ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2018
Economic valuation of noise pollution control policy: does the type of noise matter?
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noise pollution and effectiveness of policy interventions for its control in Kathmandu, Nepal.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Environmental conservation value of an endangered species: the case of Cypripedium Japonicum.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Improving noise policies in South Korea: non-market valuation based on an impact pathway approach.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- What do we know about public acceptance of designating marine protected area? The case of Jaran Bay in South Korea.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Social benefits of improving water infrastructure in South Korea: upgrading sewage treatment plants.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Economic value of traffic noise reduction depending on residents' annoyance level.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As the average noise level and number of noise sources have increased, governments have taken various measures to make soundscapes sustainable. Wise policy decisions require information about the monetary value of noise-control policies. This study elicited people's willingness to pay (WTP) for noise policies, separating traffic noise from residential noise to compare the value of controlling different types of noise. The contingent valuation method was used for the empirical analysis, with data from South Korea. The results show that the monthly mean WTP of respondents was KRW 3392.3 for residential noise reduction and KRW 3507.1 for transport noise reduction; thus, the WTP for the latter is slightly higher than that for the former. Moreover, about 80% of people are unwilling to pay for a noise policy at all, and that high ratio of people with zero WTP must be taken into consideration in the process of policy formulation and implementation. Respondents' experiential and psychological factors were found to be more important than their demographics in explaining their WTP for a noise policy. Potential policy implications based on the analysis results are provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30178404What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.