Recommendations
on neighbour
problems

Guideline for neighbour problems / PREVENTING: 1.1 Rules on acceptable noise exposure

Interventions and evidence explained

Most plausible interventions explained

Sound environments produce a number of social and behavioral effects on residential behavior and annoyance, including:

Overt everyday behavior patterns (such as opening windows, using balconies etc.)
Worse performance on specific test tasks
Social behavior (such as aggression, unfriendliness etc.)
Social indicators (such as residential mobility, hospital mobility etc.)
Changes in mood (such as less happy, more depressed mood etc.)

Research suggests that the level of annoyance as a result of noise depends on several factors. For example, the level of neighbours’ tolerance to noise is lower in the master bedroom compared to other rooms in the house (WHO Night Noise Guidelines, p. 60). Furthermore, there is a difference in annoyance between night-time and day-time.

To act against noise appears to be one of the crucial ways in which the quality of life can be improved [for people in low-income areas] at a quotidian level (Ureta, p. 125).

Two primary interventions for norming in neighbour disputes regarding regular and excessive noise were identified from the literature:

Applying clear rules on acceptable levels of community noise
Applying an open standard

Applying an open standard and applying clear rules on acceptable levels of community noise

General standards are not clearly defined and are open to interpretation. A standard may entail leaving both specifications of what is permissible and factual issues for the adjudicator. An example of a standard [in a traffic-safety setting] is: “driving at an excessive speed on expressways is prohibited” (Kaplow, p. 560).

Rules entail an advance determination of what is permissible, leaving only factual issues for the adjudicator. An example of a rule [in the traffic-safety setting] is: “driving in excess of 55 miles per hour on expressways is prohibited” (Kaplow, p. 560). Rules on acceptable noise exposure are categorized, measurable and objective. The following rules on acceptable levels for objective criteria are defined by the WHO:

Rules based on environment and health effect:

Specific Environment	Critical health effect	LAeq (dB)	Time base (hours)	LAmax, fast (dB)
Outdoor living area	Serious annoyance, daytime and evening	55	16
	Moderate annoyance, daytime and evening	50	16
Dwelling, indoors	Speech intelligibility and moderate annoyance, daytime and evening	35	16
Inside bedrooms	Sleep disturbance, night-time	30	8	45
Outside bedrooms	Sleep disturbance, window open (outdoor values)	45	8	60

Rules based on environment and health effect:

Activity	Location	Max. dB and time base
Resting	Living room	35 dB LAeq (7:00-23:00)
Dining	Dining room/area	40 dB LAeq (7:00-23:00)
Speeling	Bedroom	35 dB LAeq (7:00-23:00) 30 dB LAeq (23:00-7:00)

Rules based on perception and outcomes [in case the above mentioned rules are not realistic, for example due to the loud and densed nature of the living environment such as in large city]:

Perception	Outcomes	Rule
Not noticeable	No effect.	No specific measures required
Noticeable and not intrusive	Noise can be heard, but does not cause any change in behaviour or attitude. Can slightly affect the acoustic character of the area but not such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.	No specific measures required
Noticeable and intrusive	Noise can be heard and causes small changes in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. turning up volume of television; speaking more loudly; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. Potential for some reported sleep disturbance. Affects the acoustic character of the area such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.	Mitigate and reduce to a minimum
Noticeable and disruptive	The noise causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. avoiding certain activities during periods of intrusion; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to keep windows closed most of the time because of the noise. Potential for sleep disturbance resulting in difficulty in getting to sleep, premature awakening and difficulty in getting back to sleep. Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area.	Avoid Mitigate and reduce to a minimum
Noticeable and intrusive	Extensive and regular changes in behaviour and/or an inability to mitigate effect of noise leading to psychological stress or physiological effects, e.g. regular sleep deprivation/awakening; loss of appetite, significant, medically definable harm, e.g. auditory and non auditory.	Mitigate and reduce to a minimum

Selected interventions for comparison (defined as a PICO question)

For parties to a neighbour dispute regarding regular and excessive noise looking to set rules of behavior and communicate about them (norming), is applying clear rules for acceptable levels of community noise or applying an open standard more effective for well-being?

Search strategy

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis, ResearchGate, Springer, SSRN.

For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: perceived nuisance, domestic, noise, standard, neighbourhood, community, residential, environmental.

Assessment and grading of evidence

The main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:

Louis Kaplow, Rules versus Standards: An Economic Analysis (1992)
Sebastian Ureta, Noise and the Battles for Space: Mediated Noise and Everyday Life in a Social Housing Estate in Santiago, Chile (2008)
Claude Levy-Leboyer and Véronique Naturel, Neighbourhood Noise Annoyance (1991)
Birgitta Berglund and Thomas Lindvall, Community Noise (1995)
Michael Ugwu Onuu, Road Traffic Noise in Nigeria: Measurements, Analysis and Evaluation of Nuisance (2000)
WHO Regional Office for Europe, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe (2009)
WHO, Guidelines for Community Noise (1999)
Jin Ho Verdonschot, Sharing rules that work: Developing law as practical and concrete guidelines for fair sharing (2013)

Quality of evidence and research gap

Sebastian Ureta’s paper presents a summary of the main theoretical and empirical developments regarding noise and the quality of life in urban spaces. The article describes social aspects of the problems with noise in the housing estate, the different tactics developed by residents to fight against noise and potential solutions for the problem of noise in housing estates. The research was conducted over a 10-month period, focusing on 20 low-income families from one targeted housing estate.
The article by Levy-Leboyer and Naturel describes situational parameters of neighbourhood noise which explain the level of annoyance and victims’ reactions towards the noise originators. The sample taken for this study seems to be representative.
Berglund and Lindvall have gathered scientific knowledge on health impacts of community noise and consulted international experts to provide guidance to environmental health authorities and professionals trying to protect people from the harmful effects of noise. The document forms the basis for the evidence-based WHO Guideline for Community Noise.
The essay by Verdonschot examines what determines the effectiveness of sharing rules and explores how sharing rules can be developed, based on two experimental studies. More and larger research touching on the findings of the essay is needed, in order to generate more evidence.

According to our research method, we grade the evidence comparing standards and clear rules on noise nuisance in a neighbour setting as moderate. Most sources are medium empirical studies. Both WHO guidelines are evidence-based guidelines. The research team does not upgrade or downgrade the evidence.

Comparing the two interventions

Desirable outcomes of the interventions

Applying clear rules	Applying an open standard
Defining acceptable levels of noise is necessary to prevent adverse effects on physiological and psychological well-being. It is common practice to define noise operationally as audible acoustic energy that adversely affects, or may affect, the physiological and psychological wellbeing of people (WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, p. 24). It is necessary to carry out extensive measurements in order to analyze noise levels and community response (Ugwu Onuu, p. 391). Acceptable levels of exposure to noise have been developed to protect the public, including the most vulnerable groups such as children, the chronically ill and the elderly (WHO Night Noise Guidelines, p. VI) [from those adversely affects on physiological and psychological wellbeing].
Subjective experiences can be transformed into rules, making it more clear. The subjective experience of noise can be conceptualized along a number of different dimensions which vary in the extent to which they emphasize the emotional as opposed to cognitive aspects of human reactions: loudliness, noisiness and annoyance (WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, p. 113-114). Annoyance response to noise is mediated by three primary factors: the inherent unpleasant characteristics of the noise; the meaning associated with the noise source; and, the interference with ongoing activities (WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, p. 122).
Sharing rules results in agreeable outcomes. Sharing rules help disputants to quickly and cost-effectively determine what a fair or acceptable outcome is, fast and against low costs (Verdonschot, p. 38). Continuous sharing of rules [rules on percentages, amounts, figures, degrees, points on scale or ranges that lead to outcomes] make it easier [compared to ‘open’ standards] to reach outcomes agreeable to both parties (Verdonschot, p. 33).
Rules may produce behavior more in accord with underlying norms. Rules announced in advance are more likely to influence actual behavior (Kaplow, p. 622).

Undesirable outcomes of the intervention

Applying clear rules	Applying an open standard
	The lack of a clear frame of reference creates uncertainty and delays problem-solving. If there is no neutral guidance that helps to narrow down the bargaining range it is difficult to agree on an amount of noise that both parties can accept as reasonable. Lack of clear guidance creates uncertainty among disputants. Without a clear frame of reference, disputants face uncertainty when it comes to evaluating the reasonableness of amounts offered, suggested or decided upon. This can result in a lengthy, costly and complicated bargaining process (Verdonschot, p. 4).

Applying clear rules

Applying an open standard

The lack of a clear frame of reference creates uncertainty and delays problem-solving. If there is no neutral guidance that helps to narrow down the bargaining range it is difficult to agree on an amount of noise that both parties can accept as reasonable. Lack of clear guidance creates uncertainty among disputants. Without a clear frame of reference, disputants face uncertainty when it comes to evaluating the reasonableness of amounts offered, suggested or decided upon. This can result in a lengthy, costly and complicated bargaining process (Verdonschot, p. 4).

Balance of Outcomes

The desirable outcomes of setting and applying clear rules of acceptable community noise outweigh those of setting and applying an open standard. Having clear rules is necessary to prevent adverse psychological effects and results in agreeable outcomes, while standards create uncertainty and delays problem-solving.

Recommendation

Taking into account the balance of outcomes, the value of a flexible, transparent, and inclusive approach to land rights documentation in developing countries, and the quality and consistency of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: For parties to an ownership or use of land dispute, FFP land mapping is more conducive to well-being than land title registration.