Traffic noise in LCA

Part 2: Analysis of existing methods and proposition of a new framework for consistent, context-sensitive LCI modeling of road transport noise emission
  • Hans-Jörg Althaus
  • Peter de Haan
  • Roland W. Scholz
METHODOLOGY • NOISE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

An inclusion of traffic noise effects could change considerably the overall results of many life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. However, at present, noise effects are usually not considered in LCA studies, mainly because the existing methods for their inclusion do not fulfill the requirement profile. Two methods proposed so far seem suitable for inclusion in generic life cycle inventory (LCI) databases, and a third allows for inter-modal comparison. The aim of this investigation is an in-depth analysis of the existing methods and the proposition of a framework for modeling road transport noise emissions in LCI in accordance to the requirement profile postulated in part 1.

Materials and methods

This paper analyzes three methods for inclusion of traffic noise in LCA (Danish LCA guide method, Swiss EPA method, and Swiss FEDRO method) in detail. The additional basis for the analysis are the Swiss road traffic emission model “SonRoad,” traffic volume measurements at 444 sites in the Swiss road network, vehicle-type-specific noise measurements in free floating traffic situations in Germany, and noise emission measurements from different tires.

Results

The Danish LCA guide method includes a major flaw that cannot be corrected within the methodological concept. It applies a dose–response function valid for average noise levels of a traffic situation to maximum noise levels of single vehicles. The Swiss FEDRO method is based on an inappropriate assumption since it bases distinctions of specific vehicles on data that do not allow for such a distinction. Noise emissions cannot be distinguished by the make and type of a vehicle since other factors, especially the tires, are dominant for noise emissions. Several problems are also identified in the Swiss EPA method, but they are not of a fundamental nature. Thus, we are able to base a new framework for vehicle and context-sensitive inclusion of road traffic noise emissions in LCI on the Swiss EPA method. We show how specific vehicle classes can be distinguished, how the influence of different tires can be dealt with, and what temporal and spatial aspects of traffic need to be distinguished.

Discussion

While the Danish LCA guide method and the Swiss FEDRO method are not suitable for our purpose, the Swiss EPA method can be used as a basis to better meet the requirement profile identified in Part 1 of this paper. The proposed method for consistent, context-sensitive modeling of noise emissions from road transports in LCI meets all the requirements except that it is restricted to road transport.

Conclusions

We show limitations of the existing methods and approaches for improving them. Our proposed model allows for a more specific consideration of the various vehicles and contexts in terms of space and time and thus in terms of speed and traffic volume. This can be used on one hand for a consistent, context sensitive assessment of different vehicles in different traffic situations. On the other hand, it also allows for an inclusion of noise in LCA of transports on which only very little is known. This new LCI model meets five of the six requirements postulated in Part 1.

Recommendations and perspectives

In a next step, additional noise emissions due to additional traffic needs to be calculated based on the proposed framework and national or regional traffic models. Furthermore, the consideration of noise from different traffic modes should be addressed. The approach presented needs to be extended in order to make it also applicable for rail and air traffic noise, and the methods need to be implemented in LCI databases to make them easily available to practitioners. Furthermore, suitable impact assessment methods need to be identified or developed. They could base on the proposals made in the Swiss EPA and in the Swiss FEDRO methods.

Keywords

Additional noise emission LCA LCI Traffic noise Transport 

Supplementary material

11367_2009_117_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (100 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 100 kb)
11367_2009_117_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (5 mb)
ESM 2(PDF 5127 kb)

References

  1. Althaus H-J, De Haan P, Scholz RW (2009) A methodological framework for consistent context-sensitive integration of noise effects from road transports in LCA. Part 1: Requirement profile and state-of-science. Int J Life Cycle Assess, doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0116-2
  2. ASTRA, BfS (2001) Schweizerische Strassenverkehrszählung 2000, Bundesamt für Strassen (ASTRA), NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTRA, BfS (2006a) Schweizerische Strasenverkehrszählung 2005, Bundesamt für Strassen (ASTRA), NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTRA, BfS (2006b) Schweizerische Strasenverkehrszählung 2005–Datenbank. Bundesamt für Statistik (BfS), NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTRA (2008) Etwicklungsindizes des Schweizerischen Strassenverkehrs. Fortschreibung 1995–2007. Bundesamt für Strassen (ASTRA), BernGoogle Scholar
  6. BfS (2008) Streckennetz nach Verkehrsträgern. Bundesamt für Statistik (BfS), NeuchatelGoogle Scholar
  7. Brand G, Scheidegger A, Schwank O, Braunschweig A (1998) Bewertung in Ökobilanzen mit der Methode der ökologischen Knappheit-Ökofaktoren 1997. SRU 297, Swiss Agency for Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), BernGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark C, Martin R, van Kempen E, Alfred T, Head J, Davies HW, Haines MM, Barrio IL, Matheson M, Stansfeld SA (2006) Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension—The RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol 163:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doka G (2003) Ergänzung der Gewichtungsmethode für Ökobilanzen Umweltbelastungspunkte’ 97 zu Mobilitäts-UBP’ 97. Doka Ökobilanzen, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  10. Griefahn B, Marks A, Robens S (2006) Noise emitted from road, rail and air traffic and their effects on sleep. J Sound Vib 295:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleesewijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Brujin H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ, Lindeijer EW, Roorda AAH, van der Ven BL, Weidema BP (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO Standards. Final Report, May 2001, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centrum voor Milieukunde (CML), Rijksuniversiteit, Den Haag and LeidenGoogle Scholar
  12. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products, guide and background. Centre for Milieukunde (CML), LeidenGoogle Scholar
  13. Heutschi K (2004a) SonRoad: New Swiss Road Traffic Noise Model. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 90:548–554Google Scholar
  14. Heutschi K (2004b) SonRoad—Berechnungsmodell für Strassenlärm. Environmental Series No. 366, Swiss Agency for Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), BernGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyder AA, Ghaffar AA, Sugerman DE, Masood TI, Ali L (2006) Health and road transport in Pakistan. Public Health 120:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lam K-C, Chan P-K, Chan T-C, Au W-H, Hui W-C (2009) Annoyance response to mixed transportation noise in Hong Kong. Appl Acoust 70:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miedema HME (2004) Relationship between exposure to multiple noise sources and noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 116:949–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miedema HME, Vos H (1998) Exposure response functions for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 104:3432–3445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miedema HME, Oudshoorn CGM (2001) Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environ Health Perspect 109:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller-Wenk R (2002) Attribution to road traffic of the impact of noise on health. Environmental Series No. 339, Swiss Agency for Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), BernGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller-Wenk R (2004) A method to include in lca road traffic noise and its health effects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen PH, Laursen JE (2005) Integration of external noise nuisance from road and rail transportation in lifecycle assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohrstrom E, Skanberg A (2004a) Sleep disturbances from road traffic and ventilation noise-laboratory and field experiments. J Sound Vib 271:279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohrstrom E, Skanberg A (2004b) Longitudinal surveys on effects of road traffic noise: substudy on sleep assessed by wrist actigraphs and sleep logs. J Sound Vib 272:1097–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Öhrström E, Skånberg A, Svensson H, Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A (2006) Effects of road traffic noise and the benefit of access to quietness. J Sound Vib 295:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peris SJ, Pescador M (2004) Effects of traffic noise on paserine populations in Mediterranean wooded pastures. Appl Acoust 65:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Persson Waye K (2004) Effects of low frequency noise on sleep. Noise Health 6:87–91Google Scholar
  28. Potting J, Hauschild M (eds) (2003) Danisch LCA Guide (final draft). Danish Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  29. Raschke F (2004) Arousals and aircraft noise—environmental disorders of sleep and health in terms of sleep medicine. Noise Health 6:15–26Google Scholar
  30. Reithmaier W, Salzinger T (2003) Survey on motor vehicle tyres and related aspects. TÜV Automotive, MunichGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandrock S, Griefahn B, Kaczmarek T, Hafke H, Preis A, Gjestland T (2008) Experimental studies on annoyance caused by noises from trams and buses. J Sound Vib 313:908–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Skånberg A, Öhrström E (2006) Sleep disturbances from road traffic noise: a comparison between laboratory and field settings. J Sound Vib 290:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spreng M (2004) Noise induced nocturnal cortisol secretion and tolerable overhead flights. Noise Health 6:35–47Google Scholar
  34. Stassen KR, Collier P, Torfs R (2008) Environmental burden of disease due to transportation noise in Flanders (Belgium). Transp Res Part D Transp Environ13:355–358 Google Scholar
  35. Steven H (2005) Ermittlung der Geräuschemission von Kfz im Straßenverkehr. TÜV Nord, WürselenGoogle Scholar
  36. Wirth K (2004) Lärmstudie 2000 Die Belästigungssituation im Umfeld des Flughafens Zürich. PhD Thesis, Universität Zürich, ZürichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Jörg Althaus
    • 1
    • 2
    • 1
  • Peter de Haan
    • 2
  • Roland W. Scholz
    • 2
  1. 1.Technology and Society LaboratorySwiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (Empa)DuebendorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Natural and Social Science Interface, Institute for Environmental DecisionsETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations