Selecting Road-Noise Abatement Measures: Economic Analysis of Different Policy Objectives

Klaeboe, Ronny; Veisten, Knut; Amundsen, Astrid H.; Akhtar, Juned · 2011 · Crossref

DOI: 10.2174/1874447801105010001

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper evaluates the economic efficiency of road-noise abatement measures in Norway, specifically comparing façade insulation against a mixed policy incorporating low-noise asphalt. The study was motivated by the implementation of a national façade insulation program for 2,500 dwellings to comply with a new indoor noise limit of 42 dB. While cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) identified façade insulation as the least expensive method per dwelling to meet this regulatory limit, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) revealed that the benefits were less than 20% of the costs. This poor ratio stemmed from the narrow scope of façade insulation, which benefits only the targeted residents, whereas source-based measures like low-noise asphalt benefit all residents along treated road stretches. The authors analyzed two alternatives: Alternative 1 involved 100% façade insulation for all 2,500 dwellings; Alternative 2 employed a mixed approach, using façade insulation for 1,750 scattered dwellings and low-noise asphalt for 750 dwellings located on 180 contiguous street segments. The economic assessment utilized CEA for the single objective of regulatory compliance and CBA for the dual objective of regulatory compliance and broader noise annoyance reduction. The CBA monetized benefits based on noise reduction (valued at EUR 65.45 per household per dB per year) and particulate matter (PM10) reduction (valued at EUR 140 per kg). Low-noise asphalt was assumed to reduce noise by 4.5 dB and PM10 by 25%, benefiting approximately 54,000 dwellings along the treated roads. Sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations assessed uncertainty in costs, lifetimes, and noise reductions. The results demonstrated that while Alternative 1 had a lower cost-effectiveness ratio (EUR 1,746 per dwelling vs. EUR 3,350 for Alternative 2), it yielded a benefit-cost ratio of only 0.18. In contrast, Alternative 2, despite higher total costs, achieved a benefit-cost ratio of 1.01, meaning total benefits matched total costs. Simulations indicated a high probability that the mixed policy would yield a benefit-cost ratio above 1, whereas the façade-only policy was almost certain to yield a ratio below 1. The mixed policy also provided additional benefits by improving urban soundscapes and reducing PM10 exposure for a significantly larger population. The study concludes that the choice of noise abatement policy depends heavily on the defined policy objectives. If the sole goal is minimizing the cost of meeting indoor noise limits, façade insulation is optimal. However, if the goal includes maximizing societal benefits and reducing general noise annoyance, a mixed policy utilizing low-noise asphalt in densely populated areas is economically superior. The authors recommend that road authorities prepare organizational and financial frameworks for implementing low-noise surfaces based on cost-benefit calculations, particularly as environmental limits are expected to tighten further.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• regulatory evaluation