This paper describes a systematic review (1980–2014) of evidence on effects of transport noise interventions on human health. The sources are road traffic, railways, and air traffic. Health outcomes include sleep disturbance, annoyance, cognitive impairment of children and cardiovascular diseases. A conceptual framework to classify noise interventions and health effects was developed. Evidence was thinly spread across source types, outcomes, and intervention types. Further, diverse intervention study designs, methods of analyses, exposure levels, and changes in exposure do not allow a meta-analysis of the association between changes in noise level and health outcomes, and risk of bias in most studies was high. However, 43 individual transport noise intervention studies were examined (33 road traffic; 7 air traffic; 3 rail) as to whether the intervention was associated with a change in health outcome. Results showed that many of the interventions were associated with changes in health outcomes irrespective of the source type, the outcome or intervention type (source, path or infrastructure). For road traffic sources and the annoyance outcome, the expected effect-size can be estimated from an appropriate exposure–response function, though the change in annoyance in most studies was larger than could be expected based on noise level change.

Despite much recent attention being given to strategic environmental assessment (SEA), there are considerable difficulties moving from a useful concept to widespread and enduring practice. This may be partly because the proponents of the policies, programmes and plans (PPPs) and the decision-makers remain unaware, or unconvinced, that SEA can add value to the existing processes in PPP development, assessment and decision-making. This paper attempts to respond to these difficulties by defining an overarching concept of SEA and a set of principles to assist in the evolution of effective methodologies. A broad range of SEA methodologies will be needed to adapt to the particular PPP-making context and these must be grafted onto the existing PPP process.Griffith Sciences, Griffith School of EnvironmentFull Tex

This paper focuses on soundscape planning, or acoustic design, in the planning and management of open space in both urban and non‐urban areas. It is based on notions, promoted over several decades, that the acoustic aspects of open space can, and should be, subject to design in the same way as are the visual dimensions. The current paradigm for the management of the outdoor acoustic environment is noise control and soundscape planning needs to adopt quite different practices from noise control with respect to acoustic criteria and measurement. The paper explores the specification of acoustic objectives for outdoor soundscapes and the translation of these objectives into acoustic criteria that are amenable to measurement and prediction as part of the design process. Such objectives, termed Proposed Acoustic Environments, focus on the information content in sounds in a particular space and, only indirectly, on characteristics such as level or loudness. Outdoor acoustic design is mostly concerned with avoiding, or achieving, the masking of one set of information in the acoustic signal with other sets of information in the same signal. These are critical methodological issues if soundscape planning is to move from being a good idea to common practice. The paper sets out the elements of a process for the acoustic design or management of outdoor space.