Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Wadud (2013) suggests that after adjusting for different noise indices specifications the results of Schipper et al. (1998) would be closer to those of Nelson (2004). The assumptions made by Schipper et al. (1998) on household wealth have also been criticised (Nelson 2004). Earlier studies, Button and Nijkamp (1997) and Johnson and Button (1997) were both based on small samples and inconclusive.

  2. Though Button and Nijkamp (1997) use airport and highway studies in their illustrative analysis and report an airport coefficient, the significance of this coefficient is not given and a simple re-analysis of the data (25 values) reported in their paper suggests the coefficient may be insignificant.

  3. Note that multiple valuations are drawn from a study only where they are distinguished by a factor whose influence we are interested in exploring.

  4. The numbers are in standard text in brackets to distinguish them from footnotes.

  5. This was a large scale study of 6 countries covering multiple modes (Navrud et al. 2006).

  6. Using an inappropriate inter-temporal income elasticity to adjust across years could result in misleading conclusions. Fortunately, our subsequent meta-analysis indicates that such an income elasticity is fully justified.

  7. At 2009 values $1 = 0.72€ or 0.64 UK £.

  8. Albeit with quite different thresholds.

  9. In this case not income adjusted.

  10. Pommerehne finds the opposite for aircraft noise, but again this may be related to the low experienced levels of aircraft noise.

  11. Publication bias occurs where findings that support the conventional wisdom are deemed more acceptable for publication. However, in the case of noise, the conventional wisdom is not as well developed as it is, for example, with respect to the value of travel time savings, which might serve to minimise any incentive to publication bias.

  12. Three of these were very early studies undertaken at a time when the methodology was evolving.

  13. Any variable not explicitly included in the table is at the base level.

References

  • Abrantes, P.A.L., Wardman, M.: Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: an update. Transp. Res. A 45(1), 1–17 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arsenio, E., Bristow, A.L., Wardman, M.: Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transp. Res. D 11(1), 15–31 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158818/0043124.pdf (2001)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, N.F.: Meta-analysis of studies of willingness to pay to reduce traffic noise. MSc Dissertation, University College, London (1997)

  • 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 

  • Bjørner, T.B.: Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transp. Res. D 9(5), 341–356 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Button, K., Nijkamp, P.: environmental policy assessment and the usefulness of meta-analysis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 31(3), 231–240 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Transport: The Noise Sub-objective TAG Unit 3.3.2, Transport Analysis Guidance (2012)

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • EU Working Group on Health and Socio-economic Aspects: Valuation of Noise—Position Paper. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/valuatio_final_12_2003.pdf (2003)

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • Harris, A.H.: Is quiet a luxury good? A survey approach. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 6(3), 177–188 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hökby, S., Söderqvist, T.: Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 26(3), 361–383 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, J.K., McConnell, K.E.: A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44(3), 426–447 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriström, B., Riera, P.: Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environ. Resour. Econ. 7(1), 45–55 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, F.J.: Monetary evaluation of nuisance from road traffic noise: an exploratory study. Environ. Plan. A 10, 1015–1034 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Navrud, S.: The State-of-the-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise. Final Report to European Commission DG Environment (2002)

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • Nelson, J.P.: Highway noise and property values: a survey of recent evidence. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 16(2), 117–138 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J.P.: Airports and property values. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 14(1), 37–52 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmquist, R.B.: Valuing localized externalities. J. Urban Econ. 31(1), 59–68 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Plowden, S.P.C.: The cost of noise, 1970. Metra Consulting Group, London (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., Watson, V.: Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 18, 389–401 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvi, M.: Spatial Estimation of the Impact of Airport Noise on Residential Housing Prices. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1000217 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1000217 (2007)

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soguel, N.: Measuring benefits from traffic noise reduction using a contingent market. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 94-03, University of East Anglia (1994)

  • StataCorp.: Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. StataCorp LP, College Station (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • 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 2001

  • Wadud, Z.: Using meta-regression to determine Noise Depreciation Indices for Asian airports. Asian Geogr. 30(2), 127–141 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, A.A.: Noise and prices. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardman, M.: The value of travel time: a review of british evidence. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 32(3), 285–315 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wardman, M.: Review and meta-analysis of U.K. time elasticities of travel demand. Transportation 39(3), 465–490 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardman, M., Bristow, A.L.: Valuations of aircraft noise: experiments in stated preference. Environ. Resour. Econ. 39(4), 459–480 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Wilhelmsson, M.: Household expenditure patters for housing attributes: a linear expenditure system with hedonic prices. J. Hous. Econ. 11(1), 75–93 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmsson, M.: Impact of traffic noise on the values of single-family houses. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 43(6), 799–815 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank: (2010) World Development Indicators, data. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Transport Studies Group, School of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

    Abigail L. Bristow

  2. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Mark Wardman & V. Phani Kumar Chintakayala

Authors
  1. Abigail L. Bristow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Wardman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Phani Kumar Chintakayala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abigail L. Bristow.

Appendix: Study details

Appendix: Study details

We here provide a list of the studies used in our analysis and also a summary table of the key features of their noise valuations.

In some cases more than one reference was used to obtain data for a single study, where this is the case all references used are cited below. The study code is given in brackets next to each study. The codes range from 1 to 52 as three studies were excluded after coding as part of the checking process leaving 49 used in our analysis.

The summary Table 14 contains for each study the study code, author and year of publication; country and study year, source of study; sample size; noise source; method; number of values and the range of values (mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum).

Table 14 Key study characteristics
Full size table

  • (25) Arsenio, E. Bristow, A.L, Wardman, M., (2006) Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transportation Research D, 11(1), 15–31.

  • (16) Barreiro, J., Sanchez, M., Viladrich-Grau, M. (2005) How much are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study. Applied Economics 37(11), 1233–1246.

  • (46) Baughan C.J and Savill T.A. (1994) Contingent valuation questions for placing money values on traffic nuisance—An exploratory study. Project Report 90 SR37, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK.

  • (14) Bjørner, T.B., Kronbak, J. and Lundhede, T., (2003) Valuation of noise reduction—comparing results from HP and contingent valuation, Denmark: AKF Forlaget.

  • and

  • Bjørner, T.B., (2004), Combining socio-acoustic and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transportation Research D, 9(5), 341–356.

  • (28) Bristow A.L. and Wardman M. (2006) What influences the value of aircraft noise? Paper to the European Transport Conference, 18th–20th September, 2006, Strasbourg.

  • and

  • Bristow A.L and Wardman M. (2006) Valuation of Aircraft Noise by Time of Day: A Comparison of Two Approaches, Transport Reviews. 26(4), 417–433.

  • (45) Caplen J.G.F. (2000) Southampton International Airport: An Environmental Approach. Eco-Management and Auditing 7(1) 43–49

  • (38) Carlsson F., Lampi E. and Martinson P., (2004) The marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: does the time of day matter? Transportation Research D 9(5), 373–385.

  • (29) Caulfield B and O’Mahony M., (2007) Evaluating the economic cost of air and noise pollution generated by transport, Paper to European Transport Conference 17th–19th October 2007, Netherlands.

  • (52) Chalermpong S. and Klaikleung A. (2012) valuing aviation noise by contingent valuation method: case of Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport. Paper to Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.

  • (35) Dave K., Toner J. and Chen H. (2009) Examining the effect of attribute representation on preference uncertainty, International Conference on Choice Modelling, 30th March to 1st April 2009, Harrogate, UK.

  • (18) Duarte C.M. and Cladera J.R. (2008) 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.

  • (34) Eliasson J., Lindqvist Dillén J. and Widell J., (2002) Measuring intrusion valuations through stated preferences and hedonic prices—a comparative study. Paper to the European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, 2002.

  • (11) Faburel G. and Luchini S. (2000) The social cost of aircraft noise: the contingent valuation method applied to Paris-Orly airport. Paper to internoise 2000 the 29th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, 27th to 30th August, 2000, Nice, France.

  • (9) Feitelson E.I., Hurd R.E. and Mudge R.R. (1996) The Impact of Airport Noise on Willingness to Pay for Residences. Transportation Research D 1(1) 1–14.

  • (26) Galilea P. and Ortúzar J. de Dios, (2005) Valuing noise level reductions in a residential location context, Transportation Research D 10(4), 305–322.

  • (36) Hunt J.D., (2001) Stated preference analysis of sensitivities to elements of transportation and urban form. Transportation Research Record 1780, 76–86.

  • (33) Kim J-H, Pagliara F. and Preston J. (2003) An analysis of residential location choice behavior in Oxfordshire, UK: a combined stated preference approach, International Review of Public Administration 8(1) 103–114

  • (19) Kondo A., Fujisawa T., Maeda T., Yamamoto A. and Enoki Y. (2003) Measurement of change of environmental load generated by car traffic on economic value. Conference on Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century. pp 535–545

  • (13) Lambert J., Poisson F. and Champelovier P. (2001) Valuing benefits of a road traffic noise abatement programme: a contingent valuation survey. Paper to the 17th International Congress on Acoustics, 2001, Rome, Italy.

  • (4) Langdon F.J. (1978) Monetary evaluation of nuisance from road traffic noise: an exploratory study. Environment and Planning A 10, 1015–1034.

  • (51) Lera-López F., Faulin J. and Sánchez M. (2012) Determinants of the willingness to pay for reducing the environmental impacts of road transportation. Transportation Research Part D, 17 215–220.

  • (30) Li, H. N., Chau C. K., Tse M.S. and Tang S.K., (2009) Valuing road noise for residents in Hong Kong, Transportation Research D 14(4), 264–271.

  • (17) Martín M.A., Tarrero A., González J. and Machimbarrena M. (2006) Exposure-effect relationships between road traffic noise annoyance and noise cost valuations in Valladolid, Spain. Applied Acoustics 67(10), 945–958.

  • (42) MVA Consultancy (2007) 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.

  • (47) Navrud S. (1997) Luftforurensninger—effecter og verdier (LEVE). Betalingsvillingsvillighet for å unngå helseeffekter, støy og forsuring. (in Norwegian). Report 97:14 National Pollution Control Authority (Statens Forurensningstilsyn), Oslo, Norway. (from secondary source: Navrud 2002).

  • (10) Navrud S. (2000) Economic benefits of a program to reduce transportation and community noise—A contingent valuation survey Paper to internoise 2000 the 29th International Congress and Exhibition on Noise Control Engineering, 27th to 30th August, 2000, Nice, France.

  • (43) Navrud S., Trædal Y., Hunt A., Longo A., Greßmann A., Leon C., Espino R., Markovits-Somogyi R. and Meszaros F. (2006) Economic values for key impacts valued in the stated preference surveys, HEATCO, Deliverable 4.

  • (39) Nunes P.A.L.D. and Travisi C.M., (2007) Rail noise-abatement programmes: a stated choice experiment to evaluate the impacts on welfare, Transport Reviews 27(5), 589–604.

  • (2) Ollerhead J.B. (1973) A pilot survey of some effects of aircraft noise in residential communities near London (Heathrow) airport TT 7302, 1973, Department of Transport Technology, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, UK.

  • (32) Parumog M., Mizokami S. and Kakimoto R., (2006) Value of traffic externalities from attribute based stated choice: route choice experiment, Transportation Research Record 1954, 52–60.

  • (1) Plowden S.P.C. (1970) The Cost of Noise, 1970, Metra Consulting Group, London.

  • (6) Pommerehne, W. W., (1988) 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. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 363–400.

  • (15) Pronello, C., Diana, M., (2003) The external cost due to railway noise in urban context, Tenth International Congress on Sound and Vibration, 7–10 July 2003, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • (5) Rosman P.F. (1978) A Simulation Approach to Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Roads and Traffic. TRRL Laboratory Report 826, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire.

  • (20) Sælinsminde, K., (1999) Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air pollution and noise, Transportation Research D 4(1), 13–27.

  • (23) Scarpa R., Garrod G.D. and Willis K.G. (2001) Valuing Local Public Goods with Advanced Stated Preference Models: Traffic Calming Schemes in Northern England. December 2001, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

  • (49) Sharp C. (1973) Living with the lorry: a study of goods vehicles in the environment. Report for the FTA and the RHA.

  • (8) Soguel N. (1994) Measuring benefits from traffic noise reduction using a contingent market. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 94-03, University of East Anglia.

  • (37) Thanos S., Wardman M. and Bristow A.L. (2011) Valuing aircraft noise: stated choice experiments reflecting intertemporal noise changes from airport relocation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50(4) 559–583.

  • (21) Thune-Larsen H., (1995) Flystøyavgifter basert på betalingsvillighet, TØI report 289/1995. (English language summary report: Charges on Air Traffic Noise by Means of Conjoint Analysis), (1995).

  • (27) Tudela, A. y García, M. P. (2004) Valuing environmental aspects using optimal stated preference experiments. Proceedings 4th International Conference on Transportation and Traffic Studies—ICTTS. Dalian. Agosto.

  • (12) Vainio M. (2001) 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 27th–30th 2001

  • (24) Wardman M. and Bristow A.L (2004) Traffic Related Noise and Air Quality Valuations: Evidence from stated preference residential choice models, Transportation Research D, 9(1) 1–27.

  • (50) Wardman M, Bristow A.L., Tight M., Guehnemann A. and Shires J.D. (2012) Intertemporal variations in the valuation of aircraft noise nuisance, Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, 22nd to 26th January 2012 Washington DC.

  • (40) Walton D., Thomas J.A. and Cenek P.D. (2004) Self and others’ willingness to pay from improvements to the paved road surface. Transportation Research A, 38(7) 483–494

  • (7) Weinberger M., (1992) Gesamtwirtschaftliche Kosten des Lärms in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Zeitschrift für Lärmbekämpfung, 39, 91–99.

  • (48) Wibe S. (1997) Efterfrågan på tyst boende (The demand for quiet dwellings) (in Swedish) Report to Byggforskingsrådet, Stockholm, Sweden. Report (Anslagsrapport) no A4:1997. (from secondary source—Navrud 2002).

  • (22) Willis K.G. and Garrod G.D. (1999) Externalities from extraction of aggregates regulation by tax of land-use controls, Resources Policy 25 77–86.

  • (44) Zhao X., Bristow A.L.., and Zanni A.M. (2010) A study of relationships between quality of life and road traffic noise value in Kunming city, China, paper to INTER-NOISE 2010, the 39th International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, 13th–16th June, Lisbon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bristow, A.L., Wardman, M. & Chintakayala, V.P.K. International meta-analysis of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance. Transportation 42, 71–100 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9527-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9527-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation