, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 71–100 | Cite as

International meta-analysis of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance

  • Abigail L. Bristow
  • Mark Wardman
  • V. Phani Kumar Chintakayala


This paper reports the first meta-analysis and most extensive review of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance. The meta-analysis is based on a newly compiled data set of 258 values from 49 studies and 23 countries and spanning more than 40 years. Contrast this with the most extensive meta-analysis of the more conventional hedonic pricing approach which includes 53 noise valuations. Moreover, the sample compares favourably with the 444 observations from the very first meta-analysis of the value of travel time savings which is by far the most widely examined parameter in transport planning. A particularly significant finding of the study is that the intertemporal income elasticity is close to one, somewhat larger than the cross-sectional income elasticity typically obtained from individual studies. This demonstrates the importance of distinguishing the effects of income variations that occur over time, which tend to drive policy, from variations across individuals at one point in time, and such findings are typical of those observed in other markets. Importantly, the values derived are transferable across countries and may be used to benchmark existing evidence and provide values in contexts where none exist. Other key results are that values for aircraft noise exceed those for other modes, whilst those exposed to higher noise levels and those who are highly annoyed also have higher values in line with expectations. A wide range of design effects were tested but few were significant and these included the consumer surplus measure, the representation of noise and the context.


Meta-analysis Stated preference Transportation noise Noise valuation Noise nuisance 


  1. Abrantes, P.A.L., Wardman, M.: Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: an update. Transp. Res. A 45(1), 1–17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson, H., Jonsson, L., Ögren, M.: Benefit measures for noise abatement: calculations for road and rail traffic noise. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 5(3), 135–148 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, H., Jonsson, L., Ögren, M.: Property prices and exposure to multiple noise sources: hedonic regression with road and railway noise. Environ. Resour. Econ. 45(1), 73–89 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arsenio, E., Bristow, A.L., Wardman, M.: Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transp. Res. D 11(1), 15–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreiro, J., Sanchez, M., Viladrich-Grau, M.: How much are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study. Appl. Econ. 37(11), 1233–1246 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baranzini, A., Ramirez, J., Schaerer, C., Thalman, P. (eds.): Hedonic Methods in Housing Markets—Pricing Environmental Amenities and Segregation. Springer, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  7. Bateman I., Day B., Lake I., Lovett A.: The effect of road traffic on residential property values: a literature review and hedonic pricing study. Rep. Scott. Exec. (2001)
  8. Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Munro, A., Starmer, C., Sugden, R.: Estimating four Hicksian welfare measures for a public good: a contingent valuation investigation. Land Econ. 76(3), 355–373 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertrand, N.F.: Meta-analysis of studies of willingness to pay to reduce traffic noise. MSc Dissertation, University College, London (1997)Google Scholar
  10. Bjørner, T.B., Kronbak, J., Lundhede, T.: Valuation of Noise Reduction—Comparing Results from Hedonic Pricing and Contingent Valuation. AKF Forlaget, Denmark (2003)Google Scholar
  11. Bjørner, T.B.: Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transp. Res. D 9(5), 341–356 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bristow, A.L.: Valuing noise nuisance, paper to INTER-NOISE 2010, the 39th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, 13–16 June, Lisbon (2010)Google Scholar
  13. Bristow, A.L., Wardman, M.: Valuation of aircraft noise by time of day: a comparison of two approaches. Transp. Rev. 26(4), 417–433 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bristow, A.L., Arsenio, E., Wardman, M.: Influences on the value of noise from transport. Presented at Euronoise 2009, the 8th European Conference on Noise Control, 26–28 October 2009, Edinburgh (2009)Google Scholar
  15. Button, K., Nijkamp, P.: environmental policy assessment and the usefulness of meta-analysis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 31(3), 231–240 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G., Schulze, W.D.: Alternative non-market value elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44, 391–425 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlsson, F., Lampi, E., Martinson, P.: The marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: does the time of day matter? Transp. Res. D 9(5), 373–385 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M., Wright, J.L.: Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ. 72(1), 80–99 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Day, B., Bateman, I., Lake, I.: Beyond implicit prices; recovering theoretically consistent and transferable values for noise avoidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37(1), 211–232 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Borger, B., Fosgerau, M.: The trade-off between money and travel time: a test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. J. Urban Econ. 64(1), 101–115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dekkers, J.E.C., van der Straaten, J.W.: Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: a hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport. Ecol. Econ. 68(11), 2850–2858 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Department for Transport: The Noise Sub-objective TAG Unit 3.3.2, Transport Analysis Guidance (2012)Google Scholar
  23. Duarte, C.M., Cladera, J.R.: The noise impact on residential environments in contemporary metropolises: the case of Barcelona. A:XII Conference of the Institute of Urban Design “The Heart of the City” Krakow (2008)Google Scholar
  24. Eliasson, J., Lindqvist Dillén, J., Widell, J.: Measuring intrusion valuations through stated preferences and hedonic prices—a comparative study. Paper to the European Transport Conference, Strasbourg (2002)Google Scholar
  25. EU Working Group on Health and Socio-economic Aspects: Valuation of Noise—Position Paper. (2003)
  26. Garrod, G.D., Scarpa, R., Willis, K.G.: Estimating the benefits of traffic calming on through routes: a choice experiment approach. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 36(2), 211–231 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., Öhrström, E., Ögren, M., Jerson, T.: Comparative studies on railway and road traffic annoyances and the importance of number of trains, paper to ICBEN2011 the 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, 24–28 July 2011 Imperial College London, pp. 686–694, CDROM (2011)Google Scholar
  28. Hanemann, W.M.: Theory versus data in the contingent valuation debate. In: Bjornstad, D.J., Kahn, J.R. (eds.) The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1996)Google Scholar
  29. Harris, A.H.: Is quiet a luxury good? A survey approach. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 6(3), 177–188 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hökby, S., Söderqvist, T.: Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 26(3), 361–383 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horowitz, J.K., McConnell, K.E.: A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(3), 426–447 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobsen, J.B., Hanley, N.: Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environ. Resour. Econ. 43(2), 137–160 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, K., Button, K.: Benefit transfers: are they a satisfactory input to benefit cost analysis? An airport noise nuisance study. Transp. Res. D 2(4), 223–231 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kriström, B., Riera, P.: Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environ. Resour. Econ. 7(1), 45–55 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langdon, F.J.: Monetary evaluation of nuisance from road traffic noise: an exploratory study. Environ. Plan. A 10, 1015–1034 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McMillan, M.L.: Estimates of households’ preferences for environmental quality and other housing characteristics from a system of demand equations. Scand. J. Econ. 81(2), 174–187 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miedema, H.M.E., Oudshoorn, C.G.M.: Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with noise exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environ. Health Perspect. 109(4), 409–416 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MVA Consultancy: Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England ANASE Final Report for Department for Transport. In association with John Bates Services, Ian Flindell and RPS. October 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  39. Navrud, S.: The State-of-the-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise. Final Report to European Commission DG Environment (2002)Google Scholar
  40. Navrud, S., Trædal, Y., Hunt, A., Longo, A., Greßmann, A., Leon, C., Espino, R., Markovits-Somogyi, R., Meszaros, F.: Economic values for key impacts valued in the stated preference surveys, HEATCO, Deliverable 4 (2006)Google Scholar
  41. Nelson, J.P.: Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: problems and prospects. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 38(1), 1–28 (2004)Google Scholar
  42. Nelson, J.P.: Highway noise and property values: a survey of recent evidence. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 16(2), 117–138 (1982)Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, J.P.: Airports and property values. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 14(1), 37–52 (1980)Google Scholar
  44. Nunes, P.A.L.D., Travisi, C.M.: Rail noise-abatement programmes: a stated choice experiment to evaluate the impacts on welfare. Transp. Rev. 27(5), 589–604 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmquist, R.B.: Valuing localized externalities. J. Urban Econ. 31(1), 59–68 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pearce, D.W.: The social incidence of environmental costs and benefits. In: O’Riordan, T., Turner, R.K. (eds.) Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, pp. 63–88. Wiley, Chichester (1980)Google Scholar
  47. Plowden, S.P.C.: The cost of noise, 1970. Metra Consulting Group, London (1970)Google Scholar
  48. Plowden, S.P.C., Sinnott, P.R.J.: Evaluation of noise nuisance: a study of willingness to receive payment for noise introduced into the home. TRRL, Supplementary Report 261, 1977, Transport and Road Research laboratory, Crowthorne, UK (1977)Google Scholar
  49. Pommerehne, W.W.: Measuring environmental benefits: a comparison of hedonic technique and contingent valuation. In: Bos, D., Rose, D.M., Seidl, C. (eds.) Welfare and Efficiency in Public Economics, pp. 363–400. Springer, Berlin (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan, M., Watson, V.: Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 18, 389–401 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salvi, M.: Spatial Estimation of the Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Housing Prices. Available at SSRN: or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1000217 (2007)
  52. Samel, A., Basner, M., Maass, H., Muller, U., Plath, G., Quehl, J., Wenzel, J.: Effects of Nocturnal Aircraft Noise—Overview of the DLR Human Specific Investigations. Paper to the 33rd International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, inter-noise 2004, August 22–25, Prague, Czech Republic (2004)Google Scholar
  53. Schipper, Y., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P.: Why do aircraft noise value estimates differ? A meta-analysis. J. Air Transp. Manag. 4(2), 117–124 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soguel, N.: Measuring benefits from traffic noise reduction using a contingent market. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 94-03, University of East Anglia (1994)Google Scholar
  55. StataCorp.: Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. StataCorp LP, College Station (2011)Google Scholar
  56. Thanos, S., Wardman, M., Bristow, A.L.: Valuing aircraft noise: stated choice experiments reflecting intertemporal noise changes from airport relocation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 50(4), 559–583 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thanos, S., Bristow, A.L., Wardman, M.: Residential sorting and environmental externalities: the case of non-linearities and stigma in aviation noise values. J. Reg. Sci (under review)Google Scholar
  58. Thune-Larsen, H.: Flystøyavgifter basert på betalingsvillighet, TØI report 289/1995. (English language summary report: Charges on Air Traffic Noise by Means of Conjoint Analysis) (1995)Google Scholar
  59. Vainio, M.: Comparison of hedonic price and contingent valuation methods in urban traffic context. Proceedings Inter-Noise 2001, International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, The Hague, The Netherlands, August 27–30 2001Google Scholar
  60. Wadud, Z.: Using meta-regression to determine Noise Depreciation Indices for Asian airports. Asian Geogr. 30(2), 127–141 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walters, A.A.: Noise and prices. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1975)Google Scholar
  62. Wardman, M.: The value of travel time: a review of british evidence. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 32(3), 285–315 (1998)Google Scholar
  63. Wardman, M.: Review and meta-analysis of U.K. time elasticities of travel demand. Transportation 39(3), 465–490 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wardman, M., Bristow, A.L.: Traffic related noise and air quality valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice models. Transp. Res. D 9(1), 1–27 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wardman, M., Bristow, A.L.: Valuations of aircraft noise: experiments in stated preference. Environ. Resour. Econ. 39(4), 459–480 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wardman, M., Bristow, A.L., Tight M., Guehnemann, A., Shires J.D.: Intertemporal variations in the valuation of aircraft noise nuisance. Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, 22–26 January 2012 Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  67. Wilhelmsson, M.: Household expenditure patters for housing attributes: a linear expenditure system with hedonic prices. J. Hous. Econ. 11(1), 75–93 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilhelmsson, M.: Impact of traffic noise on the values of single-family houses. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 43(6), 799–815 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. World Bank: (2010) World Development Indicators, data.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abigail L. Bristow
    • 1
  • Mark Wardman
    • 2
  • V. Phani Kumar Chintakayala
    • 2
  1. 1.Transport Studies Group, School of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  2. 2.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations