Noise, Health and Money

The price of noise

2008

MSR Theme report

June 2008
By: The theme group Noise MSR2008
2
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
 Table of contents

Summary 5 Appendices
1. Appendix: Data Processing 43

1 Introduction 7 2. Appendix: Questionnaires Surveys 45

2 Legal framework 9 3. Appendix: Annoyance Caused by Noise Method 47

2.1 Legislation and regulations 9
2.2 Future developments 10 4. Appendix: Sleep Disturbance Method 49

3 Noise and health 11 5. Appendix: High Blood Pressure and Heart Attacks 51
3.1 General 11
3.2 Annoyance 11 6. Appendix: Disability Adjusted Life Years: DALYs 53
3.3 Sleep disturbance 12
3.4 Cardiovascular disease 13
3.5 Disability Adjusted Life Years: DALYs 13
3.6 Childhood learning performance 14
3.7 Quietness and health 14

4 Results of noise and health 15

4.1 Noise levels in Rijnmond 15
4.2 Noise levels in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht 15
4.3 Annoyance caused by noise in Rijnmond 16
4.4 Annoyance caused by noise in Rotterdam, 18
Amsterdam and Utrecht
4.5 Sleep disturbance in Rijnmond 18
4.6 Sleep disturbance in Rotterdam and Utrecht 19
4.7 Cardiovascular disease in Rijnmond 20
4.8 Disability Adjusted Life Years : DALYs in Rijnmond 20
4.9 Disability Adjusted Life Years : DALYs in Rotterdam, 21
Amsterdam and Utrecht

5 Discussion regarding noise and health 23

6 Economy 25
6.1 General 25
6.2 Method 25
6.3 Results of the economic effects 25

7 Framework of measures 29
7.1 European Union 29
7.2 Central Government 29
7.3 Province 31
7.4 Municipalities 33
7.5 District water boards 35

8 Recommendations 37

9 Literature list 39

10 Glossary 41
Table of contents

3
4
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
 Summary
Noise is an important subject in the Netherlands and certainly also in Rijnmond. On the one hand there is the large number of
people who are annoyed by noise and on the other there are new statutory obligations, and because the legislation is continually
changing, noise will be a subject that will be of increasing importance in the coming years. The Central Government, the provinces
and some municipalities must address noise. The Province of Zuid-Holland and ten out of sixteen Rijnmond municipalities had
to supply noise maps to the Central Government by 30 June 2007. Moreover, these municipalities and the Province must submit
actions plans by 18 July 2008 at the latest. In these action plans, municipalities must indicate how they are going to tackle
problem areas and how they will protect their quiet areas. The ten Rijnmond municipalities concerned are Albrandswaard,
Barendrecht, Capelle aan den IJssel, Maassluis, Ridderkerk, Rotterdam, Rozenburg, Schiedam, Spijkenisse and Vlaardingen.

Rijnmond has information available regarding the noise levels
generated by road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and industry. Other
matters, such as noise pollution resulting from events and noise
produced by neighbours are not included in this study. Road
traffic noise makes the greatest contribution to noise levels,
followed by industrial noise, then rail noise and aircraft noise.
When compared to national figures, the noise levels in Rijnmond
are higher. In Rijnmond, the percentage of inhabitants exposed
to more than 60 dB as a result of road traffic is considerably
higher, being 19% when compared to 8% in the Netherlands as a
whole. The noise pollution surveys carried out by the Province of
Zuid-Holland show that 12% of the people questioned experience
road traffic noise as being very annoying. This is followed by the
annoyance caused by aircraft (4%) and industry (3%). This survey
investigated the health effects of exposure to industrial, road, rail
and aircraft noise in the Rijnmond area. Moreover, a comparison
of these effects has been made for the cities of Rotterdam,
Utrecht and Amsterdam.
Increased noise levels lead not only to annoyance, but can also
lead to a wide range of health effects, such as sleep disturbance
and cardiovascular disease. Almost 8% of the population of
Rijnmond experience a degree of sleep disturbance. More
than 3% even suffer from severe sleep disturbance. This
disturbance results in a feeling of tiredness, sleepiness, a drop in
performance, an increase in irritation and disrupts the recovery
function of sleep. Due to the ongoing scientific discussion, it is
not possible to present exact figures for cardiovascular disease.
However, it can be stated that thousands of people suffer from
raised blood pressure due to exposure to road traffic noise. High
blood pressure can lead to more serious effects such as a stroke
or a heart attack, and even death. For Rijnmond this would mean
some tens of people annually. The consequences for health of
exposure to noise are comparable between the cities. However,
city dwellers experience more health effects related to noise than
the average person in the Netherlands.
The effects of (severe) annoyance, (severe) sleep disturbance
and cardiovascular disease have been calculated for this survey.
Annoyance and sleep disturbance have been calculated using a
generally accepted method. However, it is also generally accepted
that this method underestimates the actual number of people
who experience annoyance and /or sleep disturbance. This
means that the calculated percentages/ numbers in this survey
must be considered to be minimum figures. With respect to the
exact correlation between exposure to noise and cardiovascular
chance of a heart attack. Knowledge in the area of noise and
health is still developing and it is expected that in the future a
generally accepted calculation method will become available to
establish this relationship. For the time being, the data related to
cardiovascular disease are presented with a degree of caution.
Based on the noise maps, it is possible to calculate the number
of DALYs resulting from severe annoyance and severe sleep
disturbance. A DALY is a unit representing the number of healthy
years of life a population group looses due to disease. By using
this unit, it is possible to make a comparison with other diseases
and cities. Every year in Rijnmond, approximately 2,630 life
years (260 per 100.000 inhabitants) are lost as a result of
severe annoyance and sleep disturbance due to road traffic, rail
traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. As a comparison: for all of
the Netherlands this is approximately 170 DALYs per 100,000
inhabitants. Of these sources, in Rijnmond road traffic with
1,880 DALYs is by far the most important. However, the DALYs
mentioned resulting from the annoyance caused by noise are the
result of using a conservative calculation method, and in reality
they could be higher. The reason for this is that the calculation
method uses exposure-response relationships and not the data
from surveys into annoyance. For the Netherlands, it is estimated
that 4% of the people are severely annoyed by road traffic noise,
while the surveys using questionnaires show that approximately
25% experience severe annoyance.
It should be clear that, in addition to human distress, this also
represents an enormous loss due to visits to the doctor, hospital
admissions and the like. An amount of € 78,500 can be assumed
for every lost year of life. For the given figures of 2,630 DALYs,
this means a loss to society of more than € 200 million.
The economic effects of noise levels on dwellings are determined
using the calculation of the reduction in value of the dwelling due
to the high noise levels. The idea behind this is that house prices
can be used to derive a price tag for the reduction in the enjoyment
of property. The Environmental and Nature Planning Office (MNP)
has carried out a study into this aspect and used foreign studies
and a recent Dutch survey. For a noise level of less than 45 dB,
no depreciation is assumed, and as the noise levels increase, the
(percentage) depreciation increases accordingly. Using the results
of the MNP study, an estimate has been made of the influence of
noise on the house prices in Rijnmond. To be able to do this,
several assumptions have been made and restrictions introduced.
The resulting depreciation due to road traffic is estimated to be
Summary

disease, there is still considerable discussion. However, it is clear approximately 1.5 billion euros. This means on average € 2,900
that noise has an influence on high blood pressure and on the per dwelling. The loss in value for dwellings that are exposed to

5
 high noise levels will of course be higher than for houses situated
in a quiet residential neighbourhood. The method employed is still
reasonably rough and therefore, together with the Tilburg
University, work is being done on refining the calculation method.
For this survey, use is made of the Hedonic Pricing Method. Here
it is assumed that the market value of houses is determined by a
wide variety of quality aspects, such as noise quality, the
‘greenness’ of the neighbourhood and criminality. Using very
extensive statistical processes, it is possible to derive the value of
separate influencing factors, including therefore noise, from the
price of dwellings.
Thus, the annoyance caused by noise has an effect on health
and on the value of the neighbourhood. Therefore enough reason
to address noise pollution. When searching for opportunities to
reduce noise, everyone should bear their own responsibility. Here
you can see a certain layering: some measures must be taken
at the European level, others at the local level. For an important
part, the measures must be worked out and executed via the
action plans. The action plans should be updated every five
years to allow a response to be made to social developments.
A wide variety of measures can be considered such as reducing
traffic levels, lowering the maximum speed limit, limitations on
accessibility for certain types of vehicle and the reservation of
building-free zones alongside roads and industrial estates. In
addition, the noise aspects of the municipality’s own fleet of
vehicles and that of its suppliers can be evaluated.
Via the implementation of the action plans, the coming years
will see a lot of work being done to make Rijnmond quieter.
It is possible that this report can still play a role in detailing or
implementing the plans. If this is too late for this year’s action
plan, in 2013, the authorities must draw up a new action plan. In
this report we recommend that the possibilities available at the
supralocal level should also be used. It is for instance possible to
jointly request action from Brussels for the more rapid (obligatory)
replacement of the existing tyres by quieter tyres, or requirements
related to the noise produced by cars and trucks. The Central
Government can put effort into the accelerated payment and
execution of ISV2 projects (these projects are related to the
investment budget for urban renewal).
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
The effects of the measures taken must be monitored. A number
of possible indicators that can be used here have been mentioned
in the theme report, such as the (geographic) calculation of the
noise levels in Rijnmond, the health damage and the economic
effects. In addition to these and other indicators, it is necessary
to keep up to date with more general developments, such as the
use of quieter tyres and the European obligations with respect to
making passenger cars and commercial vehicles quieter.
Proper monitoring provides insight into the noise situation and
can also provide insight into the effects of the measures (from
the action plans) that are taken to combat noise pollution. It is
therefore important to link the measures from the action plans
to the MSR. In this way, the MSR can serve as a good basis for
drawing up the 2013 action plan, as there will then be insight into
the effectiveness of the measures that have already been taken.
The following additional indicators are proposed:
n Health effects of noise (in DALYs);
n Economic effects of noise levels;
n Noise barriers along national trunk roads and provincial roads;
n Quiet asphalt on national trunk roads (ZOAB - very porous
asphalt);
n Quiet asphalt on provincial and municipal roads (DGD - thin
noise-reducing top layers);
n Clean and quiet vehicles for various government organisations
(see also the trend analysis in the chapter concerned with
social context);
n Clean and quiet vehicles for companies and private individuals;
n Indicators that are in line with the implementation of the various
(municipal) action plans;
n Indicators that are in line with the noise aspect of the
environmental objectives for companies. n

A second important aspect is harmonisation with other policy

domains such as air. When determining the priorities of the
activities, the preference should be for those measures that have
a positive effect on multiple policy domains. With respect to air,
various regional agreements have been made in the Rijnmond
Regional Action Programme for Air Quality. A large number of
action points also have an effect in the area of noise, which
makes regional harmonisation with respect to noise also desirable
and which offers additional opportunities. Possibly this can result
in an integrated Rijnmond Regional Action Programme Air and
Noise. At a later stage, the climate can also become part of this
programme, in particular for traffic.

6

Noise in the spotlight
Sound is very important to people. It has very important functions
with respect to communication and as a warning signal, and it can
also be very pleasant, for instance in the form of music. However,
when sound is unwanted it becomes noise, which is annoying and
on the national scale noise is the most frequently reported cause of
inconvenience and annoyance, and as a result remains an important
subject. Moreover, the noise levels, in part due to the compaction
of the built-up area, are continually increasing. This is no different
in Rijnmond. In Rijnmond, the number of complaints related to
noise from companies is increasing. Noise is also becoming
important politically due to the obligations and opportunities there
are to make and implement policy in this respect. Moreover, if you
ask a Dutch person chosen at random what he or she considers
to be most important, then the answer will almost always be
‘health’. This explains why noise in relationship to health has been
chosen as the theme for this report. However, the consequences
depend on an individual’s personal characteristics, as the perception
and assessment of noise differs. In addition, the report also
investigates the economic effects of noise.
That noise has been placed in the spotlight right now also has
some substantive causes. On 1 January 2007, the amended
Dutch Noise Abatement Act came into force. The main consequence
of this is that municipalities have been assigned tasks and
responsibilities in the area of noise. For instance, from now on
municipalities are responsible for maintaining noise zones and for
deciding on establishing higher limit values. In addition, following
on from the European Environmental Noise Directive, a number of
specially appointed municipalities are obliged to make noise maps
for the sources: road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and industry.
Furthermore, an inventory must be made of the number of people
exposed to noise and this must be reported. In short, after focusing
on air and water quality, the EU now want to focus more on noise
and this has considerable consequences at the regional and local
level. Based on these maps, problem areas are identified for
which action plans will be drawn up. In these action plans, the
municipalities are free to set the plan threshold value themselves
and the plans must indicate how the remaining problem areas will
be tackled. The plan threshold value is the noise value above
which noise-reduction measures will be taken and it can apply to
both the entire municipal area or to specific areas. The latter
means that a standard noise level is established dependent on
the function and nature of the area. Municipalities must involve
citizens when drawing up the action plans. An action plan must
also indicate how quiet areas will be protected. In addition to this
information becoming available - for the majority of the Rijnmond
area - new information will also become available related to the
health aspects of noise. As a result, the previous MSR report
Noise and Health from 2003 requires revision. Therefore, 2008 is
an excellent moment to revise the report published in 2003.
Process
This report has been drawn up by a theme working group,
consisting of representatives from the DCMR Rijnmond
Introduction  1
Environmental Agency, Rotterdam Public Health Service, Province
of Zuid-Holland and the Amsterdam Public Health Service. In
addition to information from these organisations, the group
used data supplied by various municipalities and the Rotterdam
Metropolitan Region. The input from these participants has
ensured that the report provides a broad overview of the situation
and the policy opportunities.
In addition to monitoring the health effects, it is now also possible
to calculate the influence of the environmental aspects of noise.
For instance, the health damage due to noise can be calculated.
When the level of exposure is known, an effect can be estimated
via internationally recognised dose-effect relationships. A calculation
has been made of how many inhabitants experience health effects
due to exposure to noise from industry and transport.
Added value is derived from the comparison of the situation in the
four major cities in the Netherlands and from the calculation of the
economic consequences. The economic consequences can be
subdivided into costs of additional healthcare, the reduction in life
expectancy, the reduction in the quality of life and the depreciation
in the value of the dwellings. It is not easy to make a correct
estimate in this respect, as the costs partially overlap and it is not
always possible to make corrections for other factors. The health
effects have been calculated, but no economic value has been
assigned to them. An initial estimate has been made with respect
to the valuation of the dwellings. Together with the University of
Tilburg, MSR is working on a study that is exploring the economic
effects. This study must refine the calculation further.
In this report we have restricted ourselves to the sources that are
also addressed in the various noise plans, therefore road traffic,
rail traffic, aircraft and industry. Other noise sources, which initially
can be considered to be events and festivals, neighbours and
sound carriers such as MP3 players, are not addressed in this
report.
This report is intended to provide a concise overview, which can
be used by regional authorities and others, of the noise situation
in Rijnmond and the developments to be expected. It also
indicates the possible consequences and opportunities. These
management opportunities provide regional authorities with the
opportunity to develop and implement (future) policy.
How to read this report
Initially, this report sketches out a general picture of the current
and future legal frameworks. Then it addresses the health effects,
followed by the economic effects of high noise levels. Chapter 7
indicates what the various government organisations are already
Chapter 1: Introduction
doing or are intending to do in the coming years to reduce the
noise levels. Finally, Chapter 8 discusses what more the region
can do and what role MSR can or should play here. n
7
8
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

Before we can address the aspects mentioned in the introduction,
it makes sense to first consider the general legal framework and
the expected developments.
2.1 Legislation and regulations
Ten out of sixteen Rijnmond municipalities had to supply noise
maps to the Central Government by 30 June 2007. Moreover,
these municipalities must submit action plans by 18 July 2008,
in which they indicate how they are going to tackle problem
areas and how they will protect their quiet areas. They are free
to set the threshold value themselves above which a problem
is considered to exist. This applies to both the entire municipal
area and to specific areas. Municipalities must involve citizens
when drawing up the action plans. These obligations are derived
from the European Environmental Noise Directive. Municipalities
must make maps for the following sources: road traffic noise, rail
noise, aircraft noise and industrial noise. The maps must show
per source and subdivided into noise categories, the number of
dwellings exposed to noise within that noise category. Not all
dwellings that are affected by noise are mentioned. Only dwellings
that are exposed to more than 55 dB during the day and 50 dB at
night have to be reported. The ten Rijnmond municipalities that
legally fall within the Rotterdam/Dordrecht urban agglomeration
are: Albrandswaard, Barendrecht, Capelle aan den IJssel,
Maassluis, Ridderkerk, Rotterdam, Rozenburg, Schiedam,
Spijkenisse and Vlaardingen.
Legal framework  2
In the Netherlands, the Dutch Noise Abatement Act (WGH) is
the main legislation in the area of noise. The WGH contains a
system of rules to combat annoyance caused by noise pollution
and to protect the citizen in his/her living environment. The
rules are intended to as far as possible prevent or reduce the
negative health effects that noise pollution can cause. The WGH
and the implementation regulations based on it include standards
for the highest allowable noise levels from, among others, road
traffic, rail traffic and industry. The regulations assume the highest
allowable noise levels (also called preferred limit values) and
higher values, which are also called maximum limit values.
A noise level below the preferred limit value is considered
acceptable, while a noise level above the maximum limit value
is not allowed. In a situation in which the preferred limit value is
exceeded, a higher value can be specified. This is only possible if
the maximum limit value is not exceeded and if certain statutory
conditions are met.
The Major and Aldermen are authorised to specify higher values
for the highest allowable noise level. Here, the Major and
Aldermen have a certain degree of freedom with respect to the
policy employed. The WGH was changed on 1 January 2007.
The main change concerns the decentralisation of the authority
to specify higher values for the highest allowable noise level,
from the Provincial Executive to the Major and Aldermen. In
addition, the grounds for exemption, which were previously set
Chapter 2: Legal framework
9
 in the old decrees based on the former WGH, have disappeared.
Municipalities now have to decide on higher values and as a
result of the statutory grounds for exemption disappearing,
they have an additional responsibility to account for their higher
value decisions. This obligation to account for their decisions
can be relieved by establishing and determining a higher value
policy in the form of a policy rule in accordance with the General
Administrative Law Act. Decisions for higher values must meet
the general principles of sound administration, as laid down in the
General Administrative Law Act. Within this context it is important
to establish a local higher value policy.
In the WGH a link has been made with the City and Environmental
(Interim) Act. The City and Environment (Interim) Act is the
successor to the City and Environment (Experimental) Act. With
this act it is possible, under certain conditions, to deviate from the
limit values laid down in the WGH. The WGH arranges that the
power of authority to deviate based on the City and Environment
(Interim) Act only applies with respect to the maximum value laid
down in the WGH. Therefore these higher values can be higher
than the maximum limit values as indicated in the WGH. The
procedure that must be adhered to for specifying higher values
than the maximum limit values based on the WGH, has been
described in the City and Environment (Interim) Act. Therefore
the application of the City and Environment Act cannot lead to
additional requirements being placed on industrial estates, the
roads or the railways or to the associated managers of these
sources.
Companies must comply with the noise regulations laid down
in permits or in governmental decrees. However, the various
governmental decrees are in the main replaced by the Activities
Decree. The noise regulations in the Activities Decree in the
main correspond to the noise regulations in the former 8.40
governmental decrees. These and the Document Guide to
Industrial Noise and Permitting form the basis for the regulations
related to noise in the Activities Decree. For both existing and
new companies the preferred limit value of the Noise Abatement
Act is included as the noise standard: the long-term average
assessment level. For the outdoor level this means a 24-hour
value of 50 dB(A), for the indoor level of internal or adjoining
dwellings a 24-hour value of 35 dB(A). For the maximum
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
permitted noise levels, values have been set that agree with the
limits laid down in the former governmental decrees and those
used in common practice when granting permits. These noise
levels normally ensure that noise is perceived to be acceptable in
the immediate vicinity of the company.
In an area that is situated within a zone of an industrial estate,
with activities that are seaport bound and necessarily occur in the
open air, the ‘sea port standard’ applies to houses that are newly
built. The maximum limit value for newly to be built houses is then
60 dB. Municipalities can - under certain conditions - apply the
sea port standard if the houses will be built within the framework
of restructuring, or planned compaction of an existing residential
10
area, or when the houses will be built adjacent to the existing
residential area and there is only a limited expansion of the
existing residential area.
2.2 Future developments
Until 1 January 2009, municipalities have the possibility to put
forward existing houses for remediation due to road traffic noise;
after this date the application period for remediation cases is
closed. Houses that have not been put forward at that date will
fall outside of national regulations and must be remediated at the
municipality’s expense.
The council of ministers has agreed to the proposal from Minister
Cramer regarding a change in the Environmental Management
Act concerned with the introduction of noise production ceilings
near national trunk roads and railways. At a large number of
points along national trunk roads and railways, the maximum
permitted noise values will be established. Then, the railway/ road
manager must take measures to stay below this noise ceiling.
The road manager can take measures such as charges (charging
toll on use), noise barriers, speed limits, etc. to remain below
the ceiling. Part of this plan is a scheme for where the current
standard is exceeded and a 2 dB extra noise zone for future
developments. This legalises a major problem of the current
noise legislation, the uncontrolled growth of traffic noise at noise-
sensitive objects. In the legislative proposal, a stronger link is also
made with the options to make the source quieter, such as quiet
tyres, quieter (goods) trains and quiet road surfaces. In addition,
as a result of the proposed changes, the legislation related to the
policy for noise pollution will be less complicated, there will be
fewer rules and the standards will be simplified. For this purpose,
parts of the Noise Abatement Act will be transferred to the
Environmental Management Act.
Recent research, carried out on behalf of the European
Commission (EC), shows that quiet tyres are as economic and
safe as tyres that make twice as much noise. The contact the
car tyres make with the road surface forms the main source of
traffic noise on busy roads; it forms the dominant noise source at
speeds in excess of 30 - 40 kilometres per hour. In a few years,
the EC wants cars to only be fitted with quiet tyres, in order to
considerably reduce the severe noise pollution caused by traffic.
The EC wants to reduce traffic noise by tackling the problem at
the source. The technology to make quiet tyres already exists.
With quiet tyres, the traffic will produce half the amount of noise
it currently produces. In the Netherlands alone, this will already
lead to 300,000 fewer people suffering severe annoyance from
traffic noise. In addition, in the Netherlands alone the Central
Government could save 200 million euros by, among other things,
having to erect fewer noise barriers. The EC is expected to
produce a detailed proposal by mid 2008. n

3.1 General
Exposure to noise poses a major health problem in the Netherlands.
Both the Dutch Health Council and the World Health Organisation
(WHO) have established that excessive noise levels in the living
and working environment lead to health problems (GR 2004,
Berglund 1999). Transport (road traffic, rail traffic and aircraft) is
the main source of environmental noise. The current noise levels
in our living environment mainly cause annoyance and sleep
disturbance. In addition, exposure to noise can lead to an
increased chance of high blood pressure and cardiovascular
disease. Moreover, it can exacerbate the complaints of people
already suffering a cardiovascular disease. Exposure to noise can
also lead to reduced childhood learning performance (Knol 2005,
RIVM 2008). The effect of environmental noise on psychological
health has not yet been sufficiently mapped out, but there are
indications that noise also has an effect on anxiety and
depression (Berglund 1999, WHO 2001).
3.2 Annoyance
One of the most studied effects of noise is annoyance. A definition
of annoyance is “a feeling of discomfort, related to a source, with
an individual or group having the conviction that this has a negative
effect on them”. In addition, it is the collective term for a wide range
of negative reactions such as anger, powerlessness, dejection,
anxiety or loss of concentration (Berglund 1999). The WHO
defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social
well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity
(WHO 2006). Annoyance influences the physical and mental
well-being and is therefore a negative health effect.
Annoyance caused by road traffic noise is one of the most
stubborn problems. The noise levels will increase further in the
coming years. This is mainly the result of the higher population
densities, the ongoing urbanisation and the related growth
in traffic. The demand for transport is increasing, just like the
duration of the exposure (24-hour economy) and the size of the
area exposed to noise (Knol 2005, RIVM 2008).
The degree of annoyance is not only determined by the noise
levels, but also by non-acoustic factors, such as fear of the
source, future expectations, controllability of exposure, the
voluntariness of the exposure and the sensitivity to noise
(Peeters 2007). Non-acoustic factors have approximately as
much influence on the annoyance as the noise itself. The great
influence of non-acoustic factors does not mean that annoyance
due to noise is subjective. Annoyance is an objective effect, just
like sleep disturbance and cardiovascular disease. It is however
true that annoyance can also be influenced by taking measures
against non-acoustic factors (Woudenberg 2006). An example
of this is reducing the fear of a source by giving inhabitants
the opportunity to visit companies and to get to know them, for
instance through “open days”. ‘Annoyance platforms’, in which
companies, government and inhabitants participate, can also
play a role in reducing the fear of and increasing the trust in
companies.
Noise and health  3
Questionnaire surveys and calculations
Annoyance due to noise can be measured by means of
questionnaire surveys and can be calculated using exposure-
response relationships (models). It must be noted that at the
street and neighbourhood level, the annoyance from in particular
aircraft and industry can strongly differ from the general picture.
Complaints about noise that are received by organisations give
a less correct picture of the annoyance. This is because these
complaints only reveal the top of the iceberg where annoyance
is concerned. People who experience severe annoyance will
complain the most, but in general even this group makes few
complaints to organisations. In addition to annoyance, there
are after all other factors that also determine whether someone
reports a complaint, such as the expectation of whether doing so
will actually make any difference.
Questionnaire survey into annoyance
A questionnaire survey is the most direct and therefore also
the best manner to determine the number of people (severely)
annoyed by noise (Woudenberg 2006). Research carried out by
RIVM and TNO shows that from all sources of noise (transport,
industry, recreation and neighbours) road traffic causes the most
annoyance. An estimated 3.7 million people in the Netherlands
who are 16 years of age and older (29%) experience severe
annoyance as a result of one or more forms of road traffic noise.
With respect to road traffic, mopeds cause the most annoyance
(19%). Severe annoyance due to road traffic noise has increased
in the period 1993-2003 (Figure 1) (Franssen 2004).
Figure 1 Severe annoyance due to noise in the Netherlands
1993-2003 (Franssen 2004)
Severe noise annoyance
The Netherlands
35
30
25
1993
Percentage
20
1998
2003
15
10
5
0
Road traffic Aircraft Recreation
Rail traffic Industry Neighbours
Source: Franssen
Chapter 3: Noise and health
In the province of Zuid-Holland, approximately every two years a
questionnaire (Environmental Perception Survey (MBO) Zuid-
Holland) is used to measure the annoyance due to noise from road
traffic, aircraft and industry at a number of locations that are close
to major industries, including Rijnmond. Annoyance due to rail traffic
noise is not included in this survey. The last MBO was published
in 2005 (MBO 2005). A survey will be carried out once again in 2008.
11
 The survey method used for the MBO Zuid-Holland differs from
the TNO-RIVM method. Therefore, the results from the TNO-RIVM
surveys cannot simply be compared to the results from the MBO
Zuid-Holland (see also the Appendix Questionnaire Surveys).
In 1997, 2001 and 2007, Meijers Research carried out surveys
to map out the annoyance experienced by people living in the
vicinity of Rotterdam Airport (Meijers 2008). The results from the
MBO Zuid-Holland and the survey in the vicinity of Rotterdam
Airport are discussed in the next chapter.
Calculating annoyance
The percentage of people who are annoyed due to noise can
be calculated using exposure-response relationships (models).
Relationships have been derived between the noise levels and
the degree of perceived annoyance for aircraft, road traffic and rail
traffic. These relationships can be used to calculate the number of
people who experience annoyance in a certain area. The ‘Noise
Annoyance Method’ appendix indicates how the calculations have
been made for the Rijnmond area1 and the cities of Rotterdam,
Amsterdam and Utrecht.
It has become clear that the exposure-response relationship of
aircraft noise will change. The European Union will investigate in
the coming period how much (severe) annoyance is caused by a
certain noise level. It is clear that recent studies show that more
annoyance occurs than assumed when the current exposure-
response relationships were defined.
Using the exposure-response relationships it is estimated that in
the Netherlands approximately 600,000 people (approximately
4% of the population) are severely annoyed by road traffic noise.
That is a lot less than shown by the questionnaires, in which
approximately 29% of the participants indicate experiencing
severe annoyance (Kempen 2005, Franssen 2004). A possible
explanation is that the exposure-response relationships do not
take into account a number of sound sources that cause a lot of
annoyance, in particular mopeds (which are the most annoying
form of road traffic). Another explanation is that the exposure-
response relationships are derived from surveys in which the
non-acoustic factors probably differed markedly. The large
number of people that the questionnaire survey identified as
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
suffering sever annoyance compared to the calculated numbers
(exposure-response relationships) could be linked to the strong
influence of certain non-acoustic factors that now play a role
in the Netherlands, while in other countries and in the past in
the Netherlands they had less influence. Examples are the
expectation that in the future the noise levels will increase and
a more critical attitude towards the government. The surveys
on which the exposure-response relationships are based
were carried out in the period between 1965 and 1992. There
are also indications that nowadays, people experience more
annoyance from the same noise levels than a number of years
ago. Calculations using exposure-response relationships are in
1
Rotterdam Metropolitan Region: Albrandswaard, Barendrecht, Bernisse, Brielle, Capelle aan den IJssel, Hellevoetsluis, Krimpen aan den IJssel, Lansingerland, Maassluis,
Ridderkerk, Rotterdam, Rozenburg, Schiedam, Spijkenisse, Vlaardingen, Westvoorne
12
particular usable for strategic purposes, to estimate the effect of
noise in terms of annoyance. They are also very suitable to allow
various scenarios to be compared. They are not suitable for local,
small-scale situations or to estimate the effect of changes in noise
levels (Woudenberg 2006).
3.3 Sleep disturbance
The function of sleep is to provide physical and mental rest.
Sleeping saves energy, the body recovers from physical and
mental exertion and a good sleep gives a nice feeling. Disturbed
sleep can make itself felt during the day in:
- a feeling of tiredness or a general reduction in the feeling of
well-being;
- sleepiness;
- deterioration in performance;
- increased irritation.
Noise during sleep disturbs the recovery function of sleep. The
chance of effects being felt as a result of disturbed sleep depends
on the amount and type of disturbance and also on how a
person deals with the situation. The disturbance of sleep due to
something that is undesirable and unpleasant has more influence
than when sleep is disturbed by something expected or pleasant
(Woudenberg 2006).
The Health Council has stated that the unintended influence on
sleep due to noise is a serious problem. The consequences of
night time noise when sleeping are in particular described for
transport noise. Transport noise at night consists, in by far the
majority of situations, of separately identifiable noise events, such
as the passage of a train, car or aircraft. Biological reactions to
environmental noise occur because a person, also when asleep,
assesses and processes ‘stimuli’ from the environment. Examples
of biological reactions are: reactions of the cardiovascular system
(increased heart rate), waking up, increased difficulty in falling
asleep and increased movement during sleep. Possibly, night
time noise also influences the levels of (stress) hormones during
sleep. Night time noise can negatively influence the perceived
sleep quality and the general feeling of well-being. It can cause
sleepiness and as a result possibly have a negative influence on
social contacts and on carrying out tasks that require attention.
It can also result in a loss of life years due to fatal accidents
at work. Furthermore, night time noise can possibly lead to
high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and depression in
women. In the elderly, night time noise can increase the use of
sleep-inducing drugs and sedatives (GR 2004).
Questionnaire survey into sleep disturbance
The Health Council estimated that in 2003 between one hundred
thousand and one million adults in the Netherlands experienced
severe sleep disturbance (reported by the people themselves)
(GR 2004). The results of a national questionnaire carried out by
RIVM and TNO showed that in 2003, 12% of the people surveyed
experienced severe sleep disturbance due to road traffic noise,
see Figure 2. This means that approximately 1.5 million people
living in the Netherlands of 16 years of age and older experience
severe sleep disturbance resulting from road traffic. Mopeds are
the largest source of (severe) sleep disturbance (7% severe sleep
disturbance) (Franssen 2004).
Figure 2 Percentage of people suffering severe sleep disturbance
in the Netherlands (Franssen 2004)
Severe sleep disturbance
The Netherlands
14
12
10
Percentage
8
6
4
2
0 cardiovascular disease.
Road traffic Aircraft Recreation
Rail traffic Industry
In 2005, the Zuid-Holland environmental perception survey was
the first to ask questions about sleep disturbance due to various
noise sources (MBO 2005). With respect to sleep disturbance due
to aircraft from Rotterdam Airport, information is available from the
questionnaire surveys carried out by Meijers Research (Meijers
2008). The results of these surveys are discussed in the next chapter.
Calculation of sleep disturbance
The number of people suffering from sleep disturbance due to noise
can be calculated using exposure-response relationships (models).
These exposure-response relationships are only available for
noise produced by road traffic and rail traffic, not for noise produced
by aircraft and industry. In a similar way to annoyance, the relation-
ships underestimate the actual number. In questionnaire surveys,
the number of people suffering sleep disturbance in the Netherlands
due to road traffic noise appears to be 1.5 million, while if exposure-
response relationships are used, the calculations show that there
are 300,000 people suffering from sleep disturbance. The results
of the models are mainly usable for strategic purposes and for
comparing various scenarios (Woudenberg 2006). The ‘Sleep
Disturbance Method’ appendix describes how the calculations
were made for sleep disturbance caused by road and rail traffic
for Rijnmond and the cities of Rotterdam and Utrecht.
3.4 Cardiovascular disease
Long-term exposure to noise can lead to cardiovascular disease.
This mainly concerns effects such as high blood pressure and
heart attacks (Berglund 1999, Kempen 2005, RIVM 2008). There
are also indications that noise pollution leads to more visits to the
doctor, increased use of medication for high blood pressure and
more hospital admissions. It is assumed that these health effects
are the consequence of stress reactions to noise. In the same
way as for annoyance and sleep disturbance there are indications
that non-acoustic factors influence the stress effects of noise.
Research shows that predictability and controllability have a major
influence on people’s reaction (Woudenberg 2006).
The influence of road traffic noise on the occurrence of heart
attacks and of aircraft noise on the occurrence of high blood
pressure has now been sufficiently scientifically established. The
degree to which road traffic noise influences high blood pressure
is still being discussed in scientific circles. This is among other
things because in studies into the effects of noise on cardiovascular
disease, air pollution has a disruptive effect. This is because high
noise levels often go hand in hand with air pollution, which also
has an effect on the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. It is
1998
2003 possible that effects could be attributed to noise, while they are
actually caused by air pollution, but the reverse is also possible.
It is expected that in the coming five to ten years many new
results will become available with respect to the relationship
between noise and cardiovascular disease. This will possibly lead
to more insight into the exact relationship between noise and
Source: Franssen
Neighbours
The ‘High Blood Pressure and Heart Attack’ appendix indicates
the way in which the available scientific information is used to
calculate the number of inhabitants of the Rijnmond area who
suffer from high blood pressure or have had a heart attack due
to transport noise. The numbers for cardiovascular disease that
are presented in this report must be considered to give a rough
indication of the reality.
3.5 Disability Adjusted Life Years: DALYs
The burden of disease can be expressed in DALYs (Disability
Adjusted Life Years). The number of DALYs is the number of
healthy life years that a population group looses due to disease.
Using DALYs it is possible to compare the influence different
diseases have on public health. The calculation of DALYs
includes the following aspects of disease:
n the number of people suffering the disease;
n the severity of the disease;
n the time a disease takes;
n the reduction in the number of years that people live.
The severity of the disease is given with a weighting factor between
0 and 1. Mortality has a weighting factor of 1. Every year that
someone dies prematurely due to a certain risk factor is 1 DALY. If
a disease has a weighting factor of for example 0.5, this means
that a year of living with this disease is considered as being as
Chapter 3: Noise and health
severe as dying half a year earlier. If for instance a person dies in
a fatal car accident when 40 years old, the life expectancy of 80 is
shortened by 40 years. Therefore, this person looses 40 years of
life and thus 40 DALYs. Or if someone gets diabetes at 30 years
of age and dies as a result of this at 60. The weighting factor for
diabetes is 0.2. This person therefore looses 30 x 0.2 = 6 DALYs
due to the disease and 20 DALYs due to dying prematurely.
13
 Therefore a grand total of 26 DALYs. Together, these two people
loose 40 + 26 = 66 DALYs (Woudenberg 2006, Hoeymans 2006).
Two effects of noise can be expressed in DALYs; these are severe
sleep disturbance and severe annoyance. Until recently, mortality
resulting from high blood pressure due to noise was also calculated
in DALYs (Knol 2005). However, there is scientific discussion
concerning the influence of road traffic noise on high blood
pressure and with it the calculation of DALYs from this effect.
Figure 3 shows the number of DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants
due to severe annoyance and severe sleep disturbance resulting
from transport noise in the Netherlands in 2000 and 2020. In
particular, road traffic plays an important role and is responsible
for by far the highest burden of disease: approximately 165
DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants in 2000. It also shows that the
burden of disease resulting from severe annoyance and sleep
disturbance will increase, for road traffic the number of DALYs
will rise to almost 200 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020. This is
in contrast to other (environmental) factors, such as air pollution
and traffic accidents, for which it is expected that the burden of
disease will drop, see Figure 4. When calculating the DALYs, the
basis is the annoyance and sleep disturbance calculated based
on the exposure-response relationships. If the percentages found
by the questionnaire surveys are taken as the basis, the number
of DALYs resulting from severe annoyance and severe sleep
disturbance are much higher (Knol 2005).
The WHO is currently carrying out further research into the health
effects of long-term exposure to noise. The preliminary results
show that the number of DALYs due to noise is probably higher
than has been known to date. It could even exceed the number
of DALYs resulting from air pollution, which means that long-term
exposure to noise accounts for the highest number of DALYs
within the environmental factors.
Figure 3 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants due to severe annoyance
and severe sleep disturbance resulting from transport
noise in the Netherlands in 2000 and 2020 (Knol 2005).
DALYs
The Netherlands
200
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
180
160
Number per 100,000 inhabitants
140
120 Road traffic
Rail traffic
100 Aircraft
80
60
40
20
0 0
2000 2020
Source: Knol
14
The DALYs appendix describes how the disability adjusted life
years have been calculated for the Rijnmond area and the cities
of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht.
3.6 Childhood learning performance
There are indications that long-term exposure to transport noise
has a negative effect on childhood learning performance. This
mainly concerns effects on reading comprehension, attention,
long-term memory and problem-solving capabilities. The effects
of noise on learning performance have been shown the best
for aircraft noise. Research shows for instance that the reading
performance of primary school children living in the vicinity of
airports is on average lower at higher noise levels. This difference
in reading performance is estimated to be equal to children trailing
behind by approximately 1 month per 5 dB. This is greater than
the average difference in reading levels measured between boys
and girls, but smaller than the difference seen between children
from well and less-well educated parents (Kempen 2005a, RIVM
2008). It is not yet clear whether the effects are permanent or
temporary. As the situation is still unclear in many areas, the effect
of noise on the learning performance of children is not considered
further in this MSR report.
3.7 Quietness and health
In the Netherlands, quietness is becoming ever scarcer. Even
in official quiet areas inappropriate noise is increasingly heard,
in particular from aircraft and road traffic, while people have
increasingly more need for places where there is peace and quiet.
Moreover, quiet green spaces can help to recover from stress.
Such spaces should preferably be located close to home. But
quiet places in the city are also important (GR 2006, RIVM 2008).
Because there is still little exact knowledge on the favourable
health effects of quiet spaces, this MSR report does not consider
the effect of (the absence of) quietness further. n
Figure 4 The burden of disease in the Netherlands due to
environmental factors in DALYs (Knol 2005)
DALYs
The Netherlands
1600
1400
Number per 100,000 inhabitants
1200
1000
1980
2000
800 2020
600
400
200
PM10 long term Radon Traffic accidents
(uncertain) Source: Knol
Noise UV radiation
 Results of noise and health  4
4.1 Noise levels in Rijnmond 4.2 Noise levels in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht
Figure 5 shows the noise levels in the Rijnmond area (1,182,427 For this MSR report, data concerning noise levels are available from:
inhabitants)2. Information is available with respect to the noise n Rotterdam (584,058 inhabitants): road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft

levels caused by road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and industry. and industry
Road traffic noise makes the greatest contribution to noise levels, n Amsterdam (742,884 inhabitants): road traffic, rail traffic and

followed by industrial noise, then rail noise and aircraft noise. The aircraft
figures for industry are possibly overestimated. The actual noise n Utrecht (288,401 inhabitants)3: road traffic and rail traffic.

levels are probably lower than the calculated noise levels (see the The figures below show the noise levels due to the various
Noise Annoyance Method appendix). sources in these cities.

Figure 5 Percentage of the population in a noise level class Figure 7 Percentage of the population in a noise level class
in RIJNMOND in ROTTERDAM

Inhabitants in a noise level class Inhabitants in a noise level class

Rijnmond Rotterdam
100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 Road traffic 60 Road traffic

Percentage

Percentage

Rail traffic Rail traffic

50 Aircraft 50 Aircraft
Industry Industry
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
< 50 50-55 55-60 60-65 > 65 < 50 50-55 55-60 60-65 > 65
Lden Source: MSR Lden Source: MSR

Figure 6 shows the noise levels of road traffic in Rijnmond and

the Netherlands. This shows that the percentage of the population
of Rijnmond in the two highest noise level classes is higher than
on average in the Netherlands. In Rijnmond, approximately 19%
of the population is exposed to more than 60 dB due to road
traffic (Lden); in the Netherlands, this is approximately 8%
(Staatsen 2004).

Figure 6 Percentage of the population in a noise level class Figure 8 Percentage of the population in a noise level class
(road traffic) in Rijnmond and the Netherlands in AMSTERDAM

Inhabitants in a noise level class Inhabitants in a noise level class

Road traffic Amsterdam
50 100

90

40 80

70
Chapter 4: Results of noise and health

30 60 Road traffic
Percentage

Percentage

Rijnmond
Rail traffic
The Netherlands 50 Aircraft

20 40

30

10 20

10

0 0
< 50 50-55 55-60 60-65 > 65 < 50 50-55 55-60 60-65 > 65
Lden Source: MSR Lden Source: MSR

(source the Netherlands: Staatsen 2004)

2
Population figures: CBS 2007
3
Population figures: CBS 2007

15
 Figure 9 Percentage of the population in a noise level class Figure 7 shows that in Rotterdam, industry also makes a
in UTRECHT considerable contribution to noise in the living environment. Here
it must be noted that this is possibly an overestimate. The actual
Inhabitants in a noise level class
Utrecht noise levels due to industry are probably lower than the calculated
90 noise levels (see the Noise Annoyance Method appendix). No
80
data concerning industrial noise in Amsterdam and Utrecht are
available for this report. Therefore a comparison between the
70
three cities is impossible for this source of noise.
60
Percentage

50 Road traffic 4.3 Annoyance caused by noise in Rijnmond

Rail traffic
40 Questionnaire survey into annoyance in Rijnmond
30
The MBO Zuid-Holland shows that of the three surveyed sources
of noise pollution (industry, aircraft and traffic), the people questioned
20
experience the most annoyance from road traffic noise: 12% of
10
the people surveyed consider the noise of traffic very annoying.
0 Of these people, 4% consider the noise of aircraft (Rotterdam
< 50 50-55 55-60 60-65 > 65
Lden Source: MSR Airport and other aircraft) very annoying and 3% the noise caused
by industry. Compared to 2003, the percentage of the population
In the same way as for Rijnmond, road traffic is the largest who consider noise very annoying has remained approximately
contributor to noise levels in the cities. Utrecht has relatively the same (Figure 11). No questions were asked about annoyance
many inhabitants in the middle noise classes (50-65 dB), while due to rail traffic noise in the MBO Zuid-Holland (MBO 2005).
in Rotterdam and Amsterdam a relatively large proportion of the
population live in the lowest (less than 50 dB) and highest noise Figure 11 Percentage of people who experience severe
classes (more than 65 dB). This can also be seen in the next annoyance in RIJNMOND per source of noise (MBO 2005
figure, which shows the noise levels due to road traffic in the three
Severely annoyed (MBO)
cities and in the Netherlands. Rijnmond
20

Figure 10 Comparison of noise levels due to road traffic in three 18

major cities and in the Netherlands 16

Inhabitants in a noise level class 14

Road traffic 1997
12
Percentage

2001
50
10 2003
2005
8
40
6

4
Rotterdam
30
Percentage

Amsterdam 2
Utrecht
The Netherlands 0
20 Road traffic Aircraft Industry
Source: MSR

10
National questionnaire surveys show higher percentages of
the population experience annoyance, namely 29% experience
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

0 severe annoyance as a result of road traffic. However, the

< 50 50-55 55-60 60-65 > 65
Lden Source: MSR
(source the Netherlands: Staatsen 2004)
When compared to the noise levels in the Netherlands, the
percentage of the population in the two highest noise level
classes in the three cities is higher. In Rotterdam, approximately
28% of the population are exposed to more than 60 dB due
to road traffic (Lden), in Amsterdam this is 30%, and in Utrecht
23%. For comparison: in the Netherlands as a whole, 8% of the
population are exposed to more than 60 dB due to road traffic
(Lden). Therefore, in the three major cities relatively more people
are exposed to a high noise level caused by road traffic than on
average in the Netherlands.
survey method used for the MBO Zuid-Holland differs from the
TNO-RIVM method. Therefore, the results from the surveys
cannot simply be compared (see also the Questionnaire Surveys
appendix).
The annoyance due to aircraft reported in the MBO Zuid-Holland
is an average for the whole of Rijnmond and is the result of all
aircraft above Rijnmond, therefore not only of aircraft flying from
and to Rotterdam Airport. Meijers Research carried out research
in 1997, 2001 and 2007 into annoyance caused by aircraft around
Rotterdam Airport. The research was carried out in Schiebroek/
Hillegersberg-Zuid, Molenlaankwartier/Hillegersberg-Noord,
Overschie, Noordelijk Schiedam, Vlaardingen, Bergschenhoek

16
and Pijnacker/Berkel en Rodenrijs. Figure 12 shows the results.
With respect to 2001, the severe annoyance experienced around
Rotterdam Airport has remained the same throughout the area
and amounts to 9% in total. In the areas that have the most
overflying aircraft, annoyance has increased with respect to 2001
(Meijers Research 2008).
Figure 12 Percentage of the population who experience severe
annoyance around Rotterdam Airport
Severely annoyed
Rotterdam Airport
12
10
8
Percentage
1997
2001
6
2007
4
2 RIVM method; this means that the results of these two studies
0 Surveys appendix).
Severely annoying Unbearable
Source: MSR
Calculations of annoyance in Rijnmond
Table 1 gives for the various noise sources the calculated
percentage of the population that experience (severe) annoyance
in Rijnmond. For aircraft, only the aircraft movements flying from
and to Rotterdam Airport are included in the calculations. It only
includes the noise levels generated by commercial aircraft and
not by private planes, helicopters and the like. Figure 13 shows
the annoyance and severe annoyance in a graph. In Rijnmond,
over 95,000 inhabitants aged 20 years and older suffer severe
annoyance from noise generated by transport or industry annually.
This corresponds to approximately 10% of the population who are
20 years of age and older. Road traffic is responsible for the most
Table 1 Calculated annoyance and severe annoyance in Rijnmond
Percentage of the population
(20 years of age and older)
RIJNMOND
Road traffic 16
Annoyance 15.6
Severe annoyance 6.1
Rail traffic
Annoyance 1.1
Severe annoyance 0.3
Air traffic 6
Annoyance 1.1
Severe annoyance 0.3
Industry
Annoyance 7.9
Severe annoyance 3.1
(severe) annoyance in Rijnmond: at least 160,000 inhabitants of
20 years of age and older (15.6%) are annoyed by road traffic,
of which at least 62,000 experience severe annoyance (6.1%).
This is followed by industry, which causes severe annoyance
for approximately 3% of the population (approximately 30,000
inhabitants). Rail traffic and aircraft are each responsible for
causing severe annoyance to at least 0.3% of the population (at
least 2,600 inhabitants).
Questionnaire survey versus calculations of annoyance in
Rijnmond
The calculated percentage of annoyed and severely annoyed
people is smaller than that shown in the questionnaire surveys.
For instance, severe annoyance due to road traffic is calculated
to be approximately 6%, while the MBO Zuid-Holland shows that
12% of the people surveyed experience severe annoyance due to
road traffic. The MBO Zuid-Holland figure is low when compared
to national research carried out by TNO-RIVM, which found
29% severe annoyance due to road traffic. However, the survey
method used by the MBO Zuid-Holland differs from the TNO-
cannot be immediately compared (see also the Questionnaire
A major difference is also found for aircraft. The calculations
predict 0.3% severe annoyance, while the MBO Zuid-Holland finds
4% severe annoyance. Therefore, the exposure-response relation-
ships underestimate (severe) annoyance. Furthermore, for aircraft
the calculations only include the noise levels created by commercial
aircraft, while in the questionnaire surveys people also include the
noise from smaller aircraft and helicopters in their answers.
The difference in results between the questionnaire surveys and
the calculations is in line with the results of surveys on a national
scale. Probably, the questionnaire surveys represent the number
of people who are annoyed by noise better than the calculations
based on exposure-response relationships. The calculated
Figure 13 Percentage of annoyance and severe annoyance
in RIJNMOND (calculated)
Annoyed inhabitants (20 years of age and older)
Rijnmond
14
Chapter 4: Results of noise and health
12
10
Percentage
Annoyance
8 Severe annoyance
4
2
0
Road traffic Rail traffic Aircraft Industry
Source: MSR
17
 numbers are however suitable for making comparisons between
larger areas, such as Rijnmond, the three major cities and the
Netherlands.
4.4 Annoyance caused by noise in Rotterdam,
Amsterdam and Utrecht
Questionnaire survey into noise annoyance in Rotterdam
The figure below gives the results for the city of Rotterdam from
the environmental perception surveys for Zuid-Holland. The
results are comparable to those for the entire Rijnmond area: the
people surveyed experience most annoyance from road traffic
noise: 13% of the people surveyed consider the noise of traffic
very annoying. This is followed by the annoyance caused by
aircraft (Rotterdam Airport and other aircraft) with 3% and as last
the annoyance caused by industry (2%) (Figure 14). No questions
were asked about annoyance due to rail traffic noise in the MBO
Zuid-Holland (MBO 2005).
Figure 14 Percentage of the population who experience severe
annoyance in ROTTERDAM per source of noise
(MBO 2005)
Severe annoyed (MBO)
Rotterdam
18
16
14
12
Percentage
10
8 2005
6
4
2
0 is comparable: at least 8% of the inhabitants suffer severe
Road traffic Aircraft Industry
Source: MSR
Table 2 Calculated annoyance and severe annoyance among
the population (20 years of age and older)
Percentage of the population
(20 years of age and older)
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
ROTTERDAM AMSTERDAM UTRECHT
Road traffic
Annoyance 19.1 17.2 18.5
Severe annoyance 7.9 7.2 7.4
Rail traffic the Noise Annoyance Method appendix). The results from the
Annoyance 1.8 1.8 3.7
Severe annoyance 0.4 0.5 1.0
Air traffic severe annoyance due to industry in Rotterdam (see Figure 14).
Annoyance 0.7 4.5 -
Severe annoyance 0.2 1.5 -
Industry Questionnaire survey into sleep disturbance in Rijnmond
Annoyance 9.7 - -
Severe annoyance 4.0 - -
18
Calculations of annoyance in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht
Table 2 gives the calculated percentage of the population who
experience annoyance or severe annoyance due to noise in
Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht. Figure 15 gives the severe
annoyance in the three cities in a graph.
Figure 15 Percentage of severe annoyance in the three cities
(calculated)
Severely annoyed inhabitants (20 years of age and older)
10
9
8
7
Rotterdam
6
Percentage
Amsterdam
5 Utrecht
4
3
2
1
0
Road traffic Rail traffic Aircraft Industry
Source: MSR
The table and graph show that road traffic is responsible for
most annoyance in the three cities. Rotterdam has the highest
percentage of its population that suffer severe annoyance
1998 due to road traffic, Utrecht the highest percentage that suffer
2001
severe annoyance due to rail traffic and Amsterdam the highest
2003
percentage that suffer severe annoyance due to air traffic. If
severe annoyance due to road and rail traffic is considered
together (with the assumption that it is not the same inhabitants
who are annoyed by both road and rail traffic), then it is found
that severe annoyance in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht
annoyance from road and rail traffic noise.
No comparison can be made for the annoyance caused by
industrial noise, as only data concerning Rotterdam are available
for this report. The calculations show that industry in Rotterdam
makes a relevant contribution to the severe annoyance suffered:
approximately 4% of the population are severely annoyed by
industrial noise. In this case, this might be an overestimate. The
actual noise levels due to industry are probably lower than the
calculated noise levels. The experienced annoyance will therefore
probably also be lower than the calculated annoyance (see
questionnaire survey confirm this. The MBO Zuid-Holland of 2005
established that approximately 2% of the population suffered
4.5 Sleep disturbance in Rijnmond
In 2005, for the first time in the MBO Zuid-Holland a question was
asked about sleep disturbance due to noise. This was done by
giving a rating, where 1 stands for “my sleep is severely disturbed” contribution causing at least 7.2% of the population to suffer
and 10 for “my sleep is not disturbed at all”. Figure 16 gives the from sleep disturbance and 3.1% to suffer from severe sleep
percentage of people surveyed that gave an unacceptable rating. disturbance.
Approximately 12% of the respondents gave an unacceptable
rating for sleep disturbance caused by road traffic, 3% gave an Figure 17 Percentage of the population that suffer from (severe)
unacceptable rating for sleep disturbance caused by aircraft and sleep disturbance in RIJNMOND
4% assessed the sleep disturbance caused by industry with an
Inhabitants (20 years of age and older) with sleep disturbance
unacceptable rating. Rijnmond
8

Figure 16 Percentage of unacceptable ratings for sleep

7
disturbance in RIJNMOND (MBO 2005)
6
Insufficient ratings for sleep disturbance
Rijnmond 5

Percentage
Road traffic
14
4 Rail traffic

12
3

10 2
Percentage

8 1

0
6 Road traffic Rail traffic
Source: MSR
4

2
0 Questionnaire survey into sleep disturbance in Rotterdam
Road traffic Aircraft Industry
Source: MSR
The questionnaire survey among inhabitants in the areas around
Rotterdam Airport shows that 7% of the adults are disturbed in
their sleep by commercial aircraft at least several times a month.
This happens at least several times a week to 5% of the adults.
In addition, 2% of all inhabitants have children whose sleep is
disturbed by commercial aircraft. For those who also experience
annoyance from by aircraft this is 9%. In 2001, the latter was 6%
(Meijers Research 2008).
4.6 Sleep disturbance in Rotterdam and Utrecht
The Environmental perception survey Zuid-Holland 2005
created a picture of sleep disturbance in Rotterdam. A 1 stood
for “my sleep is severely disturbed” and a 10 for “my sleep is
not disturbed at all”. Figure 18 gives the percentage of people
surveyed that gave an unacceptable failure rating for sleep
disturbance. Approximately 15% of the respondents gave an
unacceptable rating for sleep disturbance caused by road traffic,
2% gave an unacceptable rating for sleep disturbance caused
by aircraft and 4% assessed the sleep disturbance caused by
industry with an unacceptable rating.

Calculated sleep disturbance in Rijnmond

Table 3 and Figure 17 show the percentage of inhabitants of 20
years of age and older that suffer from sleep disturbance and Figure 18 Percentage of unacceptable ratings for sleep
severe sleep disturbance due to road and rail traffic in Rijnmond. disturbance in ROTTERDAM (MBO 2005)
In total, in Rijnmond at least 79,000 adults suffer from sleep
Unacceptable ratings for sleep disturbance
disturbance due to road or rail traffic, at least 31,000 of whom Rotterdam
suffer severe sleep disturbance. Road traffic makes the highest 16

14
Chapter 4: Results of noise and health

Table 3 Calculated (severe) sleep disturbance in Rijnmond

12

Percentage of the population

10
(20 years of age and older)
Percentage

RIJNMOND 8

Road traffic 6

Sleep disturbance 7.2

4
Severe sleep disturbance 3.1
2
Rail traffic
Sleep disturbance 0.5 0
Road traffic Aircraft Industry
Severe sleep disturbance 0.2 Source: MSR

19
 Calculated sleep disturbance in Rotterdam and Utrecht
The next table gives the percentage of the population of 20 years
of age and older who experience sleep disturbance or severe
sleep disturbance due to road traffic and rail traffic in Rotterdam
and Utrecht. Figure 19 shows the severe sleep disturbance in the
two cities in a graph. It was not possible to calculate the sleep
disturbance for Amsterdam, as the required information regarding
noise levels was unavailable.
Table 4 Calculated number of people (20 years of age and
older) who suffer (severe) sleep disruption in Rotterdam
and Utrecht
Percentage of the population
(20 years of age and older)
ROTTERDAM UTRECHT
Road traffic
People who suffer sleep 9.2 10.0
disturbance
People who suffer severe 4.0 4.2
sleep disturbance
Rail traffic
People who suffer sleep 0.8 1.6
disturbance
People who suffer severe 0.3 0.6
sleep disturbance
Figure 19 Percentage of the population who suffer severe sleep
disturbance in Rotterdam and Utrecht (calculated)
in the previous chapter, the relationship between exposure to road
traffic noise and suffering a heart attack is scientifically proven.
The relationship between road traffic and high blood pressure is
(still) under discussion, but research indicates that such a
relationship exists.
When, with this reservation, calculations are made for cardiovascular
disease, it appears that thousands of people have raised blood
pressure levels in Rijnmond due to road traffic noise. High blood
pressure can lead to more serious effects such as a stroke or a
heart attack. A proportion of the people who suffer a stroke or
heart attack will die as a result. For Rijnmond this would mean
that several tens of people die annually due to noise.
4.8 Disability Adjusted Life Years : DALYs in Rijnmond
Based on the calculated number of people suffering severe
annoyance and severe sleep disturbance, the number of
Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) resulting from noise
has been calculated for Rijnmond. Table 5 and Figure 20
show the total number of DALYs and the number of DALYs per
100,000 inhabitants. Every year in Rijnmond, the equivalent of
approximately 2,630 life years (260 per 100,000 inhabitants)
are lost as a result of people suffering severe annoyance and
severe sleep disturbance due to noise caused by transport (road,
rail and air) and industry. Road traffic noise makes the largest
contribution: the equivalent of 1,880 life years (185 per 100,000
inhabitants) annually. This is somewhat higher than the average in
the Netherlands: in the Netherlands road traffic noise is responsible
for approximately 165 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants (Knol 2005).

Inhabitants (20 years of age and older)

For comparison, Figure 21 gives the number of DALYs due to
suffering severe sleep disturbance
5 transport noise (road, rail and air) alongside the number of DALYs
due to traffic accidents (traffic fatalities and casualties). The burden
4
of disease due to road, rail and air traffic noise (199 DALYs per
100,000 inhabitants) is a little higher than the burden of disease
resulting from traffic casualties (approximately 180 DALYs per
3
Percentage

Rotterdam 100,000 inhabitants) and a little lower than the DALYs due to traffic
Utrecht
fatalities (approximately 270 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants). The
2
DALYs for traffic accidents are based on national figures (Knol 2005).

1
Table 5 Calculated DALYs in RIJNMOND
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

RIJNMOND
0
Road traffic Rail traffic
Source: MSR
DALYs per 100,000
DALYs inhabitants (20 years
of age and older)
The table and graph show that the percentage of the population
Severe annoyance
that suffer severe sleep disturbance in the two cities is rather
Road traffic 1,251 123
similar. The main cause is road traffic. In total, at least 4 to 5% of
Rail traffic 52 5
the population suffer from severe sleep disturbance due to road or
Air traffic 51 5
rail traffic noise.
Industry 608 61

4.7 Cardiovascular disease in Rijnmond Severe sleep disturbance

As there is ongoing scientific discussion regarding the exact risks Road traffic 629 62
(numerical) of exposure to noise, no exact numbers are given in Rail traffic 39 4
this subsection. Only orders of magnitude are given. As described Total 2,630 260

20
Figure 20 Calculated DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants (20 years of Table 6 DALYs in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht
age and older) in RIJNMOND ROTTERDAM AMSTERDAM UTRECHT
DALYs Severe annoyance
Rijnmond Road traffic 715 881 284
140 Rail traffic 39 59 38
Air traffic 16 177 -
120
Industry 364 - -
Number per 100,000 inhabitants

100 Severe sleep

disturbance
80 Severe annoyance
Severe sleep disturbance Road traffic 363 - 164
60 Rail traffic 27 - 23

40

Table 7 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants (20 years of age and

20
older) in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht
0 ROTTERDAM AMSTERDAM UTRECHT
Road traffic Rail traffic Aircraft Industry
Source: MSR Severe annoyance
Road traffic 158 145 147
Rail traffic 9 10 20
Figure 21 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants due to transport noise Air traffic 4 29 -
and traffic accidents Industry 80 - -
DALYs Severe sleep
Traffic in Rijnmond disturbance
300 Road traffic 80 - 85
Rail traffic 6 - 12
250
Number per 100,000 inhabitants

200 Figure 22 gives the burden of disease due to road and rail traffic
noise in Rotterdam, Utrecht and the Netherlands per 100,000
150
inhabitants. The burden of disease in Rotterdam and Utrecht
is of the same order of magnitude. When compared to the
100
Netherlands, the burden of disease in the two cities is higher. In
50
Rotterdam, road and rail traffic noise is responsible for a burden
of disease of 253 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants and in Utrecht
0 for 264 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants, while on average in
Traffic noise Traffic casualties Traffic fatalities
Source: MSR the Netherlands road and rail traffic noise are responsible for a
burden of disease of 175 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants. n

4.9 Disability Adjusted Life Years : DALYs in Rotterdam, Figure 22 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants (20 years of age and
Amsterdam and Utrecht older) due to road and rail traffic noise in Rotterdam,
Based on the calculated number of people suffering severe Utrecht and the Netherlands
annoyance and severe sleep disturbance, the number of DALYs
DALYs
resulting from noise has been calculated for the three cities. It Road traffic and rail traffic
was not possible to calculate the burden of disease resulting 180

from severe sleep disturbance for Amsterdam, as the required

Chapter 4: Results of noise and health

160
information regarding noise levels was unavailable. Table 6 gives
140
Number per 100,000 inhabitants

the number of DALYs per noise source and per city. Table 7 is
corrected for the number of inhabitants of 20 years of age and 120

older in the three cities (DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants). Road 100
Severe annoyance
Severe sleep disturbance
traffic noise is responsible for the largest burden of disease. 80

Furthermore, the table shows that in Amsterdam aircraft and in 60

Utrecht rail traffic make a relatively large contribution.
40

20

0
Rotterdam Utrecht The Netherlands
Source: Knol

(source the Netherlands: Knol 2005)

21
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

22
 Discussion regarding noise and health
In 2004, the MSR report Environment and Health Monitoring -
Noise (pilot Rijnmond region) was published (MSR 2004). This
report gives a first overview of the health effects of noise caused
by road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and industry in Rijnmond.
Rijnmond now works with a different and better model to map
out the noise levels. This model takes account of the screening
function of buildings. The result is that the calculated noise levels
are in general considerably lower than in 2004. As a result, it is
not really possible to make a comparison with the health effects
then found. The advantage is that we now have a better picture of
the noise levels in Rijnmond.
The calculations show that many inhabitants experience severe
annoyance and severe sleep disturbance due to noise, that in
Rijnmond thousands of people suffer from raised blood pressure
due to transport noise and that several tens of people die annually
as a result. The calculations of cardiovascular disease should
be considered to offer a rough indication. Knowledge regarding
the health effects of noise is being developed and in particular
in the area of cardiovascular disease it can be expected that
new knowledge will become available with respect to dose-effect
relationships. In the future, this could give a better picture of the
effects of noise on cardiovascular disease, such as high blood
pressure and heart attacks.
Annoyance and sleep disturbance result in a large number of
healthy life years (DALYs) being lost annually. For instance, in
Rijnmond the equivalent of approximately 2,630 life years (260
per 100,000 inhabitants) are lost as a result of people suffering
severe annoyance and severe sleep disturbance due to noise
caused by traffic (road, rail and air) and industry.
In the three cities, the consequences for health due to exposure
to noise are comparable. As a result of severe annoyance
and severe sleep disturbance due to road and rail traffic, the
 5
equivalent of 1,144 life years (253 per 100,000 inhabitants) are
lost in Rotterdam every year. In Utrecht, this is the equivalent of
509 life years (264 per 100,000 inhabitants). The equivalent of
1117 life years are lost annually (184 per 100,000 inhabitants) in
Amsterdam, as a result of severe annoyance due to road, rail and
aircraft noise. The burden of disease in Amsterdam will in reality
be higher, as sleep disturbance could not be calculated.
For Rotterdam, the noise levels caused by industry and aircraft
are also mapped out. Severe annoyance due to these noise
sources is also converted into DALYs. In total the equivalent of
approximately 1500 life years are lost annually due to traffic and
industrial noise in Rotterdam.
Within the framework of the European Environmental Noise
Directive, in 2007, noise maps have been drafted for a number
of municipalities. This also includes the annoyance. In this MSR
report, the same noise level data have been used as used for
the maps. However, the calculated percentages of annoyed
people differ. The main reason for this is that for the noise maps
the (severe) annoyance had only to be calculated from 55 dB,
while annoyance and severe annoyance already occur at a much
lower level (37 respectively 42 dB). Therefore, the percentages of
annoyance and severe annoyance experienced in this report are
consistently higher than those in the noise maps.
For all of these calculations is it important to realise that
the calculations based on exposure-response relationships
underestimate the actual number of people who experience
annoyance or sleep disturbance. In reality, the DALYs are
probably higher than that calculated here. It is expected that the
noise levels will further increase. As a result, the volume of health
effects due to noise will also increase. To prevent this, measures
are required that reduce the noise levels. n
Chapter 5: Discussion regarding noise and health
23
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

24

6.1 General
In the period 1986-1992, the maps concerning industrial noise
zoning were published. From that moment, citizens could see
the noise levels to which their dwellings were exposed. This
information was frequently used to request a reduction in points
from the rent tribunals. This was usually because the inhabitants
could establish that the noise level was high when compared to
similar dwellings elsewhere with the same rent, but also because
the people were actually annoyed by the noise. Where this was
actually the case, the point deduction was approved, resulting in
a lower rent. DCMR received many requests from citizens, rent
tribunals and housing corporations.
The above illustrates that the noise quality of the surroundings
in which a dwelling is situated is a factor that co-determines the
rent and even the sales value of the dwelling. In addition to other
quality aspects, such as size, situation, type of dwelling, level of
facilities in the direct vicinity, green spaces in the neighbourhood,
air quality, as well as finish and state of repair, the noise quality of
the neighbourhood is a determining factor. The degree to which
noise quality is a determining factor for values has been the
subject of study in the past decades. Many international studies,
but also national studies have been carried out to be able to
determine this.
At a time in which almost 40% of the Dutch population experience
annoyance due to noise caused by traffic, railways, industry,
aircraft, construction and other activities, it is evident that this has
its price. Not only in terms of health, but also in terms of the loss
of income from rent and the sale of real estate.
Various methods are available to calculate this loss of income.
A description of these methods will not be given here, as it would
be too technical and detailed. We suffice with a reference to
the report written by the European Commission4 in which the
various methods are described. This report is considered to be
authoritative by the researchers concerned with this matter.
In this report, only the economic consequences of noise are
investigated via the valuation of the dwellings. The (additional)
costs related to the construction of noise barriers, healthcare etc.
are not included here.
6.2 Method
In the 2006 MSR report, indicative calculations have been carried
out to determine the loss of value of dwellings. These calculations
are based on a study carried out by J. Udo, L.H.J.M. Janssen
and S. Kruitwagen and is based on the article “Stilte heeft zijn
prijs” (ESB 13/01/06, pages 14-16). This study, carried out by
the Environmental and Nature Planning Office (MNP), gives an
overview of (foreign) studies that in the past decades have formed
a picture of the economic damage that noise has caused to the
house market and a report is given of a recent Dutch study.
4
Navrud, S. (2002) The State-of-the-Art on Economic Valuation of Noise. Report to the European Commission DG Environment 04-02.
Department of economic and social sciences, Oslo: Agricultural University of Norway.
Economy  6
In these studies, the effect of noise levels on the value of houses
is expressed in terms of the “Noise Sensitivity Depreciation Index”
(NSDI), which indicates the percentage that the value of a house
drops when the noise level that the house is exposed to increases
by 1 decibel.
The study was carried using the dB(A) value. In the currently
prevailing legislation for (rail) road traffic noise, the dose unit Lden
in dB is used. The standardisation in the Noise Abatement Act has
been adjusted to this. The preferred limit value is now for instance
48 Lden. According to the study, house values start to depreciate
where severe annoyance from noise also starts to play a role,
which is from approximately 45 dB. In the classes below 45 dB,
the NSDI is therefore set to 0. Above this value, the MNP study
mentioned above shows that the NSDI progressively increases
with the noise levels:
Table 8 Development of the NSDI value as a function of the
threshold value in dB
Noise level class in dB NSDI value
<45 0
45-50 1.1
50-55 1.3
55-60 1.7
60-65 1.9
>65 1.9
Foreign studies show that the NSDI values vary between 0.08 and
2.3 with an average value of 0.6. The NMP study determined
higher values for locations in Baarn and Soest, in the Netherlands.
They state that a possible explanation for this could be that in the
densely populated and densely built up Netherlands quietness is
scarce and is therefore valued more highly.
6.3 Results of the economic effects
Using the results of the MNP study, an estimate has been made
of the influence of noise on the house prices in Rijnmond. To
be able to do this, several assumptions have been made and
restrictions introduced:
n For these calculations, only the depreciation in the value of
dwellings due to road traffic has been determined.
n The introduction of L
den and the fixed correction of -2 dB (Noise
Abatement Act) is determined based on the situation on
national trunk roads. For municipal roads this fixed correction
of -2 dB seems to be incorrect. In these calculations, it has
been decided not to apply the fixed correction of -2dB for road
traffic. The NSDI value per noise level class that is used for the
calculations is included in Table 9.
n The MNP study does not give NSDI values above 65 dB. For
the class equal or greater to 65 dB, these calculations used
Chapter 6: Economy
the same value as used for the 60-65 dB class. Therefore
in the class of 65 dB or more this is an underestimate of the
depreciation in value due to noise.
25
 n It is assumed that the random test includes sufficient samples
and that the study is representative for the Netherlands. In
addition, the type of neighbourhoods and type of dwellings
studied are also considered to be representative for the
Netherlands.
n Ethnic and cultural backgrounds have not been taken into
consideration. The fact that inhabitants of large cities probably
experience less annoyance due to road traffic noise (higher
acceptance, more tolerance) than inhabitants of smaller towns
has also not been taken into account.
n No distinction has been made between rented dwellings and
owner-occupied dwellings.
n The average price for a dwelling in the Rijnmond area is based
on the data originating from the NVM site. The document
“Overzicht transactieprijzen woningen bestaande bouw in
duizenden euro’s” [Source: The Dutch Association of Real
Estate Brokers and Real Estate Experts (NVM)] has been
used here. Region 49 (Rotterdam) includes the municipalities
Barendrecht, Lansingerland, Capelle a/d IJssel, Krimpen a/d
IJssel, Ridderkerk, Rotterdam, Schiedam, Albrandswaard
and Vlaardingen. Region 50 (Westland) includes among
others Maassluis. Region 51 (Brielle/Goeree) includes among
others the municipalities of Brielle, Hellevoetsluis, Rozenburg,
Spijkenisse and Westvoorne. The price for the reference
year 2006 was determined by taking the average of the three
regions. The average price for the reference year 2006 is set
at € 229,500.00. This value is lower than the national average
(235,200.00 euros). The average value that is used in the
calculations ‘MSR 2006’ was set at € 213,000.00.
Table 9 Development of the NSDI value as a function of the
threshold value in dB Lden
Noise level class in dB NSDI value
< 45 0
45-50 1.1
50-55 1.3
55-60 1.7
60-65 1.9
> 65 1.9
The number of dwellings in 2006 within the Rijnmond area is
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
based on the data from the noise maps of the agglomeration
municipalities (European Environmental Noise Directive)5 and for
the other municipalities on the data from the postcode file.
The results of the calculations are compared to the results of
‘MSR 2006’. For the comparison, the following calculations have
been made to determine the depreciation in value of dwellings
due to road traffic noise:
1. The first calculation concerns the depreciation of value of the
housing stock anno 2006 when compared to the (notional)
situation that everywhere in Rijnmond the noise levels are less
than 45 decibel.
5
The ‘Rijnmond municipalities’ that fall within the Rotterdam/ Dordrecht agglomeration are: Rotterdam, Schiedam, Vlaardingen, Maassluis, Rozenburg, Spijkenisse, Albrandswaard,
Capelle aan den Jssel, Ridderkerk and Barendrecht.
26
2. The second calculation is the same as above but then using the
value that is equal to the value used in the calculations ‘MSR
2006’, being 213,000.00 Euros.
Calculation results:
The first calculation results in the notional situation that the noise
levels in the Rijnmond are raised from 45 dB in one go. In 2006,
the situation was as follows (see Table 10).
Table 10 Distribution of the housing stock over the various noise
level classes with respect to road traffic noise
Noise level class in Lden Number of dwellings
< 45 79,392
45-50 121,789
50-55 113,266
55-60 92,608
60-65 68,563
> 65 48,536
Total 524,154
For this distribution, the depreciation in value resulting from road
traffic noise alone is approximately 1.5 billion Euros. This means
about € 2,900 per average dwelling.
The economic value of a dwelling forms the basis for the
Valuation of Real Estate Act (WOZ), the tax reduction related
to owning a dwelling and the water board levies. A first order
approach for the WOZ income is given in the box below.
The WOZ tariff for dwellings in Rijnmond varies between 1.8
and 2.9% (the average is set at 2.5%) which means that the
local authorities in the Rijnmond area loose at least € 37.5
million in WOZ income. For this amount, approximately 9,000
km of quiet road surfaces can be laid, which would improve
noise quality by at least 2.5 to 4.4 dB. As only 2,000 km of
roads are relevant for noise in the Rijnmond area (RVMK
2007), only € 6 - € 10 million need be spent to achieve this
improvement. After taking these measures, the surplus
income in terms of increased WOZ income is estimated to be
€ 4.5 million per year, which means that the construction costs
can be recovered in approximately 2 years. An additional
effect of quiet road surfaces is that the noise is more pleasant
as a result of a shift in frequencies.
If € 213,000 is used as the value in the calculations instead of
€ 229,500, then for the same distribution the depreciation in value
as a result of just road traffic noise is more than 1.4 billion Euros.
This means about € 2,700 per average dwelling.
When compared to the results from the MSR 2006, the
differences can be explained by the differences between the
number of dwellings within the noise level class (see Table 11 for
the absolute number per class and the difference). Furthermore,
in the “MSR 2006” calculations, the cumulative noise levels are
considered after being corrected for annoyance, and not just the
Lden due to road traffic noise.

Table 11 Distribution of the housing stock over the various noise

level classes with respect to road traffic noise
“MSR 2008” and “MSR 2006”
“MSR 2008” “MSR 2006” Difference
Noise level class Number of Number of “MSR 2008”-”MSR 2006”
in Lden dwellings dwellings

< 45 79,392 0
45-50 121,789 5,400 116,389
50-55 113,266 43,200 70,066
55-60 92,608 183,600 -90,992
60-65 68,563 21,600 46,963
> 65 48,536 91,800 -43,264
Total 524,154 345,600

The MSR 2006 calculates that the depreciation in value amounts

to approximately 2 billion if the noise levels less than or equal to
45 dB are raised in one go to the situation shown in Table 11. This
means about € 3,800 per average dwelling.

The difference can be explained by the difference in the number

of dwellings in the various noise level classes. Assuming that no
dwellings have been built in 2006, it can be stated that due to the
increase in the average value of houses situated in the Rijnmond
area by € 16,500, the depreciation in value has increased by
approximately 110 million euros when compared to the previous
year. This means about € 210 per average dwelling.

In the coming years, the noise levels will increase further at many
places and moreover, more building is occurring at locations
where the noise levels are high (the “clean” locations are already
mostly built on).

The method now employed is still reasonably rough and therefore

together with the Tilburg University, work is being done on refining
the calculation method. For this survey, use is made of the
Hedonic Pricing Method. Using this method the value of among
other things the environment is measured. Here it is assumed that
the market value of dwellings is determined by quality aspects,
such as noise and air quality. Otherwise identical dwellings in a
similar environment will yield a lower price when sold if the noise
levels are higher. Using statistical processes it is possible to
derive the value of separate factors that influence the price of the
dwellings. n
Chapter 6: Economy

27
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

28
 Framework of measures
Research shows that noise has a major effect on the annoyance
felt and the health of people in Rijnmond. Moreover, without
measures being taken, the number of people who experience
annoyance and the disability adjusted life years will increase
further due to the increase in (road) traffic and the building of
dwellings and other sensitive objects in environmentally impacted
areas. In short, it is time for action, and various authorities are
already working on this by drafting action plans. This chapter is a
first step towards possible measures. The directions in which
solutions are sought are reasonably global and must be worked
out in more detail by the various responsible authorities. Normally,
tailored solutions are concerned.
When searching for opportunities to reduce noise, everyone
should bear their own responsibility. Here you can see a certain
layering: some measures must be taken at the European level,
others at the local level. Therefore in this chapter, the recommen-
dations and efforts are ‘peeled back’ increasingly further, ensuring
that issues that must be dealt with at a higher level are not
mentioned again for the lower authorities. However, an issue that
is important for all organisations is that the noise aspects of their
own fleet of vehicles and their suppliers can be addressed.
7.1 European Union
Recent research, carried out on behalf of the European
Commission (EC), shows that quiet tyres are as economic and
safe as tyres that make twice as much noise. Noisy tyres cause
health damage. The car tyres form the main source of traffic noise
on busy roads; they form the dominant noise source at speeds in
excess of 30 - 40 kilometres per hour. In a few years, the EC
wants cars to only be fitted with quiet tyres, in order to considerably
reduce the severe noise pollution caused by traffic. The EC wants
to reduce traffic noise by tackling the problem at the source. The
technology to make quiet tyres already exists. With quiet tyres,
the traffic will produce half the amount of noise it currently produces.
In the Netherlands alone, this will already lead to 300,000 fewer
people suffering severe annoyance from traffic noise. In addition,
in the Netherlands alone the Central Government could save 200
million euros by, among other things, having to erect fewer noise
barriers. The EC made a proposal to strengthen the standards for
quiet tyres, but this proposal will only be implemented in 2016,
which is much too late. It is very desirable to lobby for the
acceleration of this process.
In addition to drawing up legislation and regulations, the European
Union addresses various technical aspects related to noise production
by in particular traffic. For energy efficiency, the so-called Euro norms
are employed. A comparable process can possibly also be started
with respect to noise. After all, research shows that for trucks for
instance, engine noise is a relevant source. However, it takes
several years before such regulations lead to noticeable effects.
7.2 Central Government
In July 2007, ProRail presented the noise produced by the major
railway lines (where more than 60,000 trains pass annually) using
 7
a noise map that had been established by the Minister of Transport,
Public Works and Water Management. The map indicates how
much noise originated from the main railway lines in 2006. The
figures for 2006 were determined by raising the figures realised in
2004 by 5%. Based on among other things this map, the action
plan identifies the sections of track that are subject to problems of
noise and where noise reduction measures are desirable. The
noise map is updated every five years. The noise map can be
seen by going to www.prorail.nl. A plan threshold was also
determined for the execution of this problem area analysis.
The minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management
chose a plan threshold for this action plan that is in line with the
objective in the Mobility Memorandum. The level of the plan
threshold is (Lden) 70 dB for 24 hours. No additional policy has
been drawn up for the night. However, the planned measures
have a noise-reduction effect during both the day and the night.
The problem areas will be tackled using measures such as quieter
track constructions (including the use of rail dampers) and screening
(screens and barriers). When implementing these measures, the
future noise situation will be assumed.
In the period 2008-2012 in the Netherlands, approximately 81
thousand m2 of noise screens and barriers will be installed along
the main railway lines, where more than 60,000 trains pass
annually, and approximately 420 km of quieter track constructions
will be laid during management and maintenance projects and
during autonomous remediation.
For the planning period (2008-2012), a number of concrete projects
have been formulated that will be carried out. For Rijnmond this
concerns two projects. The first is at Capelle aan den IJssel/
Capelle Schollevaar where in 2010, a 3470-metre section will be
fitted with noise barriers. The second section is near Schiedam
Nieuwland. This project must also be completed in 2010 and has
a total length of 1,400 metres.
In management and maintenance projects changes will be made
to the major lines. Where still present, jointed rails will be replaced
by continuous rails. This eliminates the impact noise when a train
(wheel) passes a joint. Furthermore, the use of concrete sleepers
(instead of wooden ones) gives a reduction in noise. These sleepers
are changed during management and maintenance. Replacing
the track constructions has meant that the railway has become
2 to 4 dB quieter at many places. The proportion of quiet track
constructions, consisting of concrete sleepers and continuous rail,
Chapter 7: Framework of measures
has increased from 25 to 45% in the period 1994 through to 2005.
The Mobility Memorandum (NoMo) formulates, in addition to the
approach to tackle the noise problem areas, the social desire for
more traffic and transport. The Minister of Transport, Public Works
and Water Management wishes to find a balance between the
growth in transport on the one hand and the quality of the living
environment on the other. The increase in noise that is caused by
the increase in train traffic can for instance be compensated by
29
 the influx of quieter rolling stock. The growth in rail traffic has been
realised in the period 1994 through 2005 without an average
increase in noise. This has in part been achieved due to the
introduction of quieter rolling stock. In the coming period, the
increased use of quiet rolling stock will be encouraged by giving a
bonus on top of the user fee. Incidentally in the future, a penalty
will be introduced for relatively noisy rolling stock.
The table below gives the calculated effects at the national level
of the measures that will be taken. Table 12 shows that the effects
can in particular be seen at the higher noise levels. This is a result
of the decision to take 70 dB as the plan threshold.
Table 12 Effects of rail traffic measures
Noise level Number of Number of Difference Percentage
during dwellings on dwellings after in number difference
24 hours (Lden) noise map measures have of dwellings
2006 been taken
55-59 dB 134,800 124,000 10,800 8
60-64 dB 80,000 65,900 14,100 18
65-69 dB 32,800 22,900 9,900 30
70-74 dB 10,600 7,000 3,600 34
≥ 75 dB 2,100 1,200 900 42
On 26 June 2007, the Directorate General for Public Works and
Water Management (RWS) presented the noise generated by
the national trunk roads using a noise map. The map indicates
how much noise originated from the national trunk roads in
2006. Based on this map and the plan threshold, the RWS has
determined in this action plan where the noise problems are
and where further research into noise-reduction measures is
necessary. RWS has made the noise map and the action plan for
national trunk roads available on the website www.rijkswaterstaat.
nl/omgevingslawaai. The geographic map can be zoomed into
down to street level. The website contains a significant amount of
background information about the noise map and the action plan.
Locations where dwellings are exposed to noise levels higher
than 65 dB are identified as being problem locations. In the near
future, many measures will already have been taken to reduce the
noise levels, often also at problem locations. The measures are
being carried out within the framework of:
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
n construction projects or major reconstructions;
n road management and maintenance activities;
n noise remediation projects.
During construction or major reconstruction projects, acoustic
studies are carried out, with measures being formulated after
a review of the results. During management and maintenance
projects an assessment is made of whether measures must
be taken.
The measures that can be taken are installing noise barriers and
laying quieter road surfaces. Noise remediation concerns resolving
existing noisy situations. This can be achieved for instance by
laying a quieter road surface, installing noise barriers or by insulating
30
dwellings. An inventory has been made of the measures intended
for the period 2008-2013. The majority of these projects are
recorded in the Long-range plan infrastructure and transport (MIT)
or in the Long-range plan infrastructure, space and transport
(MIRT). In the coming years, RWS will install a total of approximately
500,000 m2 of noise screens and barriers and approximately
140 kilometres of extra noise-reduction road surfaces.
Making motor vehicles quieter by reducing the noise emissions
of the engine and the vehicle and by using quieter tyres is very
effective and cost efficient. Moreover, the polluter pays. These
measures will be imposed at the European level. The Dutch
authorities have no say in this, but support the source measures
at the European level and can stimulate the use of such tyres by
providing information.
In addition to existing measures, there are also innovative
measures. These have been investigated for road and rail traffic
within, among others, the framework of the Noise innovation
programme (IPG). The products from the IPG are:
n Quieter road surfaces, such as two-layer ZOAB (very open
asphalt) and the thin top layer;
n Quieter vehicles and tyres;
n More efficient screening for instance barrier tops, barriers in the
central reserve, noise barrier close to the lanes and modular
sound barriers.
In addition, several projects have been selected in which
(supplementary to already present quiet road surfaces) noise
barriers will be installed or raised to reduce noise problems. Such
a barrier will be installed along the Rotterdam A20 motorway
close to the Gordelweg. This will result in the number of dwellings
exposed to a noise level in excess of 65 dB dropping from the
current 200 to less than 10.
Table 13 Management and maintenance projects for national
trunk roads
National Region Length Scheduled
trunk (km) (years)
road
4 Rijnmond 1.4 2012
13 Rijnmond 0.7 2012
15 Rijnmond 6.2 2007 - 2011
15 Zuid-Hollandse Waarden 18.2 2007 - 2012
29 Rijnmond 1.1 2010 - 2012
38 Rijnmond 0.6 2007 - 2012
57 Rijnmond 16.3 2007 - 2012
Table 14 shows the number of dwellings at the national level that
fall within a noise class. The 2006 situation originates from the
noise map. The 2013 figures show the situation after the intended
measures have been taken. The majority of noise measures are
planned at locations exposed to high noise levels, above 65 dB.
Therefore, the measures have the largest effect on this group of
dwellings. As a result of the measures, a number of dwellings will
move to a lower noise level class. This means that a large
number of dwellings will be exposed to a considerably lower
noise level in 2013.
Table 14 Effects of road traffic measures taken for national
trunk roads
The volume of Number of dwellings in Reduction (in %)
noise in dB a noise class of the number of
houses exposed
to the noise level
2006 2013
55 – 59 76,100 69,400 9
60 – 64 21,100 18,000 15
65 – 69 5,200 3,500 33
More than 70 1,100 600 43
7.3 Province
In 2007, the Province recorded the noise made by provincial
roads and made a noise map. The map indicates how much
noise originates from the provincial roads. This map and the plan
threshold can be used to determine where the noise problems
are and where further research into noise-reduction measures is
necessary. After publication, the noise maps were available for
inspection from 9 July 2007 through to 20 August 2007 and can
now be seen on the Province’s internet site.
The plan threshold is the noise value above which noise-reduction
measures will be taken.
It is recommended to specify the plan threshold value to be 65 dB
to be in line with the RWS policy for national trunk roads.
The action plan that is currently being drawn up must work this out
in more detail with a description of the measures that the Province
of Zuid-Holland can take to reduce the noise levels found along
the roads. In the first instance, the obligations apply for the roads
or sections of the roads where more than 6 million vehicles pass
annually (first phase). In a later phase, the roads where more
than 3 million vehicles pass annually must be considered (second
phase). The action plan was not available when printing this
report, so that it is currently sufficient to give the initial impetus to
possible measures. The directions in which solution are sought
are reasonably global and must be worked out in more detail by
the Province. Normally, tailored solutions are concerned.
The locations exposed to high noise levels along the provincial
roads where the most people and the most people who are
severely annoyed by noise live, can be the target for noise
screens and barriers and a quieter road surface. Noise barriers
are already used at various places. They are found in particular
along densely populated sections of national trunk roads. As
speeds and traffic volumes are usually lower on provincial roads,
the noise levels are usually less and therefore relatively fewer
noise barriers are installed along provincial roads when compared
to national trunk roads. Quieter road surfaces are mainly found on
national trunk roads. These surfaces are made from ZOAB (very
porous asphalt). ZOAB reduces the noise considerably, but due to
the much higher number of entries and exits, junctions and bends,
it is unsuitable for provincial and municipal roads. Moreover,
ZOAB has the disadvantage of being slippery in frosty conditions.
Therefore, asphalt manufacturers have developed a new type
of road surface (quiet surface) in recent years for provincial and
municipal roads that has the required mechanical properties (for
instance with respect to wear resistance and skid resistance).
This quiet road surface consists of two-layer asphalt concrete
with a thin wear-resistant and porous noise-reducing top layer
(micro top layer). This type of road surface is relatively new and
is identified by the abbreviation DGD (Dunne Geluidreducerende
Deklaag - thin noise-reducing top layer). It has been used very
frequently in the last five years. In particular in the province of
Gelderland in de period 2003-2007, a lot of quiet road surface
was laid on provincial roads (a length of more than 50 km, but
mainly within the framework of the quiet area policy).
The possible measures can be divided into traffic measures,
source measures for vehicles or road surfaces, and screening
measures in the form of barriers or noise insulation for dwellings.
Usually, source measures for vehicles are the best, from both the
viewpoint of effectiveness (cost effectiveness) and fairness (the
polluter pays).
Traffic measures
Reducing motorised road traffic is not an option as good
accessibility by road is an important factor for the location of
companies and their employees. It is therefore undesirable to
jeopardise this and violate the policy to improve accessibility.
Moreover, a reduction in the noise level by 3 dB requires a 50%
reduction in traffic. Society does not support such a reduction in
traffic.
Reducing the maximum speed on (sections of) provincial roads
is not an option, as this also reduces the road capacity, while it
contributes relatively little to reducing the noise levels.
Rerouting the traffic is not an option as this leads to additional
mobility and reduced accessibility, it increases the total noise
levels in our province and is ineffective as a measure, because
the total number of people annoyed by noise will not reduce or will
hardly reduce (it merely shifts the problem).
In addition to better traffic flow (or improved use of the road
capacity), dynamic traffic management also contributes to
Chapter 7: Framework of measures
reducing noise levels, air pollution and fuel consumption. This
is because when the traffic flow is improved, vehicles need to
accelerate and brake less. This measure is already addressed in
the normal provincial mobility policy. It is difficult to estimate the
effect of this measure on the noise levels, but it will be relatively
limited (maximum approximately 1 dB).
Enforcing limitations on the type of vehicles that can use
provincial roads faces major practical objections. As opposed
31
 to city centres, there is often no proper alternative route or
alternative mode of transport and in practice, limitations lead
to many additional vehicle kilometres, in part over roads not
equipped for this type of traffic.
Measures focused on the source of noise
A measure that the province can take to prevent problems
in the future is to retain a building-free zone along the traffic
infrastructure, so that the negative effects (in addition to noise, air
quality and external safety) due to an increase in traffic will remain
limited and standards will not be exceeded. This must be worked
out in more detail in spatial plans.
Quiet road surfaces also limit the noise at source, which limits
the volume and range of the noise. Quiet road surfaces are
quieter than regular road surfaces. Laying quiet road surfaces can
achieve a noise reduction of at the maximum 6 dB in rural areas
and 4 dB in urban areas.
At a short distance from the road noise screens or barriers offer
the most noise reduction for people living in the immediate vicinity
(immediately behind a 2-metre high barrier approximately 10 dB).
Other advantages of barriers are that they can be used at any
moment as long as there is room for them or is created for them
and that the noise reduction does not decline over the course
of time. When developing new districts, during the development
process sometimes account is already being taken of a noise
barrier integrated in the design.
However, there are also objections to barriers. For instance, the
noise reduction declines markedly as the distance to the road
increases. Furthermore, a building permit is required to build
them on municipal land, for which a public inquiry is required.
Therefore, the installation of barriers requires the approval of and
close collaboration with the municipality involved. The costs of
barriers are very high, in particular due to the high costs for the
foundations needed to be able to resist high wind loads.
When compared to quiet asphalt and noise screens or barriers,
the cost of house insulation is relatively high, with the exception
of low density housing. Moreover, it only offers protection from the
noise when the residents are in the house and keep the windows
closed. This measure does not contribute to stopping the negative
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
effects on pleasurable living outside of the dwelling. As the Noise
Abatement Act lays down that the noise levels must be limited at
the facade, this solution has been dropped.
Companies
In 2007, the DCMR intended to formulate environmental
objectives for companies in Rijnmond in the Environmental
objectives for companies project. The project mapped out the
main environmental problems in the region and their sources.
This is also worked out for each sector, which makes it possible to
indicate the main environmental problems for each sector.
32
The first phase in the project is a Spearhead analysis. In this
analysis, the environmental problems in the Rijnmond region have
been mapped out. Then an indication has been given of the main
sources that cause each environmental problem. For this first phase,
the various existing (periodic) reports, such as the annual MSR
report, the report from the Noise Expertise Centre, the biannual
Environmental perception survey Zuid-Holland and the complaints
that are reported to the DCMR alarm centre were used.
The second phase consisted of formulating objectives for
company-oriented tasks, which were translated into the activities
for work plans for the Province of Zuid-Holland, the Environmental
Activities Programme (MAP). Achieving the environmental
objectives takes centre stage in the MAP. The hours employed
are divided into a fixed amount of around 60% and a flexible
amount of approximately 40%. Together this amounts to a
satisfactory level. The fixed amount comprises the actualisation
of permits and reports, the execution of preventive and repressive
checks and the handling of complaints. The flexible amount
comprises the use of instruments (both hard and soft) for realising
local and regional environmental objectives. This flexible part is
substantiated in project plans per environmental objective. This is
translated into the annual work plans.
The table below shows the degree to which noise is important for
a sector.
Table 15 Environmental objectives of companies with provincial
authority
Sources Noise
Process industry
- chemical 1
- refineries 1
- storage and transhipment 0
- dry bulk 2
- energy companies 0
Waste processors
- waste incineration 1
- processing hazardous waste 0
- processing other waste 1
- composting companies 0
- landfills 0
- car recyclers 0
Colour code legend:
0 Negligible: Contribution of the sector to the problem <0.1%
1 Limited contribution: Contribution of the sector to the problem 0.1-0.5%
2 Important contribution: Contribution of the sector to the problem 0.5-2.5%
3 High priority: Contribution of the sector to the problem > 2.5%
It goes beyond the aim of this report to indicate per sector
how to proceed with addressing the noise levels. In 2009, the
MAP system will be evaluated. The evaluation will run from
1 January 2008 through 1 June 2009. The evaluation will pay
particular attention to the effectiveness of the system and the set
of instruments.
7.4 Municipalities
Some municipalities have already drawn up (draft) action plans
and others are working on their plans. Based on among other
things the (draft) action plans, a first impression can be given of
possible measures. The directions in which solutions are sought
are reasonably global and must be worked out in more detail
by the various municipalities. Normally, tailored solutions are
concerned.
As for the province, the possible measures can be divided into
traffic measures, source measures for vehicles or road surfaces,
and screening measures in the form of barriers or noise insulation
for dwellings. Before measures are investigated, certainly for
municipalities, the recommendation is to first and mainly work
on preventing future noise pollution. This means that proper
consideration must be given to the subject within the context of
spatial planning. However, this policy mainly addresses the location
to be developed. However, apart from the annoyance caused by
noise at the location of the building, annoyance can be caused
elsewhere. It is currently not a legal obligation to investigate the
effects of noise outside of the planned area or the area of the
reconstruction when making building plans and/or changes to the
traffic structure. Normally acoustic studies are made, but only very
rarely are measures taken to prevent or compensate for any
increase in noise outside of the area being developed. This means
that the annoyance that people experience due to noise gradually
increases. An example of this is the construction of more dwellings
in the inner city. Building these dwellings has consequences for
the volume of traffic and therefore higher noise levels on the
access roads. When building in the polder, noise is much less of a
problem, but there is a negative effect for nature, the landscape
and recreation. By taking a policy-driven approach, municipalities
can address a part of this problem by using an area-oriented
approach and by internalising the environmental effects in the
spatial and traffic and transport planning.
Traffic measures
Reducing motorised road traffic is not an option as good accessibility
by road is an important factor for the location of companies and
their employees. It is therefore undesirable to jeopardise this and
violate the policy to improve accessibility. Moreover, a reduction in
the noise level by 3 dB requires a 50% reduction in traffic. Society
does not support such a reduction in traffic.
Lowering the maximum speed on (sections of the) roads in the
municipality is an option, but because almost all of the applicable
roads have become 30-km/h zones or residential areas with
restrictions to slow down traffic, little benefit can be gained.
Moreover, the roads where it is possible to lower speed limits
often carry little traffic and therefore also generate limited noise.
Rerouting the traffic leads to additional mobility, but certainly
in the inner city it can contribute to tackling persistent problem
areas. Installing signs that show the availability of parking places
in city centres and in car parks can prevent traffic searching for a
parking place. At the regional level, the Rotterdam Metropolitan
Region is working on an extension of the number of P+R parking
places. In 2020, the region must have 23,000 places, compared
to almost 6,000 at the end of 2007. In combination with the use of
public transport, this can lead to a reduction in the traffic flow.
Chapter 7: Framework of measures
33
 Enforcing limitations on the type of vehicle allowed on municipal
roads has practical objections and has, up to now, often only been
linked to vehicle emissions. If limitations are introduced and if
they are linked to noise production, the complexity will increase
strongly, meaning that this measure will not contribute to solving
the problem in the short term. The reason for the complexity is
twofold. On the one hand it is difficult to enforce environmental
zoning and on the other hand the annoyance caused is also
strongly determined by behaviour. A quiet car can still cause a lot
of annoyance if the driver drives in an undesired way.
Measures focused on the source of noise
A measure that the municipalities can take to prevent problems
in the future is to retain a building-free zone along the traffic
infrastructure, so that the negative effects (in addition to noise, air
quality and external safety) due to an increase in traffic will remain
limited and standards will not be exceeded. This must be worked
out in more detail in spatial plans. This is only an option where the
room is actually available. For inner city situations this is normally
not the case.
Quiet road surfaces also limit the noise at source, which limits the
volume and range of the noise. Quiet road surfaces are quieter
than regular road surfaces. With quiet road surface a noise
reduction of at the maximum 6 dB is possible.
The locations exposed to high noise levels along the municipal
roads where the most people and the most people who are
severely annoyed by noise live cannot, apart from a few
exceptions, be the target for noise screens and barriers.
Granting concessions to operate public transport in the Rotterdam
Metropolitan Region and the city of Rotterdam is an excellent way
of introducing requirements related to both air pollution and noise
production.
When compared to quiet asphalt and noise screens or barriers, the
cost of house insulation is relatively high, with the exception of low
density housing. Moreover, it only offers protection from the noise
when the residents are in the house and keep the windows closed.
This measure does not contribute to stopping the negative effects
on pleasurable living outside of the dwelling. As the Noise Abatement
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money
Act describes that the noise levels must be limited at the facade, this
solution is only relevant for remediating old cases, that is to say the
houses that are listed in the ‘A- and Rail list’. Municipalities can (jointly)
encourage private individuals to voluntarily insulate their houses
by providing information and communicating. Here the use of sound
proof ventilators and sealing of gaps can be considered. However,
it is currently very difficult for private individuals to get the right
information and materials that they can then install themselves.
It is possible for the municipality to try and prevent as much
annoyance as possible by planning the living areas of dwellings
(living room and bedrooms) as far away as possible from
any noise source, and to promote this when plans are being
34
developed. This is possible by linking such requirements to
granting an exemption from the higher limit value in the framework
of the Noise Abatement Act.
Companies
In 2007, the DCMR intended to formulate environmental objectives
for companies in Rijnmond in the Environmental objectives for
companies project. The project mapped out the main environmental
problems in the region and their sources. This is also worked out
for each sector, which makes it possible to indicate the main
environmental problems for each sector. For a further explanation,
you are referred to the relevant subsection in the Province section.
The table below shows the degree to which noise is important for
a sector.
Table 16 Environmental objectives of companies with municipal
authority
Sources Noise
Small and medium-sized companies
- arable farming 0
- cultivation under glass 1
- livestock farms 0
- meat/fish processing companies 1
- food companies 1
- textile companies 1
- wood / furniture industry 0
- graphical industry 1
- rubber and plastics industry 1
- glass companies 1
- metal/electric companies 2
- shipyards 2
- building contractors 2
- garages 1
- car respraying businesses 1
- petrol stations 0
- wholesale and retail trade 3
- fireworks 0
- catering industry 3
- railway yards 1
- other storage and transhipment 2
- storage and transhipment of
1
hazardous substances
- dry cleaners 0
- water treatment plants 1
- other service provision 2
- education and healthcare 1
- sports and recreation 2
Colour code legend:
0 Negligible: Contribution of the sector to the problem <0.1%
1 Limited contribution: Contribution of the sector to the problem 0.1-0.5%
2 Important contribution: Contribution of the sector to the problem 0.5-2.5%
3 High priority: Contribution of the sector to the problem > 2.5%
7.5 District water boards
District water boards sometimes manage ‘polder roads’. The
category ‘polder roads’ means those roads that are situated
outside of the built-up area. Such roads are managed not only by
the district water boards, but also by municipalities. Because of
their special character when compared to inner city roads, it has
been decided to address them separately. As for the province, the
possible measures can be divided into traffic measures, source
measures for vehicles or road surfaces, and screening measures
in the form of barriers or noise insulation for dwellings. Except for
a few special cases, nowhere do noise levels reach or exceed 65
dB. For reasons of completeness, the decision has been made
to also discuss a number of options to reduce the noise levels of
these roads.
Traffic measures
Reducing motorised road traffic is not an option as good
accessibility by road is an important factor for the location of
companies and their employees. It is therefore undesirable to
jeopardise this and violate the policy to improve accessibility.
At a short distance from the road, noise screens or barriers
offer the most noise reduction for people living in the immediate
vicinity (immediately behind a 2-metre high barrier approximately
10 dB). Other advantages of barriers are that they can be used
at any moment as long as there is room for them or is created
for them and that the noise reduction does not decline over
the course of time. The disadvantage that the noise reduction
declines markedly with the distance to these roads is less of a
disadvantage than for provincial roads due to the low density
nature of the houses near these roads. The costs of barriers are
very high, in particular due to the high costs for the foundations
needed to be able to resist high wind loads. In particular on old
roads on dikes it is physically very difficult to install a barrier and
therefore this option is dropped. For the locations along the polder
roads that are exposed to high levels of noise, with the exception
of some special cases, use can be made of noise screens or
barriers.
House insulation is an option for houses that are situated very
close to the roads. The insulation must be tailored to the situation.

Lowering the maximum speed on (sections of the) ‘polder roads’ It can be concluded that individual solutions must be sought for
is an option, but because almost all of the applicable roads have those few exceptional cases where the noise levels are too high.
become 60-km/h zones, little benefit can be gained. The actual Noise barriers and house insulation are the first options. n
noise levels here depend on the enforcement of the maximum
speed limits. Moreover, the roads where it is possible to lower
speed limits often carry little traffic and therefore also generate
limited noise. Another point is that only a few houses are found
along such roads.

Rerouting the traffic leads in general to additional mobility, but it

can contribute to tackling persistent problem areas. Here roads
(on dikes) can first be considered, where the houses are built
close to the road. For such roads it is sometimes an option to
close the road to traffic, with the exception of local traffic.

Enforcing limits on the type of vehicle on polder roads is not an

option for the same reason as it is not an option for provincial
roads.

Measures focused on the source of noise

A measure that the district water boards and municipalities can
take to prevent problems in the future is to retain a building-free
zone along the traffic infrastructure, so that the negative effects
(in addition to noise, air quality and external safety) due to an
increase in traffic will remain limited and standards will not be
Chapter 7: Framework of measures

exceeded. This must be worked out in more detail in spatial plans.

Quiet road surfaces also limit the noise at source, which limits the
volume and range of the noise. Quiet road surfaces are quieter
than regular road surfaces. With a quiet road surface a noise
reduction of at the maximum 6 dB is possible. A disadvantage
is the high costs in relation to the number of dwellings that
experience a reduction in noise levels.

35
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

36

The previous chapters have sketched out a picture of the legal
and policy frameworks related to noise, the effects of noise
on health and the economic effects. Furthermore, the set of
available measures has been addressed. In this last chapter, the
emphasis is on the question of what opportunities are there for
the organisations in the region.
Via the implementation of the action plans, the coming years
will see a lot of work being done to make Rijnmond quieter.
It is possible that this report can play a role in detailing or
implementing the plans. If this is too late for this year’s action
plan, in 2013, the public authorities must draw up a new action
plan. Around this time, repeating this research on the basis of new
insights into the health effects resulting from noise could be very
useful. In this report we recommend that the possibilities available
at the supralocal level should also be used. It is for instance
possible to jointly, in collaboration with other stakeholders such
as the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment
and EUROCITIES, request that Brussels pays more attention to
accelerating the (obligatory) replacement of the existing tyres by
quieter tyres and to requirements related to the noise production
of cars, trucks and aircraft. The Central Government can be
encouraged to accelerate the payment and execution of ISV2
projects and to introduce a system to check the permanent noise
requirements of the road traffic (periodic motor vehicle test for
noise).
A second important aspect is harmonisation with other policy
domains such as air and spatial planning. When determining
the priorities of the activities, the preference should be for those
measures that have a positive effect on multiple policy domains.
With respect to air, various regional agreements have been made
in the Rijnmond Regional Action Programme for Air Quality. A
large number of action points also have an effect in the area
of noise, which makes regional harmonisation with respect to
noise also desirable and which offers additional opportunities.
Possibly this can result in an integrated Rijnmond Regional Action
Programme Air and Noise. At a later stage, the climate can also
become part of this programme, in particular for traffic. In any
event (as the first step) there must be a programme for Rijnmond
that focuses on cost-effective measures such as quiet road
surfaces in areas where noise is a problem in terms of health.
The effects of the measures taken must be monitored. A number
of possible indicators that can be used here have been mentioned
in the theme report, such as the (geographic) calculation of the
noise levels in Rijnmond, the health damage and the economic
effects. To allow the economic effects and the related cost-benefit
analysis of measures to be correctly calculated, it is necessary
for a study to be made in collaboration with the Tilburg University.
In addition to these and other indicators, it is necessary to keep
up to date with more general developments, such as the use of
quieter tyres and the European obligations with respect to making
passenger cars and commercial vehicles quieter.
Recommendations  8
Indicators have been formulated, based on the opportunities. However,
indicators are also required that give a picture of the existing or
future situation. The indicators do not give a complete picture, but
give the initial impetus for those aspects that must be monitored
in the coming years. Unless stated otherwise and if possible, the
indicators will be included in the Noise chapter of the main report.
Indicators that are already monitored and that are in line with the
content of this report are:
n Noise levels in Rijnmond (see chapter Space);
n Quiet environmental protection area;
n Reports concerning noise;
n Annoyance due to noise (environmental perception survey);
n Higher limit value exemptions;
n Progress of remediation of the houses on the A-list and the rail list.
These indicators must continue to be monitored.
New indicators can be:
n Health effects of noise;
n Economic effects of noise levels;
n Noise barriers along national trunk roads and provincial roads
n Quiet asphalt on national trunk roads (ZOAB - very porous asphalt);
n Quiet asphalt on provincial and municipal roads (DGD - thin noise-
reducing top layers);
n Clean and quiet vehicles for various government organisations
(see also the trend analysis in the chapter concerned with
social context);
n Clean and quiet vehicles for companies and private individuals;
n Indicators that are in line with the implementation of the various
(municipal) action plans;
n Indicators that are in line with the noise aspect of the
environmental objectives for companies.
Proper monitoring provides insight into the noise situation and
can also provide insight into the effects of the measures (from
the action plans) that are taken to combat noise pollution. It is
therefore important to link the measures from the action plans to
MSR. In the coming years, MSR will work on the development and
further substantiation of these and other (improved) indicators. In
this way, MSR can serve as a good basis for drawing up the 2013
action plan, as there will then be insight into the effectiveness of
the measures that have already been taken. n
Chapter 8: Recommendations
37
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

38
 Literature list  9
Babisch 2006 Kempen 2005a
Babisch W Kempen EEMM van, Kamp I van, Stellato RK, Houthuijs DJM,
Transportation noise and cardiovascular risk. Review and Fischer PH
synthesis of epidemiological studies. Dose-effect curve and risk Het effect van geluid van vlieg- en wegverkeer op cognitie,
estimation. WaBoLu 01-06. hinderbeleving en de bloeddruk van basisschoolkinderen
Dessau Umweltbundesamt, 2006 Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Bilthoven: RIVM rapport 441520021
Berglund 1999
Berglund B, Lindvall T, Schwela DH (eds) Kempen 2008
Guidelines for community noise Kempen EEMM van
Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999 Transportation noise exposure and children’s health and cognition
Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht, January 2008
GR 2004
Over de invloed van geluid op de slaap en gezondheid Knol 2005
Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, publicatienummer 2004/14, 2004 Knol AB, Staatsen BAM
Trends in the environmental burden of disease in the Netherlands
GR 2006 1980-2020
Stille gebieden en gezondheid Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad, publicatienummer 2006/12 Bilthoven: RIVM rapport 500029001/2005

Fast 2004 MBO 2005

Fast T, Bruggen M van Onderzoek Milieubeleving Zuid-Holland 2005. Onderzoek naar de
Beoordelingskader Gezondheid en Milieu: GSM-basisstations, milieubeoordeling door de bevolking.
Legionella, radon en geluid door wegverkeer Provincie Zuid-Holland, Directie Groen, Water en Milieu
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Bilthoven: RIVM rapport 609031001/2004 Meijers Research 2008
Onderzoek luchtvaarthinder Rotterdam Airport
Franssen 2004 Meijers Research
Franssen EAM, Dongen JEF van, Ruysbroek JHM, Vos F, Stellato R Rotterdam: 2008
Hinder door milieufactoren en de beoordeling van de leefomgeving
in Nederland. Inventarisatie Verstoringen 2003 Miedema 2001
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu Miedema HME, Oudshoorn CGM
Bilthoven: RIVM rapport 815120001, 2004 Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure
metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals
Hoeymans 2006 Environmental Health Perspectives 2001; 109: 409-16.
Hoeymans N, Poos MJJC
Wat is de ziektelast en hoe wordt deze berekend? Miedema 2002
In: Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning, Nationaal Kompas Miedema H.M.E., Jong de R.G., Cleij J, et al
Volksgezondheid http://www.nationaalkompas.nl > Gezondheid Relaties tussen geluidbelasting en hinder voor industrie- en
en ziekte\ Sterfte, levensverwachting en DALY’s\ Ziektelast in rangeerterreinen
DALY’s, 19 June 2006 Delft: TNO Inro rapport 2002-53, 2002
Bilthoven: RIVM
MSR 2004
Kempen 2005 Monitoring Milieu en Gezondheid
Kempen EEMM van, Staatsen BAM, Kamp I van Fase 2: Pilot Regio Rijnmond - Geluid
Selection and evaluation of exposure-effectrelationships for health Samenwerkingsverband Milieumonitoring Stadsregio
impact assessment in the field of noise and health Rotterdam (MSR)
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu Rotterdam: 2004
Bilthoven: RIVM rapport 630400001/2005
Chapter 9: Literature list

39
 Peeters 2007
Peeters E (red)
Handboek binnenmilieu 2007
GGD Nederland
Rotterdam, October 2007

RIVM 2008
Text website RIVM
n Nationaal Kompas Volksgezondheid >

Gezondheidsdeterninanten > Omgeving > Milieu > Geluid (via

http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_class/kom_determinant.html)
n Gezondheid en milieu http://www.rivm.nl/gezondheidenmilieu/

themas/geluid/geluidgezondheid
April 2008

Staatsen 2004
Staatsen BAM, Nijland HA, Kempen EMM van, Hollander AEM
de, Franssen AEM, Kamp I van
Assessment of health impacts and policy options in relation to
transport-related noise exposures. Topic paper noise
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
Bilthoven: RIVM rapport 815120002/2004

WHO 2001
Factsheet no 258. Occupational and community noise
World Health Organization, 2001

WHO 2006
Constitution of the World Health Organization
Basic Documents, Forty-fifth edition, Supplement, October 2006
World Health Organization, 2006
http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf

Woudenberg 2006
Woudenberg F, Perenboom RJM, Hofman WF, Kamp I van (2006)
Geluid en gezondheid
Praktijkreeks geluid en omgeving
SDU Uitgevers, Den Haag: 2006 n
MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

40
 Glossary   10
Action plan for noise The set of measures to ensure that the noise levels are reduced to or remain below the plan threshold
value and to ensure that quiet areas are protected.

DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years or the number of healthy life years that a population group looses due to
disease.

dB(A) Unit for sound pressure weighted to human hearing. The strength of noise or the noise level is
expressed in decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies (pitches). To
measure the strength of sound as experienced by a human being the measured sound level is corrected
for the difference in sensitivity. By adding up all of the corrected frequencies, a single numeric value for
the sound level is arrived at, expressed in decibel(A) or dB(A).

Noise map Geographic map showing the noise levels at a certain location. The map must show per source (road
traffic noise, rail noise, aircraft noise and industrial noise) and subdivided into noise classes, the number
of dwellings exposed to noise within that class. This map is used in spatial processes to substantiate the
noise policy.

Hedonic Price Method The Hedonic Price Method is based on observing (for instance) real estate price differences that can
be attributed to certain characteristics of the environment, such as air or noise quality and risks. Using
statistical techniques, the method tries to establish the degree to which the price difference can be
attributed to a specific difference in environmental quality. In particular regression analysis is applied to
the prices of the properties and a number of explanatory variables.

Lden Annual average level of noise throughout the entire 24-hour period, with a weighting to day, evening and
night

Lnight Annual average level of noise in the night

MBO Milieubelevingsonderzoek [Environmental perception survey]

MNP Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau [environmental and nature planning office]

MSR Milieumonitoring Stadsregio Rotterdam [environmental monitoring in the Rotterdam Metropolitan Region]

Plan threshold value Noise level above which noise-reducing measures must be taken. The plan threshold value can apply to
both the entire area and to specific areas.

RIVM Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu [National Institute of Public Health and Environmental
Protection]

TNO Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek [Netherlands Organisation

for Applied Scientific Research]

WHO World Health Organization n

Chapter 10: Glossary

41
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

42
 Data processing   A1
Various methods have been used for Rotterdam and for the other Rijnmond municipalities to process the noise maps. Various methods
have been used for Rotterdam and for the other Rijnmond municipalities to process the noise maps.

Method 1
The figures for the municipality of Rotterdam were calculated using the URBIS method.

Berekeningspunt
Calculation point

Postcode huisnummer
Postcode and house

Woning of woonblok
(Block of) dwellings

For each dwelling or block of dwellings and for each facade a calculation point has been generated at a height of 4 metres above ground
level. The noise level is calculated from a source or from all sources together at all of these calculation points. The highest noise level
determines the noise level for the dwelling or the entire block of dwellings.
Using a GIS tool, postcodes and house numbers, including the registered number of inhabitants are assigned per dwelling or block of
dwellings.

Example
Postcode and Numbers of Lden Lden Lden Lden Lnight Lnight Lnight Lnight
house number inhabitants Total road rail industry Total road rail industry
2642 KE 15 3.2 54 50 48 48 50 47 46 43

Method 2
Calculations have been made for the municipalities of The Hague, Barendrecht, Maassluis, Vlaardingen, Schiedam,
Capelle aan den IJssel, Ridderkerk, Albrandswaard, Rozenburg and Spijkenisse using the Geonoise SKM II method.

A fixed grid of calculation points has been calculated at a height of 4 metres above ground level. Based on the results of the calculations
1 dB contours have been generated. The highest noise level determines the noise level for the dwelling or the entire block of dwellings.
Using a GIS tool, postcodes and house numbers are assigned per dwelling or block of dwellings. The number of inhabitants per
postcode + house number is determined using the number of inhabitants per 6PPC (6 Position Postcode Centroíd). Postcodes with
house numbers that are outside of a building have been assigned the value of the 1 dB contour. n
Appendix 1: Data processing

43
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

44
 Questionnaire surveys   A2
The survey method used for the MBO Zuid-Holland (MBO 2005) differs from the method used for the annoyance survey of TNO-RIVM
(Franssen 2004). Therefore, the results from the surveys cannot simply be compared. This is, among other things, because of the
following differences:
n In the TNO-RIVM survey, questions are asked about annoyance caused by separate road traffic sources (such as mopeds/scooters,

motorbikes, passenger cars, trucks and buses). In the MBO Zuid-Holland, questions were asked about the annoyance caused by road
traffic, without making a distinction between different road traffic sources. It is conceivable that asking about the annoyance caused by
different sources gives a higher annoyance score than when only asking about the annoyance caused by “road traffic”.
n The two surveys use a different way of phrasing the questions and different scales to score the annoyance. The MBO Zuid-Holland for

instance uses a 5-point scale for the degree of annoyance; TNO-RIVM uses an 11-point scale.
n In the TNO-RIVM survey, participants are 16 years of age and older, in the MBO the participants are 18 years of age and older. n

Appendix 2: Questionnaire surveys

45
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

46
 Annoyance Caused by Noise Method   A3
Transport traffic
Based on the data from a large number of national and international questionnaire surveys, correlations have been derived between
the noise level and the degree of annoyance experienced due to the noise from aircraft, road traffic and rail traffic. These surveys
established the annoyance using questionnaires for adults. The noise level was calculated outside at the facade exposed to the highest
level of noise. The correlations therefore only apply in residential circumstances (Miedema 2001). No correlation can as yet be derived
for the noise levels (Fast 2004) for the annoyance that is experienced in for instance (green) recreational areas.

Correlations have been derived for the percentage slightly annoyed (LA), annoyed (A) and severely annoyed (HA):

Aircraft:
%LA = -6,158*10-4(Lden-32)3+3,410*10-2(Lden-32)2+1.738(Lden-32)
%A = 8,588*10-6(Lden-37)3+1,777*10-2(Lden-37)2+1.221(Lden-37)
%HA = -9,199*10-5(Lden-42)3+3,932*10-2(Lden-42)2+0.2939(Lden-42)

Road traffic:
%LA = -6,235*10-4(Lden-32)3+5,509*10-2(Lden-32)2+0.6693(Lden-32)
%A = 1,795*10-4(Lden-37)3+2,110*10-2(Lden-37)2+0.5353(Lden-37)
%HA = 9,868*10-4(Lden-42)3-1,436*10-2(Lden-42)2+0.5118(Lden-42)

Rail traffic:
%LA = -3,229*10-4(Lden-32)3+4,871*10-2(Lden-32)2+0.1673(Lden-32)
%A = 4,538*10-4(Lden-37)3+9,482*10-3(Lden-37)2+0.2129(Lden-37)
%HA = 7,239*10-4(Lden-42)3-7,851*10-3(Lden-42)2+0.1695(Lden-42)

Comment:
The calculated annoyance (A) includes severe annoyance (HA). The calculated percentage of annoyed people, therefore also includes
people who experience severe annoyance.

Industry
In 2002, TNO established correlations between the noise levels generated by industry and annoyance. Here questionnaires have also
been used and the noise levels are determined at the facades of the dwellings (Miedema 2002). A distinction has been made between
shunting yards, season-bound companies and other companies. For the calculations in Rotterdam-Rijnmond, the results for ‘other
companies’ have been used:
%LA = 11,477 - 1,130Lden + 0.02815Lden2
%A = 36,854 - 2,121Lden + 0.03270Lden2
%HA = 36,307 - 1,886Lden + 0.02523Lden2

The noise levels caused by industry that are used in the calculations in this report are possibly overestimated. This is because the
pictured noise levels are the accumulated noise levels of all companies together on a zoned industrial estate. These accumulated
noise levels are based on the permitted levels per company. For companies that do not operate continually, it can be the case that the
Appendix 3: Annoyance Caused by Noise Method

maximum permitted noise levels are only generated a few times a year, for instance once or twice a week. Because companies that
do not operate continually will not produce the maximum noise at the same time, the actual noise levels will often be lower than the
calculated noise levels. The experienced annoyance will therefore probably also be lower than the calculated annoyance.

Limitations
The exposure-response relationships have a number of limitations:
n The relationships can only be used in long term “steady state” situations.

n The relationships are only suitable for use at a large geographic level. When used for local situations the differences can be

substantial. Therefore in this report the relationships have been used for Rijnmond and the three major cities, but not for the smaller
municipalities.
n The relationships have been developed for adults (MSR 2004). Research shows that it is possible to derive exposure-response

relationships for children (aircraft and road traffic). Although children are less annoyed by levels above 55 dB, the relationships are
approximately comparable to those of their parents (Kempen 2008). In this report, the exposure-response relationships for adults
have been used and only the annoyance to inhabitants of 20 years of age and older has been calculated. n

47
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

48
 Sleep Disturbance Method   A4
The sleep disturbance has been calculated for road and rail traffic based on preliminary relationships between noise levels and sleep
disturbance for adults (Miedema 2003). The relationships give the percentage light sleep disturbance (LSD), sleep disturbance (SD) and
severe sleep disturbance (HSD) as a function of the noise levels at night (Lnight) at the facade exposed to the highest level of noise.

Road traffic:
% LSD = -8.4 + 0.16Lnight + 0.01081Lnight2
% SD = 13.8 - 0.85Lnight + 0.01670Lnight2
% HSD = 20.8 - 1.05Lnight + 0.01486Lnight2

Rail traffic:
% LSD = 4.7 - 0.31Lnight + 0.01125Lnight2
% SD = 12.5 - 0.66Lnight + 0.01121Lnight2
% HSD = 11.3 - 0.55Lnight + 0.00759Lnight2

Comment:
The calculated sleep disturbance (SD) includes the severe sleep disturbance (HSD). The calculated percentage of people who
experience sleep disturbance therefore also includes people who experience severe sleep disturbance. n

Appendix 4: Sleep Disturbance Method

49
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

50
 High Blood Pressure and Heart Attacks   A5
The influence of road traffic noise on the occurrence of heart attacks and of aircraft noise on the occurrence of high blood pressure
has now been sufficiently scientifically established. The degree to which road traffic noise influences high blood pressure is still being
discussed in scientific circles.

High blood pressure

As the discussion regarding the influence of transport noise on cardiovascular disease is still ongoing, for this report the decision has
been made to take the RIVM 2005 approach. In this approach, no distinction is made between aircraft, road or rail traffic for the dose-
effect relationship between noise and high blood pressure and a relative risk of 1.26 per 5 dB is used, based on the effects of aircraft
noise. This relative risk applies for between 55 to 72 dB(A). The number of fatalities can be indirectly determined by establishing how
many people die as a result of high blood pressure and by multiplying this number by the percentage of people who have raised blood
pressure due to noise (Kempen 2005, Knol 2005).

Heart attack
The influence of road traffic noise on the rate of heart attacks has been established sufficiently scientifically. For this report, the
calculations are based on the relative risks as established in a Babisch review (see table). The chance of a heart attack increases at
noise levels above 60 dB(A) and increases even more at higher noise levels. Noise levels above 75 dB(A) increase the chance of a
heart attack by approximately 40% (Babisch 2006).

Table: risk of heart attack due to road traffic noise (Babisch 2006)
Average Sound Pressure Level Relative risk OR
during the day (6-22 h) [dB(A)]
<=60 1
>60 - 65 1.05
>66 - 70 1.09
>70 - 75 1.19
>75 - 80 1.47

Calculations
The effects of noise on high blood pressure and heart attacks have been calculated for Rijnmond. The method used is based on the
calculation method used by the RIVM (Kempen 2005). This method calculates the Population Attributive Risk (PAR). The PAR is a
unit for the percentage of patients that can be attributed to a certain risk factor - in this case noise. Using the PAR, for each exposure
category it has been calculated how many people in Rijnmond have been affected by high blood pressure or a heart attack due to
noise. The number of fatalities is indirectly determined by establishing how many people die as a result of high blood pressure and by
multiplying this number by the percentage of people who have raised blood pressure due to noise. n

Appendix 5: High Blood Pressure and Heart Attacks

51
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

52
 DALYs   A6
In this report, two effects of noise are expressed in DALYs: severe sleep disturbance and severe annoyance. Until recently, mortality
resulting from high blood pressure due to noise was also calculated in DALYs (RIVM 2005, Woudenberg 2006). However, there is
scientific discussion concerning the influence of road traffic noise on high blood pressure and with it the calculation of DALYs from this
effect. Therefore mortality resulting from high blood pressure is not calculated in DALYs in this report.

To calculate the DALYs due to noise levels in Rijnmond and in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht, the following data are used:
n The number of people who suffer from severe sleep disturbance and the number of people who suffer from severe annoyance

due to noise:
For this report the calculated number of inhabitants who suffer from severe annoyance and severe sleep disturbance are
assumed on the basis of exposure-response relationships.
n The weighting factors for severe sleep disturbance and severe annoyance:

In this report the weighting factor of 0.02 is taken over from the RIVM. This weighting factor has a relatively large uncertainty
(0.01-0.12 for annoyance and 0.01-0.1 for sleep disturbance) (Knol 2005). In this report, this spread is not shown. n

Appendix 6: DALYs

53
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

54
 Colophon

The following organisations work together in

the ‘Environmental Monitoring Rotterdam Metropolitan Region’ project:
DCMR Rijnmond Environmental Agency
Rotterdam Municipality
The Rotterdam-Rijnmond Public Health Service
The higher water board of Delfland
The higher water board of Schieland and the Krimpenerwaard
Rotterdam-Rijnmond Police
Province of Zuid-Holland
Directorate General of Public Works and Water Management, Directorate Zuid-Holland
Rotterdam Metropolitan Region
District water board Hollandse Delta

Theme group members:

Floor Baan DCMR
Niels Cools DCMR
Carola Hegger Rotterdam-Rijnmond Public Health Service
Frans van Kampen Province of Zuid-Holland
Roel Kerkhoff Rotterdam-Rijnmond Public Health Service
Rita Slob Rotterdam-Rijnmond Public Health Service
Astrid van Wijk DCMR
Henk Wolfert DCMR
Fred Woudenberg Amsterdam Public Health Service

Colophon

Paper: Paper: This theme report is printed on 9lives FSC certified paper.
Number of certificate
Printer: Henskes Grafisch Totaal (environmental certified producer according to ISO 14001). SCGM-2005.04.01

55
 MSR Theme report - Noise, Health and Money

56