See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318158750

Environmental Noise in India: a Review

Article · June 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s40726-017-0062-8

CITATIONS READS

4 2,223

2 authors:

Shreerup Goswami Bijay Swain

Sambalpur University DIET, BHADRAK, AGARPADA UNDER FM UNIVERSITY, ODISHA
144 PUBLICATIONS   775 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   185 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Environmental impact of coal mining around major parts of Ib River coalfield View project

Assessment of ground water quality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shreerup Goswami on 22 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
DOI 10.1007/s40726-017-0062-8
NOISE POLLUTION (PH ZANNIN, SECTION EDITOR)
Environmental Noise in India: a Review
Shreerup Goswami 1 & Bijay K. Swain 2
Published online: 24 June 2017
# Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract
Purpose of Review This article reviews the literature on re-
search carried out during the last two decades on noise impacts
in India to demonstrate the current status of noise pollution
research in India and gaps in studies. It also summarizes future
perspectives of acoustic research.
Recent Findings The noise pollution studies over the years
have focused on the monitoring, recording, modeling,
geospatial mapping, and exposure-effect relationship. The re-
view of papers demonstrated that road traffic noise is the pre-
dominant cause for annoyance among the respondents. The
evidence comes mostly from studies focusing on health im-
pacts. Only 10% of articles enumerated zone-specific noise
pollution. 44.89% of articles reported details of subjective
response data with the help of a questionnaire tool, while
14.3% of articles reported details about the noise in work-
places of different areas of India. Ten percent of articles attrib-
uted to the harmful effect of festive noise. Studies in relation to
the physiological and sleep disturbances in Indian condition
are negligible.
Summary Noise pollution limits are being breached in almost
all Indian cities. Violations are the worst in urban areas. The
laws should be properly implemented in India to control this
ever-growing menace. The government is now working on
devising new noise pollution standards. City-wise noise pol-
lution mitigation strategies should be worked out at all levels.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Noise Pollution
* Shreerup Goswami
goswamishreerup@gmail.com
1
P.G. Department of Earth Sciences, Sambalpur University, Jyoti
Vihar, Burla, Odisha 768019, India
2
D.I.E.T, Remuna, Balasore, Odisha 756019, India
It is concluded that coordinated and long-term integrated noise
pollution research (comprising assessment of noise descrip-
tors, noise mapping, prediction by noise modeling, and exper-
imental studies to demonstrate exposure-effect relationship,
advanced study on acoustic absorption material) is the need
of the hour.
Keywords Road traffic noise . Festive noise . Workplace
noise . Noise modeling . Zone-specific noise . India
Introduction
We love silence like one and all. On the other hand, we,
Indians, equally enjoy noise pollution. Our marriage and even
burial processions/cremation must be accompanied by bands,
twists, and Bhangras. Spiritual celebrations must be heard by
one and all, day and night. Akhand paths, Harinam Sankirtan,
Azan in India must use loudspeakers and amplifiers. We also
make the environment noisy by bursting crackers on the occa-
sions of marriages, on Dussehra, Deepawali, especially on the
processions of idol immersions, winning an election, and in
many other festivals. We, Indians, do not care of the noise,
while immersing thousands of idols of Mother Durga,
Saraswati, Laxmi, Kali, Lord Biswakarma, Kartika, and
Ganesh in water bodies making ceremonial farewell and pro-
cession with film songs and drinking country liquors. Unless
we do not blow away our eardrums, we are not happy. A mea-
sure of happiness is expressed here in India by creating loud
noises. Even childbirth is informed by the crackling sounds.
In almost all old Indian cities, we have congested roads and
busy slow-moving traffic having hundred of motorbikes, rick-
shaws, bicycles, cars, and heavy vehicles. Nevertheless, we
use air horns even in motorbikes, bicycles, rickshaws, and
cars. Too much honking of the horn is our regular practice in
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
these congested roads. Such crowded traffic contains irregular
peaks and varied noise levels. Poor urban planning in old
cities gives rise to acute noise pollution.
In modern times, noise is recognized as a serious health
problem. Annoyance caused by noise has been known since
antiquity, but it is only during recent times that the importance
of environmental factors is taken into consideration in trans-
port planning decisions. In fact, of the environmental pollution
factors that are affected by the use of transportation means,
noise is perhaps the most commonly cited [1–3]. The technical
problems associated with the design of quiet vehicles are still
not solved. It is also imperative to consider the subjective
human sensitivity to noise exposure. For instance, halving
the acoustic power of a sound source results in only a 3 dB
reduction of the noise level, and this is scarcely noticeable to
the average listener.
In urban areas, the contribution of traffic noise is 55% of
the total environmental noise [4–6]. Long-term exposure to
traffic noise is found to be associated with cardiovascular dis-
ease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, tinnitus, annoy-
ance, increased risks of mortality, mental health impairment,
central obesity, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in general pop-
ulation. Daytime traffic noise level is more than 50 dB (A) (the
guideline recommended by World Health Organization for
day time for the outdoor living area) in different cities of the
world. Most of the Indian cities and towns have also been
facing serious traffic noise pollution in the last few decades
due to a substantial growth of new vehicles, low turnover of
old vehicles, inadequate road network, and urbanization. This
Review depicted that the average road traffic noise is more
than 70 dB (A) in most of the Indian cities. Appraisal of traffic
noise level is complicated in Indian cities due to the heteroge-
neity of traffic environment having overcrowded vehicles of
all kinds, different road conditions, and lack of traffic sense [7,
8]. In this study, the noise pollution of different parts of India
is discussed hereunder.
Methods
Altogether, 49 articles (47 journal articles and 2 conference
proceedings) published in last 20 years were reviewed to re-
veal the status of environmental noise and its impact in India.
Methods described by Omlin et al. [9] were adopted for
conducting this review of literature. The related articles were
searched by Bstring search^ in search engines, Bdatabase
search^ (Google Scholar, Pub-Med, SCOPUS, Taylor
Francis, Springer, Wiley online library, Elsevier etc.),
Bconference proceedings search,^ and Bauthors’ library
search.^ String searches included few keywords, such as
Broad traffic,^ Bnoise pollution,^ Broad traffic noise,^
Btransportation noise,^ BVehicular noise,^ BImpact of noise
on health,^ Bnoise in offices, banks, hospitals, educational
221
institutions,^ Bfestival noise,^ Bsleep disturbance,^
Bannoyance,^ Broad traffic noise modeling,^ Bnoise
mapping,^ Bnoise and traffic policeman,^ and Bnoise impact
assessment.^
All the relevant and identified articles and papers were read
in full and used for information extraction and stored in the
database with details of publication particulars, study location,
period, approach, methodology for assessing noise exposure,
sampling, results of exposure-effect, and major conclusion. To
interpret the status and quality of work carried out in India, the
methodology described by Omlin et al. [9] has been undertak-
en with some modifications to suit the purpose and objective
of the review. The norms adopted to evaluate the quality of the
articles included the following:
a. Well-defined population study (i.e., age, gender, and
number)
b. Precise description of subjective exposure to noise (viz.;
location, specific time, and duration of noise monitoring,
traffic volume, audiometric study, questionnaire survey)
c. Declaration of statistical methods used
d. Sample size: small (less than 50), medium (50–200), and
large (more than 200)
e. Random sample selection
Accordingly, 49 relevant articles on noise and its impact in
India were preferred for necessary review. For data analysis, a
narrative synthesis is used in this review, as there are too much
heterogeneity studies that preclude any meaningful statistical
summary. In the case of the narrative synthesis, the summary of
the findings is a narrative one instead of a statistical summary. The
primary methodologies of the studies were tabulated (Table 1).
Similarities and differences between studies were investigated.
Studies with Special Emphasis on Road Traffic Noise
Chakraborty et al. [10] reported the status of vehicular noise
pollution and community response in Kolkata in different sea-
sons (1998). Based on the annoyance survey, regression asso-
ciation of noise parameters and percent of the highly annoyed
population were developed along with mean dissatisfaction
score (MDS) predictions. It was reported that 30% of the
respondents were highly annoyed with vehicular noise.
Singh and Davar [11] studied noise pollution and its effect
on human health of the people in Delhi. It also revealed that
reduced efficiency due to interference with communication
and sleeplessness was one of the imperative effects of acute
noise pollution. Eighty-three percent of respondents were af-
fected by noise emanating from the loudspeakers. Fifty-eight
percent of respondents claimed that noise originating from
religious functions affects them. Fifty-four percent of respon-
dents acknowledged the adverse effect of noise generated by
neighborhoods. Thirty-five percent reported the deafness and
Table 1 Indian studies on different aspects of environmental noise from 1998 to current
222

Author Location Type of study Data source Noise Measurement of effects Statistical Modeling Sample size
(study area) measurement method used
applied

Kalaiselvi and Ramachandraiah Chennai Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
[7]
Vijay et al. [8] Nagpur Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Chakraborty et al. [10] Calcutta Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire, Yes No 1100
audiometric studies
Singh and Davar [11] Delhi Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 150
Ingle and Pachpande [12] Jalgaon Field survey Conference Yes Questionnaire No No Not
article reported
Tripathi and Tiwari [13] Ahmedabad Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 86
Ziauddin et al. [14] Dehradun Field survey Journal article Yes No No No No
Banerjee et al. [15] Asansol Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes Yes No
Banerjee et al. [16] Asansol Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Goswami [17] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No
Goswami et al. [18] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 136
Agarwal and Swami [19] Jaipur Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 450
Agarwal and Swami [20] Jaipur Field survey Journal Article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 350
Agarwal and Swami [21] Jaipur Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 550
Patil et al. [22] Amravati Field survey Journal article No Questionnaire No No 500
Swain et al. [23] Bhadrak Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 202
Swain et al. [24] Bhubaneswar Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes Yes 539
Swain and Goswami [25] Cuttack Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 614
Chowdhury et al. [26] Kolkata Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Chowdhury et al. [27] Kolkata Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Mishra et al. [28] Delhi Field survey Journal Article Yes Questionnaire Yes Yes 350
Parbat et al., [29] Yavatmal Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes Yes No
Arora and Moshahari [30] Agra-Firozabad Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes Yes No
Pradhan et al. [31] Angul Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes Yes 578
Pradhan et al. [32] Sambalpur Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes Yes 502
Subramani et al. [33] Coimbatore Field survey Journal Article Yes No Yes Yes No
Goswami et al. [34] Rourkela Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes Yes No
Swain and Goswami [35] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes Yes No
Swain et al. [36] NH 316 Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes Yes No
Sahu et al. [37] Raygada Field survey Journal Article Yes No Yes Yes No
Swain and Goswami [36] Baripada Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes Yes 351
De et al. [39] Puri Field survey Journal article Yes No No Yes No
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
Table 1 (continued)

Author Location Type of study Data source Noise Measurement of effects Statistical Modeling Sample size
(study area) measurement method used
applied

Sampath et al. [40] Thiruvananthapuram, Field survey Journal article Yes No No No No

Kochi and Kozhikode
Datta et al. [41] Burdwan Field survey Journal Article Yes No Yes No No
Goswami and Swain [42] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 317
Goswami [43] Bhadrak Field survey Journal Article Yes Questionnaire No No 256
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229

Goswami and Swain [44] Baripada Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Keretta et al. [45] Arati steel plant, Field survey Journal article Yes No No No No
Odisha
Goswami and Swain [46] Seragarh, Nilgiri, Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Remuna and Mitrapur
Goswami and Swain [47] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Swain and Goswami [48] Cuttack Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 102
Swain et al. [49] Balasore Field survey Journal Article Yes No Yes No No
Pachpande et al. [50] Jalgaon city Field survey Journal article Not reported Questionnaire, audiometric No No Not
studies reported
Mondal and Das [51] Birbhum, Burdwan Field survey Journal article Yes Questionnaire Yes No 138
Singh and Joshi [52] Meerut Field survey Journal Article Yes No No No No
Goswami et al. [53] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Ahirwar and Bajpai [54] Raipur Field survey Conference Yes No No No No
article
Swain et al. [55] Balasore Field survey Journal article Yes No Yes No No
Saler and Vibhute [56] Kolhapur Field survey Journal article Yes No No No No
223
224
mental breakdown due to noise pollution. Annoyance by
loudspeakers during festivities and honking of vehicles was
felt by age groups of 20–40 years.
Ingle and Pachpande [12] conducted a community survey
on traffic noise among residents of Jalgaon city. The audio-
metric study depicted mild hearing impairment in both the
target groups (exposed and unexposed population). The mod-
erate hearing loss was reported in many exposed inhabitants.
It was observed that the self-reported hearing loss using the
screening questions and rating scale were the moderately good
measure of hearing impairment in comparison to audiometric
assessment. It was reported that 81% of those surveyed were
affected by noise from the highway in comparison to the un-
exposed group (61%). It was concluded that the exposure of
the population to higher noise levels had affected the hearing
capability of the inhabitants of this area.
Tripathi and Tiwari [13] reported attitude of traffic per-
sonals towards transportation noise in a study in
Ahmedabad. No traffic noise monitoring was reported for this
study. The questionnaire survey of the policemen revealed that
11.6% respondents grumbled of regular tinnitus, whereas
62.8% had experienced tinnitus during working hours only.
It was inferred that self-assessed prevalence of reduced hear-
ing was found only in two (2.3%) respondents.
Ziauddin et al. [14] monitored Leq and traffic density in
Dehradun city and found acute traffic noise pollution.
Maximum noise pollution level was 102.7 dB and Leq was
83.7 dB.
Banerjee et al. [15, 16] monitored different noise descrip-
tors to depict the impact of road traffic noise on the local
inhabitants of Asansol town. Formulation of noise risk zones,
analysis of noise impact, and noise maps were worked out.
The relationship between traffic noise levels and annoyance
was studied using correlation, linear, and multiple linear re-
gression analyses. The mean value of percent of population
highly annoyed (HA) due to road traffic noise was
26.50 ± 3.37 (19.44–33.2), whereas the MDS was
2.96 ± 0.90 (1.04–4.45). The study demonstrated that noise
index-based models endowed with better annoyance predic-
tions in comparison to vehicular input-based models. The
study identified two direct impacts of traffic noise pollution,
namely speech interference during the day and sleep distur-
bance during the night. Mean Ldn value ranged between 55.1
and 87.3 dB (A). It was reported that the maximum Leq level
for daytime and night time was 89.0 dB (A) and 81.9 dB (A),
respectively. It was concluded that the monitored noise level
in all the locations exceeded the limit prescribed by CPCB.
The populations in this industrial town were exposed signifi-
cantly towards high noise level, which is caused predominant-
ly due to road traffic. The study revealed the fact that type of
zone, geographic features, landscape, and topography are also
imperative factors on which noise emission and transmission
depends.
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
Goswami [17] studied road traffic noise in Balasore town
and undertook a questionnaire survey to reveal impact of ve-
hicular noise. The study of Goswami et al. [18] demonstrated
that the noise levels along the road connecting two campuses
of Fakir Mohan University, Balasore, are more than 70 dB.
The questionnaire survey among the local inhabitants of
Remuna depicted that they were suffering from tinnitus, bad
temper, hearing problem, and loss of concentration due to
traffic noise levels.
Agarwal and Swami [19] made a correlation between an-
noyance level and different noise indices of traffic noise in
Jaipur city. A quantitative point scale of MDS was introduced
to evaluate noise annoyance. A set of regression equations
were developed between mean noise index (Leq, L10, Lmax,
Ldn, and TNI) and percentage of the person highly annoyed
(HA) and MDS. It was observed that among the subjects, the
reported percent of HA ranged between 17.07 and 39.69%. It
was concluded that a strong correlation existed between the
percentage of persons highly annoyed and various noise indi-
ces. Agarwal and Swami [20, 21] examined the problems of
noise pollution and its impact in terms of annoyance in urban
areas in Jaipur city. Prediction of noise annoyance due to
vehicular road traffic was carried out in these studies. In this
studies, the relationship between linear and multiple regres-
sion equations with the help of different traffic noise parame-
ters (Ldn, TNI, Lmax, Leq, Q, Qh, Q2w, and Vs) and its impact
on exposed individuals were assessed. It was concluded that
the regression model was satisfactorily applied with a devia-
tion of −1 dB (A) to 7 dB. A questionnaire survey revealed
that 52, 46, and 48.6% of the respondents were suffering from
frequent irritation, hypertension, and sleep disturbances due to
vehicular noise, respectively.
Kalaiselvi and Ramachandraiah [7] assessed equivalent
sound level values LAeq 24 h and LAeq 1 h of Chennai city
and found the noise levels were more than 80 dB. The study
also depicted that construction of flyovers resulted in a de-
crease in 3 dB (A) Leq along the road. The study concluded
that auto-rickshaws were the main cause of traffic noise pol-
lution than other vehicles. The different noise levels in differ-
ent parts of the city are attributed to different geomorphology,
vehicular density, and poor urban planning of the city.
Patil et al. [22] carried out a questionnaire survey on traffic
noise and its impact on health in and around Amravati town
(2011). The majority of the respondents felt interference of
traffic noise in their day to day activities. The study depicted
that the maximum annoyance (47%) was highest during the
midday and afternoon. It also revealed that 50% of respon-
dents are suffering from headache, nervousness, and hearing
difficulties due to overexposure to noise.
Swain et al. [23, 24] and Swain and Goswami [25] studied
the road traffic noise assessment in Bhadrak, Bhubaneswar,
and Cuttack by assessing most of the noise descriptors along
the traffic squares. They also conducted the questionnaire
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
survey in these three cities of Odisha. Noise assessment of
these cities depicted that the minimum values of Leq, Noise
Pollution Level (NPL), and Traffic Noise Index (TNI) were
more than the permissible limit (70 dB). The study demon-
strated that traffic noise was ranked in first place among the
most frequently identified types of sound in these cities. The
reasons for traffic noise pollution were evaluated as frequent
honking of air horns followed by congested traffic and silenc-
er and engine.
Chowdhury et al. [26] reported the daytime traffic noise of
Kolkata city along the two types of road network (RN-1:one-
way traffic in single or double lane and RN-2: both-way traffic
in the single lane). It was reported that the ratio (RN-1/) of the
averages of road width and traffic volume of two types of the
road network was 2.28 and 1.89. They reported the ratio of the
average L10, L90, Leq, NC, and TNI of two types of road
networks and concluded that the RN-1 type of road network
was wider and also had higher traffic volume in comparison
with the RN-2 type of road network. On the other hand, RN-1
type of road network was quieter and less annoying in com-
parison with the RN-2 type of road network. Chowdhury et al.
[27] also assessed highly annoying noise levels, Leq, TNI, and
NC at curbside open-air microenvironment of Kolkata city
under heterogeneous environmental conditions. It was report-
ed that the Leq at the microenvironment was in excess of
12.6 ± 2.1 dB(A) from the daytime standard of 65 dB(A) for
commercial area recommended by the Central Pollution
Control Board (CPCB) of India. A correlation analysis
showed that prevailing traffic noise level of the microenviron-
ment had a very weak positive (0.19; p < 0.01) and weak
negative (−0.21; p < 0.01) correlation with relative humidity
and air temperature, respectively.
Lack of correlation between traffic volume and the equiv-
alent noise was reported due to vehicular speed, road geome-
try, and frequent honking along the roads of Nagpur city by
Vijay et al. [8]. Again, frequency analysis showed that
honking contributed an additional 2 to 5 dB noise and was
quite significant. The statistical method of analysis of variance
(ANOVA) confirmed that frequent honking (p < 0.01) and
vehicular speed (p < 0.05) had a substantial impact on traffic
noise apart from traffic volume and type of road. The study
reported that honking was an imperative module in traffic
noise assessment.
Studies with Special Emphasis on Noise Modeling
Mishra et al. [28] assessed road traffic noise at different bus
stops of Delhi and conducted a questionnaire survey. The
relationship between different noise parameters and annoy-
ance level was quantified using linear and multiple regres-
sions. In this study, FHWA model was applied to infer the
noise level. The respondents identified hearing loss (64%),
225
blood pressure (56%), depression (48%), agitation (36%),
and fatigue (12%).
Parbat et al. [29] studied the evaluation of noise measure-
ment of vehicular traffic flow at interrupted flow condition in
intermediate Yavatmal city of Vidarbha region of Maharastra.
In this study, artificial neural network modeling was per-
formed, and accordingly, noise prediction was carried out. It
was reported that there was no significant difference between
the observed noise level and predicted noise level. In this
study, motorbike (53.29%) was the most leading mode of
transport, followed by bicycles (28.36%), four wheelers
(14.54%), trucks/busses (02.18%), and others (01.63%).
Arora and Moshahari [30] studied the single-layer
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) modeling of noise due to
road traffic in Agra-Firozabad highway and used the data on
traffic volume, the speed of heavy vehicles, and their number
for the noise prediction. It was reported that percentage of
heavy vehicles, the speed of vehicles, and traffic flow were
the prominent factors and had a significant impact on public
health. The study concluded that the Levenberg-Marquardt
algorithm (LMA) is the best BP algorithm with a minimum
mean squared error (MSE) for cross-validation.
Pradhan et al. [31, 32] assessed different noise descriptors
(L10, L50, L90, Leq, TNI, NPL, NC, Traffic Volume, Truck-
Traffic Mix Ratio, and Lden) and studied model calibration of
traffic noise pollution of Angul and Sambalpur towns, respec-
tively. They also conducted a questionnaire survey. The min-
imum values of Leq, NPL, and TNI were more than the pre-
scribed limit in both the cities. Burgess traffic noise model was
applied in these studies to predict the Leq and yielded consis-
tent results close to that by direct measurement.
Subramani et al. [33] assessed traffic noise in Coimbatore
city along NH-209. In this study, a mathematical model was
established by considering traffic volume, vehicle speed, at-
mospheric and surface temperature, and humidity for predic-
tion of L10 and Leq. Leq was predicted by obtaining the re-
gression equation, i.e., Leq = 75.58 + 0.0024Q − 0.0064 V +
0.0469Ta − 0.00451Ts + 0.0306H. It was concluded that the
value of R2ranges from 0.1 to 0.7. The nominal distribution at
5% level of significance demonstrated that there is no differ-
ence between measured and predicted noise level.
Goswami et al. [34] analyzed the road traffic noise pollu-
tion in Rourkela city. The episodic and impulsive noise was
also analyzed in this study. Analysis of variance depicted that
the obtained values were not significant at 5% level of signif-
icance. The noise level was well predicted using Lyons em-
pirical model.
Swain and Goswami [35], Swain et al. [36], Sahu et al.
[37], and Swain and Goswami [38] studied highway noise
along NH-5 (from Remuna Golei square to Seragarh), NH-
316 (Bhubaneswar to Puri), and road traffic noise in Rayagada
and Baripada, respectively. Noise prediction models such as
Annon, Burgess, Griffth and Langdon, CSTB2, CSTB1 and
226
RLS90 were applied in these studies and the predicted noise
levels were compared with the observed noise levels. All these
studies inferred that the transportation sector was the major
contributors to environmental noise.
De et al. [39] concluded that few people have adaptive
ability to ignore the effect of noise pollution within consider-
able limits. Thus, an adaptive traffic noise model over the
vulnerable society of a specific noise-prone zone was devel-
oped. A fuzzy logic was calibrated to depict risk evaluation by
comparing with the odds ratio of the experimental data. The
graphical illustrations were presented for validation of the
model.
Studies with Special Emphasis on Zone-Specific Noise
Monitoring
Sampath et al. [40] assessed the ambient noise levels in three
major cities of Kerala (Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi and
Kozhikode). The noise measurements were carried out in si-
lence and commercial areas and noise levels were more than
the permissible limit. Announcements from vehicles fitted
with public address systems caused sound levels above
100 dB at distance of 10 to 15 m. The Leq value during the
election campaign was 95 dB and maximum noise level was
120 dB. Datta et al. [41] monitored noise level in silence,
commercial, and industrial zones of Burdwan town. The max-
imum noise level at silence zone was reported as 90 dB. The
study depicted that the noise caused both pathological and
psychological disorders in human beings.
Goswami and Swain [42], Goswami [43] and Goswami
and Swain [44] studied the soundscape of Balasore,
Bhadrak, and Baripada towns and also carried out a question-
naire survey. The noise was appraised in four different zones
(namely silence zone, residential zone heavy traffic zone, and
commercial zone). Noise descriptors like Lmax, Lmin, L10,
L50, L90, Leq, NPL, and NC were assessed and reported that
these levels were more than the prescribed limit. Analysis of
variance was computed and concluded that noise levels of
such zones did not differ significantly at the peak hour.
Studies with Special Emphasis on Noise in Workplaces
Kerketta et al. [45] studied the outdoor noise levels from the
different workplaces of the Arati steel plant of Odisha.
Maximum attenuation of noise level was reported at workers
colony and was due to ground absorption. The maximum
outdoor noise was 84 dB, while in the plant, it was 92 dB
(A). Goswami and Swain [46] studied the occupational expo-
sure in 13 stone crusher industries located at Seragarh, Nilgiri,
Remuna, and Mitrapur with special reference to noise. In this
study, it was reported that the values of all the noise descrip-
tors were more than the prescribed limit. It was also reported
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
that none of the workers of the industry was using any per-
sonal protective equipment.
Goswami and Swain [47] and Swain and Goswami [48]
monitored different noise descriptors (L10, L50, L90, Leq,
NPL, NC) in 20 commercial banks of Balasore and 21 banks
of Cuttack, respectively. The noise levels in different banks
were more than the prescribed permissible limit (50 dB).
Swain et al. [49] assessed the noise levels in different offices
of Balasore town. The reported maximum equivalent noise
level, NPL, and NC value were 83.4, 96.6, and 26.5 dB, re-
spectively. It was concluded that excess noise level reduced
the work efficiency of the employees and caused bad temper,
headache, hearing problem, and loss of concentration during
working hours. One of the most annoying aspects of noise was
that it interferes with speech. The studies concluded that due
to speech interference between employees and people, the
employees were generally irritated.
Pachpande et al. [50] conducted the assessment of hearing
loss among school teachers and students exposed to highway
traffic near Jalgaon city. Audiometric analysis and question-
naire survey revealed that 92% of students and 84% of
teachers reported hearing difficulty. In the audiometric testing,
mild hearing loss, in the range of 25–35 dBHL (hearing level),
was reported in both the subject groups. Mondal and Das [51]
studied the attitude of trainee teachers of two educational in-
stitutions of Birbhum and Burdwan towards the environmen-
tal noise. In this study, it was noticed that both male and
female teacher trainee knew the basic concept of noise and
was non-significant among them (p < 0.05). It was reported
that 50.36% of respondents believed that noise-induced hear-
ing loss happened when noise level exceed 85 dB. Thirty-nine
percent of respondents opined that there should be the mini-
mum level of noise in the academic institutes and hospitals,
etc. Ninety-eight percent of respondents agreed that traffic
noise caused irritation in the urban area. 94.16% of respon-
dents believed that their sleep had been interfered by the ve-
hicular noise during the night. 14.59% of the total samples
agreed that noise had an effect on blood pressure.
Studies with Special Emphasis on Noise During Festivities
Singh and Joshi [52] studied the noise pollution at different
places of Meerut city on the night of festival of crackers,
Deepawali, and an average of 83 dB was recorded in the
commercial area, whereas it was 85 dB in the residential area.
The noise levels in the year 2009 decreased significantly than
2007 and 2008 due to growing environment awareness.
Goswami et al. [53] assessed the noise levels during
Deepawali in Balasore during two consecutive years of
2010 and 2011. The Lmax and Leq values were more than
110 dB during both the years. It was also reported that the
noise level of 2011 was found decreased in comparison to
2010. Ahirwar and Bajpai [54] assessed the noise levels
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
during Deepawali festival at commercial, residential, and si-
lence zones of Raipur city. The recorded noise levels were
higher than the prescribed noise level. Due to increased public
awareness, people preferred to celebrate this festival of crack-
ers without sound.
Swain et al. [55] assessed the noise levels during the
Dussehra festival in Balasore town. The noise descriptors
such as L10, L50, L90, Leq, NPL, and NC were assessed for
5 days. All the observed noise levels were more than the
prescribed noise level of Central Pollution Control Board,
India. Another reason for higher noise was that all the moni-
tored sites belonged to the commercial zone.
Saler and Vibhute [56] studied the noise pollution and its
effects during Ganesh festival at Kolhapur city of Maharastra.
Noise levels were monitored in different day and night time
intervals. The noise pollution level was more than the permis-
sible limit and caused severe annoyance to exposed people.
It is concluded from this review that a limited number of
studies on the exposure-effect of road traffic have been carried
out in India during the last two decades.
Discussion
In 46.9% of the studies discussed above, the population (age,
gender, and number) was well defined, while in 49% of the
studies, harmful effects of exposure to noise were methodical-
ly summarized. Except for 13 studies, statistical methods were
applied in the rest of the discussed studies.
In 14 studies, noise modeling and noise mapping were
carried out. In 22 studies, an exposure-effect relationship
was established. Among these 22 studies, only in two studies,
the exposure-effect relationship has been inferred on the basis
of audiometric records, and in the rest of the studies, question-
naire surveys have been undertaken to reveal the effect of
exposure to noise. The sample size of questionnaire surveys
varied widely. In most of the cases, the sample size is more
than 200 (large sample (>200) = 14 studies and medium sam-
ple (n > 50 < 200) = 5 studies). Moreover, in four of the bigger
studies, random sample selection was reported.
It is observed that 28.57% of the articles reported of using a
large sample, which is statistically better. Only 10 and 14.3%
of articles, special emphasis has been given to zone-specific
noise pollution monitoring and noise monitoring in work-
places, respectively. 44.89% articles reported details of sub-
jective response data with the help of a questionnaire tool,
while 10% of articles endorsed the harmful effect of festive
noise.
Though few articles adopted similar methodologies, but
there were different study designs in the abovementioned 49
articles. Different statistical methods and different models
were used in these studies. Even questions in the 20 question-
naire surveys conducted by the different authors were not
227
similar. Sample sizes of these surveys are also different from
each other. Thus, it is a herculean task to conduct a meta-
analysis of these articles for necessary review. It is found that
the authors have studied different types of noise pollution in
different cities/towns of India and their consequences. This
study demonstrates that most of the researchers (77.5) have
used statistical methods and drawn conclusion on the basis of
their result. Nevertheless, the application of statistical tools to
evaluate the data of all the aforesaid articles was not feasible
because of the heterogeneity of the topic and variability of the
methodology.
Conclusion
Review of research papers of the last two decades demonstrat-
ed gaps in research. Accordingly, it also revealed the follow-
ing future perspectives of noise pollution research.
& Future investigators should empathetically focus the re-
search on the exposure-effect relationship by undertaking
audiometric studies.
& Noise-annoyance curve should be plotted for better inter-
pretation of the effect of exposure.
& Geospatial noise mapping should be carried out to identify
noise hotspots of an urban area. Simultaneously, peace
and quiet places can also be identified by such mapping.
It will make people a little easier to find such places.
& Modeling-based studies should be undertaken so that it
will be helpful for local bodies to execute better land use
planning and to take precautionary measures in advance.
& Each upcoming study must methodically work out the
evaluation of noise emission and its risk, ranking of noise
sources, assessment of exposure to noise, and noise con-
trol strategy.
It is not possible to completely avoid noise pollution in a
country like India, but some preventive measures can be taken
to abate its extent of pollution. As per the BThe Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act^ implemented in
1981, the noise is termed as an Bair-pollutant.^
Subsequently, under the Environmental Protection Act,
1986, the Government of India came up with Noise
Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000. However,
no definite penalty or punishment is defined in this rule.
Central Pollution Control Board established the noise pollu-
tion monitoring network in 35 major cities in India in the year
2011 as a part of the National Environmental Policy adopted
in 2006. Nevertheless, noise pollution limits are being violated
in every nook and corner of India in general and during fes-
tivities in particular [57, 58]. The laws should be properly
implemented here in India to abate noise pollution.
Unfortunately, all regulations, policies, and programs are only
228
in pen and paper. The government is now working on devising
new noise pollution standards. There is no city-wise noise
pollution mitigation plan. The focus of research must be on
abatement of noise at specific sources, like loudspeakers and
firecrackers. However, there is no monitoring of ambient noise
levels 24 × 7, like what we do with air quality. Thus, now is
the time for the State Pollution Control Boards to come up
with integrated strategies and sustainable planning to mini-
mize harmful effects of noise.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest There is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Mills CHG, Aspinall DT. Some aspects of commercial vehicle de-
sign. Appl Acoust. 1968;1:47–66.
2. Aspinall DT. Control of road noise by vehicle design. J Sound Vib.
1970;13:435–44.
3. Rathe EJ, Casula F, Hartwig H, Mallet H. Survey of the exterior
noise of some passenger cars. J Sound Vib. 1973;29:483–99.
4. Amrah A, Al-Omari A, Sharabi R. Evaluation of traffic noise pol-
lution in Amman. Jordan Environ Monit Assess. 2006;120:499–
525.
5. Martin MA, Tarrero MA, Gonzalez A, Machimbarrena M.
Exposure-effect relationships between road traffic noise annoyance
and noise cost valuations in Valladolid. Spain Appl Acoust.
2006;67(10):945–58.
6. Omidvari M, Nouri J. Effects of noise pollution on traffic police-
men. Int J Environ Res. 2009;3(4):645–52.
7. Kalaiselvi R, Ramachandraiah A. A noise mapping study for het-
erogeneous road traffic conditions considering horn sounds. J
Acoust Soc Am. 2011;129:2380.
8. Vijay R, Sharma A, Chakrabarti T, Gupta R. Assessment of
honking impact on traffic noise in urban traffic environment of
Nagpur. India J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2015;13:10.
9. Omlin S, Bauer GF, Brink M. Effects of noise from non-traffic
related ambient sources on sleep: review of the literature of 1990–
2010. Noise Health. 2011;13:299–309.
10. Chakraborty D, Santra SC, Roy B. Survey of community annoy-
ance due to traffic noise-exposure in Calcutta metropolis. J Acoust
Soc Ind. 1998;26:39–43.
11. Singh N, Davar SC. Noise pollution-sources, effects and control. J
Hum Ecol. 2004;16(3):181–7.
12. Ingle ST, Pachpande BG. Monitoring and assessment of daily ex-
posure of residential population to highway traffic noise in Jalgaon
urban center. Advanced OR and AI methods in Transportation.
2005:94–8.
13. Tripathi SR, Tiwari RR. Self-reported hearing quality of traffic
policemen: a questionnaire-based study. Indian J Occup Environ
Med. 2006;10(2):82–4.
14. Ziauddin A, Bahel RS, Siddiqui NA. Noise pollution levels in the
city of Deharadun. Eco Env Cons. 2007;13(4):891–3.
15. Banerjee D, Chakraborty SK, Bhattacharyya S, Gangopadhyay A.
Evaluation and analysis of road traffic noise in Asansol: an indus-
trial town of Eastern India. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2008;5(3):165–71.
16. Banerjee D, Chakraborty SK, Bhattacharyya S, Gangopadhyay A.
Appraisal and mapping the spatial-temporal distribution of urban
road traffic noise. Int J Environ Sci Tech. 2009;6(2):325–35.
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
17. Goswami S. Road traffic noise: a case study of Balasore town,
Orissa. India Int J Environ Res. 2009;3:309–16.
18. Goswami S, Nayak SK, Pradhan AC, Dey SK. A study on traffic
noise of two campuses of University, Balasore. India J Environ
Biol. 2011;32:105–9.
19. Agarwal S, Swami BL. Noise annoyance under interrupted traffic
flow condition for Jaipur City. Int J Appl Sci Eng. 2009;7(2):159–68.
20. Agarwal S, Swami BL. Road traffic noise annoyance in Jaipur City.
International Journal of Engineering Studies. 2009;1(1):39–46.
21. Agarwal S, Swami BL. Road traffic noise, annoyance and commu-
nity health survey—a case study for an Indian city. Noise Health.
2011;13:272–6.
22. Patil CR, Modak JP, Choudhari PV, Dhote DS. Subjective analysis
of road traffic noise annoyance around major arterials in intermedi-
ate city. European Journal of Applied Scinces. 2011;3:58–61.
23. Swain BK, Panda S, Goswami S. Dynamics of road traffic noise in
Bhadrak city. India. J Environ Biol. 2012;33:1087–92.
24. Swain BK, Goswami S, Panda SK. Road traffic noise assessment
and modeling in Bhubaneswar, India: a comparative and compre-
hensive monitoring study. International Journal of Earth Sciences
and Engineering. 2012;5(01):1358–70.
25. Swain BK, Goswami S. Analysis and appraisal of urban road traffic
noise of the city of Cuttack. India Pak J Sci Ind Res. 2014;57(1):10–9.
26. Chowdhury AK, Debsarkar A, Chakrabarty S. Critical analysis of
daytime traffic noise level at curbside open-air microenvironment
of two types of road network of a big city. J Environ Occup Sci.
2015;4:185–9.
27. Chowdhury AK, Debsarkar A, Chakrabarty S. Critical assessment
of daytime traffic noise level at curbside open-air microenviron-
ment of Kolkata City. India. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2015;13:65.
28. Mishra RK, Parida M, Rangnekar S. Evaluation and analysis of
traffic noise along bus rapid transit system corridor. Int J Environ
Sci Tech. 2010;7:737–50.
29. Parbat DK, Nagarnaik PB, Mohitkar VM. Application of ANN for
modeling noise descriptors at interrupted traffic flow. World
Applied Sciences Journal. 2011;12(2):145–51.
30. Arora JK, Mosahari PV. Artificial neural network modeling of traf-
fic noise in Agra-Firozabad Highway. International Journal of
Computer Applications. 2012;56(2):6–10.
31. Pradhan AC, Swain BK, Goswami S. Measurements and model
calibration of traffic noise pollution of an industrial and intermedi-
ate city of India. The Ecoscan. 2012;1:1–4.
32. Pradhan A, Swain BK, Goswami S. Road traffic noise assessment and
modeling of Sambalpur city, India: a comprehensive, comparative and
complete study. J Ecophysiol Occup Hlth. 2012;12(2):51–63.
33. Subramani T, Kavitha M, Sivaraj KP. Modeling of traffic noise
pollution. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications. 2012;2(3):3175–82.
34. Goswami S, Swain BK, Panda SK. Assessment, analysis and ap-
praisal of road traffic noise pollution in Rourkela city. India. J
Environ Biol. 2013;34:891–5.
35. Swain BK, Goswami S. Data of monitored highway noise and
predictive models: a relative and inclusive case study.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering.
2013;6(5):1079–85.
36. Swain BK, Goswami S, Das M. Assessment of highway noise and
predictive models along NH-316. Asian Journal of Water
Environment and Pollution. 2016;13(2):97–105.
37. Sahu SK, Swain BK, Das M, Goswami S. Data of monitored noise
and predictive models in and around Rayagada, Odisha, India: a
comparative study. International Journal for Innovative Research in
Science & Technology. 2014;5(1):39–47.
38. Swain KB, Goswami S. Integration and comparison of assessment
and modeling of road traffic noise in Baripada town, India.
International Journal of Energy and Environment. 2013;4(2):303–10.
Curr Pollution Rep (2017) 3:220–229
39. De SK, Swain, B.K., Goswami S, Das M. Adaptive noise risk
modeling: fuzzy logic approach. Systems Science & Control
Engineering 2017; 5 (1): 129–141.
40. Sampath S, Das SM, Kumar VS. Ambient noise levels in major
cities in Kerala. J Ind Geophys Union. 2004;8(4):293–8.
41. Datta JK, Sadhu S, Gupta S, Saha R, Mondal NK, Mukhopadhyay
N. Assessment of the noise level in Burdwan town, West Bengal. J
Environ Bio. 2006;27(3):609–12.
42. Goswami S, Swain BK. Soundscape of Balasore city, India: a study
on urban noise and community response. J Acoust Soc Ind.
2011;38(2):59–71.
43. Goswami S. Soundscape of Bhadrak town, India: an analysis from
road traffic noise perspective. Asian Journal of Water Environment
and Pollution. 2011;8(4):85–91.
44. Goswami S, Swain BK. Soundscape of Baripada, India; an apprais-
al and evaluation from urban noise perspective. The Ecoscan spe-
cial issue. 2013;3:29–34.
45. Kerketta BS, Dash PK, Narayan LTP. Work zone noise levels at
Aarti steel plant, Orissa and its attenuation in far field. J Environ
Bio. 2009;30(5):903–8.
46. Goswami S, Swain BK. Occupational exposure in stone crusher
industry with special reference to noise: a pragmatic appraisal. J
Acoust Soc Ind. 2012;39(2):70–81.
47. Goswami S, Swain BK. Preliminary information on noise pollution
in commercial banks of Balasore. India. J Environ Bio. 2012;33(6):
999–1002.
48. Swain BK, Goswami S. A study on noise in Indian banks: an
impugnation in the developing countries. Pak J Sci Ind Res.
2014;57(2):103–8.
49. Swain BK, Goswami S, Das M. A preliminary study on assessment
of noise levels in Indian offices: a case study. Asian Journal of
Water Environment and Pollution. 2014;11(4):39–44.
View publication stats
229
50. Pachpande BG, Patel VS, Patil RD, Girase MR, Ingle ST.
Assessment of hearing loss in school teachers and students exposed
to highway traffic noise pollution. Journal of Ecoph Occu Health.
2005;5:123–6.
51. Mondal NK, Das K. Perception level of noise among trainee
teachers, W.B., India. Research Journal of Management Sciences.
2013;2(6):17–21.
52. Singh D, Joshi BD. Study of the noise pollution for three consecu-
tive years during Deepawali festival in Meerut City. Uttar Pradesh
New York Science Journal. 2010;3(6):40–2.
53. Goswami S, Swain BK, Mohapatra HP, Bal KK. A preliminary
assessment of noise level during Deepawali festival in Balasore.
India. J Environ Bio. 2013;34:981–4.
54. Ahirwar, AV, Bajpai S. Assessment of noise pollution during
Deepawali Festival in Raipur City of Chhattisgarh, India.
International conference on Chemical, Environmental and
Biological Sciences (CEBS-2015), 2015; 88–90.
55. Swain BK, Goswami S, Das M. A preliminary assessment of noise
level during the Dussehera festival: a case study of Balasore, India.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering. 2013;6(2):
375–80.
56. Saler P, Vibhute S. Monitoring of noise during Ganeshotsav.
International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology.
2011;3(9):6876–82.
57. Mohapatra H, Goswami S. Assessment and analysis of noise levels
in and around Ib River coalfield, Orissa. India J Environ Bio.
2012;33(3):649–55.
58. Mohapatra H, Goswami S. Assessment of noise levels in various
residential, commercial and industrial places in and around
Belpahar and Brajrajnagar, Orissa, India. Asian Journal of Water
Environment and Pollution. 2012;9(3):73–8.