PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Adaptation of British Standards to Identify Construction Site Activity
Noise Sources with the Potential to Cause Stress to Giant Pandas
Murray SNAITH1; Alessandro RODRIGUEZ2; Brett MARMO3Xi Engineering Consultants Ltd.

ABSTRACT
Giant pandas have a broader hearing range than humans and have higher sensitivity in different
frequency bands. Giant pandas are known to become stressed when subjected to undesirable noise ,therefore noise which humans may deem unobtrusive has the potential to cause stress in giant pandas.
As giant panda breeding programmes are taking place in zoos throughout the world it is important tounderstand the impact that anthropogenic noise has on these mammals and how it affects theirwellbeing. This paper discusses the adaptation from international standards on noise to appropriately
address the impact from construction site noise on giant pandas.

1.

INTRODUCTION

As part of an animal welfare and conservation breeding programme by The Royal ZoologicalSociety Scotland (RZSS) at Edinburgh Zoo, a series of acoustic assessments have taken place todetermine the impact that a neighbouring construction site may have on the giant pandas ( Ailuropoda
melanoleuca). The results from the analysis will be used to determine the impact on several noise
sensitive animals; however, this document only considers the impact on the giant panda species. The
results of this assessment will also be used to inform design considerations for fu ture enclosure designfor noise sensitive animals.

2.
PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF NOISE IMPACT ON HUMAN AND ANIMALWELLBEING
The scope and magnitude of anthropogenic noise pollution are often much greater than those ofnatural noise and are predicted to have an array of deleterious effects on wildlife [Kight and Swaddle,
2011]. It has been shown that noise can lead to DNA damage, alterations in gene expression andchanges to a myriad of cellular processes related to appropriate neural, developmental, immunologica land physiological functioning [Kight and Swaddle, 2011]. In addition, previous authors havediscussed ways in which noise can impact animal behaviour and community ecology [Francis et al.
2009; Barber et al. 2010].
However, studies on the effects of noise on the wellbeing of animals have had variable results[Powell et al., 2006]. Studies of captive and free living non-human mammals have uncovered only
mild or temporary effects [Krausman et al., 1998; Owen et al, 2004]. Studies have also shown thatwhen interpreting results from aircraft noise on wildlife, difficulties can arise because of
species-specific sensitivity to noise and challenges in separating the effects of acoustic and visual
stimuli, along with difficulties in interpreting species specific behaviour responses [Kempf andHueppop, 1996]. Studies have also concluded that animals can apparently adapt to high noise exposureand that noise is a less important disturbance than visual stimuli [Reijnen et al., 1995]. Noise isassociated with changes in song characteristics [Ill'chev et al., 1995], decreases in reproduction anddensity [Reijnen et al., 1995, 1996, 1997; Forman and Deblinger, 2000], and reduced feeding andweight gain [Esmail, 1997] in some bird species whereas other bird species seem t o be unaffected or
only temporarily disturbed by ambient noise [Delaney et al., 1999]. Whether or not environmental
noise has a negative impact on welfare probably depends on a variety of factors including individual1

murraysnaith@xiengineering.com
alessandrorodriguez@xiengineering.com
3
brettmarmo@xiengineering.com
2179

and species differences.
Human children exposed to chronic, loud ( > 60 dB) noise show a lack in motivation when
exposed to problem solving puzzles, higher systolic blood pressure, greater heart rate reactivity toacute stressors, higher overnight cortisol levels, report more stress symptoms, and show significant
decreases in quality of life [Evans et al., 2001].
In giant panda species, ambient noise has been shown to have long-lasting effects on stressindices; where days characterised by louder levels of noise were associated with increased l ocomotion,
restless manipulation of the exit door of the enclosure, increased scratching and vocalizations
indicative of agitation, and/or increased glucocorticoids excreted in urine [Owen et al, 2004]. For the
giant panda, vocalizations are typically emitted in proximity to conspecifics and studies suggest that
information is likely encoded in a number of different frequency ranges of the panda hearing curve[Owen et al, 2016] and therefore the broadband spectrum of Panda hearing (0.1 kHz to 70 kHz) is
important for reproduction of the species [Kleiman and Peters, 1990]. The ability to discriminate
between fine-scale differences in vocalizations is important for successful reproduction (Charlton etal., 2011, 2010a, 2009b) as there is a unique vocalization which pandas use to validate intromission[Keating, 2011] and therefore noise should be carefully managed during reproductive periods [Owenet al, 2004]. A comparative graph of Panda hearing vs. Human hearing can be found in Figure 1 [Owenet al., 2016].

Figure 1 – Panda hearing curve [Owen et al., 2016] compared against the human hearing curve. Note.
Logarithmic frequency axis.

3.

BRITISH ACOUSTIC STANDARDSThere are several International and British Standards (BS) currently used for rating soundpressure level (SPL) and noise characteristics; such as tonal noise, intermittent noise, continuous noiseetc, for a range of different industries and applications. For example, BS 5228:2009 is used for rating
noise and vibration from construction and open sites. Each standard has their own methodology ofrating noise impact and assigning noise penalties to the SPL reading for noise characteristics which
can be perceived as irritating, such as tonality and intermittency.
Almost all acoustic standards, however, apply an “A-weighting” [BS EN 61672-1:2013] to thefrequency spectra of the noise readings so that each frequency band is weighted to compensate forsensitivities in the human hearing range. This has many benefits when determining the acoustic impactthat machinery and construction site activities will have on the human population. However, whencalculating the impact on other animals that have a different hearing curve to humans this A-weighting
is unlikely to give a representative level of noise impact.
In order to provide a representative noise impact assessment for the pandas and other non -humananimals at Edinburgh Zoo a series of measurement and modelling t echniques were adapted from
British Standards for application into the ultrasonic spectrum.

180

4.

METHODOLOGY

In order to determine the impact that construction site noise would have on the giant pandas, abaseline assessment was completed at locations throughout the zoo and at a construction site. Acoustic
modelling was then used to predict noise ingress and impact from the proposed construction site onto
the non-human noise sensitive receptors located within Edinburgh Zoo.
As giant pandas have hearing capability at frequencies higher than of the human ear, acoustic
measurement equipment used for human hearing is not capable of detecting the higher frequency range
of a panda. It is important that measurement equipment is capable of measuring the full hearing ran geof the species which will be exposed to the noise. In line with WWF best practice for acoustic
monitoring [Ella Browning, 2017] two sets of equipment have been used to capture the full hearing
range of the giant panda [Table 1]. Acoustic measurements for human hearing have been carried out
using BS 5228-1:2009. The ultrasonic hearing range acoustic measurements have followed the same
methodology as BS 5228-1:2009, however all data has been recorded as a Z-weighting (i.e. unadjusted
raw data) between 8 kHz and 100 kHz.
Due to the large frequency range of the ultrasonic song meter the frequency response of the
microphone’s low frequency range is very nonlinear. In order to compensate for this, the lower end of
the results (8 kHz to 20 kHz) were calibrated to that of the Class 1 Sound Level Analyser and then theultrasonic acoustic data was weighted against the frequency response curve for microphone provided
by the equipment supplier.
Two types of predictive modelling were deployed; NoiseMap SiteNoise software used to predict
construction site noise levels within the human hearing range; and ultrasonic predicative modellingcompleted using acoustic hemispherical propagation calculations. Both modelling techniques also
considered mitigation barriers between the construction site and panda enclosure.
Table 1- Acoustic Equipment used to capture baseline acoustic data for construction site noise andbackground noise levels in Edinburgh Zoo
Acoustic Measurement Equipment
Human Hearing Range:

Ultrasonic Hearing Range:

5.

Class 1 Noise level meter NTi Audio XL2 Sound Level Analyser
Cirus Research CR515 Class 1 single level acoustic calibrator
Song meter SM4BAT FS Bioacoustics RecorderSong meter SM4BAT FS Bioacoustics Recorder calibrator

MEASUREMENT RESULTS

The baseline acoustic assessment showed A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level(LAeq) background noise levels between 45 dB(A) and 55 dB(A) for locations throughout the zoo
premises [Figure 2] which are normal background levels for a public space during daylight hours. For
the ultrasound measurements at Edinburgh Zoo, a logarithmic average was used to generate the graphs
in Figure 3 which shows the SPL at different 1/3 octave frequency bands at locations throughout thezoo. The average background noise level for ultrasonic noise throughout the zoo was around 58.7
dB(Z). However, during the measurement at the Location 4 power tools were being used in the distancewhich is attributed to the high energy above 25 kHz.
Position 1: On the pathway outside of the male panda enclosurePosition 2: Inside the female panda’s outdoor enclosurePosition 3: South of the hilltop viewpoint at the edge of the grass verge
Position 4: On the grass verge to the west of the Camel House

181

Figure 2 – Acoustic measurement locations throughout Edinburgh Zoo.
location A = Edinburgh Zoo premises, location B = proposed construction site location,

Figure 3 – Z-weighted 1/3 octave band frequency data for 4 separate locations throughout Edinburgh Zoo
premises between 8 kHz and 100 kHz. High energy above 25 kHz at Location 4 can be attributed to use of
power tools at a nearby location.

182

The acoustic measurements at the construction site were taken during operation of a rotarypiling machine and Stihl saw. The graph shows very high energy levels within the human hearing
spectrum. However, it is evident from the graph that there are high energy levels right up to 50 kHz andharmonic tones from the operation of the rotating equipment can be seem in the ultrasonic noise
spectrum [Figure 4]. To determine the source Sound Power Level (Lw) of the two machines, standard
acoustic hemispherical spreading was used form the recorded data.

Figure 4 –Ultrasonic song meter results prepared in Kaleidoscope Pro Analysis Software showing frequency(y-axis) and time (x-axis)

6.

MODELLING RESULTS

The results from the modelling assessment for the A-weighted acoustic modelling using
NoiseMap software show that expected noise levels in the panda enclosure could be in region of 60
dB(A) to 70 dB(A) during standard demolition and construction site activities; with rock removal byblasting reaching up to 85 dB(A). The Lw of each machine was taken from BS 5228-1:2009 as wellas provided by suppliers for specific activities (i.e. rock blasting).

Figure 5 – Results from NoiseMap SiteNoise software for modelling roof works on top of the proposeddevelopment and expected impact at locations throughout Edinburgh Zoo.

183

The results from the ultrasonic noise modelling considered the broadband noise from 8 kHz to
100 kHz [Table 2]. The sound power level for each machine was calculated and then standard acoustic
hemispherical spreading calculations were used for rating the noise impact. The results show that thebroadband levels from the rotary piling activities are unlikely to breach the broadband backgroundnoise levels at the panda enclosure, whereas the Stihl saw is likely to breach the background noiselevels and cause disturbance to the animals.
It should be noted that this modelling technique does not consider the tonal noise emissions
captured in acoustic assessment, nor the additional irritation and impact that this would have on the
animals.
Table 2 - Results from Ultrasonic noise modelling
8 kHz to 100 kHz

8 kHz to 100 kHz

8 kHz to 100 kHz

Z-weighted noise level at

Z-weighted Background at

Z-weighted noise level atsource dB(Z)panda receiver dB(Z)panda receiver dB(Z)Rotary Piling

105.9

58.7

52.4

STIHL Saw

115.0

58.7

61.5

Tools

7. DISCUSSION
The results from the measurement, modelling and analysis discussed in this document show thatthe British Standards for rating noise from construction sites do not give a representative assessment of
the impact that these activities will have on non-human animals. The A-weighting curve used for
rating noise impact from anthropogenic noise is restrictive with regards to impact on non -humananimals. Using this system for implementing noise restrictions on construction sites adjacent to noise
sensitive species like the giant panda is likely to give a misleading result on the actual noise impact on
this species as a result of the anthropogenic noise.
The results show that construction site activities have high energy above the human hearing rangeof 20 kHz as well as prominent harmonic tones from rotating machinery. Standards on acoustic noise
impact assessments regularly apply noise penalties for tonal characteristics due to their additional
impact on top of the broadband noise from machinery and site activities [BS 4142, IEC 61400 -11]. By
limiting our acoustic measurements to the A-weighting we remove all the ultrasonic tones from ourmeasurement range, which would likely have tonal noise penalties attributed to them if they were
within the human hearing range. Previous studies referenced at the start of this paper have shown stressrelated health impacts on the giant panda species as a result of invasive acoustics from anthropogenic
noise; the additional irritation of tonal noise from construction site activities is therefore expected tocause significant impact on animal wellbeing.

8. CONCLUSIONSBS 5228-1:2009 discusses acceptable A-weighted noise restrictions on construction site
activities; however, this does not consider the potential impact these activities would have on
endangered and noise sensitive species that have a wider range of hearing than humans. Certain
non-human animals such as pandas rely heavily on vocalisations for successful breeding and therefore,
special care must be taken when rating anthropogenic noise within the vicinity of these delicate
mammals. Although the current British and International acoustic standards are widely accepted
throughout the world; it is the conclusion of this assessment that, in their current state, the standards
are not suitable for rating noise impact on non-human species. Therefore, when completing a noise
impact assessment near noise sensitive non-human animals; real care must be taken to ensure that the
wellbeing of the animals is not negatively impacted as a result of incorrectly rating the noise impact onthat species against the expected nose impact on humans.

9. FURTHER WORKAs a result of this work, acoustic considerations have been taken forward to inform the design ofa new panda enclosure at Edinburgh Zoo. With regards to accurately rating the noise impact on this184

delicate species, additional studies are required to accurately determine the impact that ultrasonicnoise levels will have with regards to panda welfare. One potential route would be to generate a
species-specific acoustic weighting which can be applied to broadband acoustic data for different
non-human animals to allow for accurate acoustic impact assessments to be made for individual
species such as the M-weighting which is used for rating noise impact on marine mammals [Southall etal., 2007].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Jutta Portelli (nee Stauber) for her work on the models used inthis paper as well as Kerry Laing, Mark-Paul Buckingham and Rebecca Horton of Xi Engineering
Consultants Ltd. As well as Charlotte Macdonald and the staff of Royal Zoological Society Scotland
for their continued support throughout this assessment.

REFERENCES
Barber, J R., Crooks, K R. & Fristrup, K M. (2010). The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrialorganisms. Trends Ecol. Evol., 25, 180–189.
BS EN 61672-1:2013, Electroacoustics. Sound level meters. Specifications
BSI British Standards BS 5228-1:2009, Code of practise for noise and vibration control on construction andopen sites – Part 1: Noise
BSI British Standards BS 5228-1:2009, Code of practise for noise and vibration control on construction andopen sites – Part 2: Vibration
Charlton BD, Huang Y., Swaisgood, R.R., 2009a. Vocal discrimination of potential mates by female giant
pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Biol. Lett. 5, 597–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506971.
Charlton BD, Keating, JL, Kersey D, Li R, Huang Y, Swaisgood RR, 2011. Vocal cues to male androgenlevels in giant pandas. Biol. Lett. 84, 71–74.
Charlton BD., Keating, JL, Li, R, Huang, Y, Swaisgood, RR., 2010a. Female giant panda (Ailuropoda
melanoleuca) chirps advertise the caller’s fertile phase. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 1101–1106.
Charlton BD, Swaisgood RR, Zhang Z, Snyder, RJ, 2012. Giant pandas attend to androgen-related variationin male bleats. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 969–974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00265-012-1345-0.
Charlton BD., Zhihe Z, Snyder RJ, 2009b. The information content of giant panda, Ailuropoda
melanoleuca,
bleats: acoustic cues to sex, age and size. Anim. Behav. 78, 893–898.
Charlton BD, Zhihe Z, Snyder RJ, 2009c. Vocal cues to identity and relatedness in giant pandas(Ailuropoda
melanoleuca). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 2721.
Charlton BD., Zhihe Z., Snyder RJ, 2010b. Giant pandas perceive and attend to formant frequency
variationin male bleats. Anim. Behav. 79, 1221–1227.
David M. Powell ((2006)). Effects of Construction Noise on Behavior and Cortisol Levels in a Pair ofCaptive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Zoo Biology 0, 1-18.
Delaney DK, Grubb TG, Beier P, Pater LL, Reiser MH. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican
spottedowls. J Wildl Manage 63: 60-76.
Ella Browning, R. G.-K. (2017). Passive acoustic monitoring. WWF Conservation Technology Series 1(2).
Evans GW, Lercher P, Meis M, Ising H, Kofler WW. 2001. Community noise exposure and stress inchildren.
J Acoust Soc Am 109: 1023-7.
Esmail SH. 1997. Noise effects on feeding intake, digestibility, and performance of broiler chickens.
Dirasat,Agricultural Sciences 24:1^.
Forman RT, Deblinger RD. 2000. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban
highway. Conserv Biol 14: 36-46.
Francis, C D., Ortega, C P. & Cruz, A. (2009). Noise pollution changes avian communities and species
interactions. Curr. Biol., 45, 1415–1419.
IEC 61400-11:2013 Wind turbines – Part 11: Acoustic noise measurement techniques
Ill'chev VD, Kamenskii II, Silaeva OL. 1995. Ecological and technogenous factors of noise pollution ofnatural habitats of birds. Russ J Ecol 26:345-8.

185

Jime´nez, G., Lemu´s, J A., Mele´ndez, L., Blanco, G. & Laiolo, P. (2011). Dampened behavioural andphysiological responses mediate birds_ association with humans. Biol. Conserv., 144, 1702–1711.
Keating, JL. Implications of Vocalizations During Giant Panda Breeding Encounters. California State
University San Marcos: Thesis.
Kempf N, Hueppop O. 1996. The effects of aircraft noise on wildlife: a review and comment. JOrnithol
137:101-13.
Kight, C R., Swaddle, J P. (2011). How and Why Environmental Noise Impacts animals: an Integrative,
Mechanistic Review. ELE, 1664, 1-10.
Kleiman DG, Peters G, 1990. Auditory communication in the giant panda: motivation and function. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on the giant panda. Tokyo Zoological Society.
Krausman PR, Wallace MD, Hayes CL, DeYoung DW. 1998. Effects of jet aircraft on mountain sheep. J
Wildl Manage 62:1246-54.
Owen MA, Keating JL, Denes SK, Hawk K, Fiore A, Thatcher, J, Becerra J, Hall S, Swaisgood RR. (2016).
Hearing sensitivity in context: Conservation implications for a highly vocal endangered species.
Elsevier Science Global Ecology and Conservation, 121-131.
Owen MA, Swaisgood RR, Czekala NM, Steinman K, Lindburg DG. 2004. Monitoring stress in captive
giant
pandas {Ailuropoda melanoleuca) behavioral and hormonal responses to ambient noise.
Reijnen R, Foppen R, Veenbaas G. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effectand considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodivers Conserv 6: 567-81.
Reijnen R, Foppen R, Meeuwsen H. 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch
agricultural grasslands. Biol Conserv 75:255-60.
Reijnen R, Foppen R, ter Braak C, Thissen J. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations
inwoodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. J Appl Ecol 32:187-202.
Romero, L M. & Wikelski, M. (2002). Exposure to tourism reduces stress-induced corticosterone levels in
Galapagos marine iguanas. Biol. Conserv., 108, 371–374.
Southall, B. L. (2007). Aquatic Mammals. Macomb: Western Illinois University.

186