Economic value of traffic noise reduction depending on residents’ annoyance level

  • Kyungah Kim
  • Jungwoo ShinEmail author
  • Myoungjin Oh
  • Jung-Kyu Jung
Research Article


Noise is the most frequently encountered type of environmental pollution in everyday life and has a direct negative effect on humans. Individuals who are constantly exposed to noise tend to have a high incidence of cardiovascular disease and hypertension. Noise sources range from construction sites to political rallies and assemblies, but traffic is one of the most long-lasting and chronic sources of noise. Previously, researchers have conducted valuations of road traffic noise reduction, but they did not consider residents’ annoyance levels in response to traffic noise. However, individuals’ annoyance levels affect the economic value of noise reduction policies and thus must be considered to obtain an accurate estimate. Therefore, this study investigated residents’ willingness to pay for traffic noise reduction depending on their annoyance level. We used the contingent valuation method and a survey to analyze how much 1022 respondents in Korea were willing to pay for noise reduction. We found that people who were annoyed and extremely annoyed by noise had a willingness to pay KRW 8422 (US $7.55) and KRW 9848 (US $8.83) annually per household, respectively, to reduce their annoyance level to zero. In addition, we determined the economic benefits of noise reduction policies using the respondents’ willingness to pay to reduce noise by 1 dB(A), which totaled KRW 3.28 billion (US $2.91 million) per year. The results of this study provide estimates of the annual benefits of traffic noise reduction considering residents’ annoyance level.


Annoyance level Contingent valuation method Economic value Traffic noise 



This work was supported by the Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP) (20170666) and Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute(KEITI) through Climate Change R&D program (funded by Korea Ministry of Environment, 2018001310001).


  1. Ali S (2010) Industrial noise levels and annoyance in Egypt. Appl Acoust 72(4):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission (2011) Establishment of preventive measures against noise pollution in road traffic. Accessed 14 Oct 2018 (in Korean)
  3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney R, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4601–4614Google Scholar
  4. Arsenio E, Bristow L, Wardman M (2006) Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transport Res D-Tr E 11(1):15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babisch W (2006) Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk: updated review and synthesis of epidemiological studies indicate that the evidence has increased. Noise Health 8(30):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Lake I (2004) The valuation of transport-related noise in Birmingham. Non-technical report to the Department for. Transport:1–209Google Scholar
  7. Bjørner T, Kronbak J, Lundhede T (2004) Valuation of noise reduction: comparing results from hedonic pricing and contingent valuation. AKF Forlaget 51:1–152Google Scholar
  8. Boyle K, Bishop R (1988) Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. Am J Agric Econ 70:20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlos M (2008) Willingness to pay for noise reduction in residential areas affected by airport traffic: the case of Barcelona. The 15th Annual Congress of the European Real Estate Society, Cracòvia: el congrés, 2008. Sense paginar.
  10. Chalermpong S, Klaiklueng A (2012) Valuing aviation noise with the contingent valuation method: case of Suvarnabhumi Airport, Bangkok, Thailand. Transp Res Record: J Trans Res B 2300:42–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheramakara N, Bristow A, Budd L, Zanni A (2014) Stated choice valuation of aircraft noise and other environmental externalities at Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport. Inter-noise and Noise-Con Congress and Conference Proceedings 249(5):2381–2388Google Scholar
  12. European Commission (2002) Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. European Communities, Luxemburgo pp 1-40.Google Scholar
  13. European Environment Agency (2010) Good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health effects. EEA Technical Report 11:1–36Google Scholar
  14. European Environment Agency (2017) Noise exposure information reported under the END directive (2002/49/EC). Accessed 14 Oct 2018
  15. Giovanis E, Ozdamar O (2018) Health status, mental health and air quality: evidence from pensioners in Europe. Environ Sci Pollut R 25(14):14206–14225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gopinath B, Thiagalingam A, Teber E, Mitchell P (2011) Exposure to workplace noise and the risk of cardiovascular disease events and mortality among older adults. Prev Med 53(6):390–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grue B, Langeland L, Larsen OI (1997) Housing prices: impacts of exposure to road traffic and location. Institute of Transport Economics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanemann M (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66(3):332–341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herriges J, Shogren J (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30(1):112–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoevenagel R (1994) The contingent valuation method: scope and validity. Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  21. Huh SY, Shin J (2018) Economic valuation of noise pollution control policy: does the type of noise matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(30):30647–30658. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Institute of Noise Control Engineering (2009) Survey of legislation, regulations, and guidelines for control of community noise. I-INCE 9(1):1–46Google Scholar
  23. Janssen S, Vos H, Eisses A, Pedersen E (2011) A comparison between exposure-response relationships for wind turbine annoyance and annoyance due to other noise sources. J Acoust Soc Am 130(6):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim K, Kim K (2009) Seoul ranks highest in population density among OECD countries. Accessed 14 Oct 2018.Google Scholar
  25. Kim D, Chang S, Lee K, Lee Y (2006) A study on the conversion of annoyance using the noise standard in Korea. T Korean Soc Noise Vibration Eng 5:641–645Google Scholar
  26. Klæboe R, Amundsen AH, Fyhri A, Solberg S (2004) Road traffic noise–the relationship between noise exposure and noise annoyance in Norway. Appl Acoust 65(9):893–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korea Development Institute (KDI) (2002) Preliminary feasibility study for transportation sector estimation of environmental cost. Korea Development Institute, Sejong, Korea, 1–301. Accessed 14 Oct 2018 (in Korean)
  28. Korea Environment Corporation (2016) Environmental noise, railway noise and road vibration monitoring results of the first half of 2016. Accessed 11 Jan 2019 (in Korean)
  29. Kuhfuss L, Preget R, Thoyer S, Hanley N (2016) Nudging farmers to enroll land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus. Eur Rev Agric Econ 43(4):609–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee C, Park S (2016) Road traffic noise reduction benefits of the noise barrier installation: contingent valuation method. Financ Policy Bull 18(2):3–31Google Scholar
  31. Lee S, Lim C, Kim J, Hong J (2005) Community annoyance from transportation noise in Korea. T Korean Soc Noise Vibration Eng 1:33–42Google Scholar
  32. Lim Y, Son U (2001) Estimation of the value of road traffic noise within apartment housing prices. J Korean Soc Trans 19(4):19–33Google Scholar
  33. McLeod D, Bergland O (1999) Willingness-to-pay estimates using the double-bounded dichotomous-choice contingent valuation format: a test for validity and precision in a Bayesian framework. Land Econ 75(1):115–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michaud D, Bly S, Keith S (2008) Using a change in percent highly annoyed with noise as a potential health effect measure for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Can Acoust 36(2):13–28Google Scholar
  35. Miedema H (2007) Annoyance caused by environmental noise: elements for evidence-based noise policies. J Soc Issues 63(1):41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miedema HM, Oudshoorn CG (2001) Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environ Health Perspect 109(4):409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry of Environment (2017) Noise and vibration management measures performance evaluation in 2016. Ministry of Environment. Accessed 14 Oct 2018 (in Korean)
  38. Moncayo LB, Naranjo JL, García IP, Mosquera R (2017) Neural based contingent valuation of road traffic noise. Transport Res D-Tr E 50:26–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimizing payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16:407–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Institute of Environmental (2013) Exposed to noise levels of road traffic in 15 cities in Seoul and higher than Europe. Accessed 14 Oct 2018
  41. National Noise Information System (2018) Noise Vibration Standard Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  42. Nelson P (2004) Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: problems and prospects. J Transp Econ Policy 38:1–27Google Scholar
  43. Ögren M, Gunnarsson A, Smith M, Gustavsson S, Persson K (2017) Comparison of annoyance from railway noise and railway vibration. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(7):805. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oh M, Shin K, Kim K, Shin J (2019) Influence of noise exposure on cardiocerebrovascular disease in Korea. Sci Total Environ 651:1867–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Park Y, Kim K (2014) A study on the health effects of apartment noise. KEI Working Paper 2:1–42Google Scholar
  46. Ragettli M, Goudreau S, Plante C, Perron S, Fournier M, Smargiassi A (2015) Annoyance from road traffic, trains, airplanes and from total environmental noise levels. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(1).
  47. Rich J, Nielsen OA (2004) Assessment of traffic noise impacts. Int J Environ Stud 61(1):19–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Różański S, Jaworska H, Matuszczak K, Nowak J, Hardy A (2017) Impact of highway traffic and the acoustic screen on the content and spatial distribution of heavy metals in soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(14):12778–12786. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sabine A, Henk V (2011) Dose-response relationship between DNL and aircraft noise annoyance: contribution of TNO. VOLPE National Transportation Systems Centre, US, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  50. Schultz T (1978) Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 64(2):377–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seoul Department of Road Management (2010) Feasibility study for expansion of low noise drainage pavement. Seoul Metropolitan Government. Accessed 14 Oct 2018 (in Korean)
  52. Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Barrio I, Fischer P, Öhrström E, Haines MM, Head J, Hygge S, Kamp I, Berry B (2005) Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet 365(9475):1942–1949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valtteri H, David O (2017) Noise annoyance caused by large wind turbines: a dose-response relationship. 12th ICBEN Congress, Zurich, pp 1–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, College of EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Management Systems EngineeringKyung Hee UniversityYonginSouth Korea
  3. 3.Office of R&D Budget and Feasibility AnalysisKorea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP)SeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations