7: The Way Ahead
It is clear that the existing standards framework for environmental noise regulations in the UK is fragmentary and can lead to confusion. Some of these standards are based on the results of primary research, others are based almost totally on social, economic, and political considerations, and yet others appear to have been almost arbitrary in terms of their derivation. This has encouraged the development of entrenched positions by different institutions. People tend to argue about precise numeric values of noise exposure whereas perhaps what they should be doing is balancing concepts and broad objectives.
This work has concluded that we cannot at present establish health effect based assessment methods. DETR should take into account the following in developing such standards and improving the current situation:
1. The UK delegation to the ISO working group charged with revising the main international standard in this area, ISO 1996, is presently developing an improved framework approach. This approach recognises the diversity of different situations in which noise assessment might be applied as well as the need to balance noise exposure against other considerations which might be different in different situations. It concentrates on the three different outcomes for an assessment as described in this work. It is described in (FLINDELL 97). The work is currently supported by DETR and could contribute to the positive development of future standards in this area.
2. There could be greater transparency in the way in which future standards and regulations are developed so that the public can become more aware of both the strengths and limitations of these standards. In particular, the current emphasis on reported "bother" or "annoyance" as the main adverse outcome effect of environmental noise exposure leads to debate. This is because it is difficult to weigh or balance noise 'annoyance' against other benefits and impacts of any proposed development. An increased emphasis on non-auditory health effects as the outcome variable of choice might lead to greater transparency in this respect, although there is considerable doubt at the time of writing as to the magnitude of these effects.
3. To ensure that non-auditory health effects are included in the development of future standards and regulations, more research is required. This must be carefully designed, not only in terms of its planning and execution, but also in terms of setting precisely defined and achievable objectives. A number of suggestions for research are given in the IEH workshop report (IEH 97) which need prioritising in the light of the comments given in this report. A view towards which we incline is that is it more important to make small but scientifically defensible steps along the way towards a complete understanding than to try to understand the overall problem in one hit and probably fail (LUDLOW 96).
4. The major uncertainty is not just what proportion of the population might be affected and to what extent, but whether measurable effects exist at all at typical levels of exposure to community noise. There is certainly a possibility that at least a susceptible minority of the population might be affected, particularly at the higher levels of environmental noise. Consideration should be given to developing methods to identify such groups and then using such groups for future research studies to facilitate the identification of health effects which otherwise may be difficult to observe in the general population. The goal of noise control policies could then be to offer a reasonable level of protection to susceptible groups which will automatically protect the 'normal' population.
5. If these effects could ever be reliably quantified, then it would be essential to take them into account, and, they would have direct meaning in terms of balancing costs and benefits. But DETR must be aware of the role of other factors in deriving effect-based standards such as the social, economic, political and historic factors. There is a role for setting limits as targets such as the WHO limits based on scientific evidence, but to be of any use they must be practical and attainable, as otherwise they are nothing more than committee exercises.
6. Work is required in developing an agreed method to consider the whole situation i.e. how to treat more than one effect, cumulative noise exposure, and risk factors or modifiers in order to assess the overall impact on health. This is not a simple problem but the solution should aim towards providing a framework for the practitioner or decision maker to consistently and effectively assess the impact and could even help to inform effective noise control decisions.
7. The importance of many of these issues have been recognised by DETR and DoH.
in their recent initiative to investigate the non-auditory effects of noise. It would be prudent to, when selecting and monitoring any projects resulting from this initiative, give consideration to their links with the development of future standards.
8. Given the present state of knowledge, it has been concluded that it would be unwise to base future standards and regulations on what are at present hypothesised non-auditory health effects until future research can make the present confused situation clearer. An alternative stance could be adopted based on the precautionary principle, i.e. if in doubt err on the side of caution. However, it has to be recognised that any too liberal application of this principle might lead to unacceptable impacts in other areas.
[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]
Published 12 September 2000
Noise Index
Environmental Protection Index
Defra Home Page