U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Railroad

Administration

GENERAL HEALTH EFFECTS OF

TRANSPORTATION NOISE

DTS-34-RR297-LR2

FRA/RDV-03/01

Cynthia S.Y. Lee

Gregg G. Fleming

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Special Programs Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, DTS-34

Kendall Square

Cambridge, MA 02142

Final Report

June 2002

Prepared for Prepared by

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration Research and Special Programs Administration

Office of Passenger Programs John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Washington, DC 20591 Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, DTS-34

Kendall Square

Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United

States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use

thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification,

or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely

because they are considered essential to the object of this document.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection

of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters

Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite

1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction

Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

 June 2002

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

 Final Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

 General Health Effects of Transportation Noise

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR-297/R2059

6. AUTHOR(S)

 Cynthia S.Y. Lee and Gregg G. Fleming

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 Research and Special Programs Administration

 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

 Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, DTS-34

 Kendall Square

 Cambridge, MA 02142-1093

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

DTS-34-RR297-LR2

FRA/RDV-03/01

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 Federal Railroad Administration

 Office of Passenger Programs

 Washington, DC 20591

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

 FRA Program Manager: David Valenstein; RDV-13, Office of Passenger Programs

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) sponsored preparation of this report

to support a rulemaking process about the use of locomotive horns and the

accompanying environmental impact statement. This document reviews select

current and past research on the effect of transportation noise on

physiological and psychological health for both people and wildlife.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Noise, health effects, people, annoyance, hearing

impairment, speech interference, sleep disturbance,

wildlife, noise effects

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

 44

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

 Unclassified

18. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

 Unclassified

19. SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

 Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ................................................................. 1

1.2 Scope and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. TERMINOLOGY ................................................................ 3

3. GENERAL EFFECTS ............................................................ 7

4. PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1 Annoyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2 Speech Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.3 Effects of Noise on Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.4 Interference with Recreational Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.1 Hearing Impairment/Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.2 Sleep Disturbance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.3 Muscular Effects of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.4 Cardiovascular Effects of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.5 Mental Health Effects of Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1. Graphical representation of LAE. ................................................. 5

Figure 2. %HA versus Ldn from aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 3. Noise level effects on speech interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 4. Sleep disturbance as a function of single-event noise exposure levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1. Yearly average equivalent sound levels identified as requisite to protect the 

 public health & welfare with an adequate margin of safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2. Permissible Noise Exposures ................................................... 8

Table 3. Summary of U.S. population exposed to various day-night average

 sound levels (Ldn) from noise sources in the community .............................. 9
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research has been funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad

Administration, Office of Passenger Programs.

The authors would like to acknowledge the following additional members of the project team who

provided invaluable assistance to this report: Amanda Rapoza, John Foulis, and Max Gates (Volpe

Center, Acoustics Facility).

We would also like to thank the following individuals for reviewing this document and providing their

guidance and comments: Dr. Lawrence Finegold (U.S. Air Force), Dr. Paul Valihura (Volpe Center), Dr.

Aviva Brecher (Volpe Center) and Arnold Konheim (Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of

Transportation).
vi
1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has sponsored preparation of this report to support a

rulemaking process about the use of locomotive horns and the accompanying environmental impact

statement. This document reviews select current and past research on the effect of transportation noise on

the physiological and psychological health for both people and wildlife. This review includes research

from national and international sources.

1.1 Background

Noise is often defined as any unpleasant or unwanted sound. The earliest record of a government taking

action to reduce transportation noise dates back to the Roman Empire just before Julius Caesar. 

Complaints of the noise caused by the wheels of chariots led to the passage of a law which banned the use

of chariots at night. 

Two thousand years later - while chariots are no longer a noise concern in the US, we can still relate to

too much noise in our communities. In addition to interference with speech, sleep, and thought, noise can

lead to annoyance and indirect effects on human health and well-being.

Protection of the public against the possible harmful effects of noise are the goals of organizations

including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the

Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE), the International Committee on Biological Effects of

Noise (ICBEN), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These organizations,

working with government agencies, as well as other noise- and health-interest researchers, continually

monitor transportation and technology trends in order to better understand and mitigate the effects of its

by-product, noise, on all living beings.

1.2 Scope and Objectives

The objective of this document is to provide a brief summary of the health effects of environmental noise

on people and wildlife. The scope of this document includes all environmental noise with a primary

focus on transportation noise, such as aircraft, highway, and rail noise. This document includes a review

of select current and past national and international research.
2
3

2. TERMINOLOGY

This section presents pertinent terminology used throughout the document. Note: Definitions are

generally consistent with those of the American National Standards Institute, Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical

Dictionary, and Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary.

A-WEIGHTING - A frequency weighting network used to account for changes in human auditory

sensitivity as a function of frequency.

ACTIGRAPH - Wrist-watch-sized devices that record human movement and can provide an indication of

sleep.

ANNOYANCE - Any bothersome or irritating occurrence.

ANXIETY - A feeling of apprehension, uncertainty, and fear without apparent stimulus. It is associated

with physiological changes (tachycardia, sweating, tremor, etc.) - the source of which is often nonspecific

or unknown to the individual.

ARRHYTHMIA - Any irregularity in the rhythm of the heart’s beating.

AUDIOMETRY - Measurement/testing of the hearing, including aspects other than hearing sensitivity.

AUDITORY THRESHOLD - Minimum audible perceived sound.

CARDIOVASCULAR - Pertaining to the heart and blood vessels.

DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (abbreviation DNL, denoted by the symbol Ldn) -

Twenty-four hour average sound level for a given day, after addition of 10 decibels to levels from

midnight to 0700 hours and from 2200 hours to midnight. Ldn is computed as follows:

Ldn = LAE + 10*log10(Nday + 10*Nnight) - 49.4 (dB)

where:

LAE = Sound exposure level in dB (see definition on Page 5);

Nday = Number of vehicle pass-bys between 0700 and 2200 hours, local time;

Nnight = Number of vehicle pass-bys between 2200 and 0700 hours, local time; and

49.4 = A normalization constant which spreads the acoustic energy associated with highway vehicle

pass-bys over a 24-hour period, i.e., 10*log10(86,400 seconds per day) = 49.4 dB.

DECIBEL (unit dB) - Unit of level when the base of the logarithm is the tenth root of ten, and the

quantities are proportional to power.
4

EPINEPHRINE - A hormone secreted by the adrenal medulla (inner or central portion of an organ) in

response to stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system.

EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL (abbreviation TEQ, denoted by the symbol LAeqT) - Ten times

the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of time-mean-squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure,

during a stated time interval T, to the square of the standard reference sound pressure. LAeqT is related to

LAE by the following equation:

LAeqT = LAE - 10*log10(t2-t1) (dB)

where LAE = Sound exposure level in dB (see definition on Page 5).

HEARING IMPAIRMENT - A decreased ability to perceive sounds as compared with what the

individual or examiner would regard as normal. The result is an increase in the threshold of hearing.

HEARING THRESHOLD - For a given listener and specified signal, the minimum: (a) sound pressure

level; or (b) force level that is capable of evoking an auditory sensation in a specified function of trials.

HERTZ - (abbreviation Hz) Unit of frequency, the number of times a phenomenon repeats itself in a unit

of time.

LAE (see Sound Exposure Level)

Ldn (see Day-Night Average Sound Level)

LAeq (see Equivalent Sound Level)

NOISE - Any unwanted sound.

NOISE INDUCED TEMPORARY THRESHOLD SHIFT - Temporary hearing impairment occurring

as a result of noise exposure, often phrased temporary threshold shift.

NOISE INDUCED PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT - Permanent hearing impairment occurring

as a result of noise exposure, often phrased permanent threshold shift.

NOREPINEPHRINE - A hormone produced by the adrenal medulla similar in chemical and

pharmacological properties to epinephrine, but chiefly a vasoconstrictor with little effect on cardiac

output.

PARACUSIS - Any abnormality or disorder of the sense of hearing.
5

Figure 1. Graphical representation of LAE.

PEAK SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL - Level of the peak sound pressure with stated frequency

weighting, within a stated time interval.

PATHOLOGICAL - Any condition that is a deviation from the normal.

PHYSIOLOGICAL - Of the branch of biology dealing with the functions and vital processes of living

organisms or their parts and organs.

PRESBYACUSIA, PRESBYCUSIS - Hearing deterioration occurring after middle age.

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL - Characteristic of or promoting normal, or healthy functioning of the

mind or mental processes.

RECRUITMENT - (Loudness) Abnormal loudness perception.

REVERBERATION - Sound that persists in an enclosed space, as a result of repeated reflection or

scattering, after the source has stopped.

REVERBERATION TIME - Of an enclosure, for a stated frequency or frequency band, time that would

be required for the level of time-mean-square sound pressure in the enclosure to decrease by 60 dB, after

the sound source has stopped.

SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL (abbreviation SEL,

denoted by the symbol LAE) - Over a stated time

interval, T (where T=t2-t1), ten times the base-10

logarithm of the ratio of a given time integral of

squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure, and

the product of the reference sound pressure of 20

micropascals, the threshold of human hearing, and the

reference duration of 1 sec. The time interval, T, must

be long enough to include a majority of the sound

source’s acoustic energy. As a minimum, this interval

should encompass the 10 dB down points (see Figure

1). In addition, LAE is related to LAeqT by the following

equation:

LAE = LAeqT + 10*log10(t2-t1) (dB)

where LAeqT = Equivalent sound level in dB (see definition above).
6

SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (abbreviation SPL) - Ten times the base-10 logarithm of the ratio of

the time-mean-square pressure of a sound, in a stated frequency band, to the square of the reference sound

pressure in gases of 20 micropascals.

STRESS - The sum of the biological reactions to any adverse stimulus, physical, mental, or emotional,

internal or external, that tends to disturb the organism’s state of stability.

THRESHOLD OF HEARING - (see Hearing Threshold)

TINNITUS - A sound of ringing or whistling in the ears, excluding hallucinations of voices. Otological

condition in which sound is perceived by a person without an external auditory stimulation.

VASOCONSTRICTION - Tightening or compressing of the blood vessels.
7

3. GENERAL EFFECTS

The effects of environmental noise on people are generally undesirable. These effects include

psychological effects (see Section 4), such as annoyance, and physiological effects (see Section 5), such

as hearing impairment and sleep disturbance. In 1972, the Noise Control Act was established to address

the concerns of noise as a growing danger to the health and welfare of the Nation's population,

particularly in urban areas. In response to the Noise Control Act, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) published, “ Information of Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety” (EPA 1974). The objective of the EPA’s “Levels

Document” was to identify levels of environmental noise required to protect the public from adverse

health and welfare effects (Beranek 1992).

Table 1 summarizes the yearly average equivalent sound level and/or day-night average sound level (Leq

or Ldn, respectively) recommended as protective of the public health and welfare. Twenty-four-hour

exposure levels of 70 decibels or less are identified as necessary to prevent measurable hearing loss over a

lifetime. Levels of 55 decibels outdoors and 45 decibels indoors are identified as requisite for preventing

activity interference and annoyance. It should be noted that the levels presented in the table below are not

to be considered standards, criteria, or regulatory goals. The levels also include a margin of safety and

should be viewed as levels below which there is no reason to suspect that the general population will be at

risk from any of the identified effects of noise (EPA 1974, FICAN 1992, WHO 2000).

Table 1. Yearly average equivalent sound levels in decibels identified as requisite to 

protect the public health & welfare with an adequate margin of safety (EPA 1974).*

Measure

Indoor Outdoor

Activity

Interference

Hearing Loss

Consideration

To Protect

Against Both

Effects (b)

Activity

Interference

Hearing Loss

Consideration

To Protect

Against Both

Effects (b)

Residential with

Outside Space and

Farm Residences

Ldn

Leq(24)

45

70 45

55

70

55

Residential with 

No Outside Space

Ldn

Leq(24)

45

70

45

Commercial Leq(24) (a) 70 70(c) (a) 70 70(c)

Inside

Transportation Leq(24) (a) 70 (a)

Industrial Leq(24)(d) (a) 70 70(c) (a) 70 70(c)

Hospitals Ldn

Leq(24)

45

70

45 55

70

55

Educational Ldn

Leq(24)

45

70

45 55

70

55

Recreational Areas Leq(24) (a) 70 70(c) (a) 70 70(c)
Measure

Indoor Outdoor

Activity

Interference

Hearing Loss

Consideration

To Protect

Against Both

Effects (b)

Activity

Interference

Hearing Loss

Consideration

To Protect

Against Both

Effects (b)

8

Farm Land 

and General

Unpopulated Land

Leq(24)

(a) 70 70(c)

Note: * The exposure period which results in hearing loss at the identified level is a period of forty years. 

(a) Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels, identification of a maximum level for

activity interference may be difficult except in those circumstances where speech communication is a critical activity.

(b) Based on lowest level.

(c) Based only on hearing loss.

(d) An Leq(8) of 70 dB may be identified in these situations so long as the exposure over the remaining sixteen hours is

low enough to result in a negligible contribution to the 24-hour average, i.e., no greater than an Leq(24) of 60 dB.

In addition to noise exposure guidelines, the EPA and other agencies have established noise exposure

limits (see Table 2), above which feasible administrative or engineering controls must be utilized. The

permissible equivalent A-weighted sound level for an eight-hour exposure period ranges from 75 dBA for

the EPA to 90 dBA for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA 1998).

Table 2. Permissible Equivalent Sound Exposure Levels (Beranek 1992).

Duration of Exposure

(Hours)

OSHA U.S.

Army

U.S.

Air Force

EPA

8 90 85 84 75 *

4 95 89 88

2 100 93 92 -

1 105 97 96 -

0.5 110 101 100 -

0.25 or less 115 ** 105 104 -

Note: * The threshold for detectable noise-induced permanent threshold shift (NIPTS) at 4,000 Hz; exposures exceeding 75

dB may cause NIPTS exceeding 5 dB in 100 percent of the population after cumulative noise exposure of 10 years.

** Ceiling on exposure level and duration.

Long-term exposure to high noise levels results in interference with conversation and other normal human

activities, such as sleeping, working, and recreation. To determine if long-term exposure to any specific

type of environmental, primarily transportation, noise is a risk factor for cardiovascular or other disorders,

would require highly sophisticated epidemiologic field studies. In addition, these field studies would

need to place greater emphasis on ensuring appropriate controls to account for other known risk factors

such as age, sex, smoking, caffeine, body weight, diet, and hereditary proclivity (HCN 1994, Thompson

1996). The 1982 EPA publication, Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis, stated that research implicates

noise as one of several factors producing stress-related health effects such as heart disease, high-blood
9

pressure, stroke, ulcers, and other digestive disorders. However, the relationship between noise and these

effects has not been fully quantified with most studies on these effects having only limited data available

and no definitive conclusions (EPA 1982, Babisch 1993, HCN 1994, IEH 1997, Thompson 1981,

Thompson 1996).

The estimated of the number of people exposed to environmental noise at various levels as published in a

1981 EPA document is shown in Table 3 (EPA 1981). As noise levels are directly related to population

density (EPA 1974), the general trend is that noise in communities is increasing (Suter 1991). Although

in 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration estimated that there will be about 500,000 Americans

exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise - down substantially from the 4.7 million estimated in 1981

(FAA 2000). This decrease in population exposure can be attributed to the advent of quieter aircraft.

Table 3. Summary of U.S. population exposed to various day-night average

sound levels (Ldn) from noise sources in the community (EPA 1981).

Ldn (dB)

Estimated Number (in Millions) of People in Each Noise Category

Roadway

Traffic

Aircraft Construction Rail Industrial Total

> 80 0.1 0.1 ------- ------- ------- 0.2

> 75 1.1 0.3 0.1 ------- ------- 1.5

> 70 5.7 1.3 0.6 0.8 ------- 8.1

> 65 19.3 4.7 2.1 2.5 0.3 27.8

> 60 46.6 11.5 7.7 3.5 1.9 63.6

> 55 96.8 24.3 27.5 6.0 6.9 92.4

Note: Ldn values are yearly averages, outdoors. In addition, there is some overlap among populations exposed to multiple noise

sources.
10
11

%HA (. . ) e

Ldn = + −

100

1 11 13 0 14

4. PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS

This section contains a discussion of the psychological effects of environmental noise. Psychological

effects include annoyance, speech interference, and interference with recreational activities.

4.1 Annoyance

Annoyance with environmental transportation noise is the general adverse reaction of people resulting

from speech interference and disturbance to comfort, peace of mind, and sleep. Earlier EPA publications

and related reports (EPA 1974, EPA 1973, EPA 1978, Galloway 1970, von Gierke 1977) on

transportation noise and human annoyance were later superceded by the 1978 Schultz synthesis (Schultz

1978). This study examined 11 major social surveys on annoyance due to transportation noise. It

resulted in the so-called “Schultz curve” which related noise level to annoyance. Since its publication,

the Schultz curve has been used nationally and internationally as the nominal response curve for

characterizing the average community response to transportation noise.

More recent U.S. Air Force (USAF) research re-examined the Schultz curve as part of a long-term study

on the effects of aircraft noise on humans (Finegold 1990, Finegold 1993a, Finegold 1993b, Finegold

1994). In this work, the Percent Highly Annoyed (%HA) relationship, the accepted measure for assessing

long-term community noise exposure, was also re-examined. Based on the Schultz data and further

refined by the USAF work, the following relationship has become the more widely used model for

predicting community annoyance response to all types of transportation noise:

where: %HA is the Percent Highly Annoyed and

Ldn is the Day-Night Average Sound Level.

Figure 2 illustrates the Percent Highly Annoyed relationship for the 3 primary types of transportation

noise: aircraft, highway/road traffic, and railway. Although the figure implies that people are more

sensitive to aircraft noise as compared to noise from highway and rail, more data are required to

substantiate this observation. The highway and rail data used in the figure are relatively sparse.
12

Figure 2. %HA versus Ldn from aircraft, road traffic, and railway noise

(Finegold 1994).

Further research is required to more fully assess other factors which contribute to a person’s level of

annoyance in association with transportation noise. These factors may include frequency content,

duration, and accompanying rattle/vibration. It is well documented that annoyance increases with soundinduced rattle/vibration (WHO 2000, HCN 1994, Stansfeld 1997). In addition, community attitudes

towards noise sources can be an important influence on the degree of annoyance. Annoyance may be

reduced when the noise maker maintains a good community relationship and convinces the community

that everything that can be done is being done to reduce the noise (FAA 2001).

Finally, it should be mentioned that although annoyance is used to predict community response to noise,

complaints are not as useful a measure of community impact (FICAN 1992). This is because annoyance

can exist without complaints and, conversely, complaints may occur without high percentages of

annoyance. As such, complaints cannot reliably be used to predict community response (FICAN 1992).

4.2 Speech Interference

Speech interference occurs when speech is masked by other sounds occurring simultaneously. Because

most of the acoustic energy associated with speech is in the frequency range of 250-5000 Hz, speech

intelligibility is often adversely affected by noise (Harris 1991, WHO 2000). The effects of noise are

compounded by other factors also influencing speech intelligibility, including speech pronunciation,
13

Figure 3. Noise level effects on speech interference (EPA 1973).

distance between speaker and listener, hearing acuity, level of attention, reverberation characteristics of

the listening environment, and sound characteristics of the interfering noise. As the sound pressure level

of an interfering noise increases, the speaker compensates by also increasing the volume of his voice. 

This places additional strain on the listener as well. Noise may mask not only speech but can be of even

greater concern when it masks other acoustical signals important for daily life, such as door bells,

telephones, alarm clocks, fire alarms, music, and other warning signals (Edworthy 1996).

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S3.5, “Methods for Calculation of the

Speech Intelligibility Index,” includes a Speech Interference Level (SIL) metric which relates speech

interference caused by relatively constant noise sources (ANSI 1997). However, because this standard is

based on steady-state noise, its applicability to evaluation of nonsteady-state noise events, such as aircraft

and railroad grade-crossing horn noise, is limited. Use of the SIL metric would require careful judgement

regarding the variability of level, duration, direction, and frequency spectrum of the noise source (FICAN

1992).

Figure 3 shows the voice effort required at differing distances and sound levels and can be used as a very

general guide to the effects of noise and speech interference.
14

4.3 Effects of Noise on Performance

In both laboratory and workforce environments, noise adversely affects cognitive task performance

(WHO 2000). The level of noise necessary to produce adverse effects does depend greatly on the type of

task, however. For example, transportation noise may be more disruptive during reading activities as

compared to recreational activities. In addition to type of activity, the frequency content and temporal

characteristics may also play a part in producing adverse effects. High frequency sound is typically more

disruptive than low-frequency; and intermittent sounds are generally more disruptive than continuous

sounds of equivalent acoustic energy (Suter 1991).

Other studies suggest that noise slows rehearsal in memory, acting as a distraction stimulus, thus,

increasing the need for focusing (Mohindra 1983). People whose performance strategies are already

limited for other reasons (e.g., through high anxiety), and who are faced with multiple tasks may be more

vulnerable to the masking and distracting effects of nosie (Stansfeld 1997).

Of considerable research interest are the effects of transportation noise on children. Noise has been

shown to affect children’s cognitive and motivational parameters (Bronzaft 1975, Bronzaft 1981, Cohen

1980, Evans 2001, Evans 1998, Evans 1995, Evans 1993, Haines 1998, Hygge 1998, Kohut 2001,

Stansfeld 1997). Among the cognitive effects, reading, attention, problem solving, and memory are most

affected by noise. Most of the studies reviewed have found the uncontrollability of noise, rather than the

intensity of the noise, appears to be the most critical variable.

4.4 Interference with Recreational Activities

Noise affects people at home and at work, but also during leisure. It is difficult, however, to estimate the

magnitude of these effects, especially when considering other noise sources present during leisure

activities. High noise exposure sources/situations which people expose themselves to voluntarily, include

music (e.g., concerts, clubs, and headphones), loud games, and sports (e.g., hunting, stadiums, and motor

sports), and toys (e.g., cap pistols, rattles, and arcades). The trend in noise levels for these kinds of

activities has been upward (Axelsson 1996, Suter 1991).

For those leisure activities where people purposely avoid noise or expect quiet, including libraries,

churches, and remote areas of parks, the intrusion of transportation noise is of greater concern. Several

studies document the development of relationships between noise exposure (or change in noise exposure)

and human response. These relationships are being used as tools to assist the National Park Service in

reducing the impacts of aircraft overflight sound levels on visitors to the National Parks (NPS 1995,

Anderson 1993, Fleming 1998). Impacts caused by aircraft overflights in the National Parks are of two

types: impacts on natural quiet and impacts on visitor enjoyment. The findings of a study performed in

Bryce Canyon National Park indicate that approximately one-quarter of the survey respondents expressed

annoyance as a result of aircraft overflight noise. It should be noted, however, that respondents also

reported a number of other factors besides aircraft noise as annoyances, e.g., crowds/other people, trail

conditions, weather, lack of restroom facilities (Fleming 1998).
15

5. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS

This section discusses the physiological effects of environmental noise. Physiological effects include

hearing impairment, sleep disturbance, and startle and defense reactions leading to potential increase of

blood pressure.

5.1 Hearing Impairment/Loss

A report by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise documents some of the direct, indirect,

short-term, and long-term health and welfare effects of airport noise (FICAN 1992). Hearing impairment

is typically defined as an increase in the threshold of hearing. Changes in hearing threshold level, the

lowest level a sound signal of a specific frequency can be detected by the ear, of less than 5 dB are not

generally considered noticeable. A noise-induced permanent threshold shift of 5 dB or more is

considered significant by the EPA (EPA 1974). Hearing impairment due to noise is typically detected

beginning at the frequencies 4000 Hertz (Hz) or above. The impairment may also be accompanied by

tinnitus (ringing in the ears). 

In 1995, at the World Health Assembly, it was estimated that there are 120 million people with disabling

hearing difficulties worldwide (Smith 1998). Men and women are equally at risk of noise-induced

hearing impairment (ISO 1990, WHO 2000). Prolonged exposure to high levels of noise exposure can

cause hearing impairment, though most cases were found to be related to occupational noise exposure. 

Guidance for determining noise-induced hearing impairment due to occupational noise exposure can be

found in the International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO), “Acoustics - Determination of

Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise-Induced Hearing Impairment” (ISO 1996).

A review of studies by the World Health Organization shows hearing impairment/loss for cases outside of

occupational noise exposure. Deterioration of the hearing capability is more often shown to be caused by

diseases, head trauma, hereditary links, and normal aging. Environmental noise exposures due to noisy

activities, especially leisure-time activities of children and young adults, have not been as scrutinized or

regulated (WHO 2000).

5.2 Sleep Disturbance.

The National Sleep Foundation reports that the most common environmental elements affecting sleep are

noise, sleep surface, temperature or climate, and altitude with age and gender playing a part in

determining the level of sleep disturbance caused by these factors (NSF). It is estimated that only 10 to

20 percent of the reported cases of sleep disturbance are for reasons relating to transportation noise

(Reyner & Horne 1995). While most experimental research studies have been performed in controlled

environments, some field studies of sleep disturbance conducted within people’s homes have been

performed (ANSI 2000). The majority of transportation-noise, sleep-disturbance research has focused on

aircraft noise (Basner 2001) - few are conducted for highway or railway noise (Griefahn 1996, Griefahn
16

1998). Most studies monitor awakening by a verbal response, a button push, and/or various physiological

signals, including polysomnographic measurements (EEG, EOG, EMG), the electrocardiogram, finger

pulse amplitude, respiration, and actigraphy. In addition, urine samples were examined for stress

indicators, including cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine.

Of greater concern are the possible secondary effects, i.e., after effects, of sleep disturbance. These

effects may include reduced perceived sleep quality, increased fatigue, depressed mood or well being, and

decreased performance (Carter 1996, Ohrstrom 1993, Passchier-Vermeer 1993, Pearsons 1995, Pearsons

1998).

Based on the literature reviewed in a USAF-sponsored study of sleep disturbance (Pearsons 1989), no

specific long-term health effects have been clearly linked with sleep disturbance (FICAN 1992). It has

also been observed that habituation typically occurs over time when similar sound exposures occur across

nights (Griefahn 1977, LeVere 1975, NSF, Ohrstrom 1988, Stansfeld 1997, TRB 1997). Comparison of

results of laboratory and field studies shows that habituation to night-time noises occurs to a large extent

with respect to awakening, but not, or to a much lesser extent, with respect to changes in sleep stage and

heart rate (HCN 1994). Regardless however, sleep disturbance is indisputably undesirable and, thus, still

considered a noise impact.

Scientists agree that more studies are needed to confirm or disaffirm what relatively little is known about

sleep (NSF). The USAF review also included the need for additional data to satisfy the following areas of

concern:

# large discrepancies between laboratory and field studies;

# highly variable and incomplete data bases;

# lack of appropriate field studies;

# the studies’ methodologies; and

# lack of consideration of non-acoustic effects.

In addition, it has been found that people do intervene to a certain extent in their own living and working

environment, e.g., by moving to more quiet surroundings or by changing their job. This may result in a

selection in which people who are “noise-proof” will remain in noise situations and those who are not will

leave the situation (HCN 1994).

The findings of several field studies over the past twenty-five years have been compiled and analyzed

using meta-analytic techniques to derive a prediction model of noise-induced awakenings for

transportation noise sources. The prediction model is based on a curvilinear power-function fit through

the data points defining the percent of study participants awakened at given indoor single-event noise

levels, or sound exposure levels (LAE), of aircraft (Finegold 2001). This relationship is shown in Figure 3

below and in the following equation:
17

% . (. ) . Awakening LAE =+ × × − 058 4 30 10 8 411

Figure 4. Sleep disturbance as a function of single-event noise exposure levels 

(Finegold 2001).

In considering Figure 4, it should be noted that the time interval between two noise events also has been

found to have an important influence on the probability of obtaining a response (WHO 2000, Griefahn

1977, Ohrstrom 1990).

5.3 Muscular Effects of Noise

Muscular reflex responses to noise involves obvious movements (startle response) of voluntary muscle

groups and less obvious electrical activity found in muscle tension. The magnitude of a startle response is

related to the magnitude of the noise stimulus and rate of onset (May 1971, Thackray 1973). Most

research concerning human reaction to impulsive noise comes from studies of the effects of gunfire with

some limited occupational noise exposure data from industrial situations. While a reduction in response,

or habituation, is typical with continuation or repetition of the stimulus, the sudden muscular response due

to noise could potentially interfere with critical motor tasks at critical moments. In addition, short and

long term muscular tension has many negative cardiovascular implications (Harris 1991, Stansfeld 1997).
18

A hazard exists when impulsive noises exceed a peak sound pressure level of 140 dB for more than 5

continuous milliseconds (ms). Higher maximum levels may be tolerable for durations of less than 5 ms.

Peak sound pressure levels in excess of 165 dB even for minuscule durations, are likely to cause acute

cochlear damage (WHO 2000).

5.4 Cardiovascular Effects of Noise

Epidemiological and laboratory studies involving workers exposed to occupational noise and general

populations (including children) living in noisy areas around airports, industries, and noisy streets,

indicate that noise may have both temporary and permanent impacts on physiological functions of people

(WHO 2000).

Research has correlated exposure to environmental noise with physiological changes in blood pressure,

sleep, digestion and other stress-related disorders (Parrot 1992, Passchier-Vermeer 1993, Petiot 1992). 

Low frequency noise (0 to 20 Hz) can be directly absorbed through the surface of the body and can excite

sense organs other than the ears causing disturbances to the nervous system, equilibrium, and sight

(Newman 1985). These changes relate chronic noise exposure and some elevated neuroendocrine and

cardiovascular measures. Certain acute noise exposures can activate the autonomic and hormonal

systems. Laboratory experiments and field research have shown that if noise exposure is temporary, the

physiological system usually returns to normal after an appropriate recovery period (WHO 2000).

Prolonged exposure, however, may cause more serious cardiovascular and hormonal responses, including

increases in heart rate and peripheral vascular resistance, changes in blood pressure, blood viscosity, and

blood lipids, and shifts in electrolyte balance. Susceptible individuals may develop permanent effects,

such as coronary heart disease (Bronzaft 1997, Cohen 1980, Evans 1995, Ising 1997, Schwarze 1988).

The overall conclusion is that cardiovascular effects are associated with long-term exposure to daily

equivalent sound levels greater than 65 dB. These exposures have been implicated in the development

and exacerbation of a variety of health problems, ranging from hypertension to psychosis. However,

most of these findings have been criticized by the research community because the associations are

usually weak, only the average risk is considered, and sensitive subgroups have not been sufficiently

characterized (WHO 2000, Suter 1991, Thompson 1981, Thompson 1996). More research into the longterm effects of noise is required before unequivocal guideline values can be established.

5.5 Mental Health Effects of Noise

Noise, particularly transportation noise, is not believed to be a direct cause of mental illness, but it is

assumed that it accelerates and intensifies the development of latent mental disorder (WHO 2000). 

Studies on the adverse effects of transportation noise on mental health include symptoms such as anxiety,

emotional stress, nervousness, nausea, headaches, instability, argumentativeness, changes in mood,

increase in social conflicts, as well as general psychiatric disorders, including neurosis, psychosis, and

hysteria. 
19

There is also only very limited evidence that relatively more admissions to psychiatric hospitals might

occur from areas with very noisy conditions, primarily due to high levels of aircraft noise, than from more

quiet surroundings (HCN 1994). Most studies linking transportation noise, primarily aircraft noise, to

mental disorders are inconclusive and have been criticized for methodology and response bias (Halpern

1995, Schwarze 1988, Thompson 1996, WHO 2000). In many cases, it should also be noted that noisesensitive individuals are likely to be sensitive to other non-transportation-related sounds in their

environment as well (Anderson 1971, Broadbent 1979, Ohrstrom 1988, Thomas, 1982, Weinstein, 1978). 
20
21

6. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE

There has been extensive research into the effects of environmental noise, particularly transportation

noise, on wildlife, especially since the establishment of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. There are

over 200 published and unpublished reports which include many species that vary in scope from

long-term research studies to government investigations to environmental agency citings (Gladwin 1987,

NPS 1994). This section overviews the research on the effects of transportation noise on wildlife.

The majority of transportation-noise research, primarily tied to aircraft noise, has shown that certain noise

intrusions can cause some effects on wildlife - however, less than originally expected. In general, some

research indicates that extensive or repeated loud noise intrusions interfere with communication and

breeding. By far, two of the largest, most comprehensive reviews of current and past research are

contained in:

# The National Parks Service's Report to Congress (NPS 1994)

# The National Ecology Research Center's report for the U.S. Department of the Interior (Gladwin

1987)

Noise impacts on wildlife cover a wide range of effects. The following categories of impacts are adapted

from work performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the U.S. Army Construction Engineering

Research Laboratory, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Efroymson 2000, NPS 1994). 

They represent a practical synopsis for judging potential impacts on wildlife due to transportation noise:

# Negligible Impacts

- No species of concern are present and no or minor impacts on any species are expected.

- Minor impacts that do occur have no secondary (long-term or population effects).

# Low/Minor Impacts

- Non-breeding animals of concern are present in low numbers.

- Habitat is not critical for survival and not limited to the noise intrusion area.

- Occasional fright responses are expected, but without interference with feeding, reproduction, or

other activities necessary for survival.

- No serious concerns are expressed by State or Federal fish and wildlife officials.

# Moderate Impacts

- Breeding animals of concern are present, and/or animals are present during particularly

vulnerable life-stages, such as migration or winter.

- Mortality or interference with activities necessary to survival is expected on an occasional basis.

- Mortality or interference are not expected to threaten the continued existence of the species.

- State and Federal officials express some concern.
22

# High/Major Impacts

- Breeding individuals are present in relatively high numbers, and/or animals are present during

particularly vulnerable life-stages.

- Habitat (subjected to noise intrusions) has a history of use by the species during critical periods,

and this habitat is somewhat limited to the noise impacted area; animals cannot go elsewhere to

avoid impacts (animals can rarely relocate except temporarily).

- Mortality or other effects (injury, physiological stress, effects on reproduction and young raising)

are expected on a regular basis.

- These effects could threaten the continued survival of the species.

- State and Federal wildlife officials express serious concern.

While extensive research has been conducted on the effects of noise on wildlife - differences between

study species and methodologies make a clear, quantitative definition of noise impact on wildlife difficult. 

Most studies pertain to specific species and result in primarily broad generalizations and observations of

the behavioral responses (Arner 1999, Lelis 1999, Levy 1999, Parks 2000, Presley 2000, Reijnen 1995,

Robertson 2000). With regard to transportation-related noise, most of these studies have been based on

aircraft noise (DND 1998, Wells 2000). Responses of wildlife to aircraft noise vary from almost no

reaction to virtually no tolerance of the sound with the question of the adaptability of wildlife to certain

sounds remaining largely unanswered (Newman 1985). Further research is necessary to better correlate

actual noise levels, critical frequency ranges, types of noise sources, and other variables to the behavioral

responses of wildlife.
23

REFERENCES

Anderson 1971 Anderson, C. The Measurement of Attitude to Noise and Noises. Report AC-52. 

Teddington, UK: National Physics Laboratory Acoustics Report, 1971.

Anderson 1993 Anderson, G., Horonjeff, R., Menge, C., Miller, N., Robert, W., Rossano, C.,

Sanchez, G., Baumgartner, R., and McDonald, C. Dose-Response Relationships

Derived from Data Collected at Grand Canyon, Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes

National Parks. National Parks Service, NPOA Report No. 93-6. Lexington, MA

and Madison, WI: Harris Miller & Hanson Inc. and HBRS Inc., October 1993.

ANSI 1997 “Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index,” American National

Standards, ANSI S3.5-1997. New York: American National Standards Institute,

1997.

ANSI 1999a “Acoustical Terminology,” American National Standards, ANSI S1.1-1994 (R1999). 

New York: American National Standards Institute, 1999.

ANSI 1999b “Bioacoustical Terminology,” American National Standards, ANSI S3.20-

1995(R1999). New York: American National Standards Institute, 1999.

ANSI 2000 “Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental

Sound - Part 6: Methods for Estimation of Awakenings Associated with Aircraft

Noise Events Heard in Homes,” American National Standards, ANSI S12.9-2000/

Part 6. New York: American National Standards Institute, 2000.

Arner 1999 Arner, Mark. “Proposed Roads Across San Diego Area Canyons Intended to Reduce

Traffic Pit Environmentalists Against Transportation Planners,” The San Diego

Union-Tribune. September 1999.

Axelsson 1996 Axelsson, Alf. “Recreational Exposure to Noise and Its Effects,” Noise Control

Engineering Journal 44, pp. 127-134, 1996.

Babisch 1993 Babisch, W., Ising, H., Elwood, P., et al. “Traffic Noise and Cardiovascular Risk: 

The Caerphilly and Speedwell Studies, Second Phase. Risk Estimation, Prevalence

and Incidence of Ischemic Heart Disease,” Arch. Environmental Health, 48: 406-413,

1993.
24

Basner 2001 Basner, M. et al. “The Influence of Nocturnal Aircraft Noise on Humans - a New

Comprehensive Approach,” Internoise 2001. DLR, Institute of Aerospace Medicine,

D-51170 Cologne, Germany. 2001.

Beranek 1992 Beranek, Leo L. and Ver, Istvan L. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering:

Principles and Applications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.

Broadbent 1979 Broadbent, D.E. “Human Performance and Noise,” Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd

Edition, C.M. Harris, editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1979.

Bronzaft 1975 Bronzaft, A.L. and McCarthy, D.P. “The Effect of Elevated Train Noise on Reading

Ability,” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 7, pp. 517-528, 1975.

Bronzaft 1981 Bronzaft, A.L. “The Effect of Noise Abatement Program on Reading Ability,”

Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 215-222, 1981.

Bronzaft 1997 Bronzaft, A.L. “Noise: Issues for Environmental and Health Policy,” Environmental

Issues for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 1997.

Carter 1996 Carter, N.L. “Transportation Noise, Sleep, and Possible After-Effects,”

Environmental International 22, pp. 105-116, 1996.

CMD 1997 Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, edition 18, Philadelphia, PA: FA Davis

Company, 1997.

Cohen 1980 Cohen, S. Evens, G.W., Krantz, and Stokols, D. “Physiological, Motivational, and

Cognitive Effects of Aircraft Noise on Children,” American Psychologist, Vol. 35,

pp. 231-243, 1980.

DIMD 1985 Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 26th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders,

1985.

DND 1998 Department of National Defence. Environmental Mitigation Program.

(http://www.capitalnet.com/~pmogb/website/environment/mm/mm_1998/mm_98_e.

html) Canada, 1998.

Edworthy 1996 Edworthy, J. and Adams, A.S. Warning Design: A Research Perspective. Taylop and

Francis, London. 1996.

Efroymson 2000 Efroymson, R., Rose, W., Nemeth, S., and Suter, G. Ecological Risk Assessment

Framework for Low-Altitude Overflights by Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Military

Aircraft. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report No. ORNL/TM-2000/289, ES-
25

5048. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental

Research and Development Program, 2000.

Endangered 1973 Endangered Species Act. US Code: Title XVI, Chapter 35, Sections 1531-1544,

1973.

EPA 1973 Impact Characterization of Noise, Including Implications of Identifying and

Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure. EPA Report No. NTID 73-4,

Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.

EPA 1974 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health

and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA/ONAC Report No. 550/9-74-

004, Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.

EPA 1977 Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments. EPA/ONAC Report No. 600/1-77-

025, EPA, Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, May 1977.

EPA 1978 Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. EPA/ONAC

Report No.550/9-79-100, Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency,

November 1978.

EPA 1981 Noise in America: The Extent of the Noise Problem. EPA/ONAC Report No.

550/9-81-101, Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1981.

EPA 1982 Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. EPA/ONAC Report No. 550/9-82-105,

Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1982.

Evans 1993 Evans, G.W., and Lepore, S.J. “Nonauditory Effects of Noise on Children: a Critical

Review,” Children’s Environments, Vol. 10, pp. 31-51, 1993.

Evans 1995 Evans, G.W., Hygge, S. and Bullinger, M. “Chronic Noise and Psychological Stress.

Psychological Science, Vol. 6, pp. 333-337, 1995.

Evans 1998 Evans, G.W., Bullinger, M., and Hygge, S. “Chronic Noise Exposure and

Physiological Response: A Prospective Study of Children Living Under

Environmental Stress. Psychological Science, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 75-77, 1998.

Evans 2001 Evans, G.W., Lercher, P., Meis, M., Ising, H., Kofler, W. “Community Noise

Exposure and Stress in Children,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109

(3), pp. 1023-1027, March 2001.
26

FAA 2000 “Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000,” Federal Register/Notices, Volume 65, No.

136, Docket No. 30103. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, July 

2000.

FAA 2001 Federal Aviation Administration. “Nonmilitary Helicopter Urban Noise Study,”

Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, April

2001 (draft).

FICAN 1992 “Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues,” Spectrum

Sciences and Software, Inc. Fort Walton Beach, FL: Federal Interagency Committee

on Aviation Noise (FICAN), August 1992.

Finegold 1990 Finegold, L., Fidell, S., Reddinguis, N., and Kugler, B. “NSBIT Program:

Development of Assessment System for Aircraft Noise and Research on Human

Impacts Due to Aircraft Noise,” Proceedings Internoise 90, edited by H.G. Jonasson

Poughkeepsie, NY: Noise Control Foundation, Vol. 2, pp. 1115-1120, August 1990.

Finegold 1993a Finegold, Lawrence S. “U.S. Air Force Research Program on the Effects of Aircraft

Noise on Humans: Current Status and Future Directions,” Proceedings of Noise &

Man 93, edited by M. Vallet, Arcueil, France: L’Institut National de Recherche sur

les Transports et leur Securite, Vol. 2, pp. 229-231, July 1993.

Finegold 1993b Finegold, Lawrence S. “Current Status of Sleep Disturbance Research and

Development of Criterion for Aircraft Noise Exposure,” Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America 94, part 2, pp. 1807, 1993.

Finegold 1994 Finegold, L., Harris, C., and von Gierke, H. “Community Annoyance and Sleep

Disturbance: Updated Criteria for Assessing the Impacts of General Transportation

Noise on People,” Noise Control Engineering Journal 42, pp. 25-30, 1994.

Finegold 2001 Finegold, Lawrence S. and Bartholomew, Elias. “A Predictive Model of Noise

Induced Awakenings from Transportation Noise Sources,” Noise Control

Engineering Journal, 2001(in publication).

Fleming 1998 Fleming, G., Roof, C., Rapoza, A., Read, D., Webster, J., Liebman, P., Valihura, P.,

Lewis, K., Schomer, P., Plante, J., and Draper, J. Development of Noise Dose/Visitor

Response Relationships for the National Parks Overflight Rule: Bryce Canyon

National Park Study. Report Nos. DOT-VNTSC-FAA-98-6, FAA-AEE-98-01. 

Cambridge, MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, July 1998.

Galloway 1981 Galloway, W.J. Assessment of Community Response to High-Energy Impulsive

Sounds. Report to Working Group 84, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and
27

Biomechanics, Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research

Council, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1981.

Gladwin 1987 Gladwin, D.N., D.A. Asherin, and K.M. Manci. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic

Booms on Fish and Wildlife: Results of a Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species and Ecological Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and

Research Centers. NERC-88/30. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Ecology Research Center, 1987.

Griefahn 1977 Griefahn B. “Long-Term Exposure to Noise: Aspects of Adaptation, Habituation and

Compensation,” Waking and Sleeping, 1. pp. 383-386, 1977.

Griefahn 1996 Griefahn, B., Mehnert, P., Mohler, U., Schuemer-Kohrs, A., Schuemer, R. 1996. 

Design of a Field Study on the Effects of Railway Noise and Road Traffic Noise. In

F.A. Hill and R. Lawrence (eds.) Inter Noise 96. Noise Control - The Next 25 Years,

Book 4, pp. 2183-88. Institute of Acoustics, St. Albans, UK.

Griefahn 1998 Griefahn, B., Deppe, C., Mehnert, P., Moog, R., Mohler, U., and Schuemer, R.

“What Nighttimes Are Adequate to Prevent Noise Effects on Sleep?” Noise as a

Public Health Problem (Noise Effects ‘98), Vol. 2, pp. 445-450. PTY Ltd., Sydney,

Australia: Noise Effects, 1998.

Haines 1998 Haines, M., Stansfield, S.A., Job, R.F.S., Berglund, B. “Chronic Aircraft Noise

Exposure and Child Cognitive Performance and Stress” Noise as a Public Health

Problem (Noise Effects ‘98), Vol. 1, pp. 329-336. PTY Ltd., Sydney, Australia:

Noise Effects, 1998.

Halpern 1995 Halpern, D. Mental Health and the Built Environment: More Bricks Than Mortar?

London, UK: Taylor and Francis Ltd., 1995.

Harris 1991 Harris, Cyril M. “Effects of Noise and Reverberation on Speech,” Handbook of

Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Third Edition. New York, NY:

McGrawHill, Inc., 1991.

HCN 1994 Noise and Health. Publication No. 1994/15E. The Hague, Netherlands: Health

Council of the Netherlands, 1994.

Hygge 1998 Hygge, S., Jones, D.M., Smith, A.P. “Recent Developments in Noise and

Performance?” Noise as a Public Health Problem (Noise Effects ‘98), Vol. 1, pp.

321-328. PTY Ltd., Sydney, Australia: Noise Effects, 1998.
28

IEH 1997 The Non-Auditory Effects of Noise. IEH Report R10. Leicester, UK: Institute for

Environment and Health, 1997.

Ising 1993 Ising, H. and Rebentisch, E.. “Results of a Low-Altitude Flight Noise Study in

Germany: Aural Effects,” Noise and Disease. Stuttgart, NY: 1993.

Ising 1997 Ising, H. and Gunther, T. “Interaction Between Noise-Induced Stress and

Magnesium Losses: Relevance for Long-Term Health Effects,” In F. Augustinovicz

(Ed.), Inter Noise 97, Help Quiet the World for a Higher Quality of Life, Vol. 2, pp.

1099-1104. Poughkeepsie, NY: Noise Control Foundation, 1997.

ISO 1990 “Acoustics - Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of

Noise-Induced Hearing Impairment,” International Organization for

Standardization, ISO 1999:1990. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization

for Standardization, 1990.

Kohut 2001 Kohut, A. “British Study Links Aircraft Noise to Poorer Reading, Not Higher

Stress,” Airport Noise Report, Vol. 13, No. 22, June 22, 2001.

Lelis 1999 Lelis, Ludmilla. “Endangered Florida Manatees May Be Injured By Boats In Part

Because They Can't Hear Low-Frequency Sounds; Some Want a High-Frequency

Alarm, Others Say Harassing Animals Is No Way to Save Them,” The Orlando

Sentinel. Orlando, FL: August 1999.

LeVere 1975 LeVere, T., Morlock, G., and Hart, F. “Waking Performance Decrements Following

Minimal Sleep Description: The Effects of Habituation During Sleep,” Physiological

Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 147-174, 1975.

Levy 1999 Levy, Sharon. “Right Whale Deaths Caused By Ship Collisions May Result From

Acclamation to Noise in Heavily-Traveled Waters,” New Scientist. November 1999.

May 1971 May, D.N. “Startle Due to Sonic Booms Heard Outdoors as Functions of

Overpressure and Rise Time,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 18, pp. 144-145,

1971.

Mohindra 1983 Mohindra, N. and Wilding, J. “Noise Effects of Rehearsal Rate on Short Term Serial

Order Memory,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 35A, pp. 155-

170, 1983.

Newman 1985 Newman, J.S. and Beattie, K.R. Aviation Noise Effects. Report No. FAA-EE-85-2. 

Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, March 1985.
29

NPS 1994 Report to Congress: Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights On the National Park

System. Prepared Pursuant to Public Law 100-91, The National Parks Overflights Act

of 1987. Washington, DC: National Park Service, September 1994.

NPS 1995 Report on the Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System. 

Washington, DC: National Park Service, July 1995.

NSF Sleep and the Traveler, http://www.sleepfoundation.org/publications/travel.html.

National Sleep Foundation.

Ohrstrom 1988 Ohrstrom, E. and Bjorkman, M. “Efects of Noise-Disturbed Sleep - A Laboratory

Study on Habituation and Subjective Noise Sensitivity,” Journal of Sound and

Vibration, Vol. 122, pp. 277-290, 1988.

Ohrstrom 1990 Ohrstrom, E. and Rylander, R. “Sleep Disturbance Effects of Traffic Noise - A

Laboratory Study on After Effects,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 84, pp. 87-

103, 1990.

Ohrstrom 1993 Research on Noise and Sleep Since 1988: Present State. Noise as a Public Health

Problem, Vol. 3, pp. 331-338, Arcueil, France: INRETS - Institut National de

Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite, 1993.

OSHA 1998 Occupational Noise Exposure. 29CFR1910.95, Washington, DC: Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor, July 1998.

Parks 2000 Parks, Susan E. Communication in the North Atlantic Right Whale. Cambridge, MA:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

2000.

Parrot 1992 Parrot, J., Petiot, J.C., Lobreau, J.P., Smolik, H.J. Cardiovascular Effects of Impulse

Noise, Road Traffic Noise, and Intermittent Pink Noise at LAeq=75dB, as a Function

of Sex, Age, and Level of Anxiety: A Comparative Study - Part I. Int. Arch. Occup.

Environmental Health, Vol. 63, pp. 477-484, 1992.

Passchier- Passchier-Vermeer, W. Noise and Health. Publication No. A93/02E, Leiden, 

 Vermeer 1993 Netherlands: Health Council of the Netherlands, TNO Institute of Preventative

Health Care, 1993.

Pearsons 1989 Pearson, K., Barber, D., and Tabachnick, B. Analyses of the Predictability of NoiseInduced Sleep Disturbance. Technical Report HSD-TR-89-029, Brooks AFB, TX:

Human System Division, U.S. Air Force Systems Command, October 1989.
30

Pearsons 1995 Pearsons, K.S., Barber, D.S., Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, S. “Predicting Noise-Induced

Sleep Disturbance,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, pp. 331-338,

1995.

Pearsons 1998 Pearsons, K.S. “Awakening and Mobility Effects of Aircraft Noise,” Noise as a

Public Health Problem, Vol. 2, pp. 427-432, Sydney, Australia: Noise Effects ‘98

PTY Ltd., 1995.

Petiot 1992 Petiot, J.C., Parrot, J., Lobreau, J.P., Smolik, H.J. Cardiovascular Effects of Impulse

Noise, Road Traffic Noise, and Intermittent Pink Noise at LAeq=75dB, as a Function

of Sex, Age, and Level of Anxiety: A Comparative Study - Part II. Int. Arch. Occup.

Environmental Health, Vol. 63, pp. 485-493, 1992.

Presley 2000 Presley, Amanda. Are Wildlife or Snowmobiles Being Chased from America's

Parks? emagazine.com, November 2000.

Reijnen 1995 Reijnen, M., Veenbaas, G., Foppen, R. Predicting the Effects of Motorway Traffic on

Breeding Bird Populations. Delft, Netherlands: Ministry of Transport and Public

Works, 1995.

Reynor 1995 Reynor, L.A. and Horne, J.A. “Gender- and Age-Related Differences in Sleep

Determined by Home-Recorded Sleep Logs and Actimetry from 400 Adults,” Sleep

18, pp. 127-134, 1995.

Robertson 2000 Robertson, Jessica. Navy Exercises Investigated After Death of Eight Beached

Whales in Bahamas. Associated Press. March 2000.

Schultz 1978 Schultz, Theodore J. “Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance,” Journal of

the Acoustical Society of America 64. pp. 377-405, August 1978.

Schwarze 1988 Schwarze, S. and Thompson, S. Research on Non-Auditory Physiological Effects of

Noise Since 1988: Review and Perspectives. Columbia, SC: Institute of Occupational

Medicine and University of South Carolina, 1988.

Smith 1998 Smith, A.W. “The World Health Organisation and the prevention of deafness and

hearing impairment cause by noise,” Noise and Health 1:6-12, 1998.

Stansfeld 1997 Stansfeld, S. and Haines, M. Environmental Noise and Health: A Review of NonAuditory Effects. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Sciences and Department

of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Medical School. 

London, UK: Department of Health, April 1997.
31

Suter 1991 Suter, Alice. “Noise and Its Effects,” Cincinnati, OH: Administrative Conference of

the United States, November 1991.

Thakray 1973 Thackray, Richard, Rylander, R., and Touchstone, R.M. Sonic Boom Startle Effects

Report of a Field Study. Report Nos. FAA-AM-73-11. Oklahoma City, OK: FAA

Civil Aeromedical Institute, July 1973.

Thomas 1982 Thomas, J.R. and Jones, D.M. “Individual Differences in Noise Annoyance and the

Uncomfortable Loudness Level,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 82, pp. 289-

304, 1982.

Thompson 1981 Thompson, Shirley J. Epidemiology Feasibility Study: Effects of Noise on the

Cardiovascular System. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, Department of

Epidemiology and Biostatistics, September 1981.

Thompson 1996 Thompson, S.J. “Non-Auditory Health Effects of Noise: An Updated Review,”

Inter-Noise 96. Noise Control - The Next 25 Years, Vol. 4, pp. 2177-2182. St.

Albans, UK: Institute of Acoustics, 1996.

TRB 1997 Transportation Research Board. “Environmental Research Needs in Transportation,”

Transportation Research Circular. Washington, DC: National Research Council,

March 1997.

von Gierke 1977 von Gierke, Henning “Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on

Noise” (Report of Working Group 69, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and

Biomechanics, Assembly of Behavioural and Social Sciences, National Research

Council. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1977.

Weinstein 1978 Weinstein, N.D. “Individual Differences to Reactions to Noise: A Longitudinal

Study in a College Dormitory,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 458-466,

1978.

Wells 2000 Wells, Cliff. Low-level Flying Having No Evident Impacts, Chair Says. Institute for

Environmental Monitoring and Research. The Labradorian. February, 2000.

WHO 2000 Berglund, B., Lindvall, T.,Schwela, D., and Goh, K. (Eds.) “Community Noise,”

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland: Department for Protection of the

Human Environment, 2000.
32
33

ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

AAP 1997 American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health. “Noise: A

Hazard for the Fetus and the Newborn,” Pediatrics, Vol. 100, No. 4, pp. 724-726,

October 1997.

ANSI 1996a “Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise-Induced

Hearing Impairment,” American National Standards, ANSI S3.44. New York:

American National Standards Institute, 1996.

ANSI 1986 “Rating Noise with Respect to Speech Interference,” American National Standards,

ANSI S3.14-1977 (1986). New York: American National Standards Institute, 1986.

ANSI 1996b “Measurement of Occupational Noise Exposure,” American National Standards,

ANSI S12.19. New York: American National Standards Institute, 1996.

Bradley 1996 Bradley, J.S. “Determining Acceptable Limits for Aviation Noise,” Internoise 96,

Noise Control - The Next 25 Years, Book 5, pp 2541-2546. St. Albans, UK: Institute

of Acoustics, 1996.

Bronzaft 1998 Bronzaft, A.L. “Effects of Noise,” Encyclopedia of Environmental Science and

Engineering. J.R. Pfafflin & E. N. Ziegler (Eds), Gordon and Breach Science

Publishers, 1998. 

Carter 1994 Carter, N.L., Hunyor, S.N., Crawford, G., Kelly, D., and Smith, A.J. “Environmental

noise and sleep - a study of arousals, cardiac arrhythmia and urinary

catecholamines,” Sleep 17, pp. 298-307, 1994.

Deutsch 1964 Deutsch, C.P. (1964). “Auditory Discrimination and Learning: Social Factors,”

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 277-296, 1964.

Fidell 1978 Fidell, Sandy. “Nationwide Urban Noise Survey,” Journal of the Acoustical Society

of America 64, pp. 198-206, July 1978.

Fidell 1988(1) Fidell, S., et. al. A Strategy for Understanding Noise Induced Annoyance. HSD-TR87-013, Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Systems Command, 1988.

Fidell 1988(2) Fidell, S., Schultz, T., and Green, D. “A Theoretical Interpretation of the Prevalence

Rate of Noise-Induced Annoyance in Residential Populations,” Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 84, pp. 2109-2113, December 1988.
34

Fidell 1989 Fidell, S., Barber, D., and Schultz, T. Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the

Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise. Technical Report

HSD-TR-89-009, Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Human System Division, U.S. Air

Force Systems Command, December 1989.

Fidell 1991 Fidell, S., Barber, D., and Schultz, T. “Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the

Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise,” Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 89, pp. 221-233, January 1991.

Fidell 1993 Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., Howe, R., and Finegold, L. “Design of a Large-Scale, InHome Study of Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance,” Journal of the Acoustical Society

of America 94, No. 3, Part 2, pp. 1808, September 1993.

Fidell 1995 Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., Tabachnick, B., Howe, R., Silvati, L., and Barber, D. “Field

Study of Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America 98, No. 3, Part 1, August 1995.

Finegold 1998 Finegold, L.S., von Gierke, H.E., McKinley, R.L., and Schomer, P.D. “Addressing

the Effectiveness of Noise Control Regulations and Policies,” Noise Effects 98 -

Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 2, pp. 719-724, Sydney, Australia: PTY Ltd.,

1998.

Finegold 1999 Finegold, L.S., von Gierke, H.E., Schomer, P.D., and Berry, B.F. “Proposal for

Monitoring Worldwide Noise Exposure and Assessing the Effectiveness of Noise

Exposure Policies and Noise Control Technologies,” Internoise 99, pp. 1917-1922,

Fort Lauderdale, FL: International Congress on Noise Control Engineering, 1999.

Gjestland 1989 Gjestland, Truls. “Aircraft Noise Annoyance,” Proceedings Internoise 89, edited by

G.C. Maling, Jr. Poughkeepsie, NY: Noise Control Foundation, Vol. 2, pp. 903-908,

1989.

Griefahn 1980 Griefahn Barbar. “Research on Noise-Disturbed Sleep Since 1973,” ASHA Report

No. 10, Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health

Problem. Freiburg, West Germany, pp. 377-390, 1980.

HCN 1997 Assessing Noise Exposure for Public Health Purposes. Publication No. 1997/23E,

Rijswijk, Netherlands: Health Council of the Netherlands, 1997.

ISO 1987 “Acoustics - Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise - Part 3:

Application to Noise Limits,” International Organization for Standardization 1996-

3:1987(E), Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization,

1987.
35

Jones 1992 Jones, C., Ollerhead, J. “Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: A Field Study,”

Proceedings of Euro-Noise ‘92, edited by R. Lawrence, London, England: Imperial

College, pp. 119-127, September 1992.

Kabuto 1979 Kabuto and Suzuki. “Temporary Threshold Shift from Transportation Noise,”

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66, 1, July 1979.

Kramer 1979 Kramer, G. W., L. R. Rauen, and S. W. Harris. 1979. “Populations, Hunting

Mortality and Habitat Use of Black Brant at San Quintin Bay, Baja California,

Mexico,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Management and Biology of Pacific

Flyway Geese, pp. 242-254, Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society, 1979.

Kryter 1982 Kryter, Karl D. “Community Annoyance from Aircraft and Ground Vehicle Noise,”

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 72, pp. 1224-1242, October 1982.

Kryter 1984 Kryter, Karl D. Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise. NASA

Report No. RP-1115, Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center, July 1984.

Lang 1986 Lang, J. “Assessment of Noise Impact on the Urban Environment, A Study on Noise

Prediction Models,” Environmental Health Series 9, Copenhagen, Denmark: World

Health Organization, 1986.

Lucas 1975 Lucas, Jerome S. “Noise and Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion

for Assessing Effect,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58, pp. 1232-

1242, December 1975.

Miedema 1993 Miedema, Henk. Response Functions for Environmental Noise in Residential Areas.

Publication No. 92.021,, Leiden, The Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor

Praeventieve Gezondheidszorg TNO, June 1993.

Miedema 1998 Miedema, Henk and Vos, Henk. “Exposure-Response Relationships for

Transportation Noise,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 104, pp. 3432-

3445, December 1998.

Miedema 2000 Miedema, Henk Vos, Henk, and de Jong, Ronald. “Community Reaction to Aircraft

Noise: Time-of-Day Penalty and Tradeoff Between Levels of Overflights,” Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America 107, pp. 3432-3453, June 2000.

Ollerhead 1992 Ollerhead, J., Jones, C., Cadoux, R., Woodley, A., Atkinson, B., Horne, J.,

Pankhurst, F., Reyner, L., Hume, K., Van, F., Watson, A., Diamond, L., Egger, P.,

Homes, D., and McKean, J. Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep

Disturbance. A Study Commissioned by the UK Department of Transport for the
36

UK Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering, London, England: Civil

Aviation Authority, December 1992.

Ollerhead 2000 Ollerhead, J., and Jones, C. “Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: A UK Field

Study,” Proceedings of Noise & Man ‘93, edited by M. Vallet, Arcueil, France:

L’Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite, Vol. 1, pp. 55,

July 1993.

Passchier- Passchier-Vermeer, W. Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: Pilot Study. TNO

 Vermeer 1999 Report No. 98.040, Leiden, Netherlands: Health Council of the Netherlands, TNO

Institute of Preventative Health Care, 1999.

Shaw 1996 Shaw, Edgar A.G. “Noise Environments Outdoors and the Effects of Community

Noise Exposure,” Noise Control Engineering Journal 44, pp. 109-119, May-June

1996.

Spence 1996 Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. An Ecosystem

Approach to Salmonid Conservation. Report No. TR-4501-96-6057. Corvallis, OR:

ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., 1996.

Stevens 1955 Stevens, K., Rosenblith, W., and Bolt, R. “A Community’s Reaction to Noise: Can It

Be Forecast?” Noise Control, 1:63-71, 1955.

Thiessen 1978 Thiessen, G.J. “Disturbance of Sleep by Noise,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America 64, pp. 216-221, July 1978.

von Gierke 1975 von Gierke, Henning. “Noise - How Much Is Too Much?” Noise Control

Engineering Journal 5, pp. 29-34, 1975.

von Gierke 1993 von Gierke, Henning, Eldred, Kenneth. “Effects of Noise on People,” Noise/News

International 1, pp. 67-89, June 1993.

Ward 1989 Ward, D. H., and R. A. Stehn. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft

disturbance at Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center to

the Minerals Management Service, Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage,

Alaska: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989.

Webster 1969 Webster, J.C. “Effects of Noise on Speech Intelligibility,” Proceedings of Conference

on Noise as a Public Health Hazard, pp. 49-73, 1969.

Whitelegg 2000 Whitelegg, J. and Williams, N. The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment.

Chris Evans (Ed.), Liverpool, UK: Transport 2000 and The Ashden Trust, 2000.