thesis statements about noise pollution

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Open Access Maced J Med Sci
• v.7(8); 2019 Apr 30

A Study of Noise Pollution Measurements and Possible Effects on Public Health in Ota Metropolis, Nigeria

Pelumi e. oguntunde.

1 Department of Mathematics, Covenant University, Ogun State, Ota, Nigeria

Hilary I. Okagbue

Omoleye a. oguntunde.

2 Department of Business Management, Covenant University, Ogun State, Ota, Nigeria

Oluwole O. Odetunmibi

Background:.

Noise pollution has become a major environmental problem leading to nuisances and health issues.

This paper aims to study and analyse the noise pollution levels in major areas in Ota metropolis. A probability model which is capable of predicting the noise pollution level is also determined.

Datasets on the noise pollution level in 41 locations across Ota metropolis were used in this research. The datasets were collected thrice per day; morning, afternoon and evening. Descriptive statistics were performed, and analysis of variance was also conducted using Minitab version 17.0 software. Easy fit software was however used to select the appropriate probability model that would best describe the dataset.

The noise levels are way far from the WHO recommendations. Also, there is no significant difference in the effects of the noise pollution level for all the times of the day considered. The log-logistic distribution provides the best fit to the dataset based on the Kolmogorov Smirnov goodness of fit test.

CONCLUSION:

The fitted probability model can help in the prediction of noise pollution and act as a yardstick in the reduction of noise pollution, thereby improving the public health of the populace.

Introduction

Noise pollution is one of several environmental pollutions across the world. It can be described as the propagation of noise with a harmful impact on the physiological and psychological lives of humans or animals [ 1 ]. Noise or sound pollution is usually not studied compared with other forms of pollution such as air [ 2 ], [ 3 ], [ 4 ], water [ 5 ], soil [ 6 ], light and radioactive. The reason is that the adverse effects of other forms of pollution on humans are more pronounced. Notwithstanding, noise pollution remains a serious health concern in the study area (Ota, Nigeria) in particular and the entire planet [ 7 ], [ 8 ]. Some of the identified sources of noise pollution are loud music from concerts, religious buildings like churches and mosques, noise emitting generators [ 9 ], political rallies, road advertisement, traffic [ 10 ] and air transportation [ 11 ], sporting events, construction and industrial activities. In all the mentioned sources, areas that have high risk of noise pollution are residential places near to major roads [ 12 ] and airports and manufacturing industries [ 13 ]; for example, small scale industries [ 14 ], [ 15 ], steel rolling industries [ 16 ], oil and gas industry [ 17 ], [ 18 ] and so on.

The health effects of noise pollution cannot be over-emphasised. This has prompted the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Federal Environment Protection Agency (FEPA) (Nigeria) to set standards and limits of allowable noise levels. Noise pollution occurs when it is observed that those standards are exceeded as seen in [ 19 ], [ 20 ].

The most common manifestation of noise pollution is hearing loss or impairment [ 21 ]. Hearing impairment is mostly classified as occupational hazards especially when the individual is affiliated with industry that propagates loud sound or noise. Moreover, several physiological and psychological effects of noise pollution exist. The combination of noise and air pollution is associated with respiratory ailments, dizziness and tiredness in school children [ 22 ], [ 23 ]. In adults, noise pollution has been found to be associated with high blood pressure [ 24 ] and cognitive difficulties [ 25 ].

A look at the literature showed the abundance of evidence of the adverse effects of noise pollution on the general public health. The worsening situation of noise pollution is that it has not been upgraded to the level of the other forms of pollution. Also, recommendations suggested by several authors on the different strategies on tackling noise pollution has not been considered and implemented. However, noise pollution continues to impact negatively on fetal development [ 26 ], annoyance and anxiety [ 27 ], mental health crisis [ 28 ], sleep disturbance and insomnia [ 29 ], [ 30 ], cardiovascular disorders in pregnant women [ 31 ], cardiocerebrovascular diseases [ 32 ], type 2 diabetes incidence [ 33 ] and medically unexplained physical symptoms [ 34 ]. Other auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health are myocardial infarction incidence [ 35 ], peptic ulcers [ 36 ] and disruption of communication and retentive capabilities in children [ 37 ].

Material and Methods

The dataset used in this research was gotten from [ 38 ]. It represents the noise level in 41 major locations in Ota metropolis, Nigeria. These major areas include industrial areas, commercial areas, passenger loading parks, busy roads and junctions. The readings were taken using the SLM (Sound Level Meter). Measurements were taken three different times of the day; morning (7 am to 9 am), afternoon (1 pm to 3 pm) and evening (6 pm to 8 pm). Particularly, the noise pollution level (NLP) was considered and analysed in this present research.

Analysis of Variance

Analysis of variance is conducted in this research to know if there is a significant difference between the effect of noise pollution level in the morning, afternoon and evening in Ota metropolis. The hypothesis tested is:

H 0 : The effects of the noise pollution level are the same for morning, afternoon and evening

H 1 : The effects of the noise pollution level are not the same for at least one of either morning, afternoon or evening.

The level of significance used is 0.05, and the null hypothesis is considered rejected if the p-value is less or equal to the level of significance. The structure of the ANOVA table is such as presented in Table 1 .

A typical example of a one-way ANOVA Table

where, ‘f’ is the number of factors which is 3 according to this research; morning, afternoon and evening. ‘n’ is the overall sample size.

The goodness of Fit Test

The goodness of fit test is performed in this research to select the probability model that best fits the dataset. The Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) test, the Anderson Darling (AD) test and Chi-square test are examples of the goodness of fit tests.

The KS test was adopted in this research because it is the most popular and others might give similar results. The null hypothesis tests whether the data follow a specified distribution. If represent ordered data points, the KS statistic is:

where are the ordered data and is the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the continuous distribution tested.

Descriptive Analysis of the Dataset

The summary for the LNP measurements is provided in Figures ​ Figures1 1 to ​ to3 3 while the summary for the mean measurement across the 41 locations is provided in Figure 4 .

Summary report for morning measurements on LNP

Summary report for evening measurements on LNP

Summary report for the mean measurements of LNP across all locations in Ota

Summary report for afternoon measurements on LNP

Result for the Analysis of Variance

The analyses of the means of the various measurements are presented in Table 2 .

Analysis of the Means

The 95% confidence interval (CI) plot for the means is displayed in Figure 5 .

The 95% confidence interval (C.I) plot for the means

The result of the analysis of variance is presented in Table 3 .

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Table

The result in Table 3 shows that the generated p-value is 0.997 which is far greater than the level of significance (0.05). Hence, there is no enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, and it can, therefore, be concluded that there is no significant difference in the means of the noise level measurements taken in the morning, afternoon and evening. This result is further confirmed by Turkey’s post-hoc test which is summarized in Figure 6 .

Summary of Turkey’s post-hoc analysis

It can be observed in Figure 6 that all the intervals contained zero; this is an indication that there is no significant difference in the pair of each of the measurements considered.

Fitting of Probability Models

To determine the appropriate probability model that describes the mean noise pollution level in Ota metropolis, Easyfit (trial version) software was used to select distribution with the best fit. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test of goodness of fit was used to select the best model. The software fitted sixty distributions to the dataset, but the best five was reported in this research. The result is presented in Table 4 .

Fitted Distributions

From Table 4 , the best-fitted model is the three-parameter Log-logistic distribution; this selection/decision is based on the Kolmogorov Smirnov statistic. A graph showing the best distribution fitted to the dataset on mean noise pollution level is presented in Figure 7 .

Graph of log-logistic distribution on the histogram of the dataset

In conclusion, further analyses of the noise pollution level in Ota metropolis has been provided in this research. The mean noise level in the morning was 90.78 which is higher than (though very close to) that of afternoon and evening with means 90.6 and 90.72 respectively. This is reasonable as more activities are expected during this time; pupils are going to school, workers going to the office, traffic at some junction and major bus stops. However, the analysis of variance result indicated that the time of the day (morning, afternoon and evening) have the same effect on the environment and populace. Also, the noise pollution level in Ota metropolis can be modelled using the log-logistic distribution as evident from the goodness of fit test. The model can now be used in predicting and managing noise pollution in that area. Furthermore, the model can be used in different geographical settings where noise pollution poses a perceived threat to the public health of the populace.

Funding: This research received financial support from the Covenant University

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist

• Systematic Map
• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2020

Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map

• Romain Sordello 1 ,
• Ophélie Ratel 1 ,
• Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle 2 ,
• Clément Leger 3 ,
• Alexis Dambry 1 &
• Sylvie Vanpeene 4  

Environmental Evidence volume  9 , Article number:  20 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

45k Accesses

41 Citations

63 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Systematic Map Protocol to this article was published on 12 February 2019

Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Indeed, many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to the persistence of many species. The present work is a systematic map of the evidence of the impacts of all anthropogenic noises (industrial, urban, transportation, etc.) on biodiversity. This report describes the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables presenting the characteristics of the selected articles.

The method used was published in an a priori protocol. Searches included peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases were searched using English terms and search consistency was assessed with a test list. Supplementary searches were also performed (using search engines, a call for literature and searching relevant reviews). Articles were screened through three stages (titles, abstracts, full-texts). No geographical restrictions were applied. The subject population included all wild species (plants and animals excluding humans) and ecosystems. Exposures comprised all types of man-made sounds in terrestrial and aquatic media, including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes were considered (space use, reproduction, communication, etc.). Then, for each article selected after full-text screening, metadata were extracted on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.).

Review findings

Our main result is a database that includes all retrieved literature on the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species and ecosystems, coded with several markers (sources of noise, species concerned, types of impacts, etc.). Our search produced more than 29,000 articles and 1794 were selected after the three screening stages (1340 studies (i.e. primary research), 379 reviews, 16 meta-analyses). Some articles (n = 19) are written in French and all others are in English. This database is available as an additional file of this report. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge. It can be used for primary research by identifying knowledge gaps or in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. It can also be helpful for scientists and researchers as well as for practitioners, such as managers of transportation infrastructure.

The systematic map reveals that the impacts of anthropogenic noises on species and ecosystems have been researched for many years. In particular, some taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, fishes), types of noise (transportation, industrial, abstract) and outcomes (behavioural, biophysiological, communication) have been studied more than others. Conversely, less knowledge is available on certain species (amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates), noises (recreational, military, urban) and impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems). The map does not assess the impacts of anthropogenic noise, but it can be the starting point for more thorough synthesis of evidence. After a critical appraisal, the included reviews and meta-analyses could be exploited, if reliable, to transfer the already synthesized knowledge into operational decisions to reduce noise pollution and protect biodiversity.

For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Species are disappearing [ 1 ], populations are collapsing [ 2 ], species’ ranges are changing (both shrinking and expanding) at unprecedented rates [ 3 ] and communities are being displaced by invasive alien species [ 4 ]. All of the above is caused by human activities and scientists regularly alert the international community to our responsibility [ 5 ]. In particular, urban growth is one of the major reasons for biodiversity loss [ 6 , 7 ] in that it destroys natural habitats, fragments the remaining ecosystems [ 8 ] and causes different types of pollution, for example, run-off, waste and artificial light impacting plants and animals [ 9 , 10 ]. Similarly, man-made sounds are omnipresent in cities, stemming from traffic and other activities (industrial, commercial, etc.) [ 11 ] and they can reach uninhabited places [ 12 ]. Anthropogenic noise can also be generated far from cities (e.g. tourism in a national park, military sonar in an ocean, civil aircraft in the sky).

Many studies have shown that such sounds may have considerable impact on animals. However, sound is not a problem in itself. A majority of species hear and emit sounds [ 13 ]. Sounds are often used to communicate between partners or conspecifics, or to detect prey or predators. The problem arises when sounds turn into “noise”, which depends on each species (sensitivity threshold) and on the type of impact generated (e.g. disturbances, avoidance, damage). In this case, we may speak of “noise pollution”. For instance, man-made sounds can mask and inhibit animal sounds and/or animal audition and it has been shown to affect communication [ 14 ], use of space [ 15 ] and reproduction [ 16 ]. This problem affects many biological groups such as birds [ 17 ], amphibians [ 18 ], reptiles [ 19 ], fishes [ 20 ], mammals [ 21 ] and invertebrates [ 22 ]. It spans several types of ecosystems including terrestrial [ 23 ], aquatic [ 24 ] and coastal ecosystems [ 25 ]. Many types of sounds produced by human activities can represent a form of noise pollution for biodiversity, including traffic [ 26 ], ships [ 27 ], aircraft [ 28 ] and industrial activities [ 29 ]. Noise pollution can also act in synergy with other disturbances, for example light pollution [ 30 ].

Despite this rich literature, a preliminary search did not identify any existing systematic maps pertaining to this issue. Some reviews or meta-analyses have been published, but most concern only one biological group, such as Morley et al. [ 31 ] on invertebrates, Patricelli and Blickley [ 32 ] on birds and Popper and Hastings [ 33 ] on fishes. Other syntheses are more general and resemble somewhat a systematic map, but their strategies seem to be incomplete. For instance, Shannon et al. [ 34 ] performed their literature search on only one database (ISI Web of Science within selected subject areas) and did not include grey literature. As another example, we can cite Rocca et al. in 2016, a meta-analysis that limited its population to birds and amphibians and its outcome to vocalization adjustment [ 35 ]. As a consequence, a more comprehensive map, covering all species and ecosystems, all sources of man-made sounds and all outcomes, and implementing a deeper search strategy (e.g. several databases, grey literature included) is needed to provide a complete overview for policy and practice.

This report presents a systematic map of evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity based on an a priori method published in a peer-reviewed protocol [ 36 ]. It describes the mapping process and the evidence base. It includes aggregate data and tables presenting the characteristics of the selected articles to highlight gaps in the literature concerning the issue. A database was produced in conjunction with this report, containing metadata for each selected article including key variables (species, types of sound, effects, etc.).

Stakeholder engagement

The current systematic map is managed by the UMS Patrimoine Naturel joint research unit funded by the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB), the National Scientific Research Center (CNRS) and the National Museum of Natural History (MNHN), in a partnership with INRAE. Our institutions act on behalf of the French Ecology Ministry and provide technical and scientific expertise to support public policies on biodiversity.

We identified noise pollution as an emergent threat for species and ecosystems that public authorities and practitioners will have to mitigate in the coming years. Indeed, for decades, noise regulations have focused primarily on the disturbances for humans, but we expect that public policies for biodiversity conservation will start to pay more attention to this threat. Already, in 1996, for the first time, the European Commission’s Green Paper on Future Noise Control Policy dealt with noise pollution from the point of view of environmental protection. Quiet areas are also recommended to guarantee the tranquility of fauna in Europe [ 37 ]. Since 2000 in France, an article in the Environmental Code (art. L571-1) has contained the terms “harms the environment” with respect to disturbances due to noise. To achieve these objectives, a knowledge transfer from research to stakeholders is needed for evidence-based decisions. We expect that concern for the impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity will develop along the same lines that it did for light pollution, which is now widely acknowledged by society. Anticipating this progress, we proposed to the French Ecology Ministry that we produce a systematic map of the impacts of noise on biodiversity in view of drafting a report on current knowledge and identifying sectors where research is needed to fill in knowledge gaps.

Objective of the review

The objective of the systematic map is to provide a comprehensive overview of the available knowledge on the impacts of noise pollution on species and ecosystems and to quantify the existing research in terms of the taxonomic groups, sources of noise and impact types studied.

The systematic map covers all species and ecosystems. In that we are currently not able to say exactly when a sound becomes a noise pollution for species (which is precisely why a systematic map and reviews are needed on this topic), this map covers all man-made sounds, regardless of their characteristics (e.g. frequency, speed, intensity), their origin (road traffic, industrial machines, boats, planes, etc.), their environment or media (terrestrial, aquatic, aerial) and their type (infrasound, ultrasound, white noise, etc.), and in most cases here uses the term “noise” or “noise pollution”. It does not include sounds made by other animals (e.g. chorus frogs) or natural events (e.g. thunder, waterfalls). The systematic map deals with all kinds of impacts, from biological to ecological impacts (use of space, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). It encompasses in situ studies as well as ex situ studies (aquariums, laboratories, cages, etc.). The components of the systematic map are detailed in Table  1 .

The primary question is: what is the evidence that man-made noise impacts biodiversity?

The secondary question is: which species, types of impacts and types of noise are most studied?

The method used to produce this map was published in an a priori peer-reviewed protocol by Sordello et al. [ 36 ]. Deviations are listed below. The method follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management [ 38 ] unless noted otherwise, and this paper conforms to ROSES reporting standards [ 39 ] (see Additional file 1 ).

Deviation from the a priori protocol published by Sordello et al. [ 36 ]

Method enhancements.

We reinforced the search strategy with:

a search performed on both CORE and BASE, whereas the protocol was limited to a search on only one of these two search engines,

export of the first 1000 hits for each search string run on Google Scholar, whereas the protocol foresaw the export of the first 300 hits,

extraction of the entire bibliography of 37 key reviews selected from the previously provided corpus whereas the protocol did not foresee this option.

Method downgrades

Because of our resource limitations:

we could not extract the design comparator (e.g. CE, BAE, BACE),

we could not split each article included in the map into several entries (i.e. a book with several chapters, a proceeding with multiple abstracts, a study with several species, sources of noise or outcomes). Consequently, we coded the multiple aspects of these articles on one line in the map database.

Search for articles

Searches were performed using exclusively English search terms. The list of search terms is presented below (see “ Search string ”).

Only studies published in English and in French were included in this systematic map, due to limited resources and the languages understood by the map team.

Search string

The following search string was built (see Additional file 2 , section I for more details on this process):

((TI = (noise OR sound$) OR TS = (“masking auditory” OR “man-made noise” OR “anthropogenic noise” OR “man-made sound$” OR “music festival$” OR ((pollution OR transportation OR road$ OR highway$ OR motorway$ OR railway$ OR traffic OR urban OR city OR cities OR construction OR ship$ OR boat$ OR port$ OR aircraft$ OR airplane$ OR airport$ OR industr* OR machinery OR “gas extraction” OR mining OR drilling OR pile-driving OR “communication network$” OR “wind farm$” OR agric* OR farming OR military OR gun$ OR visitor$) AND noise))) AND TS = (ecolog* OR biodiversity OR ecosystem$ OR “natural habitat$” OR species OR vertebrate$ OR mammal$ OR reptile$ OR amphibian$ OR bird$ OR fish* OR invertebrate$ OR arthropod$ OR insect$ OR arachnid$ OR crustacean$ OR centipede$)).

Comprehensiveness of the search

A test list of 65 scientific articles was established (see Additional file 2 , section II) to assess the comprehensiveness of the search string. The test list was composed of the three groups listed below.

Forty relevant scientific articles identified by the map team prior to the review.

Eight key articles identified using three relevant reviews: Brumm, 2010 (two articles) [ 40 ], Cerema, 2007 (three articles) [ 41 ] and Dutilleux and Fontaine, 2015 (three articles) [ 42 ].

Seventeen studies not readily accessible or indexed by the most common academic databases, submitted by subject experts contacted prior to the review (29 subject experts were contacted, 7 responded).

Bibliographic databases

The two databases below were searched (see Additional file 2 , section III for more details on database selection):

“Web of Science Core Collection” on the Web of Science platform (Clarivate) using the access rights of the French National Museum of Natural History, using the search string described above. The search covered SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI and CCR-EXPANDED (see Additional file 2 , section III for the complete list of citation indexes). A first request was run on 14 December 2018, without any timespan restriction, and returned 7859 citations. Secondly, an update request, restricted to 2019, was performed, using the same search string and citation indexes, on 6 May 2020, to collect the documents published in 2019. 685 citations were exported.

Scopus (Elsevier). The search string described above was adapted to take into account differences in the search syntax (see Additional file 2 , section IV). A first search was run on 14 December 2018, without any timespan restriction, using the access rights of the University of Bordeaux and returned 11,186 citations. Secondly, a new request restricted to 2019 was performed on 6 May 2020, using the same search string, using the access rights of the CNRS, to collect the documents published in 2019. 859 citations were exported.

Web-based search engines

Additional searches were undertaken using the three following search engines (see Additional file 2 , section V for more details):

Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.com/ ). Due to the limitations of Google Scholar, four search strings were constructed with English terms to translate the search string used for the bibliographic databases described above in a suitable form for Google Scholar. The first searches were performed on 11 June 2019 and the first 1000 citations (as a maximum, when available), sorted by citation frequency, were exported to a .csv file for each of the four search strings. Secondly, an update search was performed on 6 May 2020 with the same four search strings to collect the documents published in 2019; all hits (110) were exported;

BASE ( https://www.base-search.net ). Searches were performed on 12 April 2019. Given certain limitations of this search engine (maximum number of string characters), the search string built for the bibliographic databases described above was split into two search strings. Searches were performed on the titles of the articles, with no restriction to open access articles, on all types of documents and without any timespan restriction. The first 300 citations, sorted by relevance, were exported for each of the two search strings to a .csv file;

CORE ( https://core.ac.uk/ ). Searches were performed on 12 February 2019. The search engine allowed the use of the original search string used for the bibliographic databases. Searches were performed on the title of the articles and without any timespan restriction. The first 327 articles were manually downloaded, excepting the duplicates and the dead links.

Specialist websites

The following websites were manually searched for relevant articles, including grey literature:

Achieve QUieter Oceans by shipping noise footprint reduction website: http://www.aquo.eu/ .

Association for biodiversity conservation: http://www.objectifs-biodiversites.com .

Document portal of the French Ecology Ministry: http://www.portail.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ .

Document database of the French General commission for sustainable development: http://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ .

European Commission websites: http://ec.europa.eu/ and http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ .

European parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ .

French forum against noise: https://assises.bruit.fr/ .

Information and Documentation Center on Noise: http://www.bruit.fr .

We collected nine articles from these specialist websites that we included in the mapping process.

Supplementary searches

A call for literature was conducted via different channels from January 2019 to April 2019 to find supplementary literature, in particular non peer-reviewed articles, published in French or in English.

Specialized organizations were contacted via their networks, their web forums or their mailing lists:

the “IENE—Infra Eco Network Europe” ( http://www.iene.info/ ),

the French program on transportation infrastructure ITTECOP “Infrastructures de Transports Terrestres, ECOsystèmes et Paysages” ( http://www.ittecop.fr/ ),

the French national council for the protection of nature “Conseil national de protection de la nature (CNPN)”,

the Green and blue infrastructure policy, a French public policy ( http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr ),

the “Société Française d’Ecologie” ( https://www.sfecologie.org/ ),

the French national mailing list EvolFrance managed by INRAE on biological evolution and biodiversity ( https://www6.inra.fr/reid_eng/News/Evolfrance ).

The following social media were also used to alert the research community to the systematic map and to request non peer-reviewed articles: ResearchGate ( http://www.researchgate.net ), Twitter ( http://www.twitter.com ), LinkedIn ( http://www.linkedin.com ).

A total of 83 articles were sent to us in response to the call for literature.

Bibliographies from relevant reviews

After having collected the literature from the different sources described above, we selected 37 relevant reviews from our corpus. Then, we extracted all their bibliographic references, resulting in 4025 citations (see the list of the 37 reviews and their corresponding number of extracted citations in Additional File 3 ). Among these citations we excluded all duplicates (intra-duplicates and duplicates between these bibliographies and our previous literature collection). We screened the titles of the remaining citations, we retrieved the pdf file of the selected titles and then we screened their full-texts.

Testing the comprehensiveness of the search results

Among the 65 articles included in the test list, the number of articles retrieved from the main sources are (see Additional file 4 for more details on the comprehensiveness values): WOS CC 55, Scopus 56, Google Scholar 41, CORE 5, BASE 3, Relevant reviews 43.

The low comprehensiveness levels reached with CORE and BASE can be explained by the fact that these two search engines index mostly grey literature (they were included in the search strategy for this reason) such as reports, theses or books, whereas this type of literature is absent from the test list that mainly contains journal articles.

The overall comprehensiveness of the map search strategy is 95% (62 articles out of the 65 articles in the test list were retrieved by the different bibliographic sources, see in Additional file 4 the 3 unretrieved articles).

Manually added articles

Finally, some articles were added manually to the corpus:

the 3 articles included in the test list that were not retrieved by the search strategy,

36 relevant articles identified by the team that were found in other publications, but not retrieved by the search strategy. For example, these articles were detected in proceedings or books from which other articles had already been added to the map and that we discovered during the screening process or the full-text collection.

Duplicate removal

Duplicate removal was carried out throughout the mapping process using Excel (duplicate conditional formatting and visual identification line by line). Duplicates were removed from each corpus (e.g. intra Scopus duplicates) and between bibliographic sources (e.g. duplicates between Scopus and Google Scholar). The selected citation was systematically the one from Web of Science Core Collection because the metadata linked to the citations extracted from this database are more complete compared to the Scopus database and supplementary literature sources (BASE, CORE, Google Scholar, call for literature).

Article screening and study-eligibility criteria

Screening process.

Using the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria detailed below, all articles were screened using Excel, first on titles, then on abstracts and finally on the full-texts.

When there was any doubt regarding the presence of a relevant inclusion criterion or if there was insufficient information to make an informed decision, articles were retained for assessment at a later stage. In particular, articles retained after title screening, but that did not have an abstract were immediately transferred to full-text screening. Given that titles and abstracts in grey literature do not conform to scientific standards, assessment of grey literature was performed during the full-text screening phase. Care was taken to ensure that reviewers never screened their own articles.

The three screening stages were conducted by three reviewers (RS, SV, AD). To assess the consistency of the inclusion/exclusion decisions, a Randolph’s Kappa coefficient was computed before screening the full search results. To that end, a set of articles was randomly selected (respectively composed of 200 articles for title screening, 20 articles for abstract screening and 15 articles for full-text screening) and screened by each reviewer independently. The process was repeated until reaching a Kappa coefficient value higher than 0.6. But even after reaching the necessary Kappa value, all disagreements were discussed and resolved before beginning the screening process.

During calibration of the map protocol, a scoping stage was conducted in the “Web of Science Core Collection” and the three stages of the screening process were tested by one reviewer (RS) in order to refine the eligibility criteria. For these articles, a second reviewer (SV) examined all the rejected articles. Disagreements were discussed and, in some cases, articles were re-included. At the title screening stage, 4692 titles rejected by RS were checked by SV and 156 (3%) were re-included. At the abstract screening stage, 180 abstracts rejected by RS were checked by SV and none were re-included. At the full-text screening stage, 95 full-texts rejected by RS were checked by SV and none were re-included.

Eligibility criteria

Article eligibility was based on the list of criteria detailed in Table  2 , with no deviation from the a priori protocol.

The language was considered as an eligibility criteria only at the full-text screening stage. This means that if an article had an abstract written in another language than French or English, it was not excluded for this reason and it was transferred to the full-text screening stage.

During the three screening stages, rejected articles were systematically classified into four categories (see Table  3 for examples). When an article topic obviously lay outside the scope of this map, it was marked “D” (for Diverse); otherwise it was marked P for irrelevant Population, E for irrelevant Exposure or O for irrelevant Outcome.

Study-validity assessment

No study validity assessment was performed because the intention of the map was not to examine the robustness of the study designs. Critical appraisals of study validity are usually conducted in the case of systematic reviews, not for systematic maps. Footnote 1

Data-coding strategy

All the articles passing the three screening stages were included in the mapping database, apart from those published in 2019 or 2020. This is because some literature searches did not cover 2019 and others covered only a part of it. Consequently, we decided not to include articles published in 2019 (or in 2020) to maintain consistency in the map statistics. Accepted full-texts published in 2019 or 2020 were not coded and were grouped in an additional file for a possible later update of the map.

Each article included in the map was coded based on the full-text using keywords and expanded comment fields describing various aspects. The key variables are:

Article description:

Article source (WOS research, Scopus research, Google Scholar research, etc.);

Basic bibliographic information (authors, title, article date, journal, DOI, etc.);

Language (English/French);

Article type (journal article, book, thesis, conference object, etc.);

Article content (four possibilities: study, review, meta-analysis, other). A study consists of an experiment or an observation, it can be field based (in situ or ex situ) or model based. A review is a collection of studies, based or not on a standardized method. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis based on several previously published studies or data;

Article characteristics:

Type of population (taxonomic groups). First, we classified the articles according to four taxa: prokaryotes, vertebrates, invertebrates and plants. Then, for vertebrates and invertebrates, we classified the articles as concerning respectively amphibians/birds/fishes/mammals/reptiles/others or arachnids/crustaceans/insects/mollusks/others. This classification is based on different prior evidence syntheses on noise pollution [ 34 , 53 , 54 ], including more details concerning invertebrates. In addition, it is usual in biodiversity documentation and facilitates understanding by stakeholders;

Type of exposure (sources of noise, see Fig.  1 for more details);

Categories to code the sources of noise (exposure)

Type of outcomes (types of impacts, see Fig.  2 for more details).

Categories to code the impacts of noise (outcomes)

Here again, to categorize the exposure (sources of noise) and the outcomes (types of impacts), we used previously published evidence syntheses on noise pollution and biodiversity, in particular the review by Shannon et al. (2016) (see in this publication Table  2 , page 988 on the sources of noise and Table  3 , page 989 on the impacts of noise) [ 34 ].

For studies only:

Country where the study was conducted;

Type of habitat (terrestrial or aquatic);

Study context: in situ (field)/ex situ (laboratory, aquariums, etc.);

Experimental (causal)/observational (correlative) study;

Origin of noise (artificial, real, recorded).

These metadata were coded according to an a priori codebook (see Additional file 6 in Sordello et al. [ 36 ]) that was marginally adjusted. The final version of this codebook is included as a sheet in the provided database file (see below the corresponding Additional file 9 ).

As far as possible, controlled vocabularies were used to code the variables (e.g. article type, dates, country, etc.), using thesauri or ISO standards (e.g. ISO 639-1 for the language variable and the ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code for the country).

Coding was performed by three coders (OR, AD and RS). Because of time and resource limitations in our project, we could not undertake double coding and not all the articles could be coded by a single coder. Coding was carried out by three persons who successively coded a part of the articles. RS began, AD continued and OR finished. One coder coded all variables for the articles included in his/her group of articles (i.e. an article was not coded by several coders). There was no overlap in article coding. To understand the coding rules, explanation was given by RS to AD and OR before they started to code their group of articles. Also, to better understand the coding rules, AD could use the articles previously coded by RS and OR could use the articles previously coded by RS and AD. The three coding steps were monitored by RS who discussed with the two other coders in case of doubt. Finally, when the three groups of articles had been coded, RS reviewed the entire database to identify any errors and homogenize the terminology.

Data-mapping method

By cross-tabulating key meta-data variables (e.g. population and outcomes), summary figures and tables of the article characteristics were produced for this map report to identify knowledge gaps (un- or under-represented subtopics that warrant further primary research) and knowledge clusters (well-represented subtopics that are amenable to full synthesis by a systematic review). Based on these results, recommendations were made on priorities for policy makers, practitioners and research.

Literature searches and screening stages

During the screening process, reviewers did not screen articles that they had authored themselves, except the protocol of this systematic map and it was excluded during the title-screening stage.

The ROSES flow diagram below (Fig.  3 ) provides an overview of the screening process and shows the volumes of articles at the different stages. Detailed screening results are explained in Additional file 5 and illustrated with a full flow diagram in Additional file 6 . The list of all collated and screened articles is provided as an Excel sheet attached to this map report (Additional file 7 ). It contains information on the three screening stages (names of screeners, date of screening, inclusion/exclusion decisions, reason for exclusion, etc.). This file was drafted according to a codebook that describes each variable and the available values and that is included as a sheet in the provided file. In a separate sheet, it also contains the list of excluded full-texts and the reason for exclusion.

ROSES flow diagram of the systematic map process from the searching stage to the map database. Details are given in the Additional files 5 and 6

Among the 29,027 articles initially collected, 9482 were deleted because they were duplicates, 14,503 were excluded on titles, 947 on abstracts and 1262 on full-texts. A total of 1887 articles were definitively selected after the three screening stages. Among them, 1746 were included in the map to be coded (with 48 more articles manually added or coming from specialist websites) and 141 were grouped in a separate additional file because they were published in 2019–2020 (Additional file 8 ). The systematic-map database contains 1794 relevant articles on the impacts of anthropogenic noises on species and ecosystems (Additional file 9 ), of which 19 are written in French and 1775 in English.

General bibliometrics on the database

Article sources.

The systematic-map database is composed of 1794 articles that come (see Table  4 ):

mainly from bibliographic databases: 65% (48% from WOS CC and 17% from Scopus);

from the bibliography of relevant reviews in a significant proportion: 19%;

from web-based search engines: 12% (in particular 8% from Google Scholar).

Articles coming from the call for literature or the specialist websites and manually added articles represent less than 5% of the map.

Regarding the efficiency of the searches, the call for literature, CORE search engine and Web of Science CC database stand out as the most relevant sources of bibliography for this map (Table  4 ). For instance, 27% of the literature received from the call was included in the map as was 15% from CORE, however these two sources represent a very small part of the final map (1% and 3%, respectively). On the contrary, articles collected from Scopus represent 17% of the final map whereas only 3% of the total number of articles collected from this database were actually relevant. Concerning the key reviews from which citations were extracted, some of these reviews proved to be very useful for the map. For instance, 30% of the bibliography (47 articles) from Gomez et al. [ 55 ] were included in the map (see Additional file 3 for the percentage of extracted/included citations for each key review).

Article types and contents

Figure  4 a shows the distribution of article types. The systematic-map database is mainly composed of journal articles (1333, which represent more than 74%). The second highest proportions of article types in the map are book chapters and reports that each represent 8% of the map.

Types ( a ) and contents ( b ) of articles included in the systematic-map database

Figure  4 b shows the distribution of article contents. The systematic-map database is mainly composed of studies (1340, which represent more than 75% of the map), then, reviews (379, 21%) and meta-analyses (16, 1% with one article that is a mixed review/meta-analysis).

Not surprisingly, the majority of studies (1096/1340, 82%) and meta-analyses (13/16, 81%) were published as journal articles. Reviews are more spread over the different types of bibliographic sources even if they are also mainly published as journal articles (186/379, 49%).

Chronological distribution

The systematic-map database contains articles from 1932 to 2018 included. Figure  5 shows that production truely started around 1970 and then strongly increased starting around 2000 (Fig.  5 ).

Chronologic number of articles since 1950

Map characteristics on the population, exposure and outcomes

Taxonomic groups.

The systematic map contains articles almost exclusively on vertebrates (1641/1794, 91%). Invertebrates represent 9% of the map and plants and prokaryotes together form less than 1% (however, it should be noted here that our search string did not include “plant” nor “prokaryote” which may partly explain these results).

Mammals, birds and fishes are the three most studied taxonomic groups in the map (see Fig.  6 ), with respectively 778/1794 (43%), 524/1794 (29%) and 437/1794 documents (24%) (the sum of mammals, birds and fishes exceeds the number of vertebrates because one article counted as “vertebrates” can include several vertebrate sub-groups).

Number of articles for each type of taxonomic group (population), with details for studies and reviews/meta-analyses

These observed patterns regarding the population for the whole map are the same for studies and for reviews/meta-analyses. Mammals, birds and fishes are also the three taxonomic groups most considered in the studies (respectively 40%, 28% and 22%) and in the reviews/meta-analyses (respectively 52%, 33%, 30%).

Among invertebrates, crustaceans represent the most examined group (4% of the map, 3% of the studies, 6% of the reviews/meta-analyses) followed closely by mollusks.

Sources of noise

For 69 articles (4%), we could not precisely code the source of noise in any exposure class. Indeed, these articles use imprecise expressions such as “anthropogenic noise”. Among the others, 619 articles (35% of the map, see Fig.  7 ) deal with transportation noise, followed by industrial noise (27%) and abstract noises (25%). Few articles deal with recreational noise (5% of the map).

Number of articles for each source of noise (exposure) with details for studies and reviews/meta-analyses

Focusing on the 1340 studies, transportation noise (32%), abstract noise (30%) and industrial noise (23%) are also the three sources of noise most considered, but the ranking was different from that found for all articles. Regarding the reviews/meta-analyses, transportation (43%) and industry (40%) are the two first sources of noise most considered and military noise (27%) comes in as the third source instead of abstract noises.

Types of impacts

The articles included in the map mainly deal with behavioural impacts of noise (985/1794, 55% of the map, see Fig.  8 ). Biophysiology is also frequently considered in the articles (704/1794, 39%) and then communication (424/1794, 24%). For 19 articles (1% of the map) we could not code the outcome because it was not detailed by the authors.

Number of articles for each type of impact (outcomes), with details for studies and reviews/meta-analyses

With a focus on the 1340 studies, impacts of noise on behaviour (51%), on biophysiology (34%) and on communication (22%) are the most considered, similar to the situation for reviews/meta-analyses (respectively 66%, 56% and 31%). On the contrary, space use is the least studied outcome.

Knowledge gaps and knowledge clusters

We combined the results (number of studies) between two of the three characteristics (population, exposure and outcome), resulting in Figs.  9 , 10 and 11 .

Taxonomic groups (P) and sources of noise (E) in studies

Taxonomic groups (P) and types of impacts (O) in studies

Sources of noise (E) and types of impacts (O) in studies

For each of the three combinations of data, we extracted the top four results (those with the highest number of studies), resulting in 12 knowledge clusters presented in Table  5 . This analysis confirms the knowledge clusters previously noted in the results on population (in Fig.  6 , namely mammals, birds, fishes), exposure (in Fig.  7 , transportation, industrial, abstract noises) and outcomes (in Fig.  8 , behaviour, biophysiology and communication).

Concerning knowledge gaps, the analysis between population, exposure and outcomes reveals that many combinations have never been studied and it is difficult to identify any knowledge gaps in particular. We can refer to separate results on population, exposure and outcomes that show that few studies were conducted on amphibians (61), reptiles (18), all invertebrates (in particular arachnids: 3) and plants (8) in terms of population (see Fig.  6 ); recreational (57), military (106) and urban noises (131) in terms of exposure (see Fig.  7 ); space use (94), reproduction (149) and ecosystems (167) in terms of outcomes (see Fig.  8 ).

Study characteristics

Study location.

Almost one third of all studies (441/1340, 33%) were carried out in the USA (Fig.  12 ). A substantial proportion of the studies were also conducted in Canada (121/1340, 9%), Great Britain (84/1340, 6%), the Netherlands (70/1340, 5%) and even Australia (698/1340, 5%). The country is unknown in 135 studies (10%).

Tree-map representation of the countries where at least 10 studies were included in the map. Values: USA: 441; CAN (Canada): 121; GBR (Great Britain): 84; NLD (Netherlands): 70; AUS (Australia): 69; DEU (Germany): 41; NOR (Norway): 37; FRA (France): 27; ITA (Italia): 27; BRA (Brazil): 26; ESP (Spain): 24; CHN (China): 22; DNK (Denmark): 20; SWE (Sweden): 17; NZL (New-Zealand): 15; MEX (Mexico): 14; POL (Poland): 11; RUS (Russia): 10

Noise source and media

Studies mainly deal with real noise (632/1340, 47%). Around a third of the studies (378/1340, 28%) are based on artificial noise and 16% of the studies (221/1340) use real recorded noise (Fig.  13 a top). The distribution between terrestrial or aquatic media through which noise is broadcast is virtually equivalent (see Fig.  13 b bottom, respectively 47% and 51%).

Number of studies included in the map in terms of the noise generated (a; top) and noise media (b; bottom)

Study context and design

Figure  14 shows that 95% of studies (1274/1340) are field based whereas only 3% (40/1340) are model based and less than 1% (9/1340) are combined (field and model based studies). Among the 1283 studies that are totally or partially field based, 56% (720) are in situ whereas 42% (537) are ex situ (zoos, aquarium, cages, etc.) and 2% (26) are combined (Fig.  14 left). Also, a majority are experimental (856/1283, 67%), 32% (411/1283) are observational and less than 1% (12/1283) are combined (experimental and observational) (Fig.  14 right).

Number of studies included in the map in terms of the context and design protocol

Reviews and meta-analyses

The high number of reviews included in the systematic map (379) can be explained by our methodology. Indeed, some articles were retrieved by our search strategy because they contain only one chapter or one paragraph that reviews the bibliography on impacts of anthropogenic noise on biodiversity. As a consequence, they were included in the map during the screening process even if the document as a whole does not deal with our map’s main issues. Nevertheless, the map does include many reviews that fully address the impacts of noise pollution on species and ecosystems. This means that, contrary to what was assumed beforehand, a huge amount of synthesis work has in fact already been invested in this topic. However, our results confirm that, for the moment, no prior systematic map—as broad and comprehensive as the present one—has been published yet, even if after the date of our literature search, a systematic-map protocol has been published on the impact of noise, focusing on acoustic communication in animals [ 56 ].

Some of the collected reviews are general syntheses and provide an overview of the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species (i.e. Kight and Swaddle [ 57 ]; Dufour [ 58 ]). However, most of reviews are focused on one or more population(s), exposure(s) and outcomes(s) or even a combination of these three parameters. For instance:

concerning taxonomic groups (population): some reviews deal with specific taxa—such as fishes [ 59 ], marine mammals [ 60 ] or crustaceans [ 61 ]—or with wider groups—such as invertebrates [ 31 ] or even terrestrial organisms [ 62 ];

concerning types of noise (exposure): Pepper et al. [ 63 ] address aircraft noise, Patricelli and Blickley [ 32 ] urban noise and Larkin [ 64 ] military noise;

concerning types of impacts (outcomes): De Soto et al. [ 65 ] (which is a proceeding) focus on physiological effects, Brumm and Slabbekoorn [ 66 ] target communication and Tidau and Briffa [ 67 ] (which is also a proceeding) deal with behavioural impacts.

Five reviews are presented as “systematic reviews” by their authors. One of them is Shannon et al. [ 34 ], which is indeed a wide synthesis of the effects of noise on wildlife. Another is dedicated to behavioural responses of wild marine mammals and includes a meta-analysis (quantitative synthesis) [ 55 ]. Two other systematic reviews include noise effects in a wider investigation of the impacts of some human activities, respectively seismic surveys [ 68 ] and wind energy [ 69 ]. The fifth is more specific and deals with the impact of prenatal music and noise exposure on post-natal auditory cortex development for several animals such as chickens, rats, mice, monkeys, cats and pigs [ 70 ]. Two other reviews—Radford [ 54 ] and Williams et al. [ 71 ]—could be qualified as “systematic” because their method is standardized (e.g. search string, screening process), but their authors have not done so.

Among the meta-analyses included in the map, we can cite in particular Cox et al. [ 72 , 73 ] on fishes, Roca et al. [ 35 ] on birds and anurans and Gomez et al. [ 55 ] on marine mammals. Birds are particularly considered since two more meta-analyses deal with this taxonomic group [ 74 , 75 ]. We can also note Cardoso et al. [ 76 ] on the impact of urban noise on several species.

Finally, regarding books, five of them are particularly relevant to the map topic, chronologically:

“Effects of Noise on Wildlife” [ 77 ];

“Marine Mammals and Noise” [ 78 ];

“Animal Communication and Noise” [ 79 ];

“The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life” (Popper and Hawkins), published in two volumes 2012 and 2016 [ 80 , 81 ];

“Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals” [ 82 ] which is the newest book on noise pollution and wildlife with syntheses for taxonomic groups such as fishes [ 83 ], reptiles and amphibians [ 84 ], birds [ 85 ] and marine mammals [ 86 ].

Some other books can be very general in discussing noise pollution, for instance “Railway ecology” [ 87 ]. Lastly, some other books can contain entire chapters specifically on noise pollution, e.g. “Avian Urban Ecology: Behavioural and Physiological Adaptations” [ 88 , 89 ] or “The Handbook of Road Ecology” [ 90 , 91 ]. We can also cite the “Ornithological Monographs” N°74 which is dedicated to noise pollution and contains one review [ 92 ] and several studies that are all included in the map [ 93 , 94 ].

Recently, some relevant syntheses were published in 2019 (not included in the map; see Additional file 8 ). A meta-analysis was performed on the effects of anthropogenic noise on animals [ 53 ] and a systematic review was published on intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise [ 95 ]. In addition, one review on the impact of ship noise on marine mammals includes a systematic literature search [ 96 ]. Two non-systematic reviews can also be cited, one about invertebrates [ 97 ] and the other about fishes [ 98 ].

Among all these bibliographic syntheses (including those from 2019), we selected those whose literature collection is based on a standardized approach (e.g. search string, database request, screening process)—which includes meta-analyses and systematic reviews/maps or similar—and whose topic is as close as possible to our systematic map (e.g. focused on noise and not on wider human pressures). We summarized the main features (topic delimitation, search strategy, number of citations) for the 12 selected evidence syntheses in Table  6 with more details in Additional file 10 .

In most cases, these reviews and meta-analyses contain far fewer articles than what we collected, which can be explained by their topic restrictions (P, E, O) as well as their search strategy (e.g. number of databases, complementary searches or not, screening criteria). In terms of topics, Shannon et al. [ 34 ] would appear to be the only standardized evidence synthesis as wide as ours (all wildlife, all sources of noise, all impacts), but the authors gathered 242 articles from 1990 to 2013. The synthesis published by Radford [ 54 ]—which, as a report, is grey literature—also provides an overview of the state of knowledge with descriptive statistics, according to a standardized method, although it focuses on non-marine organisms and it is based on 86 articles. In 2019, Kunc and Schmidt published a meta-analysis that covers all impacts of noise on animals and they collected 108 articles [ 53 ].

General comments

This map reveals that the literature on the impact of anthropogenic noise on species and ecosystems is already extensive, in that 1794 relevant articles were collected, including 1340 studies, 379 reviews and 16 meta-analyses. Studies are mainly located in North America, in particular in the United States and Canada. In Europe, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have produced the largest numbers of articles. Australia is also active in this field.

This high volume of bibliography highlights the fact that this issue is already widely studied by scientists. The production on this topic started many years ago, around 1970, and has surged considerably since 2000. More than one hundred articles a year since 2012 are listed in our map.

This chronological pattern is quite usual and can be encountered for other topics such as light pollution [ 99 ]. It can be due to practical reasons such as better dissemination and accessibility of articles (e.g. database development), but it also certainly reflects a real increase in research activity on the topic of “noise pollution” in response to social concern for environmental issues.

The articles are mainly provided through academic sources (i.e. journal articles), but grey literature is also substantial. 461 articles included in the map (i.e. around a fourth of the map) can be grouped as ‘‘grey literature’’ (books and book chapters, reports, theses, conference objects). In particular, 36 theses from all over the world address this issue.

Regarding the population, the systematic map confirms that a very broad range of species is the topic of literature on the effects of noise pollution. Indeed, all of the 11 population classes of our coding strategy contain articles. Nevertheless, a high proportion of the map concerns mammals and, to a lesser extent birds and fishes. Among the 778 articles targeting mammals, many infrataxa are concerned (e.g. Cetacea [ 100 ], Carnivora [ 101 ], Cervidae [ 102 ], Chiroptera [ 103 ], Rodentia [ 104 ]), but the highest proportion of the articles on mammals deals with aquatic noise (500/778, 64%), which suggests that many may concern Cetacea (e.g. dolphins, whales, beluga).

The other taxonomic groups receive far less attention. Amphibians, crustaceans, mollusks, insects, reptiles and arachnids each represent 5% or less of the whole map. However, comparing these knowledge gaps to contemporary biodiversity issues, we can say, for instance, that amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates are highly threatened species [ 105 , 106 ] and noise pollution around the world is probably part of the threats [ 31 , 84 ]. These taxonomic groups are likely impacted by noise depending on the sense used. In particular, amphibians communicate extensively using sounds (i.e. chorus frogs) [ 107 ], insects demonstrate hyperacuity in directional hearing [ 108 ], reptiles (in particular snakes) and spiders can feel vibrations [ 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ].

In terms of exposure, the map confirms that a very wide variety of anthropogenic activities generate noise and that the effects of these emissions have already been studied.

Transportation (that includes terrestrial infrastructure as well as civil aircraft and boats) is the source of noise most considered. It is closely followed by industrial sources among which high diversity is observed (e.g. pile-driving [ 113 ], seismic surveys [ 114 ], wind turbines [ 115 ], mining [ 116 ], constructions [ 117 ]). Abstract noises are in third position. This category does not necessary correspond to any precise human activities but comprises a large set of computer or machinery sounds (e.g. alarms [ 118 ], pingers [ 119 ], tones [ 120 ], pulses [ 121 ], bells [ 122 ]). Often, articles in this category do not contain many details about the source of noise. Military noise is especially studied for mammals and urban noise is significantly considered for birds (but not otherwise). Recreational noise is the least studied, however a certain diversity of sources is observable (e.g. zoo visitors [ 123 ], music festivals [ 124 ], sporst activities [ 125 ], tourists in natural habitats [ 126 ], Formula one Grand Prix racing [ 127 ], whale-watching [ 128 ]). However, urban and recreational sources of noise are important and will increase in the future because, on the one hand, urbanization is spreading all over the word and, on the other, human presence in natural habitats is also becoming more and more frequent (e.g. recreational activities in nature). For example, the expansion of Unmanned Aircraft could be a serious threat for biodiversity [ 129 ].

In terms of outcomes, the map also confirms a very wide range of impacts of noise on species and ecosystems. The most studied are the behavioural impacts involving measurements on movement [ 130 ], foraging [ 131 ], hunting [ 132 ], social behaviour [ 133 ], aversive reaction [ 134 ], etc. Biophysiology and communication are also well covered, especially the impacts on the biophysiology of mammals and fishes and on the communication birds. Biophysiological outcomes can be very diverse (e.g. hormonal response [ 135 ], heart rate [ 136 ], blood parameters [ 137 ], organ development [ 138 ]). On the other hand, the lack of literature on ecosystems, reproduction and space use is of concern. Ecosystems are a very significant aspect of biodiversity and will be increasingly integrated in public policies and scientific research, notably concerning ecosystem services in the context of global changes [ 139 , 140 ]. Reproduction and mobility of species are essential for the sustainability of their population and we already know that noise can impair them [ 141 , 142 ].

Concerning the systematic map, at the moment, we are not able to conclude whether this very rich literature provides strong evidence on impacts of anthropogenic noise on animals. Indeed, we do not know if the studies and other articles confirm or invalidate such impacts and if the studies are sufficiently robust for that purpose. However, our database highlights that a majority of studies are experimental field-based studies. This is a very good point in planning further meta-analyses or systematic reviews with the prospect of quantifying the level of impacts because these studies would probably be selected following critical analysis. For future systematic reviews/meta-analyses, we identified that the three outcomes comprising the highest number of experimental studies (which are the type of content that systematic reviews or meta-analyses would use) are: behaviour (453), biophysiology (391), communication (145).

Given the scope of our map resulting in a high number of population (P), exposure (E) and outcome (O) classes, there is a wide range of possible PEO combinations. Therefore, it is difficult to go further in this report in terms of identifying knowledge gaps and clusters and possible specific questions for future systematic reviews. At the same time, this large number of PEO combinations offers stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, decision-makers) an opportunity to gain information on the combination of interest to them.

Comparison to other evidence syntheses

It is interesting to check whether other evidence syntheses previously published have arrived at the same results, knowledge clusters and knowledge gaps as those highlighted by our map. However, given the differences in terms of methodology, topic delimitation and volume of the existing reviews, exposed in the results section, it is difficult to make such comparisons for all reviews. But we can compare our results to those from two other reviews, namely Shannon et al. [ 34 ] and Radford [ 54 ] (see Fig.  15 ).

Comparison between our map results (SM) and two other standardized reviews [ 34 , 54 ] on population ( a ; top) and exposure ( b ; bottom). A = Transportation; B = Industrial; C = Military; D: Recreational

Concerning population (Fig.  15 a), mammals are the most studied species in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] (39%) as they are in our map (40%). In Radford [ 54 ], birds greatly surpass mammals (65% vs. 9%), but that can be explained by the exclusion of marine species (among which there are many mammals) in the synthesis. Fishes are more represented in our map (22%) than in the two other reviews (Shannon et al.: 15%, Radford: 10%).

Regarding exposure (Fig.  15 b), transportation is the greatest source of noise in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] for terrestrial activities (30%), similar to our map (15%). For aquatic activities, industrial noise is the exposure most frequent in our map (20%) as in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] (28%). In Radford [ 54 ], transportation noise is by far the foremost exposure (more than 75% exclusively for road and aircraft noise). These results seem to be quite consistent.

Concerning outcomes, in Shannon et al. [ 34 ], vocalization is the most frequent for terrestrial studies (44%) whereas behavioural outcomes come first in our map (19%). Behavioural is the most frequent outcome for aquatic studies in Shannon et al. [ 34 ] (more than 40%) whereas biophysiology comes first in our map (24%). Here, our results are more consistent with Radford [ 54 ], where behavioural outcomes are the most frequent (approximately 65%, compared to approximately 54% in our database).

Limitations of the systematic map

Search strategy.

We are aware that two academic databases (WOS CC and Scopus) in our search strategy is a minimum according to the CEE guidelines [ 38 ]. Nevertheless, WOS CC is the most used database in Ecology and Scopus is probably the second. Furthermore, our overall strategy includes eight bibliographic sources (see Table  4 ) and in particular three search engines. In addition, a large number of hits were exported from each of the search engines (e.g. 1000 citations for each search string on Google Scholar instead of the 300 initially expected). We also completed our search strategy with the extraction of all the bibliographic references from 37 relevant reviews. Finally, when a reference was a part of a more comprehensive article (i.e. a meeting abstract inside a proceeding with multiple abstracts), we checked whether other parts of the article could be also interesting for the map (i.e. other meeting abstracts from the same conference proceeding). We could not check systematically due to our limited resources but, nevertheless, this verification produced 36 articles that were added manually to the map.

In conclusion, although our search strategy is robust for journal articles/studies, we may have missed some relevant articles in other formats (e.g. conference papers, books, chapters). That being said, studies are the most important documentation for conducting further systematic reviews.

In addition, in light of the considerations exposed in “ Results ” and “ Discussion ” sections), our systematic map would seem to be wide-ranging and complete because it does not restrict the population, the exposure or the outcomes, contrary to the majority of reviews included in the map. The number of articles collected in the 12 systematic reviews/meta-analyses described in Table  6 shows that our map (1794 articles) constitute a very important dataset.

Full-text searching

In order to facilitate a possible additional full-text research, we have compiled a list of the unretrieved full-text texts in a dedicated Additional file 11 (Sheet 1). We could retrieve 90% of the searched full-texts which means that we had to exclude 376 articles from the map process because we could not get their full-texts. We are aware that this volume of unretrievable full-texts is not a satisfactory result, however there is no standard minimum in the CEE guidelines [ 38 ] and we did everything we could to find the full-texts. First, we benefited from different institutional accesses thanks to our map team (MNHN, CNRS, INRAE). We even performed an additional search during the Covid period when some publishers suspended their paywall. Secondly, we also asked for French and even international interlibrary loans and, when necessary, we went to the libraries to collect them. We also asked for the missing full-texts on ResearchGate. A large number of unretrieved full-texts come from the extracted relevant reviews, from Scopus and from Google Scholar (see Additional file 11 , Sheet 2 for more details on retrieved/not retrieved full-texts depending on the bibliographic sources). In the end, we could obtain some explanations for a majority of the unretrieved full-texts, i.e. 25 (7%) are available online but behind an embargo, a paywall or another access restriction, 124 (33%) are not accessible to the map team (unpublished thesis or report, unlocatable conference proceedings, only available in a print journal, etc.), 47 (13%) would be excluded during screening because of their language (according to Scopus information), 19 (5%) were requested on ResearchGate without any response.

Languages accepted at full-text screening stage

We are aware that we accepted only two languages, English and French. Nevertheless, among the 3219 screened pdf files, only 54 articles were rejected at the full-text stage because of their language. This represents less than 2%. In the end, to facilitate a possible additional screening of these full-texts, we listed them in Additional file 12 . It should also be noted that when a title or an abstract was not in English or in French, it was not rejected for this reason during the title/abstract screening, it was sent directly to abstract and/or full-text screening to check its effective language.

Coding strategy

Due to resource limitations, we were not able to perform double coding of each article by two reviewers, as requested by the CEE guidelines. We are aware that this is not a totally rigorous approach, but we anticipated it in our a priori protocol [ 36 ] because we knew that time and resources would be limited. We think that our approach did not affect coding consistency because the three coders (RS, AD, OR) followed the same coding rules and one person (RS) was present throughout the coding process to explain the rules to the other coders and to help them if necessary. In addition, at the end of the coding procedure, RS reviewed the entire map for analysis purposes.

Regarding the coding strategy, we are aware that our classification (in particular for exposure and outcome classes) is not perfect, but it is difficult to achieve a perfect solution. We decided to use published reviews such as Shannon et al. [ 34 ] or Radford [ 54 ], but different strategies exist. For example, Radford [ 54 ] split the transportation sources of noise (e.g. road, rail, boat), whereas Shannon et al. [ 34 ] grouped them in a “transportation” class. Such classes may appear too broad, but this strategy produces an initial overview of the available literature, which is certainly one of the objectives of a systematic map. As another example, the outcome class “Reproduction” was also difficult to delimit because it can include reproduction in the strictest sense (e.g. number of eggs) as well as other impacts that can influence reproduction (e.g. physiological impacts on adults in a breeding colony). In such cases, we coded the article for the different outcomes (i.e. biophysiology/reproduction).

This systematic map collated and catalogued literature dealing with the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species (excluding humans) and ecosystems. It resulted in a database composed of 1794 articles, including 1340 studies, 379 reviews and 16 meta-analyses published worldwide. Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses have already been published and were collected, however, no systematic map has yet been produced with so few topic restrictions (all wildlife, all sources of noise, all kinds of impacts) and using such a large search strategy (two databases, three search engines, etc.).

This map can be used to inform policy, provide the evidence for systematic reviews and demonstrate where more primary research is needed. It confirms that a broad range of anthropogenic activities can generate noises which may produce highly diverse impacts on a wide array of taxa. To date, some taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, fishes), types of noise (transportation, industrial, abstract) and outcomes (behavioural, biophysiological, communication) have undergone greater studies than others. Less knowledge is available on certain species (invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians), noises (recreational, urban, military) and impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems). Currently, this map cannot be used to determine whether the included studies demonstrate that noise does indeed produce impacts. However, it can be the starting point for more thorough syntheses of evidence. Included reviews and meta-analyses should be exploited to transfer this synthesized knowledge into operational decisions to reduce noise pollution and protect biodiversity.

Implications for policy/management

Given the volume of bibliographic data, we obviously do not face to a totally unexplored topic. But surprisingly, this rich literature on the impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity does not seem to be exploited by practitioners and decision-makers. Indeed, to date, noise pollution has been considered in terms of impacts on human health, but very little or no consideration has been given to impacts on other species and ecosystems. Two key implications emerge from this map.

First, the high volume of reviews and meta-analyses collected in this map can facilitate the immediate integration of these evidence syntheses into public policies on the national and international levels. Some reviews and the meta-analyses have quantified the level of impacts concerning the species, sources of noise and outcomes they considered. A strategy should be defined to assess the quality of these syntheses (critical appraisal) and, if reliable, transfer this already synthesized knowledge to institutional texts (e.g. regulations, guidelines, frameworks). Thanks to the exposure categorization undertaken in this map, many stakeholders and practitioners (urban planners, transport infrastructure owners, airlines and airports, military authorities, tour operators, manufacturing companies, etc.) will be able to directly identify the articles that concern their activities/structures. Such knowledge may also be useful for the European Commission, which intends to produce indicators to monitor the reduction of submarine noise pollution, as part of a new strategy for biodiversity [ 143 ].

Secondly, several knowledge clusters identified in this map may be used for new systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assess the evidence of impacts. Resources should be invested in evidence syntheses capable of exploiting the full range of the mapped literature. In particular, these analyses could determine sensitivity thresholds for guilds of species representing several natural habitats. These thresholds are essential in taking noise pollution into account for green and blue infrastructures in view of preserving and restoring quiet ecological networks. Practitioners (e.g. nature reserves and local governments) in France have started to implement this type of environmental policy and this will increase in the future [ 144 ].

Implications for research

New research programs should initiate studies on knowledge gaps, using robust experimental protocols (such as CE—Control/Exposure, BAE—Before/After/Exposure, B(D)ACE—Before(/During)/After/Control/Exposure) [ 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 ] and taking into account different types of bias [ 149 , 150 , 151 ]. In particular, studies should be started on some taxonomic groups (amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates), on certain sources of noise (recreational, military and urban) and to assess particular impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems) because these populations, exposures and outcomes have received little study to date. Many PEO combinations have never been studied. In addition, the findings of the current map show that research is not evenly spread worldwide, with main areas of research being in North America (United States, Canada). This finding may have an operational impact because some results may not be transposable to other contexts. Articles on further studies could also be more detailed by the authors. Indeed, some meta-data were unavailable in a significant percentage of the mapped literature. For example, the study location was unknown for 10% of the studies and approximately 1% of the articles did not indicate the source of noise or the outcome that they studied.

The map findings show that research in ecology has already addressed the issue of noise pollution. Deeper analysis is needed to assess the validity of the literature collected in this map, whether primary studies or reviews, in order to produce new syntheses and to transfer this knowledge to the applied field.

Availability of data and materials

All data, generated or analyzed during this study, are included in this published article and its addition information files.

http://www.environmentalevidence.org/guidelines/section-8 .

Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJB, Collen B. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science. 2014;345(6195):401–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(10): e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(30):E6089–96. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Menon M, Mohanraj R. Temporal and spatial assemblages of invasive birds occupying the urban landscape and its gradient in a southern city of India. J Asia-Pac Biodivers. 2016;9(1):74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2015.12.005 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Galetti M, Alamgir M, Crist E, et al. World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. Bioscience. 2017;67(12):1026–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125 .

Mcdonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RTT. The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 2008;141(6):1695–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.025 .

Reis E, López-Iborra GM, Pinheiro RT. Changes in bird species richness through different levels of urbanization: implications for biodiversity conservation and garden design in Central Brazil. Landsc Urban Plann. 2012;107(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.009 .

Xu X, Xie Y, Qi K, Luo Z, Wang X. Detecting the response of bird communities and biodiversity to habitat loss and fragmentation due to urbanization. Sci Total Environ. 2018;624:1561–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.143 .

Bennie J, Davies TW, Cruse D, Gaston KJ. Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. J Ecol. 2016;104(3):611–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12551 .

Gaston KJ, Bennie J, Davies TW, Hopkins J. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol Rev. 2013;88(4):912–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12036 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Warren P, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A. Urban bioacoustics: it’s not just noise. Anim Behav. 2006;71(3):491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.07.014 .

Hempton G, Grossmann J. One square inch of silence: one man’s quest to preserve quiet. New York: Atria Books; 2010 (Reprint) .

Google Scholar  

Romer H, Bailey WJ. Insect hearing in the field. Camp Biochem Physiol. 1990;97A(4):443–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(90)90110-E .

Sun JWC, Narins PM. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biol Conserv. 2005;121(3):419–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.017 .

Drolet A, Dussault C, Côté SD. Simulated drilling noise affects the space use of a large terrestrial mammal. Wildl Biol. 2016;22(6):284–93. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00225 .

Bernath-Plaisted J, Koper N. Physical footprint of oil and gas infrastructure, not anthropogenic noise, reduces nesting success of some grassland songbirds. Biol Conserv. 2016;204(B):434–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.002 .

Lazerte SE, Slabbekoorn H, Otter KA. Learning to cope: vocal adjustment to urban noise is correlated with prior experience in black-capped chickadees. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2016;283(1833). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1058 .

Cunnington GM, Fahrig L. Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol. 2010;36(5):463–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2010.06.002 .

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mancera KF, Murray PJ, Lisle A, Dupont C, Faucheux F, Phillips CJC. The effects of acute exposure to mining machinery noise on the behaviour of eastern blue-tongued lizards ( Tiliqua scincoides ). Anim Welf. 2017;26(1):11–24. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.1.011 .

Amoser S, Wysocki LE, Ladich F. Noise emission during the first powerboat race in an Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(6):3789–97. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1808219 .

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Shannon G, Crooks KR, Wittemyer G, Fristrup KM, Angeloni LM. Road noise causes earlier predator detection and flight response in a free-ranging mammal. Behav Ecol. 2016;27(5):1370–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw058 .

Bunkley JP, McClure CJW, Kawahara AY, Francis CD, Barber JR. Anthropogenic noise changes arthropod abundances. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(9):2977–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2698 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Koper RP, Erbe C, du Preez DR, Plön S. Comparison of soundscape contributors between two neighboring southern right whale nursing areas along the South African coast. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland, 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 070014. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000303 .

Jacobsen L, Baktoft H, Jepsen N, Aarestrup K, Berg S, Skov C. Effect of boat noise and angling on lake fish behaviour: disturbance and lake fish behaviour. J Fish Biol. 2014;84(6):1768–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12395 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Thompson PM, Lusseau D, Barton T, Simmons D, Rusin J, Bailey H. Assessing the responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind turbines. Mar Pollut Bull. 2010;60(8):1200–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.030 .

Lengagne T. Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea . Biol Conserv. 2008;141(8):2023–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.017 .

Vasconcelos RO, Amorim MCP, Ladich F. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. J Exp Biol. 2007;210:2104–12. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.004317 .

Brown AL. Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environ Int. 1990;16(4–6):587–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(90)90029-6 .

Mason JT, McClure CJW, Barber JR. Anthropogenic noise impairs owl hunting behavior. Biol Conserv. 2016;199:29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.009 .

Newport J, Shorthouse DJ, Manning AD. The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: implications for protected areas in Australia. Ecol Manag Restor. 2014;15(3):204–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12120 .

Morley EL, Jones G, Radford AN. The importance of invertebrates when considering the impacts of anthropogenic noise. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281(1776):20132683. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2683 .

Patricelli GL, Blickley JL. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. The Auk. 2006;123(3):639-649. https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2006)123[639:ACIUNC]2.0.CO;2 .

Popper AN, Hastings MC. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol. 2009;75(3):455–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02319.x .

Shannon G, McKenna MF, Angeloni LM, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM, Brown E, et al. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife: effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife. Biol Rev. 2016;91(4):982–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12207 .

Roca IT, Desrochers L, Giacomazzo M, Bertolo A, Bolduc P, Deschesnes R, et al. Shifting song frequencies in response to anthropogenic noise: a meta-analysis on birds and anurans. BEHECO. 2016;27(5):1269–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arw060 .

Sordello R, Flamerie De Lachapelle F, Livoreil B, Vanpeene S. Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019;8:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0146-6 .

Nugent C, Paviotti M, Bloomfield A, Kephalopoulos S, Rasmussen S, Blanes N, et al. Good practice guide on quiet areas. Luxembourg: Publications Office; 2014.

Guidelines for Authors | Environmental Evidence. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors . Accessed 8 June 2020.

Haddaway N, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin A. ROSES flow diagram for systematic reviews. Version 1.0. 2018. https://figshare.com/articles/ROSES_Flow_Diagram_Version_1_0/5897389 . Accessed 8 June 2020.

Brumm H. Anthropogenic noise: implications for conservation. In: Breed MD, Moore J, editors. Encyclopedia of animal behavior. Academic Press; 2010. p. 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045337-8.00289-8 .

Dutilleux G, Guillard Y. Bruit urbain et faune sauvage - Synthèse bibliographique. CETE de l’Est; 2007. p. 24.

Dutilleux G, Fontaine A. Bruit routier et faune sauvage. 2015. p. 32.

Keil P, Herben T, Rosindell J, Storch D. Predictions of Taylor’s power law, density dependence and pink noise from a neutrally modeled time series. J Theor Biol. 2010;265(1):78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.04.014 .

Article   MathSciNet   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Calderone GJ, Butler RF. The effects of noise due to random undetected tilts and paleosecular variation on regional paleomagnetic directions. J Geophys Res. 1991;96(B3):3973–7. https://doi.org/10.1029/90JB02457 .

Rhud JL, Meagher MW. Noise stress and human pain thresholds: divergent effects in men and women. J Pain. 2001;2(1):57–64. https://doi.org/10.1054/jpai.2000.19947 .

Lipscomb DM, Son AA, Vertes D, Roettger R, Carroll J. The effect of high level sound on hearing sensitivity, cochlear sensorineuroepithelium and vasculature of the chinchilla. Acta Otolaryngol. 1977;84(1–6):44–56. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016487709123941 .

Krebs H, Macht M, Weyers P, Weijers H-G, Janke W. Effects of stressful noise on eating and non-eating behavior in rats. Appetite. 1996;26(2):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0015 .

Kuang X. Study on environment effect of construction in Huairou District. In: Proceedings of the international conference on education, management, commerce and society, Shenyang, China. Atlantis Press; 2015. https://doi.org/10.2991/emcs-15.2015.90 .

Bee MA. Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus. Anim Behav. 2007;74(3):549–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.12.012 .

Dunlop R, Noad M, Cato DH. Modification of humpback whale social sound repertoire and vocal source levels with increased noise. In: Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2013. ICA 2013, Montreal, Canada, 2–7 June 2013, vol. 19, 010058. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4799213 .

Castellote M. General review of protocols and guidelines for minimizing acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys. J Int Wildl Law Policy. 2007;10(3–4):273–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290701769262 .

Karbalaei SS, Karimi E, Naji HR, Ghasempoori SM, Hosseini SM, Abdollahi M. Investigation of the traffic noise attenuation provided by roadside green belts. Fluct Noise Lett. 2015;14(4):1550036. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219477515500364 .

Kunc HP, Schmidt R. The effects of anthropogenic noise on animals: a meta-analysis. Biol Lett. 2019;15(11):20190649. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0649 .

Radford A. The effects of noise on biodiversity (no0235)—final report for defra. 2012. p. 27.

Gomez C, Lawson JW, Wright AJ, Buren AD, Tollit D, Lesage V. A systematic review on the behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity between science and policy. Can J Zool. 2016;94(12):801–19. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2016-0098 .

Berger-Tal O, Wong BBM, Candolin U, Barber J. What evidence exists on the effects of anthropogenic noise on acoustic communication in animals? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2019;8:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0165-3 .

Kight CR, Swaddle JP. How and why environmental noise impacts animals: an integrative, mechanistic review: environmental noise and animals. Ecol Lett. 2011;14(10):1052–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01664.x .

Dufour PA. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals—review of research since 1971. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1980. p. 102.

Mickle MF, Higgs DM. Integrating techniques: a review of the effects of anthropogenic noise on freshwater fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2018;75(9):1534–41. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-0245 .

Nowacek DP, Thorne LH, Johnston DW, Tyack PL. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Rev. 2007;37(2):81–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2007.00104.x .

Edmonds NJ, Firmin CJ, Goldsmith D, Faulkner RC, Wood DT. A review of crustacean sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: data needs for effective risk assessment in relation to UK commercial species. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;108(1–2):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.05.006 .

Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25(3):180–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.002 .

Pepper CB, Nascarella MA, Kendall RJ. A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environ Manag. 2003;32(4):418–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-3024-4 .

Larkin RP, Pater LL, Tazik DJ. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. Report no.: USACERL Technical Report 96/21. 1996. p. 111.

Aguilar de Soto N, Gkikopoulou K, Hooker S, Isojunno S, Johnson M, Miller P, et al. From physiology to policy: a review of physiological noise effects on marine fauna with implications for mitigation. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 040008. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000299 . 

Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H. Acoustic communication in noise. In: Advances in the study of behavior, vol. 35. Academic Press. 2005. p. 151–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(05)35004-2 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Tidau S, Briffa M. Review on behavioral impacts of aquatic noise on crustaceans. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 010028. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000302 .

Nelms SE, Piniak WED, Weir CR, Godley BJ. Seismic surveys and marine turtles: an underestimated global threat? Biol Conserv. 2016;193:49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.020 .

Wang S, Wang S. Impacts of wind energy on environment: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;49:437–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.137 .

Khairunnisa Z, Jusuf AA, Furqanita D. Differential effects of prenatal music versus noise exposure on posnatal auditory cortex development: a systematic review. J Phys: Conf Ser. 2018;1073(4):042048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1073/4/042048 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Williams R, Wright AJ, Ashe E, Blight LK, Bruintjes R, Canessa R, et al. Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean Coast Manag. 2015;115:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.021 .

Cox KD, Brennan LP, Dudas SE, Juanes F. Assessing the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology: a meta-analysis approach. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 010024. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000291 .

Cox K, Brennan LP, Gerwing TG, Dudas SE, Juanes F. Sound the alarm: a meta-analysis on the effect of aquatic noise on fish behavior and physiology. Glob Change Biol. 2018;24(7):3105–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14106 .

Cardoso GC. Nesting and acoustic ecology, but not phylogeny, influence passerine urban tolerance. Glob Change Biol. 2014;20(3):803–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12410 .

Francis CD. Vocal traits and diet explain avian sensitivities to anthropogenic noise. Glob Change Biol. 2015;21(5):1809–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12862 .

Cardoso GC, Hu Y, Francis CD. The comparative evidence for urban species sorting by anthropogenic noise. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5(2):172059. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172059 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fletcher JL, Busnel RG. Effects of noise on wildlife. Academic Press; 1978. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-260550-5.X5001-9 .

Richardson WJ, Greene JCR, Malme CI, Thomson DH. Marine mammals and noise. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2013. ISBN 978-0-12-588441-9.

Brumm H, editor. Animal communication and noise. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41494-7 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Popper AN, Hawkins A, editors. The effects of noise on aquatic life. New York: Springer; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7311-5 .

Popper AN, Hawkins A, editors. The effects of noise on aquatic life II. New York: Springer; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8 .

Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6 .

Hawkins AD, Popper AN. Effects of man-made sound on fishes. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 145–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_6 .

Simmons AM, Narins PM. Effects of anthropogenic noise on amphibians and reptiles. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_7 .

Halfwerk W, Lohr B, Slabbekoorn H. Impact of man-made sound on birds and their songs. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 209–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_8 .

Erbe C, Dunlop R, Dolman S. Effects of noise on marine mammals. In: Slabbekoorn H, Dooling RJ, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Effects of anthropogenic noise on animals. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8574-6_10 .

Borda-de-Água L, Barrientos R, Beja P, Pereira HM, editors. Railway ecology. Cham: Springer; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57496-7 .

Gil D, Brumm H. Acoustic communication in the urban environment: patterns, mechanisms, and potential consequences of avian song adjustments. In: Gil D, Brumm H, editors. Avian urban ecology: behavioural and physiological adaptations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199661572.003.0006 .

Halfwek W, Slabbekoorn H. The impact of anthropogenic noise on avian communication and fitness. In: Gil D, Brumm H, editors. Avian urban ecology: behavioural and physiological adaptations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199661572.003.0007 .

Parris KM. Ecological impacts of road noise and options for mitigation. In: van der Ree R, Smith DJ, Grilo C, editors. Handbook of road ecology. Chichester: Wiley; 2015. p. 151–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568170.ch19 .

Abbott I, Berthinussen A, Stone E, Boonman M, Melber M, Altringham J. Bats and roads. In: Handbook of road ecology. 2015. p. 290–9. ISBN 978-1-118-56818-7.

Ortega CP. Effects of noise pollution on birds: a brief review of our knowledge. In: Ornithological monographs, vol. 74. 2012. p. 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2012.74.1.6 .

Francis CD et al. Behavioral responses by two songbirds to natural-gas-well compressor noise. In: Ornithological monographs, vol. 74. 2012. p. 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2012.74.1.36 .

Blickley JL, Patricelli GL. Potential acoustic masking of Greater Sage-Grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) display components by chronic industrial noise. In: Ornithological monographs, vol. 74. 2012. p. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2012.74.1.23 .

Harding HR, Gordon TAC, Eastcott E, Simpson SD, Radford AN. Causes and consequences of intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise. Behav Ecol. 2019;30(6):1501–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz114 .

Erbe C, Marley SA, Schoeman RP, Smith JN, Trigg LE, Embling CB. The effects of ship noise on marine mammals—a review. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00606 .

Raboin M, Elias DO. Anthropogenic noise and the bioacoustics of terrestrial invertebrates. J Exp Biol. 2019;222(12):jeb178749. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.178749 .

Popper AN, Hawkins AD. An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. J Fish Biol. 2019;94(5):692–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13948 .

Davies TW, Smyth T. Why artificial light at night should be a focus for global change research in the 21st century. Glob Change Biol. 2018;24(3):872–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13927 .

Kendall LS, Širović A, Roth EH. Effects of construction noise on the cook inlet beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) vocal behavior. Can Acoust. 2013;41(3):3–14.

Chosy J, Wilson M, Santymire R. Behavioral and physiological responses in felids to exhibit construction: felid response to exhibit construction. Zoo Biol. 2014;33(4):267–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21142 .

Espmark Y. Behaviour reactions of reindeer exposed to sonic booms. Deer. 1972;2(7):800–2.

Tressler J, Smotherman MS. Context-dependent effects of noise on echolocation pulse characteristics in free-tailed bats. J Comp Physiol A. 2009;195:923–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-009-0468-x .

Plassmann W, Kadel M. Low-frequency sensitivity in a gerbilline rodent, Pachyuromys duprasi . Brain Behav Evol. 1991;38:115–26. https://doi.org/10.1159/000114382 .

Böhm M, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bowles P, Chanson J, Cox N, et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol Conserv. 2013;157:372–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015 .

Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues ASL, Fischman DL, et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science. 2004;306(5702):1783–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103538 .

Bee MA. Selective phonotaxis by male wood frogs ( Rana sylvatica ) to the sound of a chorus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2007;61(6):955–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-006-0324-8 .

Römer H, Schmidt AKD. Directional hearing in insects with internally coupled ears. Biol Cybern. 2016;110(4–5):247–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-015-0672-4 .

Christensen CB, Christensen-Dalsgaard J, Brandt C, Madsen PT. Hearing with an atympanic ear: good vibration and poor sound-pressure detection in the royal python, Python regius . J Exp Biol. 2012;215(2):331–42. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.062539 .

Shamble PS, Menda G, Golden JR, Nitzany EI, Walden K, Beatus T, et al. Airborne acoustic perception by a jumping spider. Curr Biol. 2016;26(21):2913–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.041 .

Chapuis L, Kerr CC, Collin SP, Hart NS, Sanders KL. Underwater hearing in sea snakes (Hydrophiinae): first evidence of auditory evoked potential thresholds. J Exp Biol. 2019;222(14):jeb198184. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.198184 .

Mortimer B. A spider’s vibration landscape: adaptations to promote vibrational information transfer in orb webs. Integr Comp Biol. 2019;59(6):1636–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icz043 .

Bolle LJ, de Jong CAF, Bierman SM, van Beek PJG, van Keeken OA, Wessels PW, et al. Common sole larvae survive high levels of pile-driving sound in controlled exposure experiments. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e33052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033052 .

Heide-Jørgensen MP, Hansen RG, Westdal K, Reeves RR, Mosbech A. Narwhals and seismic exploration: is seismic noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments? Biol Conserv. 2013;158:50–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.005 .

Larsen JK, Guillemette M. Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk: wind turbines and wintering common eiders. J Appl Ecol. 2007;44(3):516–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01303.x . 

Alvarez-Berríos N, Campos-Cerqueira M, Hernández-Serna A, Amanda Delgado CJ, Román-Dañobeytia F, Aide TM. Impacts of small-scale gold mining on birds and anurans near the Tambopata Natural Reserve, Peru, Assessed using passive acoustic monitoring. Trop Conserv Sci. 2016;9(2):832–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291600900216 .

Sutter GC, Davis SK, Skiffington JC, Keating LM, Pittaway LA. Nesting behaviour and reproductive success of sprague’s pipit ( Anthus spragueii ) and vesper sparrow ( Pooecetes gramineus ) during pipeline construction. Can Field Nat. 2016;130(2):99–109. https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v130i2.1833 .

Culik B, Koschinski S, Tregenza N, Ellis G. Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;211:255–60. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps211255 .

Watkins WA, Schevill WE. Sperm whales ( Physeter catodon ) react to pingers. Deep Sea Res Oceanogr Abstr. 1975;22(3):123–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0011-7471(75)90052-2 .

Finneran JJ, Carder DA, Schlundt CE, Ridgway SH. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) exposed to mid-frequency tonesa). J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118(2696):10. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2032087 .

Richard JD. Fish attraction with pulsed low-frequency sound. J Fish Res Bd Can. 1968;25(7):1441–52. https://doi.org/10.1139/f68-125 .

Fride E, Weinstock M. Alterations in behavioral and striatal dopamine asymmetries induced by prenatal stress. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1989;32(2):425–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-3057(89)90174-3 .

Woolway EE, Goodenough AE. Effects of visitor numbers on captive European red squirrels ( Sciurus vulgaris ) and impacts on visitor experience. Zoo Biol. 2017;36(2):112–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21357 .

Shirley MDF, Armitage VL, Barden TL, Gough M, Lurz PWW, Oatway DE, et al. Assessing the impact of a music festival on the emergence behaviour of a breeding colony of Daubenton’s bats ( Myotis daubentonii ). J Zool. 2001;254(3):367–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836901000863 .

Graham AL, Cooke SJ. The effects of noise disturbance from various recreational boating activities common to inland waters on the cardiac physiology of a freshwater fish, the largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ). Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2008;18(7):1315–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.941 .

Price M, Lill A. Behavioural responses of breeding Silver Gulls to tourist traffic. Aust Zool. 2011;35(3):810–21. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2011.032 .

Payne CJ, Jessop TS, Guay P-J, Johnstone M, Feore M, Mulder RA. Population, behavioural and physiological responses of an urban population of black swans to an intense annual noise event. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e45014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045014 .

Rossi-Santos MR. Whale-watching noise effects on the behavior of humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) in the Brazilian breeding ground. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland 10–16 July 2016. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2016, vol. 27, 040003.   https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000271 .

Mulero-Pázmány M, Jenni-Eiermann S, Strebel N, Sattler T, Negro JJ, Tablado Z. Unmanned aircraft systems as a new source of disturbance for wildlife: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0178448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178448 .

Marley SA, Salgado Kent CP, Erbe C, Parnum IM. Effects of vessel traffic and underwater noise on the movement, behaviour and vocalisations of bottlenose dolphins in an urbanised estuary. Sci Rep. 2017;7:13437. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13252-z .

Senzaki M, Yamaura Y, Francis CD, Nakamura F. Traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in wild owls. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30602. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30602 .

Gomes DGE, Page RA, Geipel I, Taylor RC, Ryan MJ, Halfwerk W. Bats perceptually weight prey cues across sensory systems when hunting in noise. Science. 2016;353(6305):1277–80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7934 .

Bruintjes R, Radford AN. Context-dependent impacts of anthropogenic noise on individual and social behaviour in a cooperatively breeding fish. Anim Behav. 2013;85(6):1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.03.025 .

Phillips S. Aversive behaviour by koalas ( Phascolarctos cinereus ) during the course of a music festival in northern New South Wales, Australia. Aust Mammal. 2016;38(2):158–63. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM15006 .

Owen MA, Swaisgood RR, Czekala NM, Steinman K, Lindburg DG. Monitoring stress in captive giant pandas ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ): behavioral and hormonal responses to ambient noise. Zoo Biol. 2004;23(2):147–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10124 .

Borneman TE, Rose ET, Simons TR. Minimal changes in heart rate of incubating American Oystercatchers ( Haematopus palliatus ) in response to human activity. The Condor. 2014;116(3):493–503. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14-48.1 .

Buscaino G, Filiciotto F, Buffa G, Bellante A, Stefano VD, Assenza A, et al. Impact of an acoustic stimulus on the motility and blood parameters of European sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax L.) and gilthead sea bream ( Sparus aurata L.). Mar Environ Res. 2010;69(3):136–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.09.004 .

Li ZZ, Burke WH. Influence of 12 hours of sound stimuli on gonad development and plasma luteinizing hormone in Japanese Quail ( Cotumix coturnix japonica ) exposed to 6 hours of daily light. Poult Sci. 1987;66(6):1045–52. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0661045 .

Malhi Y, Franklin J, Seddon N, Solan M, Turner MG, Field CB, et al. Climate change and ecosystems: threats, opportunities and solutions. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2020;375(1794):20190104. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0104 .

Van der Biest K, Meire P, Schellekens T, D’hondt B, Bonte D, Vanagt T, et al. Aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in spatial planning: focus on ecosystem processes. Sci Tot Environ. 2020;712:136350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136350 .

Chen HL, Koprowski JL. Animal occurrence and space use change in the landscape of anthropogenic noise. Biol Conserv. 2015;192:315–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.003 .

Nabi G, McLaughlin RW, Hao Y, Wang K, Zeng X, Khan S, et al. The possible effects of anthropogenic acoustic pollution on marine mammals’ reproduction: an emerging threat to animal extinction. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25:19338–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2208-7 .

European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. COM(2020) 380 final, Brussels, 20 May 20 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-annex-eu-biodiversity-strategy-2030_en.pdf .

Bougnec AL. Mémoire de première année de Master Gestion territoriale du développement durable. 2018. p. 79.

Tyack P, Gordon J, Thompson D. Controlled exposure experiments to determine the effects of noise on marine mammals. Mar Technol Soc J. 2003;37(4):41–53. https://doi.org/10.4031/002533203787537087 .

Smokorowski KE, Randall RG. Cautions on using the before-after-control-impact design in environmental effects monitoring programs. FACETS. 2017;2:212–32. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0058 .

De Palma A, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Martin PA, Chadwick A, Gilbert G, Bates AE, et al. Challenges with inferring how land-use affects terrestrial biodiversity: study design, time, space and synthesis. In: Advances in ecological research. Elsevier; 2018. p. 163–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2017.12.004 .

Christie AP, Amano T, Martin PA, Shackelford GE, Simmons BI, Sutherland WJ. Simple study designs in ecology produce inaccurate estimates of biodiversity responses. J Appl Ecol. 2019;56(12):2742–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13499 .

Faulkner RC, Farcas A, Merchant ND. Guiding principles for assessing the impact of underwater noise. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55(6):2531–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13161 .

Wade L, Whitehead H, Weilgart L. Conflict of interest in research on anthropogenic noise and marine mammals: does funding bias conclusions? Mar Policy. 2010;34(2):320–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.009 .

Stebbins WG, Moody DB, Serafin JV. Some principal issues in the analysis of noise effects on hearing in experimental animals. Am J Otolaryngol. 1982;3(4):295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0709(82)80069-0 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The map team thanks:

Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo (MNHN) and Yorick Reyjol (OFB) for providing comments on earlier versions of the manuscript;

Marc Morvan, Magali Morvan and Benoît Pichet from the library of the National Museum of natural History for their help during the pdf search;

All the institutions that transmitted full-texts to us during the pdf search, namely the library of the “Arts-et-Métiers” (Isabelle FERAL), the library of the “Ecole de Médecine” (Isabelle Beaulande), the library of the “Maison des Sciences de l’Homme” (Amélie Saint-Marc), the library of the “École Polytechnique” (Claire Vandermeersch), the library of “Sorbonne Université” (Isabelle Russo and Peggy Bassié), the library of “Paris 13 Villetaneuse”, ZeFactory ARTELIA (Magalie Rambaudi);

all the organizations that relayed our call for literature through their websites or mailing lists, namely the “Centre de ressources Trame verte et bleue”, the IENE, the ITTECOP;

everyone who transmitted literature to us during the call, namely Vital Azambourg (MNHN), Ludivine Boursier (FRB), Fabien Claireau (MNHN), Patricia Detry (CEREMA), Cindy Fournier (MNHN), Philippe Goulletquer (IFREMER), Aurelie Goutte, Anne Guerrero (SNCF Réseau), Eric Guinard (CEREMA), Heinrich Reck, Antonin Le Bougnec (PNR Morbihan), Barbara Livoreil (FRB), Sylvain Moulherat (TerrOïko), Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo (MNHN), Marc Thauront (Ecosphère), Dennis Wansink (BUWA);

Barbara Livoreil (FRB) for her help with the protocol of this map;

Cary Bartsch for his proofreading and corrections concerning the English language.

This research was undertaken as current work of UMS Patrimoine Naturel, a joint research unit funded by the French Biodiversity Agency (OFB), the National Scientific Research Center (CNRS) and the National Museum of Natural History (MNHN), on behalf of the French Ecology Ministry.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UMS Patrimoine Naturel (PATRINAT), OFB-CNRS-MNHN, 36 rue Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire CP41, 75005, Paris, France

Romain Sordello, Ophélie Ratel & Alexis Dambry

Université de Bordeaux, 33400, Talence, France

Frédérique Flamerie De Lachapelle

Direction générale déléguée aux collections - Bibliothèque centrale - Service Recherche, enseignement, expertise, Museum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), 75005, Paris, France

Clément Leger

Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE PACA Centre d’Aix-en-Provence), 13182, Aix-en-Provence, France

Sylvie Vanpeene

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RS originated the idea of the systematic map and was the scientific coordinator of the map. RS conducted the first scoping stage. FF participated in the search strategy. RS, SV and AD screened the articles. RS searched the full-texts with help from FF and CL. OR, AD and RS extracted the metadata. RS analysed, interpreted and discussed the results, helped by the rest of the team. RS wrote the draft of the manuscript and the rest of the team contributed to it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romain Sordello .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

ROSES form.

Additional file 2.

Search strategy.

Additional file 3.

Key reviews from which bibliographic references were extracted.

Additional file 4.

Comprehensiveness of databases and search engines.

Additional file 5.

Detailed screening process.

Additional file 6.

Full flow diagram.

Additional file 7.

Inclusion/exclusion decisions during the three screening stages and extraction of rejected full-texts.

Additional file 8.

Accepted full-texts published in 2019–2020.

Additional file 9.

Systematic map database.

Additional file 10.

Information on standardized evidence syntheses.

Additional file 11.

List and statistics on missing full-texts.

Additional file 12.

Rejected full-texts (language exclusion).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sordello, R., Ratel, O., Flamerie De Lachapelle, F. et al. Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map. Environ Evid 9 , 20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00202-y

Download citation

Received : 17 March 2020

Accepted : 25 August 2020

Published : 11 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-020-00202-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Man-made sounds
• Anthropogenic sounds
• Auditory masking
• Acoustic stimuli
• Urbanization
• Species loss
• Natural habitats

Environmental Evidence

ISSN: 2047-2382

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions Essay

Introduction, effects of noise pollution, causes of noise pollution, potential solutions, works cited.

Some people may frown upon it, while others might nod their heads with their whole-hearted smile on their faces – no matter which category you belong to, as a person, especially as a person who must live in a neighborhood, the quality of the neighborhood has always been an important issue to be concerned about when you are looking for a place to live. For most people, the quality of the neighborhood is at the center of attention even more than the quality of the living spaces. As much as a good neighborhood can positively affect our mental and physical health and improve the quality of our lives, a bad neighborhood can increase anxiety among neighbors and can decrease their lives’ efficiency. Although there exist lots of problems that need to be solved in every neighborhood, noise pollution, no matter whether this noise is made by your neighbors or the surrounding environment, is with no doubt the most important issue in almost all neighborhoods. First, it is essential to investigate the reasons why noise is an important issue in almost every neighborhood and then explore the main contributing causes of the noise problem.

The first and also foremost reason why noise is an important issue in neighborhoods lies in the inevitable fact that noise pollution can have negative effects on our physical health. Living in a noisy area can affect the quality of people’s sleep, daily activities, and even general physical health factors. According to the International Program on Chemical Safety, “an adverse effect of noise is defined as a change in the morphology and physiology of organism that results in an impairment of functional capacity, or an impairment of capacity to compensate for additional stress or increases the susceptibility of the organism to harmful effects of other environmental influences” (Siano). Environmental noise exposure is responsible for a range of health effects, including increased risk of ischemic heart disease as well as sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment among children, annoyance, stress-related mental health risks, and tinnitus. This noise pollution becomes more important when we look at the noise level in residential neighbors where people spend most of their time.

For instance, “the health risks caused by noise pollution in high income European countries account for a loss of 1-1.6 million disability adjusted life years (DALYs) – a standard measure of healthy years of life lost to illness, disability, or early death” (Siano). Also, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), “noise pollution is one of the most dangerous environmental threats to health” (IBERDROLA). Moreover, according to the European Environmental Agency (EEA), “noise is responsible for 16,600 premature deaths and more than 72,000 hospitalizations every year in Europe alone” (IBERDROLA). Not only noise pollution can cause health issues for human, but it has a devastating impact on animals as well. According to the National Park Services (NPS) in the United States, “noise pollution has an enormous environmental impact and does serious damages to wildlife” (IBERDROLA). Most of the experts say that noise pollution can interfere with breeding cycles and rearing, and it is even hastening the extinction of some animal species. Therefore, noise pollution can not only affect mental health, but it can also affect our physical health.

Another reason, which is as important as the preceding one, if not more, is that noisy neighborhoods can substantively affect the efficiency of people’s work and their daily life activities. In the present day, the amount of noise in a living neighborhood becomes even more important since most of the people are forced to work from home due to the rules that companies made for their employees during the pandemic. To elucidate, the noisier a neighborhood is, the harder it becomes to concentrate on the activities that neighbors do, especially for the employees who work from home. The lower efficiency of activities will result in the lower efficient people in society. Moreover, the lower efficient people in society become more anxious and depressed as they see their activity outputs. Based on the report of the IKO Community Management survey, “48 percent of all survey takers said noise is number one complaint among the people who live in a neighborhood in large cities, whether this noise is from raucous late-night parties or opposite sleep schedules that result in one neighbor waking up the other” (IKO Community Management). As an illustration of the effect of noise pollution in the community that I live in, we always see struggling between the people who work at home during the day and the teenagers who play loud music and have parties at their apartment. Once, our neighbor, Larry, who is a programmer, complained to the community management office about George, a young boy who invites his friend to their apartment any time of the day to play loud music and laugh loudly. Larry told me, “it is important that people like George be aware of the rights of other people who live in the same area with them” (Pileggi). Therefore, noise pollution can affect our mental concentration level and efficiency at work.

After understanding the effects of noise on the neighbors, it is highly essential to explore the main contributing causes of noise. In comparison with ancient times when there were not many sources causing noise, these days, multiple different causes of noise exist. These causes can range from natural environment causes to human-generated causes. Although nature can make noises caused by animals and natural effects, human-generated noises are usually more dangerous and annoying. From a personal perspective, the most important three causes of noise that are also generated by humans are traffic and transportation noise, construction sites, and nightlife, though noise can come from a variety of other places as well.

Among these three sources of noise, I believe that the first and the most important cause of the noise is traffic and transportation noise. Without a doubt, we all live in homes that are close to at least one street or one alley. Living close to streets or alleys will cause being affected by the noise that is generated by passing cars. Moreover, some homes are close to bus stations or railroads, which means that people who live in these apartments suffer from louder noises generated by these huge public transportation facilities. According to the IBERDROLA, “a car horn produces 90 dB of noise and a bus produces 100 dB of noise.” On the basis of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of noise, if we consider noise above 65 dB as noise pollution, this generated transportation noise can have a negative effect on our health. To be precise, noise becomes harmful when it exceeds 75 dB, and it will become painful if it is above 120 dB.

According to WHO, “it is recommended that noise levels to be kept below 65 dB during the day and 30 dB during nighttime” (WHO). A worse case is living close to the rail yard, as neighbors of the rail yard suffer from a higher level of noise pollution. Based on the interview that has been done about pros and cons of living close to a major rail yard, the interviewees felt that despite the fact that “the rail yard had a positive reputation and was highly valued for the jobs and economic growth it provides, it was also perceived, however, as a major contributor to the surrounding air quality as well as the noise pollution” (Spencer-Hwang). Several participants believed that “living in such close proximity to the rail yard had caused ailments in family, friends, and neighbors, as well as themselves” (Spencer-Hwang). Moreover, transportation noise can cause health-related issues, as previously discussed ones. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Clark et al. 2017 found “an increasing risk of diabetes with increasing exposure to transportation noise, but not with increasing exposure to traffic-related air pollutions.” In their study, noise pollution was independently associated with the incidence of diabetes in adult residents of metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia (Clark). Therefore, transportation noise is not only unacceptable for most of the neighbors, but it is also risky for our health.

As the second source of noise, which is not as common as the first resource, we can consider construction. You may have experienced construction noise, even in the early morning, that affected your sleep quality and caused you to wake up because of this construction noise. Although not all the neighbors are close to construction zones and construction noise is not a common cause of the noise, building, car park construction, and road and pavement resurfacing generate an even greater amount of noise, with noise level even higher than transportation. As an example, according to IBERDROLA, “a pneumatic drill produces 110 dB noise,” which is higher than the noise that is generated by car horns and buses. Whether self-inflicted or common, everyday living noise can cause temporary or permanent deafness. When one is around noise for long periods of time, the risk of deafness is increased. “Construction noise has become the second most serious acoustic pollution in many cities, which could cause significant health damage and social costs. In addition, housing renovation and construction noise, which has rarely been investigated before, is a significant covariate of a wide range of mental health symptoms” (Ma). Specifically, as big cities are experiencing rapid urbanization processes, there are numerous ongoing construction projects that have led to an increase in environmental complaints, and construction noise has become a serious problem in the majority of big cities. For example, among people at higher risk of health problems caused by construction noise, “construction workers are at increased risk for being hearing impaired” (Cunningham). Therefore, construction as the second cause of the noise can result in serious mental and physical health problems as well.

The third cause of the noise is related to the nightlife. Humans have been created to live in social groups naturally. That is why all of us spend most of our time and socialize with our friends and family. However, sometimes this socialization can affect other people, especially if gatherings and socialization are generating loud noise and we are not paying attention to the others living close to us. Especially, a person who lives close to bars, restaurants, and clubs will feel noise that is generated by socialization and gatherings much more. According to IBERDROLA, “bars, restaurants, and terraces that spill outside when the weather is good can produce more than 100 dB noise. This includes noise from pubs and clubs”. According to Peplow et al., “sustained exposure to noise in areas close to public places also has been correlated with cognitive impairment and behavioral problems in children, as well as the more obvious hearing damage and sleep deprivation”. The European Environment Agency (EAA) has blamed “900 thousand cases of high blood pressure (hypertension), 43 thousand hospital admissions and 10 thousand cases of premature deaths a year in Europe on noise”. As a real example, I talked to our neighbor, Mr. Smith, about the reason of his high blood pressure. He told me that “the doctor told me that the main reason of my high blood pressure is living in the busiest part of the Santa Monica area. To decrease my blood pressure, the doctor recommended my wife and me to move to a suburb area”. Therefore, living close to the places that are designed specifically for nightlife can increase the risk of being affected by noise pollution.

Having scrutinized the issue, although people’s ideas vary on different points of the spectrum regarding the noise pollution issue in a neighborhood, I strongly believe that noise pollution is the first and most important issue that should be solved because of its destructive effects on mental and physical health. Although there exist many causes for noise pollution, I believe that transportation noise as the first and the most important cause, construction, and night life are the three most important causes of noise pollution. Hence, I think the explanation that I have provided above in favor of the destructive effects and the main causes of noise pollution are much stronger.

After finding out that all types of noise in living areas have an immeasurably negative impact on people’s health, work efficiency, and daily life activities, I see that the potential solutions to the problem of noise pollution are to either control its level by the government or allow people to use various techniques in order to decrease the level of noise independently. However, as the government cannot apply effective measures to all areas where people live, citizens’ individual measures will be more efficient.

It goes without saying that noise pollution has already become an international problem as almost all big cities across the globe face it. In general, the most common measures aimed to reduce the level of noise include the limitation of noisy leisure activities, especially at night, the use of bicycles instead of cars, environmental education, and the insulation of houses with noise-absorbing materials (IBERDROLA). As a matter of fact, governmental policies may ensure noise control and correct control management by area protection and sustainable building construction. For instance, the United States Environmental Protection Agency established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) under the Clean Air Act to study noise pollution and investigate its impact on the public health and people’s welfare (EPA). Since 1972, ONAC had been operating “to coordinate federal monitoring and regulation of noise at its source and facilitate informed policy-making at the state and local levels” (APHA).

The Office’s scope was expanded in 1978 by Congress that passed the Quiet Communities Act, including research funding and public health education dedicated to noise pollution (APHA). In general, ONAC created model noise ordinances, issued standards for local governments, and promulgated guidance documents in accordance with recommended or already existing exposure levels. In general, the governmental response includes appropriate planning policies and the introduction of the standards of sustainable construction in order to reduce the level of noise from the external environment in living buildings. In addition, the level of noise in residential buildings should be reduced as well according to the Building Regulations Approved Document E (Simonsen).

At the same time, governmental control cannot be regarded as a highly efficient measure. First of all, in 1981, the Administration decided that all issues related to noise pollution should be monitored by state and local governments (EPA). That is why, due to funding limitations, ONAC was closed. As a result, since 1986, no standards, regulations, or rules have been promulgated to limit sources of noise in electronics, appliances, industry, recreational items, or machinery (APHA). In addition, contemporary measures are not fully efficient due to their limited scope. In other words, only such territories as city parks, areas of natural interest, and new parts of the city may be protected (IBERDROLA). As a result, the majority of districts, especially old ones with established infrastructure, will be left without any changes. In addition, the idea of the construction of houses with the use of noise-absorbing materials is relevant only for new buildings. Thus, old buildings will be unprotected, and the level of noise in them will remain the same. Consequently, people who live in old districts with established infrastructure will suffer from the same levels of noise until they solve this issue by themselves.

That is why private measures that aim to reduce noise pollution for individuals and families who apply them are more efficient in comparison with policies that cannot affect all people. In other words, citizens may apply multiple useful, cost-effective techniques in order to reduce noise pollution in their apartments by themselves. The measures include the installation of acoustic wall panels, window shutters, or noise-blocking doors, placing furniture strategically, and turning off electrical appliances that constantly produce noise as well (JosTec). Noise cancelling headphones or earplugs may serve as a short-term solution in the case of construction work. Due to them, people will have a good sleep at night. Moreover, such design elements as wall hangings and carpets or rugs help reduce the level of noise. In addition, planting bushes and trees around the house by community members will reduce noise pollution and improve air quality as well. All these techniques may be defined as an excellent alternative for all people living in big cities, especially for those ones who cannot afford to move to another area protected from noise pollution.

APHA. “Environmental Noise Pollution Control.” 2013, Web.

Clark, Charlotte. “Association of Long-Term Exposure to Transportation Noise and Traffic-Related Air Pollution with the Incidence of Diabetes: A Prospective Cohort Study” , Environmental Health Perspectives , vol. 125, no. 8, 2017, pp. 087025-087025. Web.

Cunningham, William P. “Noise Pollution” , The Gale Encyclopedia of Environmental Health , col. 2, 2 nd Ed., 2019, Web.

EEA. “Noise in Europe 2014”, EEA Report 10 , 2014, Web.

EPA. “Clean Air Act Title IV – Noise Pollution.” Web.

IBERDROLA. “Noise Pollution: How to Reduce the Impact of an Invisible Threat?” Web.

IKO Community Management. “8 Of The Most Common Neighbor Disputes (And How To Handle Them),” 2017, Web.

JosTec. “How to Reduce Noise Pollution.” Web.

Ma, Jing. “A Multilevel Analysis of Perceived Noise Pollution, Geographic Contexts and Mental Health in Beijing” , International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , vol. 15, no. 7, 2018, p. 1479. Web.

Peplow, Andrew. “Noise Annoyance in the UAE: A Twitter Case Study via a Data-Mining Approach” , International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , vol. 18 no. 4, 2021, p. 2198. Web.

Pileggi, Larry. Personal Interview . 2021.

Siano, Daniela. “Noise and Environment.” IntechOpen, 2021, Web.

Simonsen, Jan. “How Can the Government Reduce Noise Pollution?” Rockwool , 2019, Web.

Spencer-Hwang, Rhonda. “Experiences of a Rail Yard Community: Life Is Hard.” Journal of Environmental Health , vol. 77, no. 2, 2014. Web.

World Health Organization (WHO). “Guideline Values of Noise”, 1995, Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 25). Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions. https://ivypanda.com/essays/noise-pollution-effects-causes-and-potential-solutions/

"Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions." IvyPanda , 25 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/noise-pollution-effects-causes-and-potential-solutions/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions'. 25 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions." October 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/noise-pollution-effects-causes-and-potential-solutions/.

1. IvyPanda . "Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions." October 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/noise-pollution-effects-causes-and-potential-solutions/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Noise Pollution: Effects, Causes, and Potential Solutions." October 25, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/noise-pollution-effects-causes-and-potential-solutions/.

• The Effects of Noise Pollution
• Reducing Traffic Noise Pollution in Cairo
• Human 215 Unit 3 DB: Early Periods
• Fiber Optics Laboratory Experiments
• Database Types, Corruption and Attacks
• Health Hazard of Noise Pollution
• Noise Pollution: Urban Traffic Noise
• Cardiovascular Physiology: Interval Training in a Mouse Model of Diabetic Cardiomyopathy
• Levels of Noise in Different Points of Two Companies
• Noise and Sound Pollution
• Investigating Attitudes Toward Age Groups
• Pragmatic Approach and Practice Pyramid in Social Work
• Overview of the Problem of Bullying
• Piety Aside, Legalizing Prostitution Is the Way to Go
• Maywood, Illinois: Community Analysis

Noise Pollution Research Paper Topics

This comprehensive guide to noise pollution research paper topics is designed to provide students studying environmental science with a wealth of options for their research papers. The guide offers a broad array of topics, divided into ten categories, each containing ten unique research topics. Additionally, the guide provides expert advice on how to choose a topic from the multitude of noise pollution research paper topics and how to write a compelling research paper on noise pollution. The guide also introduces iResearchNet’s writing services, which offer students the opportunity to order a custom noise pollution research paper on any topic. The services boast a range of features designed to ensure the delivery of high-quality, custom-written papers.

100 Noise Pollution Research Paper Topics

Noise pollution is a broad field, offering a wide range of potential research paper topics. Here are ten categories, each with ten topics, to inspire your research:

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Causes of Noise Pollution

• The impact of urban development on noise pollution levels.
• Industrial noise: its sources and effects on the environment.
• The role of transportation in contributing to noise pollution.
• Noise pollution in the aviation industry.
• The impact of construction activities on noise levels.
• Household noise pollution: causes and mitigation strategies.
• The role of recreational activities in noise pollution.
• Noise pollution from electronic devices.
• The impact of mining activities on noise levels.
• Noise pollution in the marine environment: causes and effects.

Effects of Noise Pollution

• The impact of noise pollution on human health.
• Noise pollution and its effects on wildlife.
• The psychological effects of noise pollution.
• The impact of noise pollution on sleep quality.
• Noise pollution and its effects on children’s learning.
• The role of noise pollution in cardiovascular diseases.
• Noise pollution and its impact on mental health.
• The effects of noise pollution on the quality of life.
• Noise pollution and its impact on productivity in the workplace.
• The role of noise pollution in hearing loss.

Noise Pollution and the Law

• Noise pollution regulations: a comparative study.
• The effectiveness of noise pollution laws in your country.
• The role of the law in controlling noise pollution in urban areas.
• Legal remedies for victims of noise pollution.
• The impact of noise pollution laws on industries.
• The role of international law in controlling noise pollution.
• Noise pollution and human rights: a legal perspective.
• The enforcement of noise pollution laws: challenges and solutions.
• The impact of noise pollution laws on real estate development.
• Noise pollution in the workplace: legal implications.

Noise Pollution Mitigation

• The role of urban planning in noise pollution mitigation.
• Noise barriers: effectiveness and design considerations.
• The role of technology in noise pollution control.
• Noise pollution mitigation strategies in the transportation sector.
• The impact of building design on noise pollution control.
• The role of green spaces in reducing noise pollution.
• Noise pollution mitigation in the aviation industry.
• The role of community involvement in noise pollution control.
• Noise pollution control strategies in schools.
• The role of public awareness campaigns in noise pollution control.

Noise Pollution and Society

• Public perception of noise pollution: a case study.
• The role of noise pollution in social inequality.
• Noise pollution and its impact on community health.
• The role of noise pollution in urban life.
• Noise pollution and its impact on social interactions.
• The role of noise pollution in societal stress.
• Noise pollution and its impact on community cohesion.
• The role of noise pollution in social conflicts.
• Noise pollution and its impact on quality of life.
• The role of noise pollution in societal development.

Noise Pollution and Economy

• The economic impacts of noise pollution.
• The role of noise pollution in economic inequality.
• The influence of noise pollution on economic development.
• The impact of noise pollution on economic policies.
• The role of noise pollution in economic planning.
• The influence of noise pollution on economic growth.
• The impact of noise pollution on economic sustainability.
• The role of noise pollution in economic transitions.
• The influence of noise pollution on economic resilience.
• The impact of noise pollution on economic sectors.

Noise Pollution and Health

• The impact of noise pollution on respiratory diseases.
• The influence of noise pollution on allergies.
• The impact of noise pollution on mental health.
• The role of noise pollution in premature deaths.
• The influence of noise pollution on children’s health.
• The impact of noise pollution on elderly health.
• The role of noise pollution in health inequalities.
• The influence of noise pollution on public health interventions.
• The impact of noise pollution on health care costs.

Noise Pollution and Technology

• The role of technology in monitoring noise pollution.
• The impact of technology on reducing noise pollution.
• The influence of technology on noise pollution modeling.
• The role of technology in noise pollution forecasting.
• The impact of technology on noise pollution communication.
• The influence of technology on noise pollution policies.
• The role of technology in noise pollution education.
• The impact of technology on noise pollution mitigation.
• The influence of technology on noise pollution adaptation.
• The role of technology in noise pollution research.

Noise Pollution and Policy

• The effectiveness of noise pollution policies.
• The role of policy in controlling noise pollution in urban areas.
• The impact of noise pollution policies on industries.
• The role of international policy in controlling noise pollution.
• The enforcement of noise pollution policies: challenges and solutions.
• The impact of noise pollution policies on real estate development.
• Noise pollution in the workplace: policy implications.
• The role of policy in noise pollution education.
• The influence of policy on noise pollution justice.
• The impact of policy on noise pollution futures.

Noise Pollution and Ethics

• The ethical implications of noise pollution.
• The role of ethics in noise pollution policies.
• The influence of ethics on noise pollution communication.
• The impact of ethics on noise pollution mitigation.
• The role of ethics in noise pollution adaptation.
• The influence of ethics on noise pollution research.
• The impact of ethics on noise pollution education.
• The role of ethics in noise pollution decision-making.
• The influence of ethics on noise pollution justice.
• The impact of ethics on noise pollution futures.

This comprehensive list of noise pollution research paper topics is designed to inspire and guide students in their quest for knowledge about noise pollution. Each topic is a doorway to a vast field of research and understanding. As you embark on your academic journey, remember that the goal is not just to write a research paper but to contribute to the global understanding of noise pollution and its impacts. Your research could be the key to solving one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time.

Choosing a Noise Pollution Topic

Choosing the right research topic is a crucial step in the process of writing a noise pollution research paper. It sets the foundation for your study, shapes your research question, and determines the direction of your investigation. To help you navigate the topic selection process effectively, we have compiled expert advice and ten essential tips to guide you. By following these recommendations, you can ensure that your chosen topic is engaging, relevant, and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field of noise pollution research.

• Explore Interdisciplinary Perspectives : Noise pollution is a multifaceted issue that intersects with various disciplines such as environmental science, public health, urban planning, engineering, and sociology. Consider exploring the topic from an interdisciplinary perspective to gain a comprehensive understanding of its impacts and potential solutions.
• Identify Research Gaps : Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to identify gaps and areas that require further exploration. Look for unanswered questions, contradictory findings, or emerging trends that can serve as a basis for your research topic.
• Focus on Specific Contexts : Noise pollution manifests differently in different contexts, such as urban environments, transportation systems, industrial areas, or natural habitats. Narrow down your research focus by selecting a specific context that aligns with your interests and expertise.
• Consider Stakeholder Perspectives : Noise pollution affects various stakeholders, including communities, industries, policymakers, and regulatory bodies. Explore noise pollution research paper topics that address the perspectives and concerns of different stakeholders to provide holistic solutions.
• Analyze Policy and Regulations : Investigate the policies and regulations related to noise pollution at the local, national, and international levels. Choose a research topic that examines the effectiveness of existing policies or proposes innovative strategies for noise control and mitigation.
• Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches : Noise pollution research can involve both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Consider whether your research lends itself to statistical analysis, modeling, surveys, or qualitative methods such as interviews, case studies, or observations.
• Utilize Advanced Technologies : Explore noise pollution research paper topics that leverage advanced technologies such as noise mapping, remote sensing, data analytics, or simulation tools. These technologies can provide valuable insights into noise patterns, sources, and their impacts on the environment and human health.
• Community Engagement : Consider research topics that involve community engagement and participatory approaches. Collaborating with affected communities can provide valuable perspectives and enhance the relevance and impact of your research.
• Long-term Implications : Investigate noise pollution research paper topics that explore the long-term implications of noise pollution, such as cumulative effects, chronic exposure, or trends over time. This can contribute to a better understanding of the sustained impacts and inform long-term noise management strategies.
• Practical Applications : Choose research topics that have practical applications and can contribute to real-world solutions. Consider how your research findings can be translated into noise reduction strategies, policy recommendations, or innovative technologies for noise control.

By following these expert tips, you can select a noise pollution research paper topic that aligns with your interests, expertise, and academic goals. Remember to consider the scope and feasibility of your chosen topic, ensuring that it is manageable within the given time and resource constraints.

Remember, the goal is to make a meaningful contribution to the field of noise pollution research and address the pressing challenges faced by communities and the environment. Choose a topic that inspires you, challenges existing knowledge, and sparks curiosity. With a well-chosen research topic, you are on your way to conducting an impactful study that advances our understanding of noise pollution and contributes to sustainable solutions.

How to Write a Noise Pollution Research Paper

Writing a noise pollution research paper requires careful planning, thorough research, and effective organization of your ideas. To help you navigate the writing process and create a compelling and well-structured paper, we have outlined ten essential tips. By following these recommendations, you can ensure that your research paper effectively communicates your findings, analysis, and recommendations related to noise pollution.

• Define Your Research Question : Start by clearly defining your research question or objective. This will serve as the guiding principle for your entire paper and help you maintain focus throughout the research and writing process.
• Conduct a Literature Review : Before diving into your own research, conduct a comprehensive literature review to familiarize yourself with the existing body of knowledge on noise pollution. This will help you identify gaps in the literature and provide a foundation for your research.
• Develop a Strong Thesis Statement : Craft a clear and concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or purpose of your research paper. This statement should encapsulate the central theme or hypothesis that you aim to explore and prove.
• Collect and Analyze Data : Depending on your research methodology, collect relevant data related to noise pollution. This can include noise measurements, surveys, interviews, or secondary data sources. Analyze the data using appropriate statistical or qualitative analysis techniques.
• Organize Your Paper : Structure your research paper in a logical and coherent manner. Typically, a research paper consists of an introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use clear headings and subheadings to organize your content and ensure a smooth flow of ideas.
• Provide Relevant Background Information : In the introduction, provide necessary background information on noise pollution, its causes, impacts, and significance. This will set the context for your research and help readers understand the importance of your study.
• Present Clear Methodology : Describe your research methodology in detail, including the data collection methods, sample size, and any statistical or qualitative analysis techniques used. This section should be transparent and replicable, enabling others to assess the validity of your findings.
• Present Findings and Analysis : Present your research findings and provide a comprehensive analysis of the data. Use tables, graphs, or visual representations to illustrate your results effectively. Interpret the findings and discuss their implications in relation to existing literature and research objectives.
• Discuss Limitations and Future Research : Acknowledge the limitations of your study and discuss any potential biases or constraints. This demonstrates your awareness of the research’s limitations and opens avenues for future research in the field of noise pollution.
• Draw Conclusions and Make Recommendations : Summarize your key findings and draw logical conclusions based on your research. Offer recommendations for noise pollution control, mitigation strategies, policy changes, or further research that can contribute to addressing the issue effectively.

Remember to cite all sources accurately and adhere to the chosen citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) throughout your research paper. Proofread and edit your paper carefully to ensure clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.

Writing a noise pollution research paper can be a rewarding experience, as it allows you to contribute to the understanding of this critical environmental issue. By following these tips and maintaining a systematic approach, you can create a compelling and impactful research paper that advances the field of noise pollution research and promotes sustainable solutions.

Custom Noise Pollution Research Paper Writing Services

When it comes to writing a comprehensive and well-researched noise pollution research paper, we understand that students may encounter challenges. That’s why iResearchNet offers professional writing services to help you with your academic needs. Our custom writing services provide you with the opportunity to order a custom noise pollution research paper tailored to your specific requirements. Here are thirteen key features that make our services the ideal choice for your research paper:

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers : Our team consists of highly qualified writers with advanced degrees in environmental science and related fields. They have extensive knowledge and expertise in noise pollution research, ensuring that your paper is in capable hands.
• Custom Written Works : Every research paper we deliver is 100% original and custom written to meet your unique specifications. Our writers adhere to strict plagiarism policies, guaranteeing a paper that is free from any form of plagiarism.
• In-Depth Research : Our writers conduct thorough research on your chosen topic, utilizing credible and up-to-date sources to ensure the highest level of accuracy and reliability in your research paper.
• Custom Formatting : We follow the specific formatting guidelines required for your research paper, including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard styles. Our writers are well-versed in these formatting standards and ensure that your paper meets the required citation and formatting requirements.
• Top Quality : We prioritize delivering research papers of the highest quality. Our writers pay attention to detail, structure, and content to ensure that your paper meets the highest academic standards and earns you the grades you deserve.
• Customized Solutions : We understand that each research paper is unique, and we tailor our services to meet your specific needs. You can provide us with specific instructions, guidelines, and requirements, and our writers will follow them diligently.
• Flexible Pricing : We offer competitive and flexible pricing options to accommodate students’ budgets. Our pricing structure takes into account factors such as paper length, complexity, and urgency, ensuring that you receive a fair and affordable price for your custom research paper.
• Short Deadlines : We recognize that students may face tight deadlines. Our team is equipped to handle even the most urgent orders, delivering high-quality research papers within the requested timeframe.
• Timely Delivery : We understand the importance of meeting deadlines. With our writing services, you can be confident that your research paper will be delivered on time, allowing you ample time for review and submission.
• 24/7 Support : Our dedicated support team is available round the clock to address any inquiries or concerns you may have regarding your research paper. You can reach out to us at any time, and we will provide you with prompt and reliable assistance.
• Absolute Privacy : We prioritize the privacy and confidentiality of our clients. Your personal information and order details will be kept secure and confidential throughout the entire process.
• Easy Order Tracking : You can easily track the progress of your research paper through our user-friendly platform. This feature allows you to stay updated on the status of your order and communicate with your assigned writer conveniently.
• Money Back Guarantee : We stand behind the quality of our work. If you are not satisfied with the final research paper delivered to you, we offer a money-back guarantee, ensuring your complete satisfaction and peace of mind.

By availing our writing services, you can save time, reduce stress, and ensure the successful completion of your noise pollution research paper. Our team of expert writers will work closely with you to deliver a custom research paper that meets your academic requirements and exceeds your expectations.

Unlock Your Academic Success with Expert Assistance

Are you feeling overwhelmed by the task of writing a noise pollution research paper? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. Take advantage of our professional writing services and order a custom noise pollution research paper tailored to your unique requirements. Our team of expert writers is ready to provide you with the academic support you need to excel in your studies. Don’t let the stress and pressure hinder your success. It’s time to take action and make a smart investment in your academic journey.

Order your custom noise pollution research paper today and experience the benefits of professional assistance. Trust our expertise, dedication, and commitment to delivering exceptional results. Your academic success is just a few clicks away. Let us be your partner in achieving your goals.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• My Shodhganga
• Receive email updates
• Edit Profile

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET

• Shodhganga@INFLIBNET
• Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute
• Department of Civil Engineering

Items in Shodhganga are licensed under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Effects Of Noise Pollution

Effects of Noise Pollution Thesis Statement “Noise Pollution is causing threats to the physical and mental health of the population” Introduction Noise pollution can be described as any kind of excessive or displeasing sound in the surrounding of human beings. This excessive sound creates discomfort for the human beings and can be harmful for them. In general there are two type of noise pollution one is indoor and the other is outdoor. Indoor noise pollution usually is caused by excessive noise created from human beings or animals. On the other hand, outdoor noise pollution is caused by heavy sounds in the construction works and transportation. However, the major outdoor source of noise pollution is caused by Transportation mediums such as airplanes, motor vehicles, and trains. The term noise pollution is derived from the word noise, which generally means excessive sound. The word noise originates from the Latin word nauseas, which means disgust and discomfort. In the recent times, noise pollution has increased significantly and is considered dangerous than water and air pollution. The premier reason behind this increase is the increase in population, industrialization, and urbanization (Goines, p.1). As the population continues to grow the number of people, purchasing vehicles or travelling on them also increases. Similarly, the need for accommodations and industries also increases. This all results in an increase in noise pollution greatly. Discussion The issue of noise pollution is becoming a topic to talk about since the time the society started facing its effects. . This pollution endangers the human society with the fears of hearing impairment, hypertension, sleep deprivations, frustration and ischemic heart problems. Many people in our surroundings get affected from noise pollution. Pollution of any type is never good for the health of human beings, but noise pollution is causes an adverse effect on the lives of individuals. The ...

Cause And Effect Of Pollu...

Noise pollution being emitted by automobiles ...

Noise Pollution

LITERATURE REVIEW5 METHODOLOGY6 CONCLUSION6 LETTER O ...

The Effects Of Noise On H...

The Effects Of Noise On Hearing Introduction ...

Noise Pollution , Noise Pollution Essay ...

Noise And Light Effects O...

Noise and Light Effects on Premature Infants in Neon ...

Light pollution affects coastal ecosystems too – this underwater ‘canary’ is warning of the impacts

Postgraduate in Marine Biology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Professor of Marine Science, University of Otago

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and University of Otago provide funding as members of The Conversation NZ.

Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington and University of Otago provide funding as members of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

In the early 20th century, canaries were used as early warning systems in coal mines to alert miners to rising levels of carbon monoxide.

A small unremarkable fish may fill a similar role in coastal ecosystems around Aotearoa New Zealand.

Triplefins, or kokopara, are common in a range of shallow coastal habitats across the country. They are a diverse group of fishes , with 26 endemic species living on our shores, and they make excellent “canaries” for the coastal marine environment, helping us to understand and possibly address pollution.

Research using triplefins has already shown increased consumption of microplastics by fish living closer to urban areas. Studies have also identified molecular responses to multiple chemical pollutants and described cognitive damage caused by loss of habitat complexity.

Noise pollution from small boats also has negative effects on coastal fish. And now, new research is investigating the surprising impact of light pollution on coastal ecosystems.

We are finding what is called “skyglow” affects triplefin growth patterns, with consequences for their ability to forage.

An underwater ‘canary’

Human activity around coastal waters is intense, about triple the rate of other areas , and it affects ecosystems such as beaches and wetlands.

Coastal urbanisation introduces a range of challenges for near-shore ecosystems, including pollutants, plastics, sound and light.

Light pollution is often recognised for the limitations it imposes on astronomers and stargazers , but a growing body of research has begun to document effects on the health of animals and ecosystems.

Scientists have found coastal fishes in tropical and temperate environments, including the common triplefin, reproduce and grow in a cyclical pattern which follows the monthly lunar cycle .

Patterns in nocturnal illumination (known as artificial light at night, or ALAN) of surface waters have a surprisingly large impact on these fish. The prevalence of light pollution from cities (in this case New Zealand’s capital Wellington) can potentially interfere with their breeding cycles.

Read more: Night skies are getting 9.6% brighter every year as light pollution erases stars for everyone

Long-term trends in skyglow over the Wellington region have revealed elevated levels of nighttime illumination up to 60 kilometres from the city centre.

Analysis of triplefin samples from nearby waters has identified altered growth patterns, manifesting in different body shapes. The health consequences include decreased swimming and foraging ability and make life harder for fish developing in brighter waters.

Bright city lights

It may not seem that the effects of light on a tiny fish are a big deal, but triplefins are a clear indicator of what could be happening in other fish.

In marine ecosystems, small changes have a way of propagating further up the food chain. In the light pollution example, theory suggests small-scale, relatively short-term fluctuations in small prey species like the common triplefin are likely to appear later as long-term fluctuations in larger species at a greater spatial scale, with genuine implications for pelagic fisheries .

In an instance such as this, the triplefin is indeed acting as a canary for potential changes affecting the entire marine food web.

Read more: Under the moonlight: a little light and shade helps larval fish to grow at night

We know what affects one fish species may not affect others. But equally, we can’t carry out experiments on every species. What the humble triplefin can tell us is that coastal ecosystems are in trouble, not just from water quality and pollution, but from the lights and sounds of our big cities.

Like the miners, we need to pay attention to the animals we use as indicators. The triplefins are asking us to embrace the dark and there are many ways in which our cities can do this.

Communities can choose LED lightbulbs and shaded fixtures for street lights, so they only point down. Sensible use of dimmers and timers will help turn off unnecessary lights. In fact, Aotearoa New Zealand hosts two of the world’s few dark sky reserves, in Aoraki-McKenzie and, more recently, in the Wairarapa , as well as two dark sky sanctuaries (Aotea/Great Barrier Island and Rakiura/Stewart Island).

New Zealand could be on track to become the second dark sky nation in the world (after Niue).

• Light pollution
• New Zealand stories
• Coastal ecosystems
• Science + Environment

Senior Enrolment Advisor

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

• Essay Database
• world trade center
• Greek Food and Culture
• The Future Portrayed I…
• Intercultural Communications
• In Heart of Darkness, …
• Things Fall Apart by C…
• In J.M. Coetzee's Wait…
• The Criminals Of Profe…
• Socialization of Children
• The Poet of Nature, Wi…
• Leonhard Euler
• Articles of Confederat…
• About all Sharks
• Vietnam Poetry

noise pollution

What is paper-research.

• Custom Writing Service
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Biographies

Final Paper

How our essay service works.

Finished Papers

• Exploratory

Customer Reviews

What We Guarantee

• No Plagiarism
• On Time Delevery
• Privacy Policy
• Complaint Resolution

Once your essay writing help request has reached our writers, they will place bids. To make the best choice for your particular task, analyze the reviews, bio, and order statistics of our writers. Once you select your writer, put the needed funds on your balance and we'll get started.

A writer who is an expert in the respective field of study will be assigned

Why is writing essays so hard?

Patterns and boring topics imposed by schools and universities are not very conducive to creativity and human development. Such essays are very difficult to write, because many are not interested in this and do not see the meaning of the text. There are a number of criteria that make it impossible to write essays:

• Boring and incomprehensible topics. Many topics could be more interesting, but teachers formulate them in a way that makes you want to yawn.
• Templates. 90% do not know how to make an essay interesting, how to turn this detailed answer to a question into a living story.
• Fear of not living up to expectations. It seems to many that the essay is stupid and that they simply did not understand the question. There is a fear of getting a bad mark and disappointing the professor, parents and classmates. There is a fear of looking stupid and embarrassing in front of the team.
• Lack of experience. People don't know what and how to write about. In order to make a good essay, you need to have a perfect understanding of the topic and have the skills of a writer.

That is why the company EssaysWriting provides its services. We remove the responsibility for the result from the clients and do everything to ensure that the scientific work is recognized.

Finished Papers

Adam Dobrinich