Hello everyone and welcome back to our blog! In this post, we will be concluding noise pollution and its legislation. Also, we will provide our opinion on noise pollution and what are some areas that could be addressed. As usual, we are unable to cover all the laws concerning noise pollution. To learn more about domestic noise pollution legislation, here are some links for you to read more!
Laws concerning noise pollution for the public
Laws concerning noise pollution at the workplace
Comparison
Coming back to our comparison of definitions to the Environmental Noise Directive (END), let us look at the similarities and differences before we provide our opinion.
Our definition: “The anthropogenic emission of sound that leads to negative impacts on human and environmental health, regardless how it the sound is generated, its frequency and loudness”
END definition: “avoid, prevent or reduce … the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise” (Article 1) where
- “Environmental Noise shall mean unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, …” (Article 3)
- “Harmful effect” is defined as “negative effects on human health” (Article 3)
- “annoyance” should be “determined by means field surveys” (Article 3) but also considered a “harmful effect” (Annex III)
One thing to note when looking at our comparison is that our definition defines noise pollution while the END defines noise as a pollutant, not defining noise pollution itself. However, there are still noteworthy similarities and differences!
Similarities
Firstly, both definitions focus on anthropogenic sources of noise pollution, rather than natural sources. This makes sense as there is no reason to control natural sources of noise as they occur rarely, such as the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 which occurred almost 200 years ago! In contrast, loud anthropogenic sources of noise can be heard daily at workplace environments that can cause hearing loss due to repeated exposure.
Similarly, anthropogenic sources of noise tend to be annoying, as seen in END’s definition. Both definitions illustrate the importance of “annoyance” which can harm or negatively impact human and environmental health. Thus, there is a consideration of not just loudness, but the constancy and intrusiveness of noise even at lower levels that may not directly impact hearing.
Differences
As mentioned, the greatest difference between both definitions is the definition of noise as a pollutant under the END while we defined noise pollution itself. Under Article 2, the END has a narrower scope as it does not cover “noise at workplace”, apart from other exclusions. However, one important point that the END did not cover was the negative impacts of noise onto the environment. Thus, the END is an anthropocentric policy that only concerns implications of noise pollution to human health. While legal policies may have a focused scope, we still find it unacceptable that noise is not considered a pollutant if it did not cause negative health impacts to humans. If we are concerned about equity, then we should consider the total environment within our environmental policies.
Opinions
We think the inclusion of the environment as victims of sound pollution is a small but important difference between our definition and the END’s definition of noise pollution. Animals, like us, use sound for a variety of purposes such as hunting, attracting mates, wayfinding and more (National Geographic, 2019). In addition, the impacts we suffer from noise pollution need not be unique to us as we are, after all, another species of animal. Thus, the environment should equally be considered and protected as victims of noise pollution. We strongly feel that this is where the END lacks. Otherwise, we largely concur with how the END defines noise pollution and think that it is a rather well-made legislation. Special mentions should be given to the consideration of “annoyance” as harm to human health. With this, we have come to the end of the theme of noise pollution. What are your thoughts on this topic? Next week, we shall embark on a new journey together.
Stay tuned and see you in our next post!
Lee Yang and Ryan
References
‘Council Directive 02/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise’ (2002) Official Journal L 189 pp. 12 – 26
National Geographic (2019). Noise Pollution. Classroom Resources. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/noise-pollution/#:~:text=Noise%20pollution%20also%20impacts%20the,attract%20mates%2C%20and%20avoid%20predators