Monetary valuation of road noise. Residential property prices as an indicator of the acoustic climate quality

Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Monetary valuation of road noise. Residential property prices as an indicator of the acoustic climate quality Damian Łowicki a,∗ , Sylwia Piotrowska b a Department of Integrated Geography, Faculty of Geographical, Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University in Pozna´ n, Ul. Dzi˛egielowa 27, n, Poland 61-680 Pozna´ b PSS-Geo, Solligata 2, 0254 Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 5 May 2014 Received in revised form 28 December 2014 Accepted 2 January 2015 Keywords: Noise depreciation index Soundscape Hedonic pricing model Urban planning Ecosystem services

a b s t r a c t Soundscape as an inherent part of landscape provides ecosystem services, first of all spiritual and symbolic services as well as educational and esthetic ones. The value of these services depends on the ability to hear sounds of nature. However, more often people can hear only sounds generated by humans and those generated by organisms and the physical environment become very desirable. Reports of the European Commission confirm that the noise in the environment is a very serious threat to public health and that the noise exposure in Europe is increasing. It is estimated that the main threat to the acoustic climate is road noise, both in the cities and outside them. Although the soundscape is a non-market good, the attempts of its evaluation have been increasing, usually by estimating the economic costs arising from exposure to noise: lost productivity, medical expenses, decreases in revenues from tourism. The authors used the hedonic pricing method to estimate the decline in undeveloped property prices associated with road noise around the city of Poznan. To extract the effects of noise also other factors that contribute to the land price were considered. The model chosen by using multiple regression showed, that plots located in the zone with noise exceedance at night were about 57% cheaper than those located outside this zone. The results can be helpful in spatial planning, especially for estimating costs of road investments in environmental and economic impact assessments. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Noise in human life Sound is a very important part of landscape. Together with the landscape development humans influenced sources of sounds, and at the same time sounds, created by humans, influenced humans. Since the beginning of human civilization sounds have had different functions, i.e. they marked the extent of a territory (trumpets/horns), have set rules for life in cities (bells, clocks) and more importantly, they gave information about dangers. However, not only sources of sound were important, but also their level. People associate noise which is rather a rare phenomenon in nature with danger and it causes stress in their organism. Nowadays noise surrounds us from everywhere and has a negative influence not only on our health and the quality of work, but it also changes our

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 61 8296227; fax: +48 61 8296229. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Łowicki), [email protected] (S. Piotrowska). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.002 1470-160X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

perception of landscape and has an impact on social relationships. In ancient China, noise was used as a severe punishment for offenders. Ordinance of the Minister of Police Ming Ti from 211 BC proclaimed: “Whoever dares to insult the lord, will not be pegged, beheaded or pilloried, but will be sentenced to the uninterrupted listening to pipes, beating drums and cries until he drops dead. It is because this is the most tiring death, that a human can bear. . .”. The watchword “Salus per Silentium”, which means “health from silence”, is the motto of new treatment centers, which through a contemplation of landscape in silence, have been conducive to improve health. The program Campaign to Protect Rural England indicates the role of tranquility as the indicator of the type of landscape (Bernat, 2011). 1.2. Threat of noise pollution The results of the analysis carried out in Oslo showed a significant relationship between noise nuisance at night and sleeping problems. Research also indicates the occurrence of psychosomatic disorders and mild psychological problems among people exposed to noise (Fyhri and Aasvang, 2010). Also, studies conducted in

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

the United States by Zaharna and Guilleminault (2010) show the negative impact of traffic noise on sleep quality and, consequently, formation of diseases and disorders of the immune, circulatory, nervous and endocrine systems. Exposure to noises louder than 120 dB for children and 140 dB for adults, or prolonged exposure to levels above 75 dB, can cause hearing impairment. Noise also influences social abilities: reduces the intelligibility of speech, reduces cognitive performance and increases aggressive behavior (WHO, 2002). Many publications describe the negative impact of ultrasound and infrasound on human health and show the need to protect against this threat (Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska et al., 2005; Bolin et al., 2011; Alimohammadi et al., 2013). In addition, noise can affect the behavior of wild animals (Francis et al., 2009; Barber et al., 2010). Studies show, that the exposure of animals to noise can lead to DNA damage, changes in gene expression and changes at the cellular level. This has an impact on the final effect in the neurological system. The European Environment Agency estimates that in the EU noise is linked to 43,000 hospital admissions, 900,000 cases of hypertension and up to 10,000 premature deaths per year (EEA, 2014). Social costs of road noise related to disease and premature death were estimated by the European Union for the amount of D 40 billion (EC, 2011). Under Polish law, since 2004 the noise level in residential areas during the day should not exceed 55 dB and at night 50 dB. These levels were set in accordance with the recommendations of the EEA (2010). The regulations in Poland changed in October 2012 and the permissible noise level for daytime is now 61 dB and 56 dB for night-time. The WHO report entitled Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (WHO, 2009) gives a clear recommendation that from the health point of view the calculations of night-time burden should start at 40 dB and that action planning should at least contain an aim to bring down the level below 55 dB. On the first of June 2011, the European Commission, based on the data provided by member states, announced the report on the implementation of the Directive 2002/49/EC, which shows the quality of acoustic environment in the EU and assesses the need for further actions of the EU to reduce noise in the environment (EC, 2011). These studies confirm that noise in the environment is a very serious threat to public health and that noise exposure in Europe is increasing. In 2011, about 40 million people living in the EU agglomerations are exposed to urban traffic noise during night-time with an intensity of more than 50 dB. Outside agglomerations, the same kind of noise threatens the health of more than 25 million people. In 2012, about 5 million residents of the largest Polish cities were exposed to noise exceeding 55 dB during the day and about 4 million to noise above 50 dB at night (Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, 2013). It is estimated, that the main threat to the acoustic climate is traffic noise, especially from roads, while industrial noise is becoming less dangerous. Increased noise impacts associated with the development of air transport are mostly limited to areas around airports (Kotus, 2007). The recent WHO recommendations include the reduction of the permissible level of noise to 40 dB. It is justified by the fact, that in the current assessment of noise in the EU a significant part of the population is exposed to noise at lower levels, which probably also have harmful consequences for the health (WHO, 2011). 1.3. Noise as a motivation of residential migration According to the questionnaire surveys conducted on the people moving out from Poznan (Beim and Tölle, 2008), the selection of the new specific location was primarily determined by environmental values where silence was recognized as the most important factor. Of all the participants in the survey, 82.7% pointed that out. The next factor – air pollution was mentioned by 79.4% of the respondents. The next factor which decided about the choice of

473

location was the proximity of green areas, which was indicated by 77.7% of the respondents. After these environmental factors, the reasons for migration were: costs of the property’s purchase, construction or rental. The vast majority (82%) reject the opportunity to return to live in Poznan. The consequence of the high rate of emigration from the city together with the delayed infrastructure development (sewage system, roads, kindergartens, etc.) is the uncontrolled spread of the buildings, which are littering rural landscape, causing the growing burden of roads and increasing noise. Therefore, it is a growing problem not only in cities but also outside them. 1.4. Ecosystem services linked to noise and their evaluation Usually noise moderation is considered as a regulating ecosystem service. Alternatively, the sounds produced by ecosystems can be treated as a cultural service. Noise, as unwanted sound reduces the value of the ecosystem services and could be a convenient indicator of landscape/soundscape quality (UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). Studies (DEFRA, 2009; Liu et al., 2013) confirm that the tranquility affects valuing scenery, as well as valuing fresh air and wildlife. Recreation and ecotourism are valuated among cultural ecosystem services most often, but esthetic and educational as well spiritual and symbolic services also play an important role (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). Tranquility provides artistic experience and sensitizes to the beauty of nature. Many countries have introduced instruments for the protection of soundscapes and treat them as a tourist product. As studies show, both for the preferences of residential migrants (Beim and Tölle, 2008) and for the costs of dwelling rent (Baranzini et al., 2010), the possibility to hear sounds of nature is more important than e.g. scenic beauty. Although the soundscape is an intangible asset, the attempts of its evaluation have been increasing, usually by estimating the economic costs arising from exposure to noise (lost productivity, medical expenses, decrease in revenues from tourism and from real estate trade). As the noise level does not have a market value, its valuation is usually performed using the stated preference methods, mainly by the contingent valuation method (CVM) (Merchan et al., 2014). This approach is based on the willingness of people to pay for mitigating the negative effects of noise for both humans and the environment. The disadvantage of such methods is that they are based on hypothetical situations and do not necessarily reflect the real choices, when consumers are faced with trade-offs between money and environmental protection. Besides, the willingness to pay is linked to the prosperity of the respondents (Anderson et al., 2013). It is noted, that, for example, more affluent people are willing to pay for noise reduction, even when they do not feel the negative effects of its impact, and vice versa – sometimes people, who suffer from excessive noise exposure reply that they would not be able to pay for noise reduction (Kolstad, 2000). Another way to measure these benefits includes indirect methods based on revealed preferences. A frequently used method in this group is the travel costs method (Bergin and Price, 1994; Czajkowski et al., 2014). The hedonic pricing method (HPM) is most commonly used to estimate economic benefits or costs associated with environmental amenities, such as esthetic views or access to outdoor recreation areas (Sander and Haight, 2012). Sometimes quiet surroundings are treated as the part of environmental amenities (Borkowska et al., 2001), but often the influence of noise on property value is analyzed separately (Bateman et al., 2001). This approach, on the one hand, allows for finding how the value of the property depends on technical conditions and on the other hand, allows for assessing how much we are willing to pay for e.g. silence. The main problem associated with the revealed preference method is to find data that allows you to extract the environmental effect, while controlling other factors (Mahashabde

474

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

et al., 2010; Anderson et al., 2013). Often direct and indirect methods are combined (Cameron, 1992; Fleischer and Tsur, 2000; Van Berkel and Verburg, 2014). Kish (2008) compared the values of the noise depreciation index (NDI) in 28 worldwide studies which was made by using revealed and stated preferences methods and found out that these values are comparable. Brander and Koetse (2011) underline, that besides the study method, the localization of study area influences the results very much. 1.5. Objective of study The main aim of this paper is to estimate changes in property prices caused by exceeded noise levels around major roads in the Poznan County. The results may help in estimating costs of road investments in environmental and economic impact assessments for spatial planning. 2. The study area The study area is the Poznan County located in the western part of Poland. In 2013 it has above 345 thousand inhabitants, its area is 1.9 thousand km2 and the population density is 181 inhabitants per 1 km2 (Central Statistical Office). The county consists of 17 municipalities which surround Poznan but do not include the city itself (Fig. 1). The Poznan County is characterized by many especially attractive natural areas, which are encompassed by the national forms of environmental protection, also including a national park as the highest one in the range of protection forms. The protected areas represent 24.9% of the total area. In recent years, a very dynamic development of the Poznan County has been observed, which results in increasing human pressure on the natural environment and limiting access to its most valuable resources, especially forests and water bodies. One of the elements that accompany the economic development is a strong expansion of the transport network. The road network in the county from the perspective of the last 20 years is one of the most dynamically evolving spatial elements. It decides about availability of transportation, intensity and direction of persons and goods transport, has an impact on the economic cost, natural environment and quality of life. Through the municipalities in the south part of the county (Buk, Dopiewo, Lubon, Komorniki, Kleszczewo) runs a 44 km stretch of the A2 motorway. Through the municipalities: Pobiedziska, Swarzedz, Komorniki and Steszew runs the national expressway S5, through Suchy Las, Kornik – the national expressway S11 and through Tarnowo Podgorne, Swarzedz, Kostrzyn National Road No. 92 (Fig. 1). In the coming years, further development of road infrastructure is planned (Poznan County Governor’s Office, 2013). The high economic growth also reveals a strong increase in the number of economic entities which, due to economic factors (particularly the high price of ground rent), are located outside Poznan. In the years 2006–2012, the number of economic entities in the county increased from 37.5 to 50.8 thousand. The increase by over 35% may indicate a high rate of economic growth in the county. The highest dynamics is observed in the following municipalities: Komorniki, Dopiewo and Kleszczewo (Central Statistical Office). The transport network and the industrial plants have a negative impact on the acoustic climate. The most important noise risk in the Poznan County is mainly traffic noise, especially originating from the main roads. Thanks to the study of road noise conducted in 2011, the data on the acoustic climate in the vicinity of the A2 motorway, the national and the regional roads were obtained. Based on these studies, it was found that the areas located around the main roads largely belong to areas covered by the exceedance of the limit value of the noise. At night, 33 thousand

residents of the county (10%) are exposed to road noise, including almost 5.3 thousand in an environment where the permissible sound level is exceeded by at least 10 dB. Nearly 41 thousand people are exposed to daily road noise. The city of Poznan is surrounded by a kind of laboratory of suburbanization processes and the growing scale of environmental, infrastructural, economic and social problems. The dynamics of these phenomena requires changes from public administration in a scope of action and methods for their implementation in relation to those processes. The increase in efficiency of public management raises the need for rationalization of management structures, more flexibility (i.e. in the field of cooperation between local government units) and the creation of frames corresponding to new spatial – functional realities (Poznan County Governor’s Office, 2013). The most important role in reducing uncontrolled and ill-conceived infrastructure is good spatial planning. However, the area of the Poznan County is only partly covered by local spatial plans. According to statistical data (Central Statistical Office) in 2012, only 646 km2 – about 34% of the Poznan County was covered by the enacted local spatial plans.

3. Data and methods In order to estimate the nuisance value caused by exceeded noise level around the main roads in the county, the hedonic pricing method (HPM) was applied. This method was used to estimate if and how the noise has affected the prices of undeveloped properties. The study consisted of three parts: collecting the data, spatial and statistical analysis.

3.1. Collecting the data The first step was to collect the data of property transactions in the Poznan County in a specific time period – 2011 and the first half of 2012 to avoid the impact of inflation. A database of the required factors which affect selling prices of the properties was created according to the standards of real estate valuation (Bajerowski, 2000) and included: (a) selling prices, (b) data about noise exposure around main roads in the Poznan County, (c) property characteristics: area, local spatial plan, outline planning decision, electricity, waterworks, sewerage, gas, (d) neighborhood characteristics: residential buildings and industrial plants in the neighborhood, (e) accessibility characteristics: distances to the nearest big city (border), railway, main and municipality roads, (f) environmental characteristic: distance to the closest forest, green areas, river and lake. Firstly, the data relating to the sales of properties were taken from the Centre of Geodesy and Cartography in Poznan. It contained information about price and evidence number of property, which was used to find the coordinates of the property on the digital cadastral map. The most actual maps of the main road noise in the Poznan County for 2011 were obtained from the Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection in Poznan. The data contain information about L indicators around the main roads. Those indicators refer to the long-term average sound level expressed in decibels (dB), appointed only for nights (Lnight) or together for the day, evening and night (Lden). The map with noise levels is represented by isophone curves (5 dB interval) and it was created on the basis of 5-years results for point measurements. In this analysis, also other parameters were taken into account such as: terrain, road type, traffic volume, the presence of green areas, noise barriers, and bridges. The adopted thresholds of excessive noise were 55 dB for daytime and 50 dB for night-time.

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

475

Fig. 1. Map of the study area with localization of analyzed properties in zone of the road noise impact.

The data about the area of the sale properties, local spatial plan and outline planning decision were obtained from the Centre of Geodesy and Cartography in Poznan. According to the Polish standards, an outline planning decision must be issued by the municipality, if for a given area a local spatial plan has not been adopted. The permit determines if a particular type of building can be located on a plot, e.g. family houses. Before taking such a decision, a property must meet certain conditions, i.e. there must be a similar type of building in the vicinity, access to a public road, and the existing or planned infrastructure has to be sufficient for constructing a particular type of building. Data concerning utilities (electricity, water, sewerage, gas) and neighborhood was obtained from cadastral maps of the county accessed by Centre of Geodesy and Cartography in Poznan, which are particularly important for properties, which do not have outline planning decisions and for which there is no spatial plan. The data refer to the possibility of connecting to the

network directly from the road adjacent to the plot. Addresses of industrial plants located in the Poznan County were taken from the database of the Polish Register of Pollutant Release and Transfer (POL-PRTR) for the year 2011 (Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, 2011). This register was established in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council in year 2006 and is part of the European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. It contains information concerning the amounts of pollutant releases to air, water and land as well as off-site transfers of waste and of pollutants in waste water from key industrial facilities. Industrial plants in this study were treated not only as a source of noise but also of other negative influences such as bad smell, air pollutions, electromagnetic radiation, bad view. Other data which may have an impact on the property prices: the border of main city – Poznan, rivers, lakes, forests, green areas, railway routes, main roads (national and regional roads: the motorway

476

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

A2, the expressways: S5, S11) and smaller roads (county and municipal roads) were obtained from topographic maps of the Poznan County. 3.2. Spatial analysis To carry out the spatial analysis the software ArcGIS 10.1 was used. 56 transactions were selected from 445 transactions concluded in the Poznan County during the 2011 and the first half of 2012, which were situated in the zone of potential noise road exposure, according to the acoustic map. The average width of this zone was approximately 1400 m. The analysis provided information which of the properties were situated in which of the zone of noise level (every 5 dB), both during the night time and a period of 24 h. The spatial analyses gave information, which properties were situated in the close neighborhood – 500 m to an industrial plant (1) and which outside this radius (0). Also the spatial analysis gave information about distances (m) to the border of Poznan, closest road, railway, river, lake, forest, green areas. 3.3. Statistical analysis The statistical analysis was carried out using the R software. The data were analyzed using regression analysis, which relates the price of the property to its characteristics and the environmental characteristic(s) of interest. Thus, the effects of different characteristics on the price can be estimated. The regression results indicate how much property values will change for a small change in each characteristic, holding all other characteristics constant. The analysis may be complicated by a number of factors. For example, the relationship between the price and characteristics of the property may not be linear – prices may increase at an increasing or decreasing rate as a result of a change. In addition, many of the variables are likely to be correlated, so that their values change in similar ways. Thus, different functional forms and model specifications for the analysis were considered. The stepwise multiple regression (backward elimination) was considered as the best statistical method. It is a resistant method in case, when the model contains factories, which can be correlated, i.e. road noise and the distance to the road. The semi-log method is used when the sample is not big. It allows for fit better the line of the regression function to the sample. The low number of the transactions did not statistically allow to carried out the regression with categorical variables for noise level (every 5 dB as was in the map), but it was needed to transform them to binary variables with the noise above the level permissible by law (1) and below (0). All binary variables were transformed to the dummy variables and all numerical variables were logarithmic. Less significant factors were rejected, until the value of the adjusted determination coefficient R2 was the highest. The order of elimination of individual factors depended on the t statistics value. The set of factors which may affect the price of property was taken as an input to the model (Table 1). Additionally, to evaluate predictive accuracy of the obtained model the cross-validation method was used. 4. Results The average price for 1 m2 of an undeveloped property for house building, which is exposed to the road noise, is 131 PLN and the area is 820 m2 . The results of descriptive statistic show significant differences in the prices between the two groups of properties. Plots, which already have access to utilities, such as electricity or gas, have other single-family houses in the neighborhood and are

Fig. 2. Changes in property prices depending from the distance to main roads according to the occurring noise.

free from the exceeded night-time noise level, are more expensive. The planning documents do not influence the property value (Table 1). The results of backward stepwise regression and crossvalidation showed that the best fitting model explaining the differences in the price is given by the following formula: ln(price) = 10.98−0.44 ln(area)+0.44(outline planning decision) + 0.74(electricity) − 0.84(night noise) − 0.38 ln(road) − 0.63(factory) + 0.14(green areas) − 0.19 ln(forest) − 0.11 ln(railway). The statistical analysis showed that the property price is mostly affected by factors such as: area, access to electricity, noise level in night-time and distance to the forest (Table 2). Among the qualitative (dummy) explanatory variables, the night noise had the greatest impact on the price of the plot. The exceeded noise level at night decreases the price of property by 57%, while the missing connection to electricity did so by 52%, a factory in the neighborhood by 47% and the lack of outline planning decision by 36%. Among the quantitative factors the greatest impact on the property price had the area of the property and the distance to the main road. Hedonic analysis clearly confirms the results of preference studies for Poznan residents who migrate from the city (Beim and Tölle, 2008). People are looking for calmness, but at the same time they want to live near a main road to be better connected with a big city. An increase in the distance from the main road by 1% results in the reduction of the plot price by 0.38%. On average, the plot price decreases by 71% in the first 100 m from the main road, in monetary value it means that the price is decreasing more than twice as fast when noise level was not exceeded (Fig. 2). Increasing the area of property by 1% reduces the price by 0.44%, and increasing the distance to the forest of 1% reduces the price by 0.19%. 5. Discussion 5.1. The impact of noise on property prices This study clearly shows that the inhabitants of the Poznan County prefer living in a quiet environment, which is revealed by a higher price of such properties. After rejecting other factors affecting the property price, it was found that the plots situated in the zone where the night noise was exceeded were about 57% cheaper, than those located outside this zone. It means that silence was more valuable than direct access to electricity or possession of outline planning decision. The differences in the price associated

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

477

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the properties. Numerical variables Price (PLN/m2 ) Area (m2 ) Distance (m) from Main road Municipal road Railway Forest River Lake Green areas Poznan city

Median

Min. value

Max. value

Standard deviation

131.03 820.5

3.93 400.0

491.75 287,484.0

107.12 730.80

486.09 81.70 725.63 738.20 702.55 627.39 754.90 6305.6

36.36 13.63 15.15 0.00 13.55 76.31 24.51 235.50

795.62 428.78 6322.73 4161.00 5862.29 2450.04 2701.79 17,464.90

273.12 41.01 291.81 268.00 286.23 419.65 408.46 3055.8

Categorical variables

Average price for no (PLN/m2 )

Average price for yes (PLN/m2 )

T-statistic

Exceeded 24 h noise (N/Y) Exceeded night-time noise (N/Y) Local spatial plan (N/Y) Outline planning decision (N/Y) Residential buildings in the neighborhood (N/Y) Direct availability (N/Y) to Electricity Waterworks Sewerage Gas Factory in the neighborhood (N/Y)

138.29 175.93 145.63 151.02 113.45 115.66 128.20 142.36 112.63 180.30 138.29

175.20 120.36 182.21 162.83 171.68 172.25 162.14 180.78 176.67 121.34 175.20

−1.35 1.98* −1.20 −0.42 −1.92* −1.90 −0.94* −1.35 −2.25 2.18* −1.35*

1 PLN ∼ 4.1 EURO (2012, the National Bank of Poland). * Significant at the 0.05 level.

with industrial plants were found to have much less impact. The results clearly indicate that the night noise more strongly affects the price of property, than the average noise for 24 h. It can therefore be concluded, that noise is more annoying at night, probably especially in late evening (22.00–24.00) and in early morning (4.00–6.00) than during the day. Unfortunately, most studies concern the average noise during the whole day. Few studies, e.g. Carlsson et al. (2004) confirm the different noise annoyance at the different hours of the day. Respondents were willing to pay the most for reducing the noise level at the time of the largest domestic activity, i.e. in the evenings and mornings. This study has shown that the influence of noise on the price of undeveloped plots is greater than the influence of landscape elements such as the distance to lake or to forest. However, studies of Liu et al. (2013) indicate that landscape features could significantly affect soundscape perception. A 20 dB difference between the sound level on the edge of the road, which is 70 dB and the adopted threshold noise level which is 50 dB means that the decrease in prices (NDI) was on average 2.9% per 1 dB, i.e. 2% per 1% increase in the noise level. As shows the overview of the study results made by Bateman et al. (2001), the average NDI for road traffic is 0.55 with range 0.08–2.22 and is lower than received in presented study. The difference may be due to e.g. the type of property. Rich and

Nielsen (2004) show, that the NDI for houses is higher than for apartments, because they relate to different consumer segments. In the case of undeveloped property located outside of the city, requirements for the environmental standards seem to be higher. The vast majority of research concerns the market for houses and apartments in cities. In Sweden, the decrease in prices of single-family houses was estimated at 0.3–3% per 1 dB (Wilhelmsson, 2000). The studies carried out in Hamburg, estimated the NDI for condominiums prices at the level of 0.23% (Brandt and Maennig, 2011). Similar results were achieved in the case of airports. On the basis of the analysis carried out for 23 different airports in the United States and Canada, it was estimated that the national average value of NDI for the United States is 0.67% decline in property values for every 1 dB (Nelson, 2004). In Seoul, the prices of plots located around the main roads were cheaper by 1.3% with 1% increase in the noise level (Kim et al., 2007). Larsen (2012) compared the prices of plots in US depending on their location in relation to roads. His studies showed that the plots located in close proximity to roads were on average 8.1% cheaper as compared to similar plots, which are not situated at a close distance to roads. Additional studies limited to analysis of land prices adjacent to the main road showed that the price of the house and the traffic intensity are

Table 2 The result of the multiple regression model for ln(price) as dependent variable. Factor

Coefficients

Estimate std. error

t value

Pr(>|t|)

Intercept Area (ln) Outline planning decision (dummy) Electricity (dummy) Night noise (dummy) Road (ln) Factory (dummy) Green areas (dummy) Forest (ln) Railway (ln)

10.983 −0.443 0.444 0.738 −0.835 −0.383 −0.627 0.1414 −0.190 −0.114

2.292 0.123 0.230 0.250 0.359 0.207 0.312 0.125 0.086 0.129

4.792 −3.593 1.934 2.954 −2.323 −1.854 −2.012 1.133 −2.211 −0.886

0.000*** 0.001** 0.059† 0.005** 0.025* 0.070† 0.050† 0.26‡ 0.032* 0.380‡

Significant codes: 0 ‘***’, 0.001 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘† ’, 0.1 ‘‡ ’, 1. Residual standard error: 0.8073 on 46 degrees of freedom, multiple R-squared: 0.4913, adjusted R-squared: 0.3917, F-statistic: 4.936 on 9 and 46 DF, p-value: 0.0001195.

478

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479

negatively correlated – where traffic was two times higher than the average, real estate prices were cheaper by an average of 2.1% (Larsen, 2012).

5.2. Methodological limitations Dekkers and van der Straaten (2009) indicated that the chosen threshold level of noise strongly influences the results of the research. As used in this article, the term “excessive noise” is the value specified by Polish law. These studies take into account the permissible noise levels for the time of property transactions. It was 55 dB for daytime and 50 dB for night-time. The regulations in Poland have changed and the permissible noise levels for daytime is now 61 dB and for night-time is 56 dB. It should also be noted that due to data availability this study treats loudness as a binary variable – whether the standards are exceeded or not. Typically, the studies focus on the calculation of the difference in price for smaller intervals of decibels. The second limitation is the choice of the study area. As mentioned in the introduction, a strong pressure on undeveloped land is observed in the Poznan County. This is the result of the worse living conditions in Poznan, on the one hand, and of the fast improvement of economic condition in last 25 years, on the other hand. Although the real estate market in the Poznan County is much bigger compared to the average in the country, undeveloped real estate demand has decreased significantly, as compared to the year 2000 (Mackiewicz, 2012). In some municipalities only a few transactions were concluded in the year 2011 (Lowicki, 2012). Nationally, the sudden drop in the number of sale transactions as compared to the previous year is particularly apparent in the years 2008 and 2009.

6. Conclusions Road noise is a serious problem, especially in suburban areas. The major causes of traffic noise pollution are deficiencies in the spatial planning. A very strong position of local municipalities in spatial planning, together with the inadequate planning regulations at regional level, have many shortcomings. The significant problem is a gap in the current system of planning documents occurring between the provincial and municipal level, which clearly hinders the process of harmonizing spatial development in administration units larger than one municipality. The solution of that situation can be integration of development plans for metropolitan areas using a functional approach e.g. tourism, protected areas, river basins (Kistowski and Pchałek, 2009). The second shortage of existing regulations in Poland is the ability to conduct spatial policy in the community without adopting local spatial plans, which are the basic instrument for making planning decisions. Additional problems related to spatial planning are the dynamic demographic changes and the process of urban sprawl. 40.7 thousand citizens moved out from Polish cities in 2012 (Central Statistical Office) and the forecast to 2020 predicts in the coming years a further decrease of urban population, although the rate of migration will decrease (Central Statistical Office, 2009). Compared to year 2010, before 2035 an increase in the county population by about 153 thousand people (47%) is expected. Soundscapes should be treated as intangible heritage and protected, e.g. as a part of fulfillment of the provisions of the European Landscape Convention. An overview of research shows that the role of sounds in the landscape is underestimated and that the economy serves the methods for its valuation. Noise as a part of landscape should be incorporated into models next to other landscape features.

References Alimohammadi, I., Sandrock, S., Gohari, M.R., 2013. The effects of low frequency noise on mental performance and annoyance. Environ. Monit. Assess. 185, 7043–7051, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3084-8. Anderson, A., Jonsson, L., Ogren, M., 2013. Benefit measures for noise abatement: calculations for road and rail traffic noise. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 5, 135–148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12544-013-0091-3. Bajerowski, T., 2000. Szacowanie nieruchomo´sci niezurbanizowanych (Valuation of Non-urban Real Estate), third ed. Twigger, Warszawa. Baranzini, A., Schaerer, C., Thalmann, P., 2010. Using measured instead of perceived noise in hedonic models. Transp. Res. D 15, 473–482, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.06.002. Barber, J.R., Crooks, K.R., Fristrup, K.M., 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 180–189, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.002. Bateman, I., Day, B., Lake, I., Lovett, A., 2001. Effect of Road Traffic on Residential Property Values: A Literature Review and Hedonic Pricing Study. The Scottish Government, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/07/9535/File-1 (accessed 20.03.14). Beim, M., Tölle, A., 2008. Motywacje migracji rezydencjalnych w obszarze aglomer´ ´ acji poznanskiej. In: Kaczmarek, T., Mizgajski, A. (Eds.), Powiat poznanski. Jako´sc´ ˙ (The Poznan County. The Quality of Space and Life). przestrzeni i jako´sc´ zycia ´ pp. 121–138. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznan, Bergin, J., Price, C., 1994. The travel cost method and landscape quality. Landsc. Res. 19, 21–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426399408706416. ´ ekowy ˛ jutra. In: Bernat, S. (Ed.), Niematerialne Bernat, S., 2011. Krajobraz dzwi warto´sci krajobrazów kulturowych (Intangible Values of Cultural Landscapes). Dissertations Commission of Cultural Landscape PGS No. 15. Commission of Cultural Landscape of Polish Geographical Society, pp. 193–205. Bolin, K., Bluhm, G., Eriksson, G., Nilsson, M.E., 2011. Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 035103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/035103. Borkowska, M., Rozwadowska, M., Sleszynski, J., Zylicz, T., 2001. Environmental amenities on the housing market in Warsaw: hedonic price method research. Ekonomia 3, 70–82. Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., 2011. The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (10), 2763–2773, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019. Brandt, S., Maennig, W., 2011. Road noise exposure and residential property prices: evidence from Hamburg. Transp. Res. D 16, 23–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.008. Cameron, T.A., 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of nonmarket goods. Land Econ. 68, 302–317. Carlsson, F., Lampi, E., Martinsson, P., 2004. The marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: does the time of the day matter? Transp. Res. D 9, 373–385, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2004.07.002. Central Statistical Office, 2009. Population Projection for Poland 2008–2035, http://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/L prognoza ludnosci na lata2008 2035.pdf (accessed 13.03.14). Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, 2011. POL-PRTR Base, http://www.gios.gov.pl/artykuly/podkategoria/63/Krajowy-rejestr-uwalnianiai-transferu-zanieczyszczen (accessed 10.03.14). Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection, 2013. Stan klimatu akustycznego w Polsce w roku 2012 (State of the Acoustic Climate in Poland in 2012), http://www.gios.gov.pl/zalaczniki/artykuly/halas raport rok 2012.pdf (accessed 10.02.14). Czajkowski, M., Giergiczny, M., Kronenberg, J., Tryjanowski, P., 2014. The economic recreational value of a white stork nesting colony: a case of ‘stork village’ in Poland. Tourism Manage. 40, 352–360, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.tourman.2013.07.009. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2009. Survey of Public Attitudes and Behaviours Towards the Environment, http://archive. defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/pubatt/download/090923statsrelease-pubatt.pdf (accessed 12.03.14). Dekkers, J.E.C., van der Straaten, J.W., 2009. Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: a hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport. Ecol. Econ. 68 (11), 2850–2858, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.002. EC, 2011. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC (COM (2011)321 final), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0321:FIN: EN:PDF (accessed 21.02.14). EEA, 2010. Good Practice Guide on Noise Exposure and Potential Health Effects (EEA Technical Report No. 11/2010). European Environment Agency, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/good-practice-guide-on-noise (accessed 12.03.14). EEA, 2014. Noise in Europe 2014 (Report No. 10/2014). European Environment Agency, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/noise-in-europe-2014 (accessed 20.12.14). Fleischer, A., Tsur, Y., 2000. Measuring the recreational value of agricultural landscape. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 27 (3), 385–398, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/erae/27.3.385. Francis, C.D., Ortega, C.P., Cruz, A., 2009. Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr. Biol. 45, 1415–1419, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.052.

D. Łowicki, S. Piotrowska / Ecological Indicators 52 (2015) 472–479 Fyhri, A., Aasvang, G.M., 2010. Noise, sleep and poor health: modeling the relationship between road traffic noise and cardiovascular problems. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (21), 4935–4942, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.06.057. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29, 434–444, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013. Kish, C., (M.Sc. thesis) 2008. An Estimate of the Global Impact of Commercial Aviation Noise. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Kistowski, M., Pchałek, M., 2009. Natura 2000 w planowaniu przestrzennym – rola korytarzy ekologicznych (Natura 2000 in Spatial Planning – The Role of ecological corridors). Ministry of Environment, http://www.gdos.gov.pl/ files/Materialy-i-publikacje/Podrecznik - planowanie przestrzenne.pdf (accessed 15.02.14). Kolstad, C.D., 2000. Environmental Economics. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford. Kotus, J., (Doctoral dissertation) 2007. Evaluation of the Impact Hazard of Noise on the Incidence of Hearing Disorders Using ICT Systems. Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, ´ Department of Multimedia Systems, Gdansk. Kim, K.S., Park, S.J., Kweon, Y.-J., 2007. Highway traffic noise effects on land price in an urban area. Transp. Res. D 12, 275–280, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.trd.2007.03.002. Larsen, J.E., 2012. Surface street traffic volume and single-family house price. Transp. Res. D 17 (4), 317–320, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.01.004. Liu, J., Kang, J., Luo, T., Behm, H., Coppack, T., 2013. Spatiotemporal variability of soundscapes in a multiple functional urban area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 115, 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.008. Lowicki, D., 2012. Land prices as an indicator of the recreational services of ecosys´ 2 (42), 167–175. tems. Ekonomia i Srodowisko Mackiewicz, B., 2012. Rynek nieruchomo´sci. In: Kaczmarek, T. (Ed.), Studium ´ Uwarunkowan´ Rozwoju Przestrzennego Aglomeracji Poznanskiej (Study ´ of Conditions of Poznan´ Agglomeration Spatial Development, Poznan). Metropolitan Research Center Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, pp. 82–87. Mahashabde, A., Wolfe, P., Ashok, A., Dorbian, C., He, Q., Fan, A., Lukachko, S., Mozdzanowska, A., Wollersheim, C., Barrett, S.R.H., Locke, M., Waitz, I.A., 2010. Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise and emissions. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 47, 15–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.04.003.

479

˜ Merchan, C.I., Diaz-Balteiro, L., Solino, M., 2014. Noise pollution in national parks: soundscape and economic valuation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 123, 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.006. Nelson, J.P., 2004. Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: problems and prospects. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 38 (1), 1–27, http://ssrn.com/abstract=610523 (accessed 15.04.14). Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska, M., Dudarewicz, A., Waszkowska, M., Szymczak, W., Sliwinska-Kowalska, M., 2005. The impact of low frequency noise on human mental performance. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 18 (2), 185–198. ´ Poznan County Governor’s Office, 2013. Strategia Rozwoju Powiatu Poznanskiego na lata 2006–2015: Aktualizacja 2013 (The County Development Strategy for Years 2006–2015: Updated 2013), http://www.bip.powiat.poznan.pl/3004,strategiarozwoju-powiatu-poznanskiego-na-lata-2006-2015.html (accessed 10.05.14). Rich, J.H., Nielsen, O.A., 2004. Assessment of traffic noise impacts. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 61, 19–29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020723032000113790. Regional Inspectorate for Environmental Protection in Poznan, 2011. Road Noise Maps (unpublished data). Sander, H.A., Haight, R.G., 2012. Estimating the economic value of cultural ecosystem services in an urbanizing area using hedonic pricing. J. Environ. Manage. 113, 194–205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.031. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. Van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., 2014. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 37 (A), 163–174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025. WHO, 2002. Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health Organization, Geneva, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf (accessed 21.09.14). WHO, 2009. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Office for Europe, http://www.noisequest.psu.edu/pdfs-documents/whonightnoise.pdf (accessed 21.04.14). WHO, 2011. WHO-JRC Report. Burden of Disease from Environment at Noise. Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. WHO Regional Office for Europe, http://www.who.int/quantifying ehimpacts/publications/e94888.pdf?ua=1 (accessed 21.02.14). Wilhelmsson, M., 2000. The impact of traffic noise on the values of singlefamily houses. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 43 (6), 799–815, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/09640560020001692. Zaharna, M., Guilleminault, Ch., 2010. Sleep, noise, and health: review. Noise Health 12 (47), 64–69, http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.63205.