These logs have been consolidated and the research is not in any order of priority.

In this phase of the study, I have delved into possible directions for improvement in noise management by reviewing noise policies, analysing case studies, and exploring noise control strategies, to support the design of interventions.

Policy Review

I systematically review noise prevention and control policies in different areas of the globe, focusing on noise management regulations in the UK, USA, China, Australia (New South Wales) and New York. By comparing the noise management measures implemented in these regions in the context of urbanisation, I assess the policies’ breadth, relevance and appropriateness in relation to local characteristics.

1.1 England’s Noise Policy Statement (NPSE)

• The main goal is to effectively manage noise through sustainable development policies to promote good health and quality of life.
• Main Challenge: Controlling the negative impacts of noise on life and health while maintaining societal vitality. Emphasise the need for clear, coordinated, and long-term management strategies.
• Implementation Content: To address noise issues comprehensively, the content focuses on all types of noise, particularly environmental noise, neighbourhood noise, and community noise.

1.2 Industrial Noise Policy of New South Wales, Australia

• Policy Objective: To ensure that industrial activity noise remains acceptable while balancing the relationship between socio-economic development and noise control.
• Specific Methods: Uses “Project Noise Trigger Levels” and “Noise Descriptors” to assess industrial noise and develop management measures.
• Execution Mechanism: Requires industrial projects to develop detailed noise mitigation plans and adjust dynamically based on assessments to meet policy standards.

1.3 China’s Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Law

• Policy Objective: To prevent and control noise pollution, protecting public health and the living environment.
• Legal Structure: Governs industrial, construction, transportation, and social life noise, establishing a monitoring mechanism and a legal responsibility framework.
• Implementation Content: Emphasises source control and categorised management, with local governments responsible for specific execution and supervision.

1.4 New York City Noise Code

• Main Content: The 2007 revision better aligns with the dynamic changes in the urban environment and advances in acoustic technology.
• Policy Challenge: Balances the city’s vitality with the need for quiet environments for residents, workers, and tourists.
• Implementation Measures: Sets specific noise level limits and outlines detailed control requirements for noise sources such as construction sites and air conditioning.

1.5 U.S. Noise Control Act of 1972

• Policy Objective: To protect public health and welfare by reducing noise hazards.
• Policy Content: Establishes federal noise emission standards and strictly regulates noise from commercial products.
• Execution Mechanism: The federal government coordinates noise research and control activities at all levels to ensure nationwide consistency.

Commonalities and Differences:

Commonalities:

• Global Perspective: Policies generally focus on the overall levels of regional noise rather than just addressing individual noise issues.
• Integrated Management: Most policies employ a multidimensional management approach, encompassing various noise sources (industrial, traffic, and community noise).
• Health Priority: Policies universally emphasise the importance of health and quality of life, striving to balance socio-economic development and noise management.

Differences:

• Local Adaptability: Different countries or regions adjust noise standards and implementation methods based on their characteristics. For example, the New York Code focuses more on adapting to urban features, while Chinese policies emphasise source control and the execution power of local governments.
• Implementation Intensity: Policies in the United States and Australia focus on monitoring and dynamically adjusting industrial noise, whereas China and England emphasise comprehensive community and environmental noise management.

This policy review shows that although a systematic framework for noise management has been established, its implementation effectiveness is still influenced by factors such as urban characteristics, execution costs, and public participation.

Review and Reality of Noise Policies 

Further review of noise policies helps to uncover their potential weaknesses. By studying existing literature and cases, particularly an assessment of England’s noise policy, this research explores the effectiveness and limitations of current policies in practical application. Based on noise statistics from four cities in England, this study evaluates the challenges in policy implementation and the actual experiences of urban residents.

Challenges in Policy Implementation 

The review of noise policies shows that although policies are dynamic and adapt to environmental changes, balancing economic benefits with public health rights remains a significant challenge in practice. The priority of noise issues on the political agenda varies, with regions prioritising economic development possibilities and viewing noise management as a marginal issue.

Case Studies and Policy Effectiveness 

Reviews conducted in four cities in England show that despite having clear noise limit policies, actual effects vary due to differences in economic assessments and the strength of policy enforcement. Furthermore, research on non-auditory health impacts has prompted a shift towards more comprehensive and scientific policy approaches. However, most policies only ensure basic noise standards are met without significantly improving residents’ quality of life.

Policy Issues and Limitations

• Difficulty in Accommodating Individual Needs: Policies targeting group health and public interest often need to adapt to individual differences.
• Diversity and Complexity of Noise Sources: While existing policies cover traditional noise sources, emerging sources such as drones and significant outdoor events need more specific strategies.
• Insufficient Regulatory Strength: Although noise regulations are well-established, the need for local enforcement strength and consistency affects policy effectiveness.
• Lagging Technology and Measurement Standards: Existing noise assessment technologies are limited in complex environments, and policy updates must catch up to technological developments.
• Lack of Public Awareness and Education: Insufficient investment is made in raising public awareness about noise issues, reducing residents’ capacity and motivation to participate in governance.

Combining interview data, the content above has been indirectly confirmed:

Low Awareness of Policies

Most interviewees expressed a low awareness of noise policies and struggled to perceive the actual benefits of their implementation directly. For instance, in the UK, although policies focus on managing community noise, interviewees located in London did not noticeably perceive a reduction in noise levels or any additional benefits.

Inadequate Policy Coverage

While current policies set goals at a macro level and have reasonable regulatory control over industrial noise, the management of individual noise or other types that directly impact residents’ daily lives is often overlooked.

Focus on Basic Noise Standards

Interviewees reported that existing noise management measures primarily focus on maintaining basic noise standards rather than setting higher goals to substantially improve residents’ quality of life, consistent with views from the policy review.

Summary

The formulation and implementation of noise policies is a multidimensional, complex process that requires balancing economic benefits, social development, and residents’ health. Based on current policy assessments and feedback from residents, the main issues faced include:

• The challenge of balancing individual and regional needs: As policies are aimed at a broad audience, it is challenging to precisely balance the needs of every individual or specific area.
• Excessive focus on basic noise control: Policies mainly focus on basic noise control, which is constrained by economic and other external factors. They lack goals to enhance a higher quality of life.
• Insufficient response to emerging noise sources and technology: There is an apparent deficiency in addressing emerging noise sources and keeping up with technological developments.

Cutting-Edge Noise Management Strategies Post-2023 

In my research on the latest noise control strategies, I have focused on how these strategies offer innovative solutions to various noise issues. I have assessed the effectiveness and feasibility by analysing the target audience, coverage gaps, and characteristics of these measures.

Noise management strategies can be categorised based on the level of involvement:

• Audience Participatory: These strategies allow the audience to participate directly in the management process, typically involving individual participation, such as community noise monitoring.
• Non-Audience Participatory: In these strategies, the audience does not participate directly but benefits from the outcomes, such as city-wide noise control policies.

Specific strategy types include:

• Noise Source Control Strategies: Focus on reducing noise levels at the source or diminishing its propagation, such as improving machinery design to reduce operational noise.
• Propagation Path Control Strategies: Focus on controlling the path of noise transmission to lessen its ultimate impact, such as installing sound barriers to isolate highway noise.
• Noise Receiver Control Strategies: These strategies mainly involve audience participation and aim to mitigate the receiver’s perception of noise, such as using personal protective equipment like earplugs.

Summary 

• Predominance of Non-Audience Participatory Strategies: Such as aircraft noise reduction technologies and road noise isolation measures. These source and propagation path management strategies have effectively optimised common noise sources and improved the living environments of urban residents. However, whether these strategies are effectively implemented in coordination with management policies remains to be seen.
• Specialisation of Noise Control Tools: Such as SoundPlan and other professional noise control tools that usually require a high technical threshold, making it difficult for general users to participate directly.

Despite the technical solutions provided by cutting-edge control strategies, there remains insufficient coverage for certain noise sources, and they have not significantly enhanced user participation or welfare experience.

Further Case Studies: Specific Noises Not Covered by Legislation and Cutting-edge Strategies

Appliance Noise 

Research indicates appliance noise is a significant disturbance in home environments, especially its high-frequency sounds. This was further confirmed by a user survey by Satapathy et al. (2024):

• User feedback shows: Most interviewees consider appliance noise a disruption in daily life, with prolonged exposure potentially inducing or exacerbating health issues.
• Specific impacts include: Decreased sleep quality, increased stress, and potential damage to the auditory system. Despite these noises originating from household appliances, they are rarely covered by existing noise management legislation.

Flush Noise 

Although flush noise is short-lived, its suddenness and intensity can negatively affect sleep and mental health, especially during nighttime or in quiet environments.

• Flush noise has become a common complaint, particularly in multi-residence apartments. Current regulations and standards lack explicit provisions for such everyday life noises, leading to long-term neglect of this issue.

Implications of Noise Outside Legislation and Strategies

These uncovered noise cases reflect the incompleteness of existing noise legislation and the weakness of intervention measures. The main deficiencies are:

• Over-generalized policies: Policies and control strategies are too generalized, overlooking micro noise sources common in individual daily lives.
• Policy disconnect from real life: There is a disconnect between control strategy design and real-life scenarios, failing to fully reflect residents’ actual needs and sensitivities regarding daily noise.
• Limited implementation: There is a lack of specific execution mechanisms and technical means for particular noise sources, making it difficult to carry out related governance effectively.

The case studies reveal policy and technological gaps, highlighting the need for further improvements to more comprehensively address the negative impact of noise pollution on residents’ lives and to enhance the effectiveness and coverage of noise management.