the cochlea, eventually leading to their demise ( Heinrich et al. 2006 ) and increasing inability to perceive sound (e.g., NIHL). Neuronal destruction may also occur; in such cases, the ability to perceive sound may remain undiminished, but the ability to understand the meaning of sound deteriorates ( Lin 2012 ). Extreme exposures can cause direct mechanical damage (acoustic trauma) to cochlear hair cells ( Newby and Popelka 1992 ). Noise exposure is also associated with tinnitus (ringing in the ears) and hyperacusis. NIHL has traditionally been associated with occupational noise, but there is increasing evidence that music may play an important role as well ( Lewis et al. 2013 ).

It is difficult to overstate the social cost of NIHL and its impact on quality of life. The additional effort required to process sound leads to fatigue, headaches, nervousness, depression, and anger ( Hetu et al. 1993 ). Functional limitations associated with a compromised ability to communicate restrict mobility, self-direction, self-care, work tolerance, and work skills and increase isolation. Assistive technologies can aid some individuals, but in no way represent a cure.

Children with NIHL suffer from decreased educational achievement and impaired social–emotional development, score significantly lower on basic skills, and exhibit behavioral problems and lower self-esteem ( Bess et al. 1998 ).

Exposure Limits and Sources of Noise

Exposure metrics and limits . Because of the array of health effects caused by noise, and the relative importance of exposure timing for some health effects, a variety of exposure metrics and limits are in use today. The U.S. EPA recommends an average 24-hr exposure limit of 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) to protect the public from all adverse effects on health and welfare in residential areas ( U.S. EPA 1974 ). This limit is a day–night 24-hr average noise level (L DN ), with a 10-dBA penalty applied to nighttime levels between 2200 and 0700 hours to account for sleep disruption and no penalty applied to daytime levels.

The U.S. EPA recommends a second exposure limit of 70 dBA to prevent hearing loss ( U.S. EPA 1974 ). The limit is an equivalent continuous average exposure level over 24 hr [L EQ(24) ]. Unlike the 55-dBA L DN limit designed to protect against all long-term health effects, the 70-dBA limit considers daytime and nighttime exposures to be equally hazardous to hearing. This 24-hr limit is equivalent to a 75-dBA 8-hr workday exposure, with no noise exposure (i.e., noise < 70 dBA) during the remaining 16 hr.

The U.S. EPA recommendations—adopted in 1974 and mirrored by the World Health Organization (WHO) ( Berglund et al. 1999 )—may be considered a truly “safe” level for protection against hearing loss. In contrast, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 8-hr workplace regulation of 90 dBA may result in a 25% excess risk of hearing impairment among workers exposed over a working lifetime [ National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 1998 ].

Other limits may be needed or appropriate for preventing additional health effects not described here or for emerging sources of noise (e.g., wind turbines) that are substantially different from historical noise sources. For example, the WHO recently adopted a set of health-based guidelines for nighttime noise exposure that are much lower than previously recommended levels ( WHO 2009 ).

Sources of noise . Primary sources of noise in the United States include road and rail traffic, air transportation, and occupational and industrial activities [ National Academy of Engineering (NAE) 2010 ]. Additional individual-level exposures include amplified music, recreational activities (including concerts and sporting events), and firearms. Personal music player use appears to be common among adolescents ( Kim et al. 2009 ; Vogel et al. 2011 ) and may involve potentially harmful sound levels ( Breinbauer et al. 2012 ). Exposures from recreational activities and music are not “noise” in the sense of being unwanted sound, but adverse health effects are possible even from desirable sounds.

Prevalence of Harmful Noise Exposure

Data on the prevalence of noise exposures in the United States are dated and inadequate. The most recent national surveys of community and occupational noise exposures occurred in the early 1980s ( NIOSH 1988 ; Simpson and Bruce 1981 ). Current estimates of workers exposed to “hazardous” levels of workplace noise (an 8-hr L EQ of ≥ 85 dBA) range from 22 to 30 million ( NIOSH 2001 ; Tak et al. 2009 ). This wide range in estimates for the working population, which is more closely tracked than the general public, should give some indication as to the tremendous uncertainty in community estimates.

The limited data available suggest that a substantial portion of the U.S. population may be at risk of noise-related health effects and that modern 24-hr societies are increasingly encroaching on “quiet” periods (e.g., night). An annual level of 55- to 60-dBA L DN may increase risk of hypertension ( van Kempen and Babisch 2012 ). In 1981, Simpson and Bruce (1981) estimated that at least 92.4 million people (46.2% of the U.S. population) were exposed at or above this level. Applying the 1981 U.S. EPA estimate of exposure prevalence to the current U.S. population (315 million in March 2013) ( U.S. Census Bureau 2010 ), and assuming noise levels have not changed since then, we estimate that at least 145.5 million people were at potential risk of hypertension due to noise in 2013. Lower levels (e.g., 50–55 dBA, to which a larger fraction of the population is exposed) may increase risk of myocardial infarction ( Willich et al. 2006 ).

Recent studies of individuals’ noise exposures ( Flamme et al. 2012 ) indicate that a substantial fraction of U.S. adults may be exposed to noise levels above the U.S. EPA 70-dBA L EQ(24) limit. Neitzel et al. (2012) sampled > 4,500 adults in New York City and estimated that 9 of 10 exceeded the recommended U.S. EPA limit. The Neitzel et al. (2012) study is the most comprehensive quantitative estimate of annual noise exposures in a large sample of U.S. residents in decades, and it represents a basis for developing contemporary estimates of urban U.S. noise exposures.

There are 16 metropolitan statistical areas in the United States with a population of > 4 million for which the New York City estimates might be considered representative. These areas comprised a total population of 80,621,123 in 2012 ( U.S. Census Bureau 2010 ), or 25.6% of the U.S. population. By applying the New York City exposure prevalence estimates of Neitzel et al. (2012) to these 16 largest urban agglomerations, we estimate that at least 72.6 million urban U.S. residents were exposed to annual L EQ(24) levels of > 70 dBA in 2010. By comparison, the U.S. EPA estimated in 1981 that 66 million people, or 33% of the U.S. population (not just urban dwellers), were exposed above the recommended limit ( Simpson and Bruce 1981 ). Applying the 1981 U.S. EPA estimate to 2013 census data, and again assuming no change in noise levels over that time, we estimate that 104 million individuals had annual L EQ(24) levels of > 70 dBA in 2013 and were at risk of NIHL and possibly other noise-related health effects. Unfortunately, given the lack of assessment of noise exposure in health surveillance programs in the United States, it is difficult to evaluate these estimated health impacts against observed health effects, and for some health effects metrics other than the L EQ(24) (e.g., the L DN ) are likely more appropriate.

Health Protection Policy

Given the substantial exposures to noise in the United States, the severity of associated health consequences, and the limited power of the public to protect themselves, there is a clear need for policy aimed at reducing noise exposures. Because noise is expected to rise with increasing urbanization ( García 2001 ), policy leaders need to explore the use of law as a practical tool to manage and reduce noise exposures. Here we highlight the interventions we believe hold the most promise for policy leaders. We first explain how noise can be integrated into the federal public health agenda and then explore the ways state and local governments may use the law to respond to and reduce noise.

The federal public health agenda . The United States National Prevention Strategy (NPS) can provide leadership by putting noise on the national health policy agenda. The NPS brings together 17 federal agencies (including the Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor as well as the U.S. EPA) to provide a foundation for the nation’s prevention goal delineated under the Affordable Care Act: to increase the number of Americans who are healthy at every stage of life through focus on wellness and prevention ( National Prevention Council 2011 ). Two of NPS’s priorities are a ) to promote healthy and safe community settings that prevent injury, and b ) to empower people in ways that support positive physical and mental health. In addition, some of the objectives of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as articulated in their Healthy People 2020 goals, are to decrease the proportion of adolescents who have NIHL, reduce new cases of work-related noise-induced hearing loss ( DHHS 2013a ), increase cardiovascular health, and reduce coronary heart disease deaths ( DHHS 2013b ). These federal objectives, designed to encourage collaboration and improve decision making, can also be used to coordinate and measure the impact of prevention strategies set forth below. Although there is a large range of options for addressing noise exposures in the United States ( NAE 2010 ), we believe that direct regulation and altering the informational environment are the least costly, most logistically feasible, and most effective federal-level noise reduction interventions.

Source control through direct regulation. Direct regulation that sets maximum emission level for noise sources is the only intervention that guarantees population-level exposure reductions. The NPS supports proven strategies, and source reduction is the most cost-effective intervention to protect health ( García 2001 ). There is already evidence of the great potential for this approach in the United States: annual U.S. air transport noise exposures > 65 dBA L DN have seen a remarkable 90% reduction since 1981 (from affecting 4% of the population in 1981 to 0.015% in 2007) despite a sixfold increase in number of person-miles travelled by air. This reduction can be attributed in large part to direct federal regulation, and subsequent technological improvements of jet engines ( Waitz et al. 2007 ).

The regulatory scheme for direct source regulation is straightforward. Congress gave power to the U.S. EPA to regulate noise emitted from construction equipment, transportation equipment, any motor or engine, and electrical or electronic equipment in the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972 ( NCA 1972a ). Between 1972 and 1981 the U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) led efforts which resulted in noise emission limits on air compressors, motorcycles, medium and heavy trucks, and truck-mounted waste compactors. An attempt to regulate lawn mowers was not well received ( Shapiro 1991 ), and the agency lost funding in 1981, when the ONAC budget was $12.7 million ($32.5 million in 2013 dollars) ( U.S. EPA 1982 ).

The U.S. EPA could resume noise control work with support from Congress and the NPS. The majority of the U.S. EPA’s funding ($7.1 billion in 2012) consists of discretionary appropriations from Congress, which means that the U.S. EPA can exercise the full scope of its regulatory authority under the NCA at any time. However, U.S. EPA funding in real dollars adjusted for inflation peaked in 1978 ( Congressional Research Service 2012 ), so it is likely that the U.S. EPA will resume activity on noise control only when Congress and the NPS support their efforts.

Altering the informational environment. The NPS seeks to empower individual decision making by addressing barriers to the dissemination and use of reliable health information. Altering the informational environment enables informed choice in partnership with direct regulation. Without source control, changing the informational environment can only offer limited reductions in noise because individuals often lack control over significant noise sources. However, several interventions have the potential to drastically alter the informational environment.

Product Disclosure

Labels that disclose the noise emitted from products promote informed consumer choice. Mandatory labeling of noise emissions is required for certain products in China, Argentina, Brazil, and the European Union ( NAE 2010 ). Disclosure will inform consumer choice only if the consumer understands the implications of what the label discloses, so we discuss product disclosures with the assumption that they will be accompanied by education.

The NCA requires that the U.S. EPA adopt regulations that label products that emit noise capable of adversely affecting the public health or welfare ( NCA 1972b ). The U.S. EPA implemented this mandate only for portable air compressors, even though there are many other, more noisy products, including children’s toys ( Hawks 1998 ). Individuals without access to education may still experience some benefit from product disclosures that are easily understood, such as warnings based on red, yellow, and green colors. The U.S. EPA could resume its work mandating disclosures with NPS leadership and Congressional funding.

Geographic noise maps alter the informational environment and are one way to ensure that noise control policy is based on objective and accurate information. The NPS seeks to expand and increase access to information technology and integrated data systems. Governments in the European Union have already prepared noise maps of roads, railways, and airports ( Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 2011 ). Although the U.S. government does not map noise levels to protect the public, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2012) has created a noise map of the world’s oceans to investigate the impact of noise on marine species. Cities such as San Francisco have mapped traffic noise, but most cities and states would need federal support and guidance to initiate comprehensive mapping. Measurement and mapping of noise levels—following the example of the CDC’s air and water quality databases—would identify priorities for additional evaluation and help inform protective measures. Congress can appropriate funding to the U.S. EPA, ONAC, or CDC to support this work. However, mapping efforts will require a substantially increased and ongoing noise monitoring effort.

State and local action . The NPS addresses the complex interactions between federal, state, tribal, local, and territorial policies addressing community environments. The NCA was first enacted at the behest of industry trade groups that argued that national standards would protect manufacturers from the imposition of disparate and inconsistent state and local standards. However, after it was enacted, industry groups asked for a defunding of the NCA by asserting that it was best to control noise at the local level ( Shapiro 1991 ).

State and local governments can enact regulations on sources of noise not already regulated by the U.S. EPA or another federal agency. Theoretically, a mixed system where federal and state jurisdiction overlap increases functionality. In the case of noise control, however, few states and localities attempt direct regulations because they do not have sufficient market power and resources and because of preemption challenges from other law ( Air Transport Association of America v. Crotti 1975 ). Municipal regulation evolved into noise ordinances that regulate the timing and intensity of noise, are expensive and difficult to enforce, and have not proven to be effective at reducing noise ( Dunlap 2006 ).

Given these considerations, we believe that the most cost-effective legal interventions at the state and local levels are through a ) spending and procurement, and b ) altering the built environment.

Spending and procurement. A number of municipal noise sources, including emergency sirens, transit vehicles, garbage and street maintenance equipment, and construction equipment ( Bronzaft and Van Ryzin 2007 ), may be reduced through careful purchasing and contractual agreements. Some countries go so far as to require contractors to pay for temporary relocation of citizens seeking relief from construction noise ( BSM 2012 ). Adoption of procurement policies intended to reduce community noise is an opportunity for government to lead by example ( Perdue et al. 2003 ).

Altering the built environment. The NPS recommends that governments take steps to ensure safe and healthy housing because health suffers when people live in poorly designed physical environments ( Perdue et al. 2003 ). Although altering the built environment can influence individual noise exposures, it often does not reduce noise source levels. In addition, it can be construed as inherently inequitable because the recipients of noise bear the burden of exposure reduction, and those creating the noise continue to have no incentive to reduce emissions. Therefore, this intervention requires thorough analysis and careful planning.

Sustainable building design programs, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), offer the possibility of achieving noise reductions through good acoustical design ( U.S. Green Building Council 2013 ). LEED standards incorporate American National Standards Institute recommendations regarding background noise and encourage sound-absorptive finishes to limit reverberation in schools ( U.S. Green Building Council 2010 ). Improvements in construction materials, siting considerations (e.g., siting sensitive structures such as homes and schools well away from noise sources such as high traffic roads and hospitals), and design can have a dramatic impact on noise levels inside buildings—and improve the occupants’ quality of life in the process.

Although the Federal Highway Administration does not currently provide federal funding for low-noise pavement ( NAE 2010 ), such pavement can reduce noise by up to 6 dB in areas where vehicles travel at speeds > 35 miles/hr. For slower traffic, planning can reduce high noise from delivery trucks within city limits by encouraging adoption of smaller electric delivery vehicles. This scheme has already been implemented in several other countries ( Allen et al. 2012 ) and also has the potential to reduce air pollution and traffic fatalities.

We have identified a number of opportunities to lower noise exposures and ultimately improve public health while additional research is being conducted. Updated national-level estimates of individual noise exposures are needed; our use of 1981 U.S. EPA data introduces a substantial amount of uncertainty into our estimates and highlights the need for an updated national survey of noise exposures in the United States. Although prevention of different health effects will require additional research to identify appropriate exposure limits, once informed and supported by ongoing research, federal leaders can focus on lowering noise at its source, and states can prioritize altering the built environment. Meanwhile, local government can adjust their procurement policies and encourage building approaches that reduce community noise.

In the manuscript originally published online, the reported annual noise level that may increase risk for hypertension, the reported estimate of the number of people exposed at or above the annual noise level, and the authors’ estimate of the number of people at potential risk of hypertension due to noise in 2013 were incorrect in the second paragraph of the “Prevalence of Harmful Noise Exposure” section. They have been corrected here.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of L.A. Schwankl and S.C. Betzler in preparing this manuscript.

This work was made possible by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Public Health Law Attorney Fellow Program (N015293), the Network for Public Health Law, and resources from the University of Michigan Risk Science Center.

The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

• Air Transport Association of America v. Crotti. 389 F. Supp. 58 (N.D. Cal. 1975). District Court, N.D. California 1975 [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen J, Browne M, Woodburn A, Leonardi J. The role of urban consolidation centres in sustainable freight transport. Transport Rev. 2012; 32 :473–490. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babisch W, Pershagen G, Selander J, Houthuijs D, Breugelmans O, Cadum E, et al. Noise annoyance—a modifier of the association between noise level and cardiovascular health? Sci Total Environ. 2013; 452–453 :50–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babisch W, Swart W, Houthuijs D, et al. Exposure modifiers of the relationships of transportation noise with high blood pressure and noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132 (6):3788–3808. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH. WHO Guidelines for Community Noise. 1999. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf [accessed 2 January 2014]
• Bess FH, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker RA. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hear. 1998; 19 :339–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breinbauer HA, Anabalón JL, Gutierrez D, Cárcamo R, Olivares C, Caro J. Output capabilities of personal music players and assessment of preferred listening levels of test subjects: outlining recommendations for preventing music-induced hearing loss. Laryngoscope. 2012; 122 :2549–2556. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronzaft A, Van Ryzin G. Neighborhood Noise and Its Consequences: Implications for Tracking Effectiveness of the NYC Revised Noise Code. Special Report #14.New York:Baruch College/CUNY. 2007. Available: http://www.noiseoff.org/document/cenyc.noise.report.14.pdf [accessed 16 November 2013]
• BSM. Families Affected by Metro Noise Asked to Share One Apartment. The Copenhagen Post (Copenhagen, Denmark) 10 October. 2012. Available: http://cphpost.dk/news/families-affected-by-metro-noise-asked-to-share-one-apartment.2987.html [accessed 17 November 2013]
• Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in Accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC. Brussels:European Commission. 2011. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0321:FIN:EN:PDF [accessed 16 November 2013]
• Congressional Research Service. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations for FY2013. Washington, DC:Congressional Research Service. 2012. Available: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42520.pdf [accessed 2 January 2014]
• DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). Healthy People 2020. Hearing and Other Sensory or Communication Disorders. 2013a. Available: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=20 [accessed 27 December 2013]
• DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services). Healthy People 2020. Heart Disease and Stroke. 2013b. Available: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=21 [accessed 27 December 2013]
• Dunlap A. Come on feel the noise: the problem with municipal noise regulation. U Miami Bus L Rev. 2006; 15 :47–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flamme GA, Stephenson MR, Deiters K, Tatro A, VanGessel D, Geda K, et al. Typical noise exposure in daily life. Int J Audiol. 2012; 51 :S3–11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García A. Boston, MA: Wentworth Insitute of Technology Press; 2001. Environmental Urban Noise. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goines L, Hagler L. Noise pollution: a modern plague. South Med J. 2007; 100 :287–294. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ha J, Kim SG, Paek D, Park J. The magnitude of mortality from ischemic heart disease attributed to occupational factors in Korea—attributable fraction estimation using meta-analysis. Saf Health Work. 2011; 2 :70–82. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haralabidis AS, Dimakopoulou K, Vigna-Taglianti F, Giampaolo M, Borgini A, Dudley ML, et al. Acute effects of night-time noise exposure on blood pressure in populations living near airports. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29 :658–664. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawks JW. Sound levels emitted by children’s toys. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 1998; 25 :45–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heinrich UR, Brieger J, Selivanova O, Feltens R, Eimermacher A, Schäfer D, et al. COX-2 expression in the guinea pig cochlea is partly altered by moderate sound exposure. Neurosci Lett. 2006; 394 :121–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetu R, Jones L, Getty L. The impact of acquired hearing impairment on intimate-relationships—implications for rehabilitation. Audiology. 1993; 32 :363–381. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• HIP (Health Impact Project). HIA in the United States. Supporting Healthier Communities in All Regions of the Country. 2013. Available: http://www.healthimpactproject.org/hia/us [accessed 6 June 2013]
• Hoffman F, Hennig S, Moebus S, Mohlenkamp N, Dragano H, Jakobs R, et al.2013. Searching for t he culprit: Is urban particulate air pollution or road traffic noise responsible for the association of traffic proximity with subclinical atherosclerosis—results from the Henize Nixdorf recall study [Abstract] Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187 A3502.Available: http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2013.187.1_MeetingAbstracts.A3502 [accessed 2 January 2014] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joo EY, Yoon CW, Koo DL, Kim D, Hong SB. Adverse effects of 24 hours of sleep deprivation on cognition and stress hormones. J Clin Neurol. 2012; 8 :146–150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim MG, Hong SM, Shim HJ, Kim YD, Cha CI, Yeo SG. Hearing threshold of Korean adolescents associated with the use of personal music players. Yonsei Med J. 2009; 50 :771–776. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lercher P, Evans GW, Meis M, Kofler WW. Ambient neighbourhood noise and children’s mental health. Occup Environ Med. 2002; 59 :380–386. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis RC, Gershon RR, Neitzel RL. Estimation of permanent noise-induced hearing loss in an urban setting. Environ Sci Technol. 2013; 47 :6393–6399. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin FR. Hearing loss in older adults: who’s listening? JAMA. 2012; 307 :1147–1148. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meerlo P, Sgoifo A, Suchecki D. Restricted and disrupted sleep: effects on autonomic function, neuroendocrine stress systems and stress responsivity. Sleep Med Rev. 2008; 12 (3):197–210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalfe J. Yo, I’m trying to sleep here! New York’s wonderful map of noise. The Atlantic Cities, 15 April. 2013. Available: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/04/yo-im-trying-sleep-here-new-yorks-wonderful-map-noise/5279/ [accessed 18 November 2013]
• Muzet A. The need for a specific noise measurement for population exposed to aircraft noise during night-time. Noise Health. 2002; 4 (15):61–64. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NAE (National Academy of Engineering). Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010. Technology for a Quieter America. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sound Field Data Availability. Washington, DC:U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Available: http://cetsound.noaa.gov/sound_data.html [accessed 17 November 2013]
• National Prevention Council. National Prevention Strategy, America’s Plan for Better Health and Wellness. Washington, DC:National Prevention Council. 2011. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/features/preventionstrategy/ [accessed 16 November 2013]
• NCA (Noise Control Act). Noise Control Act. Noise Emission Standards for Products Distributed in Commerce. 42 USC 4905 1972a [ Google Scholar ]
• NCA (Noise Control Act). Noise Control Act. Labeling. 42 USC 4907 1972b [ Google Scholar ]
• Neitzel RL, Gershon RR, McAlexander TP, Magda LA, Pearson JM. Exposures to transit and other sources of noise among New York City residents. Environ Sci Technol. 2012; 46 :500–508. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Network for Public Health Law. National Survey of State and Local Noise Activity. 2013. Available: http://www.networkforphl.org/_asset/3rvh8q/5-23-13Survey_of_noise_activity_4.pdf [accessed 24 May 2013]
• Newby H, Popelka G. Audiology. 6th ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ:Prentice Hall. 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health). National Occupational Exposure Survey Field Guidelines. (Report 88–106). 1988. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/88-106/88-106.pdf [accessed 16 November 2013]
• NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Criteria for a Recommended Exposure Limit: Noise. (Report 98–126). 1998. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126/pdfs/98-126.pdf [accessed 16 November 2013]
• NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Work Related Hearing Loss. (Report 2001-103). 2001. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2001-103/ [accessed 16 November 2013]
• Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF. Noise exposure and public health. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108 :123–131. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perdue WC, Stone LA, Gostin LO. The built environment and its relationship to the public’s health: the legal framework. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93 :1390–1394. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandrock S, Schütte M, Griefahn B. Impairing effects of noise in high and low noise sensitive persons working on different mental tasks. IInt Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009; 82 :779–785. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sforza E, Chapotot F, Lavoie S, Roche F, Pigeau R, Buguet A. Heart rate activation during spontaneous arousals from sleep: effect of sleep deprivation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115 :2442–2451. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shapiro SA. The Dormant Noise Control Act and Options to Abate Noise Pollution. Washington, DC: Noise Pollution Clearinghouse. 1991. Available: http://www.nonoise.org/library/shapiro/shapiro.htm [accessed 16 November 2013]
• Simpson M, Bruce R. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1981. Noise in America: Extent of the Noise Problem. (Report 550/9-81-101) [ Google Scholar ]
• Sørensen M, Andersen ZJ, Nordsborg RB, Becker T, Tjønneland A, Overvad K, et al.2013 Long-term exposure to road traffic noise and incident diabetes: a cohort study. Environ Health Perspect 121 217; 10.1289/ehp.1205503 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stansfeld SA.1992 Noise, noise sensitivity and psychiatric disorder: epidemiological and psychophysiological studies. Psychol Med Mongr Suppl 22 :1–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Lopez-Barrio I, Fischer P, Ohrstrom E, et al. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet. 2005; 365 :1942–1949. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tak S, Davis RR, Calvert GM. Exposure to hazardous workplace noise and use of hearing protection devices among US workers from NHANES, 2009–2004. Am J Ind Med. 2009; 52 :358–371. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2010–July 1, 2012. 2010. Available: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/tables/CBSA-EST2012-01.xls [accessed 16 April 2013]
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration/Michigan Department of Transportation. The Detroit River International Crossing Study. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2008. Available: http://www.partnershipborderstudy.com/reports_us.asp#feis [accessed 17 November 2013]
• U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 1974. Available: http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm [accessed 16 November 2013]
• U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Justification of Appropriation Estimates for Committee on Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1982: Section N, Noise. 1982. Available: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100AR9T.txt [accessed 20 November 2013]
• U.S. Green Building Council. Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 3. Minimum Acoustical Performance. 2010. Available: http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/Schools%202007%20PIEACP%20for%20EQp3.pdf [accessed 27 December 2013]
• U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Homepage. 2013. Available: http://www.usgbc.org/leed [accessed 16 November 2013]
• van Kempen E, Babisch W. The quantitative relationship between road traffic noise and hypertension: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012; 30 :1075–1086. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel I, Brug J, Van der Ploeg CP, Raat H. Adolescents risky MP3-player listening and its psychosocial correlates. Health Educ Res. 2011; 26 :254–264. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waitz IA, Bernhard RJ, Hanson CE. Challenges and promises in mitigating transportation noise. Bridge. 2007; 37 :25–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO (World Health Organization). Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen:WHO; Regional Office for Europe. 2009. Available: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf [accessed 17 November 2013]
• Willich SN, Wegscheider K, Stallmann M, Keil T. Noise burden and the risk of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27 :276–282. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Assessment of Noise Pollution Levels in a Fully Residential Academic Institute in India

• ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
• Published: 31 August 2024

Cite this article

• Sahlathasneem Kallankandy 1 &
• Surinder Deswal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7256-142X 1  

Noise level assessment of a fully residential academic campus of the National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana (India) has been presented in this paper. Weekday and weekend noise levels at 39 key locations in various functional areas (29 academic, 3 sensitive, 3 residential, 3 commercial and 1 outdoor activity) were measured, analysed, and compared with Indian standards for day and night time. The average equivalent continuous noise level ( \({L}_{Aeq}\) ) values on weekdays during day time in academic (instructional), sensitive, residential, commercial, and outdoor activity areas were 65.88, 57.44, 56.00, 63.90 and 51.30 dB respectively; and during night time 47.70, 40.86, 56.72, 49.73 and 45.20 dB respectively. The average \({L}_{Aeq}\) values on the weekend during the day time in academic, sensitive, residential, commercial, and outdoor activity areas were 57.73, 54.98, 55.49, 61.98 and 54.20 dB respectively; and during night time 45.77, 41.69, 50.84, 49.66 and 45.80 dB respectively. The noise levels were observed to be generally within the permissible limits in the commercial and outdoor activity areas; but exceeding the permissible levels in the academic area, sensitive areas (except central park) and residential areas during day time and night time on weekdays as well as weekends. The average \({L}_{Aeq}\) values for the entire campus as one educational unit on weekdays during day time (64.98 dB), weekday night time (49.49 dB), weekend day time (57.92 dB) and weekend night time (46.69 dB) were also observed to be 29.96%, 23.72%, 15.85% and 16.72% respectively higher than the prescribed standards for educational/ academic campuses in India. The spatial noise map of the campus prepared by using ArcGIS software revealed noise hotspots in academic areas, in boy’s and girl’s hostel complexes, market complex, traffic junctions/crossings, and parking area near the main entrance of the Institute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Noise level mapping in University of Jos, Nigeria

Determination of noise pollution on university campuses: a case study at çukurova university campus in turkey.

Evaluation and Analysis of Environmental Noise Levels in NCT of Delhi, India

Data availability.

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are included in this published article. Further, the raw data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

CPCB, Status of ambient noise level in India 2017. (Central Pollution Control Board, N. Delhi, 2017), https://cpcb.nic.in/noise_data/Noise_Report_2017.pdf

P. Chandna, S. Deswal, A. Chandra, S.K. Sharma, Estimation of individual power of noise sources operating simultaneously. In Proceedings, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, no. 3, pp. 373–378 (2009)

J.S. Brainard, A.P. Jones, I.J. Bateman, A.A. Lovett, Exposure to environmental urban noise pollution in Birmingham. UK. Urban Stud. 41 (13), 2581–2600 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000294

Article   Google Scholar  

N. Mansouri, M. Pourmahabadian, M. Ghasemkhani, Road traffic noise in down town area of Tehran Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 3 (4), 267–273 (2006)

Google Scholar  

S. Deswal, P. Chandna, K. Singh, A case study of noise and air quality of Delhi. Environ. Pollut. Control. J. 11 (3), 53–59 (2008)

O.S. Oyedepo, A.A. Saadu, A comparative study of noise pollution levels in some selected areas in Ilorin metropolis. Nigeria. Environ. Monit. Assess. 158 , 155–167 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0570-5

M. Ausejo, M. Recuero, C. Asensio, I. Pavon, J.M. Lopez, Study of precision, deviations and uncertainty in the design of the strategic noise map of the microcenter of the city of Buenos Aires. Argentina. Environ. Model. Assess. 15 , 125–135 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-009-9191-9

WHO, Burden of disease from environmental noise. (World Health Organisation, 2011), https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf Accessed 18 Mar 2023

M.H. Ehrampoushi, G.H. Halvani, A. Barkhordari, M. Zare, Noise pollution in urban environments: a study in Yazd City. Iran. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 21 (4), 1095–1100 (2012)

B. Djercan, M. Bubalo-Zivkovic, T. Lukic, M. Pantelic, S. Markovic, Road traffic noise exposure in the City of Novi Sad: trend analysis and possible solutions. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 24 (3), 977–986 (2015). https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/31226

Y. Harari, A. Bechar, U. Raschke, R. Riemer, Automated simulation-based workplace design that considers ergonomics and productivity. Int. J. Simul. Model. 16 (1), 5–18 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2507/IJSIMM16(1)1.355

WHO, Deafness and hearing loss. (World health Organisation, 2018), https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss Accessed 18 Mar 2023

R. Atkinson, Ecology of sound: the sonic order of urban space. Urban Stud. 44 (10), 1905–1917 (2007)

S. Deswal, P. Chandna, Traffic induced noise pollution in Manali city. Journal of IAEM 34 (2), 77–81 (2007)

C. Baliatsas, V. Kamp, V. Poll, J. Yzermans, Health effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound in the general population: it is time to listen? A systematic review of observational studies. Sci. Total. Environ. 557 , 163–169 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.065

E. Aygul, I. Ertugrul, S. Ersoy, Measurement of noise level in the fair area. Appl. Technol. Innov. 13 (1), 21–26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.15208/ati.2017.03

N. Maqsood, I. Younes, M.N. Minallah, Industrial noise pollution and its impact on the hearing capacity of workers: a case study of Gujranwala city, Pakistan. Int. J. Econ. Environ. Geol 10 (2), 45–49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.46660/ojs.v10i2.261

O.H. Pena, G.H. Montero, E.L. Rodrguez, Noise and health. Revista Cubana de Medicina Militar 48 (4), 929–939 (2019)

Z.U.R. Farooqi, M. Sabir, J. Latif, Z. Aslam, H.R. Ahmad, I. Ahmad, M. Imran, P. Ilic, Assessment of noise pollution and its effects on human health in industrial hub of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (3), 2819–2828 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07105-7

T.A. Gilani, M.S. Mir, A study on the assessment of traffic noise induced annoyance and awareness levels about the potential health effects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 , 63045–63064 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15208-3

A.M. Sadick, M.H. Issa, Occupants’ indoor environmental quality satisfaction factors as measures of school teachers’ well-being. Build. Environ. 119 , 99–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.03.045

D. Thattai, J.S. Sudarsan, R. Sathyanathan, V. Ramasamy, Analysis of noise pollution level in a university campus in South India. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 80 , pp. 012053 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/80/1/012053

S. Vilcekova, L. Meiarova, E.K. Burdova, J. Katunska, D. Kosicanova, S. Doroudiani, Indoor environmental quality of classrooms and occupants’ comfort in a special education school in Slovak Republic. Build. Environ. 120 , 29–40 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.001

S. Sajjin, C.S. Chin, J. Neo, Acoustics vs. psychoacoustics: an objective and subjective analysis of classroom acoustics in Singapore. Noise Control Eng. J. 67 (2), 80–97 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3397/1/37678

S. Kallankandy, S. Deswal, A comprehensive review of noise measurement, standards, assessment, geospatial mapping and public health. Ecol. Quest. 34 (3), 109–124 (2023). https://doi.org/10.12775/EQ.2023.035

L.D. Ikenberry, School noise and its control. J. Environ. Health 36 (5), 493–499 (1974)

R.N. Hussein, A.H. Al-Sulttani, Spatial analysis of noise in Kufa University (Kufa River Campus) using GIS. JASTT 2 (1), 68–72 (2021). https://doi.org/10.38094/jastt201166

B.R. Slater, Effects of noise on pupil performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 59 , 239–243 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026025

J. Massonnie, C.J. Rogers, D. Mareschal, Z. Kirtham, Is classroom noise always bad for children? The contribution of age and selective attention to creative performance in noise. Front. Psychol. 10 , 381 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00381

B. Birgitta, T. Lindvall, D.H. Schwela, Guidelines for community noise. (World Health Organisation, 1999)

D. Debanath, S.K. Nath, N.K. Barthakur, Environmental noise pollution in educational institutes of Nagaon town, Assam, India. Global J. Sci. Front. Res. Environ. Earth Sci. 12 (1), 1–5 (2012)

S.A. Ali, Study effects of school noise on learning achievement and annoyance in Assiut city, Egypt. Appl. Acoust. 74 (4), 602–606 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.10.011

C. Singh, S. Deswal, Status and noise reduction analysis of robotics lab in an academic institute by using acoustic material. Noise Vib. Worldwide 54 (9), 469–476 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/09574565231193052

O.W. Obot, S.M. Ibanga, Investigation of noise pollution in the university. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2 (8), 1375–1385 (2013)

J. Lee, J.M. Francis, L.M. Wang, How tonality and loudness of noise relate to annoyance and task performance. Noise Control Engr. J. 65 (2), 71–82 (2017)

Z.U.R. Farooqi, M. Sabir, N. Zeeshan, G. Murtaza, M.M. Hussain, M.U. Ghan, Vehicular noise pollution: its environmental implications and strategic control, in Autonomous Vehicle and Smart Traffic . ed. by S. Ersoy, T. Waqar (IntechOpen, London, 2020), pp.3–19. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85707

Chapter   Google Scholar  

S. Ozer, M. Zengin, H. Yilmaz, Determination of the noise pollution on university (education) campuses: a case study of Ataturk University. Ekoloji 23 (90), 49–54 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5053/ekoloji.2014.906

M.M.A. Mamun, A. Shil, A. Paul, P. Paul, Analysis of noise pollution impacting educational institutes near busy traffic nodes in Chittagong city. In Proceedings, 1st International Conference on Green Architecture, August 4, 5, 2017, Held in Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 127–133

V. Herzog, B. Buchmeister, L. Spindler, Assessment of school and industrial noise: measurements vs personal perceptions. In DAAM International Scientific Book Chapter, vol. 3, pp. 33–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2507/daaam.scibook.2020.03

M. Yadav, R.K. Patel, A. Yadev, G. Sharma, G. Pandey, Assessment of noise pollution at various locations of Gorakhpur. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 13 (1), 131–137 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4314/ijest.v13i1.20S

D. Banerjee, S.K. Chakraborty, S. Bhattacharya, A. Gangopadhyay, Attitudinal response towards road traffic noise in the industrial town of Asansol. India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 151 , 37–44 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0247-0

Z.U.R. Farooqi, M.S. Nasir, A. Nasir, N. Zeeshan, I. Ayub, H. Rashid, M.U. Qamar, A. Sarwar, M.A. Akram, Evaluation and analysis of traffic noise in different zones of Faisalabad–an industrial city of Pakistan. Geol. Ecol. Lands. 1 (4), 232–240 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2017.1389454

S. Konadath, A. Mahadeva, S. Chatni, Noise measurement across different land-use patterns. J. Indian Speech Lang. Hear. Assoc. 33 (2), 55–62 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4103/jisha.JISHA_26_18

M.N. Kumar, K. Basha, B. Srimuruganandam, Assessment, prediction and mapping of noise levels in Vellore city, India. Noise Mapping 6 (1), 38–51 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2019-0004

S. Domazetovska, M. Anachkova, V. Gavriloski, Z. Petreski, Analysis of the noise impact in urban area in the city of Skopje. In Proceedings of Forum Acusticum, (2020), pp. 2611–2615

B. Singh, M.P. Choudhary, Evaluation of noise levels and ascertaining noise indices in an urbanizing city of Kota, Rajasthan India. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 16 (4), 935–938 (2017)

V. Das, U. Mishra, S.K. Jamatia, Evaluation of noise pollution: a case study of Udaipur, Tripura, India. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 3 (8), 154–161 (2014). https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV3IS080150

E.A. Akintunde, J.Y. Bayei, J.A. Akintunde, Noise level mapping in University of Jos Nigeria. GeoJournal 87 (3), 1–13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10135-w

M.H. Ameen, H.J. Jumaah, B. Kalantar, N. Ueda, A.A. Halin, A.S. Tais, S.J. Jumaah, Evaluation of PM2.5 particulate matter and noise pollution in Tikrit University based on GIS and statistical modelling. Sustainability 13 (17), 9571 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179571

Z.M. Nasser, A.H. Abedali, H.A. Alkanaani, Reliability of smart noise pollution map. Noise Mapping 10 (1), 20220167 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1515/noise-2022-0167

S. Deswal, A. Deswal, A Basic Course in Environmental Studies , 3rd edn. (Dhanpat Rai & Co (P) Lt, New Delhi, 2017)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra for providing the lab & equipment facilities, and all the students and staff for their cooperation during the study.

This article is a part of M.Tech research during which the research scholar received a scholarship from the Government of India.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra, Haryana, 136119, India

Sahlathasneem Kallankandy & Surinder Deswal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SK, generating the idea, data collection, methodology and original draft preparation. SD, validation, reviewing, writing, editing and supervision. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Surinder Deswal .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kallankandy, S., Deswal, S. Assessment of Noise Pollution Levels in a Fully Residential Academic Institute in India. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-024-00835-z

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2023

Accepted : 26 August 2024

Published : 31 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-024-00835-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Noise level
• Equivalent continuous noise level
• Noise assessment
• Academic campus
• Noise hotspots
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Noise Pollution Research Paper Topics

This comprehensive guide to noise pollution research paper topics is designed to provide students studying environmental science with a wealth of options for their research papers. The guide offers a broad array of topics, divided into ten categories, each containing ten unique research topics. Additionally, the guide provides expert advice on how to choose a topic from the multitude of noise pollution research paper topics and how to write a compelling research paper on noise pollution. The guide also introduces iResearchNet’s writing services, which offer students the opportunity to order a custom noise pollution research paper on any topic. The services boast a range of features designed to ensure the delivery of high-quality, custom-written papers.

100 Noise Pollution Research Paper Topics

Noise pollution is a broad field, offering a wide range of potential research paper topics. Here are ten categories, each with ten topics, to inspire your research:

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Causes of Noise Pollution

• The impact of urban development on noise pollution levels.
• Industrial noise: its sources and effects on the environment.
• The role of transportation in contributing to noise pollution.
• Noise pollution in the aviation industry.
• The impact of construction activities on noise levels.
• Household noise pollution: causes and mitigation strategies.
• The role of recreational activities in noise pollution.
• Noise pollution from electronic devices.
• The impact of mining activities on noise levels.
• Noise pollution in the marine environment: causes and effects.

Effects of Noise Pollution

• The impact of noise pollution on human health.
• Noise pollution and its effects on wildlife.
• The psychological effects of noise pollution.
• The impact of noise pollution on sleep quality.
• Noise pollution and its effects on children’s learning.
• The role of noise pollution in cardiovascular diseases.
• Noise pollution and its impact on mental health.
• The effects of noise pollution on the quality of life.
• Noise pollution and its impact on productivity in the workplace.
• The role of noise pollution in hearing loss.

Noise Pollution and the Law

• Noise pollution regulations: a comparative study.
• The effectiveness of noise pollution laws in your country.
• The role of the law in controlling noise pollution in urban areas.
• Legal remedies for victims of noise pollution.
• The impact of noise pollution laws on industries.
• The role of international law in controlling noise pollution.
• Noise pollution and human rights: a legal perspective.
• The enforcement of noise pollution laws: challenges and solutions.
• The impact of noise pollution laws on real estate development.
• Noise pollution in the workplace: legal implications.

Noise Pollution Mitigation

• The role of urban planning in noise pollution mitigation.
• Noise barriers: effectiveness and design considerations.
• The role of technology in noise pollution control.
• Noise pollution mitigation strategies in the transportation sector.
• The impact of building design on noise pollution control.
• The role of green spaces in reducing noise pollution.
• Noise pollution mitigation in the aviation industry.
• The role of community involvement in noise pollution control.
• Noise pollution control strategies in schools.
• The role of public awareness campaigns in noise pollution control.

Noise Pollution and Society

• Public perception of noise pollution: a case study.
• The role of noise pollution in social inequality.
• Noise pollution and its impact on community health.
• The role of noise pollution in urban life.
• Noise pollution and its impact on social interactions.
• The role of noise pollution in societal stress.
• Noise pollution and its impact on community cohesion.
• The role of noise pollution in social conflicts.
• Noise pollution and its impact on quality of life.
• The role of noise pollution in societal development.

Noise Pollution and Economy

• The economic impacts of noise pollution.
• The role of noise pollution in economic inequality.
• The influence of noise pollution on economic development.
• The impact of noise pollution on economic policies.
• The role of noise pollution in economic planning.
• The influence of noise pollution on economic growth.
• The impact of noise pollution on economic sustainability.
• The role of noise pollution in economic transitions.
• The influence of noise pollution on economic resilience.
• The impact of noise pollution on economic sectors.

Noise Pollution and Health

• The impact of noise pollution on respiratory diseases.
• The influence of noise pollution on allergies.
• The impact of noise pollution on mental health.
• The role of noise pollution in premature deaths.
• The influence of noise pollution on children’s health.
• The impact of noise pollution on elderly health.
• The role of noise pollution in health inequalities.
• The influence of noise pollution on public health interventions.
• The impact of noise pollution on health care costs.

Noise Pollution and Technology

• The role of technology in monitoring noise pollution.
• The impact of technology on reducing noise pollution.
• The influence of technology on noise pollution modeling.
• The role of technology in noise pollution forecasting.
• The impact of technology on noise pollution communication.
• The influence of technology on noise pollution policies.
• The role of technology in noise pollution education.
• The impact of technology on noise pollution mitigation.
• The influence of technology on noise pollution adaptation.
• The role of technology in noise pollution research.

Noise Pollution and Policy

• The effectiveness of noise pollution policies.
• The role of policy in controlling noise pollution in urban areas.
• The impact of noise pollution policies on industries.
• The role of international policy in controlling noise pollution.
• The enforcement of noise pollution policies: challenges and solutions.
• The impact of noise pollution policies on real estate development.
• Noise pollution in the workplace: policy implications.
• The role of policy in noise pollution education.
• The influence of policy on noise pollution justice.
• The impact of policy on noise pollution futures.

Noise Pollution and Ethics

• The ethical implications of noise pollution.
• The role of ethics in noise pollution policies.
• The influence of ethics on noise pollution communication.
• The impact of ethics on noise pollution mitigation.
• The role of ethics in noise pollution adaptation.
• The influence of ethics on noise pollution research.
• The impact of ethics on noise pollution education.
• The role of ethics in noise pollution decision-making.
• The influence of ethics on noise pollution justice.
• The impact of ethics on noise pollution futures.

This comprehensive list of noise pollution research paper topics is designed to inspire and guide students in their quest for knowledge about noise pollution. Each topic is a doorway to a vast field of research and understanding. As you embark on your academic journey, remember that the goal is not just to write a research paper but to contribute to the global understanding of noise pollution and its impacts. Your research could be the key to solving one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time.

Choosing a Noise Pollution Topic

Choosing the right research topic is a crucial step in the process of writing a noise pollution research paper. It sets the foundation for your study, shapes your research question, and determines the direction of your investigation. To help you navigate the topic selection process effectively, we have compiled expert advice and ten essential tips to guide you. By following these recommendations, you can ensure that your chosen topic is engaging, relevant, and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field of noise pollution research.

• Explore Interdisciplinary Perspectives : Noise pollution is a multifaceted issue that intersects with various disciplines such as environmental science, public health, urban planning, engineering, and sociology. Consider exploring the topic from an interdisciplinary perspective to gain a comprehensive understanding of its impacts and potential solutions.
• Identify Research Gaps : Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to identify gaps and areas that require further exploration. Look for unanswered questions, contradictory findings, or emerging trends that can serve as a basis for your research topic.
• Focus on Specific Contexts : Noise pollution manifests differently in different contexts, such as urban environments, transportation systems, industrial areas, or natural habitats. Narrow down your research focus by selecting a specific context that aligns with your interests and expertise.
• Consider Stakeholder Perspectives : Noise pollution affects various stakeholders, including communities, industries, policymakers, and regulatory bodies. Explore noise pollution research paper topics that address the perspectives and concerns of different stakeholders to provide holistic solutions.
• Analyze Policy and Regulations : Investigate the policies and regulations related to noise pollution at the local, national, and international levels. Choose a research topic that examines the effectiveness of existing policies or proposes innovative strategies for noise control and mitigation.
• Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches : Noise pollution research can involve both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Consider whether your research lends itself to statistical analysis, modeling, surveys, or qualitative methods such as interviews, case studies, or observations.
• Utilize Advanced Technologies : Explore noise pollution research paper topics that leverage advanced technologies such as noise mapping, remote sensing, data analytics, or simulation tools. These technologies can provide valuable insights into noise patterns, sources, and their impacts on the environment and human health.
• Community Engagement : Consider research topics that involve community engagement and participatory approaches. Collaborating with affected communities can provide valuable perspectives and enhance the relevance and impact of your research.
• Long-term Implications : Investigate noise pollution research paper topics that explore the long-term implications of noise pollution, such as cumulative effects, chronic exposure, or trends over time. This can contribute to a better understanding of the sustained impacts and inform long-term noise management strategies.
• Practical Applications : Choose research topics that have practical applications and can contribute to real-world solutions. Consider how your research findings can be translated into noise reduction strategies, policy recommendations, or innovative technologies for noise control.

By following these expert tips, you can select a noise pollution research paper topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and academic goals. Remember to consider the scope and feasibility of your chosen topic, ensuring that it is manageable within the given time and resource constraints.

Remember, the goal is to make a meaningful contribution to the field of noise pollution research and address the pressing challenges faced by communities and the environment. Choose a topic that inspires you, challenges existing knowledge, and sparks curiosity. With a well-chosen research topic, you are on your way to conducting an impactful study that advances our understanding of noise pollution and contributes to sustainable solutions.

How to Write a Noise Pollution Research Paper

Writing a noise pollution research paper requires careful planning, thorough research, and effective organization of your ideas. To help you navigate the writing process and create a compelling and well-structured paper, we have outlined ten essential tips. By following these recommendations, you can ensure that your research paper effectively communicates your findings, analysis, and recommendations related to noise pollution.

• Define Your Research Question : Start by clearly defining your research question or objective. This will serve as the guiding principle for your entire paper and help you maintain focus throughout the research and writing process.
• Conduct a Literature Review : Before diving into your own research, conduct a comprehensive literature review to familiarize yourself with the existing body of knowledge on noise pollution. This will help you identify gaps in the literature and provide a foundation for your research.
• Develop a Strong Thesis Statement : Craft a clear and concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or purpose of your research paper. This statement should encapsulate the central theme or hypothesis that you aim to explore and prove.
• Collect and Analyze Data : Depending on your research methodology, collect relevant data related to noise pollution. This can include noise measurements, surveys, interviews, or secondary data sources. Analyze the data using appropriate statistical or qualitative analysis techniques.
• Organize Your Paper : Structure your research paper in a logical and coherent manner. Typically, a research paper consists of an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use clear headings and subheadings to organize your content and ensure a smooth flow of ideas.
• Provide Relevant Background Information : In the introduction, provide necessary background information on noise pollution, its causes, impacts, and significance. This will set the context for your research and help readers understand the importance of your study.
• Present Clear Methodology : Describe your research methodology in detail, including the data collection methods, sample size, and any statistical or qualitative analysis techniques used. This section should be transparent and replicable, enabling others to assess the validity of your findings.
• Present Findings and Analysis : Present your research findings and provide a comprehensive analysis of the data. Use tables, graphs, or visual representations to illustrate your results effectively. Interpret the findings and discuss their implications in relation to existing literature and research objectives.
• Discuss Limitations and Future Research : Acknowledge the limitations of your study and discuss any potential biases or constraints. This demonstrates your awareness of the research’s limitations and opens avenues for future research in the field of noise pollution.
• Draw Conclusions and Make Recommendations : Summarize your key findings and draw logical conclusions based on your research. Offer recommendations for noise pollution control, mitigation strategies, policy changes, or further research that can contribute to addressing the issue effectively.

Remember to cite all sources accurately and adhere to the chosen citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) throughout your research paper. Proofread and edit your paper carefully to ensure clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.

Writing a noise pollution research paper can be a rewarding experience, as it allows you to contribute to the understanding of this critical environmental issue. By following these tips and maintaining a systematic approach, you can create a compelling and impactful research paper that advances the field of noise pollution research and promotes sustainable solutions.

Custom Noise Pollution Research Paper Writing Services

When it comes to writing a comprehensive and well-researched noise pollution research paper, we understand that students may encounter challenges. That’s why iResearchNet offers professional writing services to help you with your academic needs. Our custom writing services provide you with the opportunity to order a custom noise pollution research paper tailored to your specific requirements. Here are thirteen key features that make our services the ideal choice for your research paper:

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers : Our team consists of highly qualified writers with advanced degrees in environmental science and related fields. They have extensive knowledge and expertise in noise pollution research, ensuring that your paper is in capable hands.
• Custom Written Works : Every research paper we deliver is 100% original and custom written to meet your unique specifications. Our writers adhere to strict plagiarism policies, guaranteeing a paper that is free from any form of plagiarism.
• In-Depth Research : Our writers conduct thorough research on your chosen topic, utilizing credible and up-to-date sources to ensure the highest level of accuracy and reliability in your research paper.
• Custom Formatting : We follow the specific formatting guidelines required for your research paper, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard styles. Our writers are well-versed in these formatting standards and ensure that your paper meets the required citation and formatting requirements.
• Top Quality : We prioritize delivering research papers of the highest quality. Our writers pay attention to detail, structure, and content to ensure that your paper meets the highest academic standards and earns you the grades you deserve.
• Customized Solutions : We understand that each research paper is unique, and we tailor our services to meet your specific needs. You can provide us with specific instructions, guidelines, and requirements, and our writers will follow them diligently.
• Flexible Pricing : We offer competitive and flexible pricing options to accommodate students’ budgets. Our pricing structure takes into account factors such as paper length, complexity, and urgency, ensuring that you receive a fair and affordable price for your custom research paper.
• Short Deadlines : We recognize that students may face tight deadlines. Our team is equipped to handle even the most urgent orders, delivering high-quality research papers within the requested timeframe.
• Timely Delivery : We understand the importance of meeting deadlines. With our writing services, you can be confident that your research paper will be delivered on time, allowing you ample time for review and submission.
• 24/7 Support : Our dedicated support team is available round the clock to address any inquiries or concerns you may have regarding your research paper. You can reach out to us at any time, and we will provide you with prompt and reliable assistance.
• Absolute Privacy : We prioritize the privacy and confidentiality of our clients. Your personal information and order details will be kept secure and confidential throughout the entire process.
• Easy Order Tracking : You can easily track the progress of your research paper through our user-friendly platform. This feature allows you to stay updated on the status of your order and communicate with your assigned writer conveniently.
• Money Back Guarantee : We stand behind the quality of our work. If you are not satisfied with the final research paper delivered to you, we offer a money-back guarantee, ensuring your complete satisfaction and peace of mind.

By availing our writing services, you can save time, reduce stress, and ensure the successful completion of your noise pollution research paper. Our team of expert writers will work closely with you to deliver a custom research paper that meets your academic requirements and exceeds your expectations.

Unlock Your Academic Success with Expert Assistance

Are you feeling overwhelmed by the task of writing a noise pollution research paper? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. Take advantage of our professional writing services and order a custom noise pollution research paper tailored to your unique requirements. Our team of expert writers is ready to provide you with the academic support you need to excel in your studies. Don’t let the stress and pressure hinder your success. It’s time to take action and make a smart investment in your academic journey.

Order your custom noise pollution research paper today and experience the benefits of professional assistance. Trust our expertise, dedication, and commitment to delivering exceptional results. Your academic success is just a few clicks away. Let us be your partner in achieving your goals.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Essay on Noise Pollution

Essay generator.

In the modern world, the cacophony of sounds from vehicles, industrial activities, and urban development has become a constant backdrop to our lives. This relentless barrage of noise constitutes what we know as noise pollution, an environmental and public health issue that is often overshadowed by other forms of pollution but is equally potent and destructive. This essay delves into the depths of noise pollution, unraveling its causes, impacts, and potential solutions, aiming to shed light on an issue that is powerful in its ability to affect human health, wildlife, and the environment.

Noise Pollution

Noise pollution is defined as any unwanted or harmful sound that disrupts the natural balance and creates potential harm to human and animal life. The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified noise pollution as the second-largest environmental cause of health problems, just after the impact of air quality. From the incessant hum of traffic to the roar of airplanes overhead and the clamor of construction sites, noise pollution surrounds us, often so pervasive that many have become desensitized to its presence.

Causes of Noise Pollution

The sources of noise pollution are manifold and predominantly stem from urban development and human activities. Key contributors include:

• Transportation Systems: The roar of vehicles, trains, airplanes, and ships are amongst the most significant sources of noise pollution, especially in urban areas.
• Industrial and Construction Activities: Factories, construction sites, and mining operations generate substantial noise from machinery and heavy equipment.
• Urbanization: The growth of cities brings with it an increase in noise from commercial and residential areas, including sounds from electronic devices, entertainment venues, and human activities.
• Social Events: Concerts, festivals, and public gatherings can create high decibel levels, contributing to the noise landscape.

Impacts of Noise Pollution

The power of noise pollution lies in its pervasive ability to impact health and well-being, disrupt wildlife ecosystems, and contribute to societal issues.

Health Effects

Noise pollution is not merely an annoyance; it has profound health implications. Exposure to high levels of noise can lead to:

• Hearing Loss: Prolonged exposure to noise levels above 85 decibels can cause permanent hearing damage.
• Stress and Cardiovascular Issues: Noise acts as a stressor, triggering the release of stress hormones. Chronic exposure is linked to increased risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke.
• Sleep Disturbances: Noise can interrupt sleep patterns and reduce sleep quality, leading to insomnia and other sleep disorders.
• Cognitive Impairment: In children, noise pollution can hamper learning and memory, affecting academic performance and cognitive development.

Environmental and Wildlife Effects

Noise pollution extends its reach beyond human health, affecting the natural world in profound ways.

• Disruption of Wildlife: Animals rely on sound for communication, navigation, and predator-prey interactions. Noise pollution can interfere with these essential behaviors, leading to adverse effects on reproduction, feeding, and migration patterns.
• Ecosystem Imbalance: Excessive noise can alter the natural habitat, causing an imbalance in predator-prey dynamics and affecting biodiversity.

Societal and Economic Impacts

The repercussions of noise pollution also ripple through society and the economy, manifesting as:

• Decreased Productivity: Noise can distract and reduce efficiency, affecting workplace productivity and learning environments.
• Property Value Decline: Areas subjected to high levels of noise, such as those near airports or highways, often see a decrease in property values.
• Increased Healthcare Costs: The health issues associated with noise pollution lead to higher healthcare expenditures for individuals and governments.

Mitigating Noise Pollution

Addressing the issue of noise pollution requires a multifaceted approach, involving policy, technology, and community engagement.

Policy and Regulation

Effective noise pollution management starts with stringent regulatory frameworks that limit noise levels in residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Implementing noise standards for vehicles and machinery, along with zoning laws that separate residential areas from noisy industrial zones, are critical steps.

Technological Innovations

Advancements in technology offer promising solutions to reduce noise pollution. Quieter road surfaces, noise barriers, soundproofing materials in buildings, and the development of electric vehicles can significantly lower noise levels.

Community Engagement and Awareness

Raising awareness about the impact of noise pollution and promoting community involvement in noise reduction initiatives are essential. Simple actions, such as choosing quieter appliances, respecting noise ordinances, and planting trees to serve as natural sound barriers, can make a difference.

In conclusion, Noise pollution is an insidious force with the power to affect human health, disrupt wildlife, and impact societal well-being. Recognizing the seriousness of this issue is the first step towards mitigating its effects. Through a combination of policy intervention, technological innovation, and community action, we can attenuate the impact of noise pollution. By addressing this unseen power, we not only improve our quality of life but also protect the environment and ensure the health and well-being of future generations. In the fight against noise pollution, silence truly is golden.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Generate an essay on the importance of extracurricular activities for student development

Write an essay discussing the role of technology in modern education.

Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best noise pollution topic ideas & essay examples, 🥇 most interesting noise pollution topics to write about, 📌 simple & easy noise pollution essay titles.

• Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions According to the International Program on Chemical Safety, “an adverse effect of noise is defined as a change in the morphology and physiology of organism that results in an impairment of functional capacity, or an […]
• Reducing Traffic Noise Pollution in Cairo In conclusion, it seems reasonable to state that the issue of traffic noise pollution is rapidly growing in Egypt’s capital Cairo and increasingly impacts public health.
• Noise Pollution: Best Practicable Means Magistrates’ Court identified Statutory Nuisance in the case and forwarded an abatement order against respondents along with a huge fine for their misconduct that led to noise pollution.
• Noise Pollution: Environmental Issue in Lagos, Nigeria The aim of the study would be to understand and evaluate the amount of noise pollution in Lagos, Nigeria and its affects on public health.
• Noise Pollution: Urban Traffic Noise Besides these two, noise also has an effect on the learning of an individual so that it distracts the individual in a way that s/he is not able to learn, as would be the case […]
• Health Hazard of Noise Pollution In addition, the frequency of sound, duration of exposure, intermittence or continuation of sound, the age of a person and their health can affect the acuteness of the effects of noise pollution.
• Four Marketing Practices That Cause Noise Pollution Nivea beauty products have been marketed to me more than once using word of mouth, what the marketers does, they lay a table in the streets and when they see someone passing, they get to […]
• NoiseTube: Measuring and Mapping Noise Pollution With Mobile Phones
• A Multilevel Analysis of Perceived Noise Pollution, Geographic Contexts and Mental Health in Beijing
• Physiological and Physical Impact of Noise Pollution on the Environment
• Noise Pollution and Human Health: A Case Study of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
• Did Noise Pollution Really Improve During COVID-19?: Evidence From Taiwan
• Noise Pollution: Practical Solutions to a Serious Problem
• Noise Pollution and the Associated Laws in Trinidad
• Analysis of Sampling Methodologies for Noise Pollution Assessment and the Impact on the Population
• Noise Pollution: Non-auditory Effects on Health
• SONYC: A System for Monitoring, Analyzing, and Mitigating Urban Noise Pollution Analysis
• Making Marine Noise Pollution Impacts Heard: The Case of Cetaceans in the North Sea Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment
• Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions
• Environmental Noise Pollution in the United States: Developing an Effective Public Health Response
• Noise Pollution and Mitigation in Urban Developments
• Underwater Noise Pollution Disturbing Natural Habitat of Aquatic Mammals
• Noise Pollution Associated With the Operation of the Dar es Salaam International Airport
• Evaluation of Noise Pollution Caused by Vehicles in the City of Tokat, Turkey
• Public Transportation: Reducing Air and Noise Pollution
• Noise Pollution in Hospitals: Impact on Patients
• Evaluation of Noise Pollution in Urban Parks in the City of Curitiba, Brazil
• Does Exposure to Noise Pollution Influence the Incidence and Severity of COVID-19?
• Noise Pollution in the Anaesthetic and Intensive Care Environment
• Aquatic Noise Pollution: Implications for Individuals, Populations, and Ecosystems
• Common Causes and Effects of the Noise Pollution
• Noise Pollution: Physical Effects of Noise Pollution and Governmental Restrictions on It
• Evaluation and Analysis of Environmental Noise Pollution in the City of Erzurum, Turkey
• Anthropogenic Noise Pollution and Its Effects on Cetaceans
• Examining the Effects of Mobility-Based Air and Noise Pollution on Activity Satisfaction
• Noise Pollution: Raising Awareness on the Unseen Deterioration of Human Health
• Investigating Changes in Noise Pollution Due to the COVID-19 Lockdown
• Mobile Application for Noise Pollution Monitoring Through Gamification Techniques
• Turkish Elementary Schools: Evaluation of Noise Pollution Awareness and Sensitivity Training
• Assessment of Noise Pollution in and Around a Sensitive Zone in North India and Its Non-auditory Impacts
• First Experiences Using Wireless Sensor Networks for Noise Pollution Monitoring
• Assessment of Noise Pollution and Its Effects on Human Health in Industrial Hub of Pakistan
• Assessment of Noise Pollution Indices in the City of Kolhapur, India
• The Impact of Roads on Birds: Does Song Frequency Play a Role in Determining Susceptibility to Noise Pollution?
• Environmental Noise Pollution: Noise Mapping, Public Health, and Policy
• Road Traffic Air and Noise Pollution Exposure Assessment: A Review of Tools and Techniques
• Environmental Protection Titles
• Hazardous Waste Essay Topics
• Recycling Research Ideas
• Urbanization Ideas
• Wildlife Ideas
• Pollution Essay Ideas
• Atmosphere Questions
• Deforestation Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, January 24). Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/noise-pollution-essay-topics/

"Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Jan. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/noise-pollution-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 24 January.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/noise-pollution-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/noise-pollution-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Noise Pollution Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." January 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/noise-pollution-essay-topics/.