S CIE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c i t o t e n v

Potential problems with environmental sound barriers when

used in mitigating surface transportation noise

Jorge P. Arenas⁎
Institute of Acoustics, Univ. Austral of Chile, PO Box 567, Campus Miraflores, Valdivia, Chile

AR TIC LE I N FO ABS TR ACT

Article history: The public, increasingly well-informed about the problem of excessive noise, is taking
Received 5 February 2008 actions for the development of new transport infrastructure projects and improvement of
Received in revised form 23 June 2008 existing infrastructure. In addition, many countries have implemented mandatory
Accepted 25 June 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment procedures. As a result, the construction of sound
Available online 3 August 2008 barriers has become a common measure, which can be used by an agency to mitigate
potentially significant noise impacts. A sound barrier, eventually, will become part of the
Keywords: surrounding landscape and could be a cause of impact for ecosystems, the road users and
Noise those who live alongside the road. Basically, this article discusses these potential effects in
Sound barriers the context of environmental assessment procedures. In addition, results of a pilot survey
Environmental assessment conducted at a residential area affected by the construction of a barrier are presented.
Noise impact Although most residents felt that sleeping conditions improved after the barrier was built,
Mitigation measures most important negative reactions are the loss of sunlight and visual impact.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction larly to those living alongside the traffic corridor, are

Since the noise caused by highway vehicles is a significant
contributor to community noise, the construction of a
highway has become an environmentally controversial
process. Consequently, modern societies require mandatory
environmental assessment of all the impacts of a proposed
transportation infrastructure project on both the natural
and social environment. In this situation, environmental
sound barriers are commonly used to mitigate the noise
impact produced by the traffic in highways. However, a
barrier will finally become part of the surrounding land-
scape and could be a cause of impact for both the road
users and those who live alongside the road (Bendtsen,
1994).
The aim of this paper is to stress the importance of
considering the disturbance and impact of environmental
sound barriers in mitigating road traffic noise. In this article,
some issues related to the potential problems with and
human perceptions of environmental sound barriers, particu-
discussed in the context of environmental assessment
procedures. Some conceptual issues of Environmental Impact
Assessment and Environmental Impact Statements for trans-
portation projects are considered in Section 2, followed by a
link to the current Chilean legislation. Section 3 describes the
importance of community involvement in the environmental
assessment process. With this conceptual framework, Section
4 reviews the main mitigation measures for traffic noise and
then the discussion is focused on the environmental sound
barriers. Some of the potential problems with sound barriers
are discussed in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 presents the main
conclusions.
2. Environmental Impact Assessment/
Statement for transportation projects
Obviously, due to the increase in the number of vehicles and
traffic volume, the construction of highways has been broadly

⁎ Tel.: +56 63 221012; fax: +56 63 221013.

E-mail address: jparenas@uach.cl.

0048-9697/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.049
174 SC IE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79
expanded during the last few decades throughout the world.
The construction of a highway, however, is a very complex
process, often disruptive and environmentally controversial,
which produces impacts such as noise pollution on natural
and social environment. In fact, it has been well documented
that surface transportation noise caused by highway vehicles
is the major contributor to community noise (Hickling, 1998;
Zannin et al., 2006), which might produce a variety of adverse
health effects (Zannin et al., 2002; Ohrstrom, 2004). In addition,
noise appears to cause the greatest indoor traffic-related
annoyance (Williams and McCrae, 1995). Therefore, modern
societies that are concerned with environment preservation
and balanced economic development require a mandatory
assessment of these impacts by using adopted tools for
environmental management.
There is a distinction between the terms Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS). EIA can be defined as a procedure for considering
all the environmental consequences of a decision to endorse
legislation, putting into practice policies and plans, or to
initiate transportation infrastructure projects. An EIS corre-
sponds to the final step of an environmental assessment
exercise where the conclusions of the assessment are put out
in a communicable form to the concerned developers,
authorities, and the general public. Thus, EIA does not make
decisions, but is essential for those who do.
When planning the construction of a highway, an EIA
should report the analysis of the impact of the proposed
development on both the natural and social environment. It
includes assessment of long- and short-term effects on the
physical environment, such as air, water, and noise pollution,
as well as effects on employment, living standards, local
services, and aesthetics (Wathern, 1998).
In general, there is typically a two- to five-year decision-
making process required before any major transportation
project can be built. The authors of an EIA usually represent
many areas of expertise and possibly will include biologists,
sociologists, economists, and engineers.
Since its origin 30 years ago, EIA has become a widely
accepted tool in environmental management for both
planning and decision-making. EIA has been adopted in
several countries with different degrees of enthusiasm,
where it has evolved to varying levels of sophistication
(Wathern, 1998).
Since 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
has put into practice the EIA procedures in the US. Other
industrialized countries have also implemented EIA proce-
dures. For example, Canada adopted the legislation in 1973
while Australia approved it in 1974. The Netherlands and
Japan approved the legislation in 1981 and 1984, respectively.
In 1985, after nearly a decade of deliberation, the European
Community adopted a directive making EIA mandatory for
certain categories of projects (Wathern, 1998). The Resource
Management Act (RMA), passed in 1991, is New Zealand's
main legislation for environmental assessment. In 1974
Colombia became the first Latin American country in estab-
lishing procedures of EIA. In addition, EIA procedures have
been endorsed by law in many other countries and these
procedures are normally conducted by local and government
agencies (Horstmann et al., 1985; Wathern, 1998).
In the particular case of Chile, the General Environmental
Law of 1994,1 mandated that these EIA be completed before
major development projects could begin. This law has created
a situation where decisions on major activities can only be
taken with the foreknowledge of their likely environmental
consequences. Since its inception 10 years ago, more than
7000 projects have been assessed through the national
system. The system is administered by the National Environ-
mental Commission (CONAMA) and efforts have been made to
implement the environmental assessment process through an
electronic web-based platform.
The Chilean law states that those highways, planned to
operate with traffic flows larger than 8000 vehicles/day,
having more than four lanes and designed for flow speeds
over 80 km/h, are likely to harm the environment significantly.
Consequently, the construction of a highway involves a
mandatory environmental assessment, which follows a
process outlined by the law regulations. Thus, the EIA is
designed to ensure that (1) reasonable transportation alter-
natives are considered, (2) community input plays a key role,
and (3) the environmental and community impacts are fully
disclosed. In the absence of its own environmental criterion to
perform the EIA, the Chilean legislation accepts the use of
well-established standards from a listing of other countries.2
So far, the most used criterion to assess the environmental
noise impact of highways in Chile has been the one approved
by the Swiss Confederation (OPB, 1986).
3. Community involvement
It is well known that, in some cases, litigation arises from
environmental groups who want to block a transportation
project or from parties who feel that the assessment
exaggerates the threat to environment to the detriment of
economic interests. This happens because transportation
systems are always of massive significance to the shape,
form, and livability of communities. Therefore, a challenge for
transportation practitioners will be to recognize that a
collaborative planning process with the community does not
have to begin only after claims and conflicts occur. In addition,
initiating a collaborative planning process does not require
extraordinary resources or leadership at the very highest
levels of government.
Public acceptance of an EIA procedure is clearly supported by
community participation. A community involvement process
warrants that residents, businesses, and others have an
opportunity to participate. The Chilean law establishes that
after the first EIS is submitted, comments from the community
1
The Chilean General Environmental Law (No 19300) was
signed into law on March 1, 1994, although formally implemented
in 1997 by the Regulation of the System of Environmental
Assessment (SEIA). To date, the only change in the General Law
occurred on March 27, 2007. The SEIA regulation was amended on
December 7, 2002.
2
Germany, Argentine, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, Mexico,
USA, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and
Switzerland.
 S CIE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79
will be received during a period of 60 days. The public can
participate in the EIA process by attending public meetings and
by submitting comments or concerns about the social, environ-
mental, and economic impacts of the project directly to the
Environmental Commission. The commission must consider all
comments received from the public and other parties on the EIS
during the comment period. The responses to public and
environmental-related agencies are incorporated as an adden-
dum to the final EIS. After the final EIS is prepared and during its
resolution, the Environmental Commission will issue a public
document of its decision addressing how the findings of the EIA,
including the public contributions, were incorporated into the
commission's decision-making process.
Although the community has an opportunity to participate in the
process after the first EIS is issued, it is significant when the project
developer involves the public during the early stages of the process.
This is particularly important during scoping to incorporate new
ideas from the community that will serve as the basis for alternative
development, screening, and environmental evaluation.
4. Mitigation and enhancement plans
As mentioned above, if the EIA determines that the environ-
mental consequences of a proposed project may be significant,
an EIS is prepared. An EIS is a more detailed evaluation of the
proposed action and alternatives. Then, the EIS may address
measures, which may be used by a project developer to reduce
(mitigate) potentially significant impacts such as noise. It is
important that key participants sign a carefully worded,
detailed, and precise plan to mitigate community impacts,
which defines commitments, roles, and responsibilities.
The EIS should consider all the environmental, social, and
economic impacts of a proposed development. For example,
there have been instances in the world that considered certain
impacts of highway construction and operation that are related
to cultural heritage. There is the case of the Queensland
Government in Australia (Queensland Government, 2004)
which has been very conscious of the significance of land to
the descendents of local indigenous people. This has resulted in
the development of cultural heritage studies of the proposed
routes in order to include this information in the EIS. Other
examples can be found in South and North America, where
some aboriginal cultural heritage acts must be consulted when
proposing a new project, which can result in special mitigation
and enhancement measures to ensure respect, preservation,
and maintenance of aboriginal cultural heritage.
The occupier of a property may also claim monetary
compensation for any loss in value of the property caused by
the presence of the road, as in the UK where this is ruled by the
Land Compensation Act (Willis et al., 1998). In extreme cases,
properties affected by the new roads may be acquired at the
discretion of the highway authority where mitigation cannot
prevent living conditions becoming unbearable either during
construction or after the road is opened (Highways Agency, 1994).
4.1. Road traffic noise mitigation measures
As discussed previously, a new road can have a profound effect
on the quality of life for residents in its vicinity. In addition to
175
noise, dust, and fumes caused by traffic, the road may restrict
access to local facilities and obstruct views of the surroundings.
Then, the design of a new road involves achieving a balance
between meeting the needs of traffic and minimizing its
intrusion on the local environment. Routes, which pass close
to residential property, need to be assessed for the effects of road
traffic noise and visual intrusion.
Several alternatives to mitigate road traffic noise impact
have been reported (Environmental Agency, 2002). The mitiga-
tion measures that are incorporated in an EIS are usually
restricted by social, economic, and engineering factors. The
first alternative to mitigate the noise impact could be locating
the road far away so that the noise perceived at residential
areas is negligible. However, the alignment of the road is
determined by many factors which may make it impossible to
accomplish noise reduction by distance only. Another alter-
native could be placing the road in cutting, although engineer-
ing factors or vertical alignment may rule out cuttings in
certain locations. Constructing the road in a tunnel is an option
to provide both containment of the source and highest noise
level reduction but this alternative is often too expensive to be
a realistic option. A different choice is to reduce noise at the
reception point by provision of secondary glazing. This
alternative does not screen occupants from adverse visual
effects or from noise when they are outside the house.
The use of noise-reducing road surfaces to mitigate traffic
noise impact has received much attention over the past few
years (Sandberg and Ejsmont, 2002; Crocker et al., 2005;
Morgan, 2006). A porous road surface reduces both the amount
of noise generated by tires and the energy of sound waves as
they spread across it. Although there are some practical
examples in the world, noise-reducing road surfaces are at
present relatively expensive to construct and maintain. In
addition, traffic light control has been used as an option to
reduce traffic noise levels.
Note that the road traffic mitigation measures mentioned
above are not a comprehensive list of all methods available
but just a selection of the most commonly-used examples.
Constructing a noise barrier is probably the most mentioned
mitigation measure in EISs that are developed when the
construction of a highway is planned. A noise barrier impedes
the transmission of traffic noise resulting in low noise levels at
the receiving point. Earth mounds, fences, or walls are common
ways to implement a noise barrier. The rest of this paper will
focus on this particular traffic noise mitigation measure.
4.2. Use of environmental sound barriers
An environmental sound barrier combines the functions of a
visual screen and a noise barrier to protect residential,
recreational, and other vulnerable areas alongside a road. A
large body of research work dealing with the modeling and
engineering design of noise barriers can be found in technical
literature (Maekawa, 1968; Kurze and Anderson, 1971; Simon
et al., 1998; Menge et al., 1998; Pamanikabud and Tansatcha,
2003; Li and Wong, 2005a; Arenas, 2007a). In addition, many
researchers have specifically aimed their work to predict the
performance of noise barriers and to develop more efficient
barrier designs (Arenas and Monsalve, 2001; Ishizuka and
Fujiwara, 2004; Li and Wong 2005b).
176 SC IE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79
On average, environmental noise barriers reduce A-weighted
noise levels by 3–7 dB, depending on their design and height. If
the barrier surface density exceeds 20 kg/m2, a reduction of 5 dB
can be achieved by having a barrier tall enough to break the line
of sight from the road to the receiver and an additional 1.5 dB
reduction can be achieved for each additional meter of height. In
practice, however, environmental barriers normally have an
upper attenuation limit of about 20 dB for a single barrier and
25 dB for a double barrier. The length of the barrier is designed to
be at least eight times as long as the distance from the receiver
to the barrier (USDT, 2001).
The total cost of a noise barrier depends on many factors
including height, length, material type, building technique,
maintenance, etc. Some examples of the average cost of
different types of environmental barriers can be found in the
literature (Arenas, 2006).
Unfortunately, when barriers are used in the field, meteor-
ological effects such as wind or temperature gradients above
the barrier normally degrade their acoustical performance.
Previous studies have shown that vegetation helps to reduce
wind effects (Van Renterghem et al., 2002).
A good design has to take into account that a barrier should
require minimal maintenance, other than cleaning or damage
repair, for many years. A service life of 40 years is desirable,
with no major maintenance required for 20 years. Therefore,
attention should be paid to the selection of materials used in
the construction of barriers, particularly for areas subject to
extreme weather conditions. Noise barriers can be constructed
from earth, concrete, masonry, wood, metal, plastic, and other
materials or combination of materials (Kotzen and English,
1999). A report showed that until 1998 most barriers built in the
US have been made from concrete or masonry blocks, ranging
from 3 to 5 m in height, and slightly more than 1% has been
constructed with absorptive materials (USDT, 2000).
An example of an environmental barrier is an earth
mound. In fact, an earth mound (sometimes called a berm)
is a noise barrier constructed of soil, stone, rock, or rubble,
often landscaped, running along a highway to protect adjacent
land users from noise pollution. There is a cost advantage in
using earth mounds since they can often be constructed using
surplus materials at project sites, provided there is sufficient
land area available for their construction. Through the use of
life-cycle cost analysis it has been reported that earth mounds
represent the lowest cost alternative to construct a noise
barrier (Morgan et al., 2001). An earth mound is an obvious
solution to reduce visual impact because it can be made to fit
in with the landscape more naturally than any vertical
structure, especially as it can support planting which greatly
improves its appearance in most rural contexts. In other
words, the soft natural outline of an earth mound, in
conjunction with planting, is likely to be more attractive to
both local residents and to road users. When plants are
selected for use in conjunction with a barrier, they should
generally be of hardy evergreen species (native plantings are
preferable), which require a low level of maintenance.
Concerning the acoustic performance of earth mounds,
some studies have indicated that earth mounds may provide
more sound attenuation than vertical walls of the same
height, although experimental and theoretical assessments
have yielded mixed results (Arenas, 2007b).
5. Potential problems with sound barriers
Although barriers can efficiently mitigate the effects of traffic
noise and visual intrusion in the immediate vicinity of a road,
they themselves may have a significant impact on their
surroundings. These include their physical surroundings, and
also their human surroundings (Klingner et al., 2003). For
example, the presence of a barrier in a community can
produce important changes in property values (Kim et al.,
2007). Therefore, both the need for and the design of barriers
should be considered at the initial route planning stage, taking
into account the effects on ecosystems, drivers, and people
living alongside the traffic corridor, incorporating solutions to
mitigate any adverse effects.
5.1. Effects on ecosystems
The ecological impact of roads on wildlife and habitat has been
the subject of a large number of studies (Forman and Alexander,
1998; Ramp et al., 2005, 2006). It is well known that roads can
cause numerous fatalities as a result of collisions with the
vehicles that travel on them. In addition, roads can also
fragment populations by forming barriers to movement, isolat-
ing them from resources and mates, thus causing a demographic
threat. In the review on the ecological effects of roads presented
by Forman and Alexander (1998), this barrier effect is suggested
as the greatest ecological impact of roads with vehicles. It seems
reasonable to assume that sound barriers reduce mortality due
to collisions but accentuate the problems of small wildlife
populations. This fact could affect numerous species near a
lengthy sound barrier. The inclusion of a structure called ecoduct
that is built over a road to provide a connection between areas of
nature on each side helps to mitigate this effect.
In particular, birds flying into transparent sound barriers
(typically made of thermosetting acrylic polymers) are a
potential ecological problem. This may increase bird road kill
rates which can be significant for endangered or threatened
species in some nations (Reijnen et al., 1997). Therefore,
treatment of transparent sound barriers by either using tinted
material or by superimposing a pattern of thin opaque stripes
makes good ecological sense.
When an earth mound is designed as an environmental
sound barrier, vegetation is typically used to enhance
aesthetics and reduce undesirable visual intrusion. Some-
times planting woody species may also help to reduce erosion,
control snow accumulation, support wildlife, and reduce
headlight glare. However, planted exotic species on earth
mounds may spread into nearby natural ecosystems.
Although the effects of roads on the natural environment
have been discussed in the literature, potential ecological
problems of sound barriers such as impacts on microclimate,
disturbance on wildlife populations, wind flow, run-off and
water flow, have not been studied so far. Thus, these
potentially important effects are rarely mentioned in EIA.
5.2. Effects on drivers
Drivers have sometimes complained of a loss of view or scenic
vistas and a feeling of being “walled in” when traveling adjacent
 S CIE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79
to barriers. High barriers substantially hide the view of existing
landmarks from the road, but they also hide visual clutter,
which might otherwise distract the attention of drivers. It is
recommended that the appearance of barriers should be
designed to avoid monotony (the need to provide drivers with
visual relief street furniture). The lack of varied stimulants on
wide, endless highways is a factor causing sleepiness in drivers.
It has been shown that falling asleep while driving accounts for
a considerable proportion of vehicle accidents under mono-
tonous driving conditions (Horne and Reyner, 1999).
Surveys of drivers in the Netherlands have indicated that a
view, which remains unchanged for 30 s, is monotonous
(Highways Agency, 1994). This suggests that changes in design
of barrier face every 800 m are desirable for long barriers
adjacent to a high-speed road. Varying the form and materials,
alternating solid and transparent panels, and using color
variations will add visual interest and avoid the monotony of a
uniform barrier solution. From design point of view, the
appearance of barriers has to be aimed in terms of aesthetic
concepts well known in architecture, such as proportion,
order, rhythm, harmony, and contrast. In addition, a barrier
which alludes to the locality hidden behind it will help drivers
to avoid boredom or disorientation.
On the other hand, barriers will generally be set back from
the road edge by the need of clearances. Although this reduces
their acoustic efficiency, it also avoids the visually oppressive
canyon effect on either side of the road.
Research has also been conducted to establish the poten-
tial mitigating influence of roadside environments on drivers.
In one of such studies, Parsons et al. (1998) concluded that
stress associated with driving may possibly be mitigated by
aesthetically preferred, stress-reducing roadside environ-
ments dominated by nature. Subsequent studies have also
suggested that highways designed with a lot of vegetation
may reduce driver frustration, which is a source of unsafe
driving (Cackowski and Nasar, 2003). Mok et al. (2006) have
indicated that the landscape along a roadside has a positive
effect on driver behavior and perception, thus reducing crash
rates. On the other hand, the assessment of the impact of
green space on urban environmental quality and social well-
being has been the subject of an EU research project (De Ridder
et al., 2004).
Sometimes, the use of transparent barriers is indicated as a
measure to reduce visual impact. However, a low sun shining
through transparent barriers can also distract drivers by
causing a flickering light. In some countries, the long shadows
created by barriers in winter may cause ice and snow to
remain in patches, which will have implications for safety and
maintenance costs (Highways Agency, 1994).
5.3. Effects on residents
Experience in several countries has indicated that residents
living behind a high noise barrier quickly forget the previous
high noise levels, and instead become dissatisfied with the
loss of view which was once enjoyed (Bendtsen, 1994).
Most of the residents near a barrier seem to feel that
highway noise barriers effectively reduce traffic noise and that
the benefits of barriers far outweigh their disadvantages. Even
though some studies have shown that public reaction to
177
highway noise barriers appears to be positive, specific reac-
tions vary widely (Nilsson and Berglund, 2006; USDT, 2001).
Only a few examples of community involvement during
the process of designing an aesthetically pleasing sound
barrier have been reported (Billera et al. 1996; Bailey and
Grossardt, 2006). One of them, developed by the New Jersey
Department of Transportation in the US, led to the design of a
sound barrier with gateways and a unifying corridor theme. As
a consequence, the sound barrier became a representation of
the community and gave the community a unique quality
with which to identify (Billera et al., 1996; Klingner et al., 2003).
As an exercise to identify some of the effects from
residents' point of view, a pilot social survey was planned in
which residents of an area, affected by the construction of a
barrier, gave spontaneous answers to a couple of questions. In
this case residents did not get involved during the sound
barrier design process.
The pilot survey was conducted at a site where a barrier
was located between a heavily traveled main road and a
middle-class residential area. The residential area and the
noise barrier were separated by a low-traffic service road
running parallel to the barrier. There were several speed
reduction humps in the service road. The barrier was a
conventional reflective noise barrier, made of prefabricated
concrete panels, having a length of 350 m, an average height of
3 m, and located with S–N orientation.
Questionnaire data were collected from an area of detached
houses situated along the road adjacent to where the barrier
was built. The survey was conducted approximately 9 months
after the barrier was erected. The study only included those
houses where the distance between the barrier and facade was
less than 100 m. The area involved a total of 81 households.
The study population included all the 218 adult residents
(18 years or older) living in the respective houses. The
population only considered those residents that lived in the
same household before the barrier was built. The question-
naire given to the residents included only two queries that had
no preset answers: (a) Please make a list of all the positive
effects you have noticed after the barrier was built, and
(b) Please make a list of all the corresponding negative effects.
The residents were asked to answer the queries indepen-
dently of other members of the household. The questionnaires
were collected 1 week later. In the study, the residents'
participation rate was 58% (n = 126). Ambiguous answers
such as “less noise” or “barrier too ugly” were not included
as effects. Table 1 summarizes the results of the pilot survey.
Table 1 shows that most residents felt that sleeping
conditions improved after the barrier was built. Better sleep
quality, not being awakened too early in the morning, ability to
take naps, better mood, more alert next day, and no problem
falling asleep were some of the most frequent answers. We
observe that better sleeping conditions, easier indoor conversa-
tions, and windows opened more often are all direct benefits of
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. In addition,
residents perceived indirect benefits such as increased privacy,
feeling of safety, cleaner air, and reduced dust. Other positive
effects reported by the residents that were not classified
included the feeling that the present environment is more
relaxing, conversations outdoors are easier, greener lawns, and
the fact that gardens and yards are used more often.
178 SC IE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79
Table 1 – Results of the pilot survey
Effects No. of respondents %
Positive
Better sleeping conditions 78
Conversations in household are easier 54
Windows are opened more often 51
Increased privacy/feeling of safety 47
Cleaner air/reduced dust 34
Reduced volume when listening TV/radio 29
Others 39
Negative
Loss of sunlight and lighting 83
Restriction of view/visual impact 72
Poor maintenance of the barrier 71
Restricted access to the other side 51
Loss of air circulation 36
Others 21
It can be seen that most important negative reactions from
residents include the loss of sunlight and lighting (which is
caused by the orientation and material choice of the barrier),
the restriction of view and visual impact, and the poor
maintenance of the barrier (caused by graffiti, fly posters
and vandalism). A significant number of respondents com-
plain about the restricted access to the other side of the main
road. Provision of a pedestrian bridge could mitigate this
effect. Other negative effects reported include a feeling of
imprisonment, damage to gardens (probably associated to the
loss of sunlight), criticisms about the choice of barrier material
(plain concrete instead of more natural or recycled material),
and lack of planting near the barrier.
As expected, some of the residents complained about the
use of a vertical wall instead of a barrier made of plantings,
shrubs or rows of trees. There is a prevalent popular belief that
rows of big trees produce a significant reduction in road traffic
noise. However, it is well known that noise reductions are
irrelevant unless the vegetation is very dense and wide.
Although some authors have suggested that vegetation
produces beneficial effects in improving public perception of
the noise due to visual and psychological relief, other studies
have shown the opposite (Watts et al., 1999).
Based on the results, 57% of the respondents reported
negative visual dominance of the barrier. It is widely accepted
that noise barriers should reflect the character of their
surroundings or the local neighborhood as much as possible
to be acceptable to local residents. In this case, the option of
using an earth mound was ruled out since there was no
sufficient land area available for their construction. However,
the visual character of the sound barrier, in relationship with
their environmental setting, was not carefully considered.
In general, it is recommended to locate a noise barrier as far
as possible from residential facades and to provide land-
scaping near the barrier to avoid visual dominance and reduce
the visual impact (USDT, 2001). However, there will be a large
element of site-specificity in whatever action is taken.
Landscape and visual assessment are essential components
of EIA (Wilson, 2002). In addition to noise pollution, the visual
landscape modification has been the subject of some recent
research, particularly for wind farms. As in the case of sound
barriers, appreciation of visual impact is a subjective topic not
properly mentioned in current national laws. A methodology to
assess the visual impact of wind farms in Spain, based on a
Visual Impact Evaluation Matrix (VIEM), has been presented by
62
Hurtado et al. (2003). This method appears to be concise and
43
40 clear to evaluate, before its construction, the visual impact that a
37 wind farm can have. Comparable objective assessment meth-
27 ods have not been reported for sound barriers.
23 Some countries have developed design guides for highway
31 sound barriers (Highways Agency, 1994; Klingner et al., 2003).
These guides include not only technical specifications but also
66
recommendations to avoid visual impact. However, there is a
57 need to develop similar guides in new industrial countries,
56 which may be based on each country's characteristics.
41 It is very significant to note that issues on the public
29 acceptance of noise barriers are usually not mentioned in EIS.
17
In addition, comments or concerns from the community about
negative impacts of barriers are generally not received during
the community involvement process.
6. Conclusions
It is reconfirmed that the construction of an environmental
sound barrier can have several positive and negative conse-
quences for most of the residents near the barrier. It appears that
the benefits of barriers prevail over their disadvantages if they
achieve a balance between meeting the needs of noise reduction
and minimizing their intrusion on the local environment. Based
on the findings of the pilot study, we can conclude that
improvement in sleeping conditions was the most appreciated
positive effect of the environmental barrier. On the other hand,
the loss of sunlight and visual dominance were the most negative
impacts reported by the community. Although the responses
were given in a pilot survey, some tendencies can be observed. In
addition, the pilot survey is very useful in giving an estimate of
the non-response rate and also acts as a guide to carry out a larger
scale survey. The results also encourage additional longitudinal
studies, i.e., repeated studies on the same population.
Several other negative impacts were reported and many of
them could have simply been addressed in the project
planning stage. Therefore, it becomes necessary that project
designers and managers address some of these problems in
order to avoid or minimize potential impacts produced by the
use of barriers to reduce road traffic noise.
Clearly, further work could be orientated toward studying
similar trends for drivers and road users.
While several articles have been published recently
regarding the ecological effects of roads none of them has
studied the potential effects of sound barriers and mitigation
strategies of their impact on sensible ecosystems. It may
reasonably be assumed that the potential impacts of sound
barriers on the ecosystems are similar with those described in
the literature for roads. This is evidently a crucially important
subject that needs further research.
Since the Chilean experience in constructing environmen-
tal sound barriers is limited, these studies could help as a
guide to avoid adverse effects and produce better public
acceptance of sound barriers when used as a mitigation
measure in environmental impact statements.
 S CIE N CE OF T H E TOT AL E N V I RO N ME N T 4 0 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 1 7 3–1 79
REFERENCES
Arenas JP, Monsalve AM. Modification of the diffracted sound field
by some noise barrier edge design. Int J Acoust Vib
2001;6:76–82.
Arenas JP. Sound barriers and environmental impact studies,
distinguished keynote lecture. Proc. 13th International
Congress on Sound and Vibration, 2–6 July 2006. Austria:
Vienna; 2006.
Arenas JP. Use of barriers. In: Crocker MJ, editor. Handbook of noise and
vibration control. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2007a. p. 714–24.
Arenas JP. Sound attenuation provided by earth mounds used for
reducing traffic noise from highways. Proc. 2007 International
Congress and exhibition on noise control engineering, 28–31.
Turkey: Istambul; 2007b. August 2007.
Bailey K, Grossardt T. Structured public involvement in
context-sensitive noise wall design using casewise visual
evaluation. Transp Res Rec 2006;1984:112–20.
Bendtsen H. Visual principles for the design of noise barriers.
Sci Total Environ 1994;146/147:67–71.
Billera D, Parsons RD, Hetrick SA. Good fences make good
neighbors: highway noise barriers and the built environment.
Transp Res Rec 1996;1601:55–63.
Cackowski JM, Nasar JL. The restorative effects of roadside
vegetation: implications for automobile driver anger and
frustration. Environ Behav 2003;35:736–51.
Crocker MJ, Li Z, Arenas JP. Measurements of tyre/road noise and
of acoustical properties of porous road surfaces. Int J Acoust
Vib 2005;10:52–60.
De Ridder K, Adamec V, Banuelos A, Bruse M, Burger M, Damsgaard
O, et al. An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of
urban green space. Sci Total Environ 2004;334/335:489–97.
Forman RTT, Alexander LE. Roads and their major ecological
effects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1998;29:207–31.
Environmental Agency. Horizontal Guidance for Noise: Part 2—Noise
Assessment and Control, Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control, Bristol; 2002.
Hickling R. Surface transportation noise. In: Crocker MJ, editor.
Handbook of acoustics. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1998.
p. 897–906.
Highways Agency. Design guide for environmental barriers,
Chapter 10, Section 5 in Design manual for roads and bridges,
Part 1, HA65/94, London; 1994.
Horne JA, Reyner LA. Vehicle accidents related to sleep: a review.
Occup Environ Med 1999;56:289–94.
Horstmann K, Klennert K, Phantumvanit D. Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for development. Proc. of a Joint DSE/UNEP
International Seminar, DSE/ZEL, 9–12 April 1984. Germany:
Feldafing; 1985.
Hurtado JP, Fernandez J, Larrondo JL, Blanco E. Spanish method of
visual impact evaluation in wind farms. Renew Sustain Energ
Rev 2003;8:483–91.
Ishizuka T, Fujiwara K. Performance of noise barriers with various
edge shapes and acoustical conditions. Appl Acoust
2004;65:125–41.
Kim KS, Park SJ, Kweon YJ. Highway traffic noise effects on land
price in an urban area. Transport Res D-TR E 2007;12:275–80.
Klingner RE, McNerney MT, Busch-Vishniac I. Design Guide for
Highway Noise Barriers, Report No FHWA/TX-04/0-1471-4,
Austin, TX, Federal Highway Administration; 2003.
Kotzen B, English C. Environmental noise barriers—A guide to their
acoustic and visual design. E&FN Spon, London; 1999. 165 pp.
Kurze UJ, Anderson GS. Sound attenuation by barriers. Appl Acoust
1971;4:35–53.
Li KM, Wong HY. A review of commonly used analytical and
empirical formulae for predicting sound diffracted by a thin
screen. Appl Acoust 2005a;66:45–76.
179
Li KM, Wong HY. The acoustic performance of a cranked barrier:
an approximate integral formulation. Acta Acoust United Ac
2005b;91:680–8.
Maekawa Z. Noise reduction by screens. Appl Acoust 1968;1:157–73.
Menge CW, Rossano CF, Anderson GS, Bajdek CJ. FHWA Traffic
Noise Model Technical Manual, Report No FHWA-PD-96-010.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 1998.
Mok J-H, Landphair HC, Naderi JR. Landscape improvement impacts
on roadside safety in Texas. Landsc Urban Plan 2006;78:263–74.
Morgan P. Guidance manual for the implementation of low-noise
road surfaces, FEHRL Report 2006/02, Brussels; 2006.
Morgan SM, Kay DH, Bodapati SN. Study of noise barrier life-cycle
costing. J Transp Eng-ASCE 2001;127:230–6.
Nilsson ME, Berglund B. Noise annoyance and activity disturbance
before and after the erection of a roadside noise barrier.
J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:2178–88.
Ohrstrom E. Longitudinal surveys on effects of changes in road
traffic noise—annoyance, activity disturbances, and
psycho-social well-being. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:719–29.
OPB. RS 814.41: Ordonnance fédérale sur la protection contre le
bruit, Swiss Confederation; 1986.
Pamanikabud P, Tansatcha M. Geographical information system
for traffic noise analysis and forecasting with the appearance
of barriers. Environ Modell Softw 2003;18:959–73.
Parsons R, Tassinary LG, Ulrich RS, Hebl MR, Grossman-Alexander
M. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and
immunization. J Environ Psych 1998;18:113–40.
Queensland Government. Environmental Assessment of Tugun
Bypass Project, Nerang Qld, Department of Main Roads; 2004.
Ramp D, Caldwell J, Edwards KA, Warton D, Croft DB. Modelling of
wildlife fatality hotspots along the Snowy Mountain Highway
in New South Wales, Australia. Biol Conserv 2005;126:474–90.
Ramp D, Wilson VK, Croft DB. Assessing the impacts of roads in
peri-urban reserves: road-based fatalities and road usage by
wildlife in the Royal National Park, New South Wales. Australia
Biol Conserv 2006;129:348–59.
Reijnen R, Foppen R, Veenbaas G. Disturbance by traffic of breeding
birds: evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning
and managing road corridors. Biodivers Conserv 1997;6:567–81.
Sandberg U, Ejsmont JA. Tyre/Road Noise Reference Book.
Infomex. Sweden: Kisa; 2002. 640 pp.
Simon F, Pfretzschner J, de la Colina C, Moreno A. Ground
influence on the definition of single rating index for noise
barrier protection. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:232–6.
USDT. US Department of Transportation, Highway traffic noise barrier
construction trends, Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Natural Environment, Noise Team, Washington, DC; 2000.
USDT. US Department of Transportation, Keeping the noise
down—Highway traffic noise barriers, Publication No
FHWA-EP-01-004, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC; 2001.
Van Renterghem T, Botteldooren D, Cornelis WM, Gabriels D.
Reducing screen-induced refraction of noise barriers in wind
by vegetative screens. Acta Acoust United Ac 2002;88:231–8.
Wathern P. Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and
Practice. London: Routledge; 1998. 356 pp.
Watts G, Chinn L, Godfrey N. The effects of vegetation on the
perception of traffic noise. Appl Acoust 1999;56:39–56.
Williams ID, McCrae IS. Road traffic nuisance in residential and
commercial areas. Sci Total Environ 1995;169:75–82.
Willis KG, Garrod GD, Harvey DR. A review of cost–benefit analysis
as applied to the evaluation of new road proposals in the U.K.
Transport Res D-TR E 1998;3:141–56.
Wilson S. Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment.
London: Taylor & Francis; 2002. 192 pp.
Zannin PHT, Diniz FB, Barbosa WA. Environmental noise pollution
in the city of Curitiba, Brazil. Appl Acoust 2002;63::351–8.
Zannin PHT, Ferreira AMC, Szeremeta R. Evaluation of noise pollution
in urban parks. Environ Monit Assess 2006;118:423–33.