Valuation ofnoise Whats theprice ofSilence ? JanJabben - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Valuation of�noise Whats the�price of�Silence ? Jan�Jabben ‘Sharing�Sound�in�Serbia’ Belgrade,�November�7,�2012 1 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

Why�valuate�noise�? ● Politicians/administrators�don’t� really�think�in�terms�of�decibels,� annoyance�or�sleep�disturbance ● Rather�they�like�to�weigh�up� different�options�and�compare� costs�of�measures�with�benefits ─► In�order�to�raise�noise�on�the� political�agenda,�valuation�methods� were�developed 2 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

3 Valuation of�noise,�But how ? ����������������� �������������������� ��������� ���������� Non0market Market�based Direct�‘ex�ante’ valuation� Observed�behavior e.g Willingness�to�pay�or� to�accept e.g Hedonic�Pricing 3 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012 Korte titel – auteur, datum

Example�CV�6021h:�One�take0off�every�10�min. 1�take�off�every�10�min none Who�would�prefer�to�live�in�the�house�to�the�right�?� Is�it�worth�more�than�€ 20/year? € 50/year��? € 100/year��? 4 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

Hedonic�Pricing�and�Continguent Valuation �� ��������������� ● Relates�noise�to�loss�of�market�value� %�loss of�each�dwelling ● %Loss� ≈ NDI�x�(Lden0Lth)� NDI:�Noise�Depreciation�Index� benefits Lth:�threshold�value,�below�no�loss�is� reduction assumed Benefits�arise�as�reduced�social�loss Lth Lden �� �������������������� For�each�dwelling, If�Lden is�above�threshold: Fixed�amount�per�dB/year/household 5 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

Noise Depreciation Index from Bateman (Large)�Uncertainties 3 road traffic airport 2.5 2 ● In�HP:� NDI (%) 1.5 0 NDI�=�0,1~2,2�%�(Bateman�2000) 1 0 Lth =�50~55�dB 0.5 0 0 Valuation studies ● In�CV:� Nijland EJTIR�8(3)�sept 2008 3500 0 dB/yr/hh =�2~112�Euro/dB 3000 0 Lth =�50~55�dB 2500 France 2000 EU NL 1500 UK These�uncertainties�pose�the�main� Sweden 1000 problem�when�using�CB�studies�to� 500 convince�critical�policymakers 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

7 Purchasing power�parity (ppp 2003)� 7 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012 Korte titel – auteur, datum

Limitations ● Not�all�effects�are�included, 0 HP/CV�do�not�rate�benefits�in� outdoor�quiet�areas�and� 0 Costs�of�long�term�health�effects� probably�not�fully�accounted�for ● Difficult�to�include�benefits�in� new�(planned)�residential�areas� ● Benefits�are�not�directly� ‘returned’ to�those�who�pay�for� measures ● CB�results�are�prone�to�be� criticized�by�well�informed� policy�makers 8 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

9 Measures ● Best:�avoid�need�for�measures�by�good� planning�of�new�dwellings�and�set�limits�for� them ● and�relatively few�dwellings can be fully protected ● Measures expensive;�Means always limited 0 barriers,�~�1�mln/km�|�10015�dB�reduction 0 silent pavings ~�0,2�mln/km�|�306�dB 0 Insulation ~�5%�of�dwelling value |�406�dB 0 improve traffic logistics/behavior |�3010�dB ● CB0analysis�using�noise�maps�can�help�you� prioritize 9 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012 Korte titel – auteur, datum

10 Benefits depend on how much is�protected ● Depend on the�number of�exposed dwellings ● The�more�dwellings are�exposed over�55�dB,�the�more�effective measures become ● Noise maps and�counting results can help you to evaluate 10 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012 Korte titel – auteur, datum

HP�example:�Barriers�in�NL�198602006 1986 2006 11 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

12 Exposure�motorways�from�noise�maps # dwellings exposed x 1000 250 200 150 barriers no barriers 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Lden dBA 12 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012 Korte titel – auteur, datum

HP�using�NDI=0,5%�and�Lth=53�dB • Benefits�~�1020�bln Social loss HP in bln Euro NL motorways • Costs�barriers�~1080bln� 2500 • that’s�about�break�even.. • Note�that�4�dB�source� 2000 reduction�(cars)�would� 1500 provide�almost�equal� 1000 benefits! 500 0 Barr. O - 2dB -4 -6 -8 So�what�is�meant�by�cost0effectiveness�? 13 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

Not�all�damage�can�be�cashed�in�cost0effective �������������� Costs cost Jabben,�Internoise 2007�Istanbul • Need�cost�and�benefit� 8m 4000 functions�C(r) and�B(r) barrier Costs and benefits (mln euro) 1000 km 3500 • Where�there�slopes�are� Costs Break 3000 equal�max�net�result benefit -even urban motorways 2500 • Source�reduction,�even� Cost 2000 when�small�are�very�cost� effectiv 3 m barrier effective 1500 1000 •Barriers�often�break�even� at�best 500 pavement 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Speed Noise reduction in dB(A) ↓ tires 14 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

To�summarize ● CBA�helps�to�prioritize�noise� measures ● combining�CBA�with�noise�maps� provides�feeling�for�effectiveness�of� measures ● Makes�it�easier�to�communicate�with� policymakers�and�argue�for�measures ● Main�drawbacks:�large�uncertainties� in�HP�and�CV�parameters;� ● benefits�are�not�directly�returned�to� investors�(who�pay�for�measures) ● Source�reduction�is�much�more� effective�than�local�measures 15 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012

Thank�you 16 Belgrade,�November�7,�2012