Inequalities in noise will affect urban wildlife
Data files
Oct 10, 2023 version files 493.45 KB
-
HOLC_Noise_City_Results.csv
40.84 KB
-
README.md
10.79 KB
-
Urban_noise_wildlife_literature_review_Dryad.csv
441.82 KB
Abstract
Understanding the extent to which systemic biases influence local ecological communities is essential for developing just and equitable environmental practices. With over 270 million people across the United States living in urban areas, understanding the socio-ecological consequences of racially-targeted zoning, such as redlining, provides crucial information for urban planning. There is a growing body of literature documenting the relationships between redlining and disparities in the distribution of environmental harms and goods, including inequities in green space cover and pollutant exposure. Yet, it remains unknown whether noise pollution is also inequitably distributed, and whether inequitable noise is an important driver of ecological change in urban environments. We conducted 1) a spatial analysis of urban noise to determine the extent to which noise overlaps with the distribution of redlining categories and 2) a systematic literature review to summarize the effects of noise on wildlife in urban landscapes. We found strong evidence that noise is inequitably distributed in cities across the United States, and that inequitable noise may drive complex biological responses across diverse urban wildlife. These findings lay a foundation for future research that advances acoustic and urban ecology by centering equity and challenging systems of oppression.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.s4mw6m998
Part I: Spatial Analysis of Noise Distribution across 83 U.S. cities
File name: HOLC_Noise_City_Results.csv
Date completed: 15 December 2021
Spatial dataset: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Noise Map 2018
Software used in analysis: ArcGIS Desktop v. 10.7
Part II: Literature review of papers published between 1990 and 23 June 2021 that focus on the impacts of noise pollution to urban wildlife.
File name: Urban_noise_wildlife_literature_review.csv
Date compiled: 23 June 2021
Search engine: Thompson’s ISI Web of Science
Search terms (TS=(WILDLIFE OR ANIMAL OR MAMMAL OR REPTILE OR AMPHIBIAN OR BIRD OR FISH OR INVERTEBRATE) AND TS=(NOISE OR SONAR) AND TS=(CITY OR *URBAN OR METROPOLITAN)).
Data collection procedure: To assess the effects of noise on wildlife in urban environments, we conducted a literature review using Thompson’s ISI Web of Science and adapting the methods of Shannon et al. (2016). We adjusted Shannon et al. (2016) search criteria to include urban phrases, resulting in the following search terms (TS=(WILDLIFE OR ANIMAL OR MAMMAL OR REPTILE OR AMPHIBIAN OR BIRD OR FISH OR INVERTEBRATE) AND TS=(NOISE OR SONAR) AND TS=(CITY OR *URBAN OR METROPOLITAN)). We only selected papers published between 1990 and 23 June 2021 (i.e., the date we conducted our search) within the ISI Web of Science categories of ‘Acoustics’, ‘Zoology’, ‘Ecology’, ‘Environmental Sciences’, ‘Ornithology’, ‘Biodiversity Conservation’, ‘Evolutionary Biology’, and ‘Marine Freshwater Biology’. This returned 691 peer-reviewed papers, which we filtered so only empirical studies focused on documenting the effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife in urban or suburban ecosystems or the effects of urban noise on wildlife in rural environments were included in the final data set. We excluded reviews, meta-analyses, methods papers, and research that took place outside of urban or suburban areas where the noise was not explicitly denoted as urban (e.g., omitted studies that measured traffic noise by parks and reserves in rural areas). For the 241 articles previously analyzed in Shannon et al. (2016), one of our authors reviewed each paper to determine which studies were focused on urban noise. We also verified the noise levels that caused a significant biological response, noting each noise level if multiple responses were recorded. For any new articles published since the Shannon et al. (2016) dataset or those published between 1990 and 2013 but not reviewed by Shannon et al. (2016) (n = 96), two of our authors reviewed each paper to first determine which studies met our criteria and then compiled data on a number of variables of interest, including the noise levels and their resulting biological responses that were statistically significant. For this subset of papers, one author was randomly assigned a list of papers and then a second author was randomly assigned to assess the accuracy of the data collected by the first author. Any discrepancies were discussed as a group until an agreement was reached. Noise categories (environmental, transportation, industrial, multiple, other) were chosen for each paper by noting the explicitly stated source or description of urban noise described in the methodology. Noise levels and their units were reported for each paper, with only noise levels reported in decibels (dB) being used in data analysis. We recorded the sound metric used (i.e., SPL, SPL Max, Leq) for each paper and also recorded the weightings for each noise level.
Description of the data and file structure
Part I: Spatial Analysis of Noise Dataset Variables and Definitions
Spreadsheet name: HOLC_Noise_City_Results
HOLC_GRADE: HOLC redlining grade (grades A, B, C, D)
COUNT: Count of pixels with non zero noise values for a given HOLC grade and city
AREA: Area covered by pixels with non zero noise values for a given HOLC grade and city
MIN: Minimum pixel noise value for a given HOLC grade and city
MAX: Maximum pixel noise value for a given HOLC grade and city
RANGE: Pixel noise value range for a given HOLC grade and city
MEAN: Mean of pixel noise values for a given HOLC grade and city
STD: Standard Deviation of pixel noise values for a given HOLC grade and city
SUM: Sum of pixel noise values for a given HOLC grade and city
VARIETY: The number of unique values for a given HOLC grade and city
MAJORITY: The most frequently occurring value for a given HOLC grade and city
MINORITY: The least frequently occurring value for a given HOLC grade and city
MEDIAN: Median of pixel noise values for a given HOLC grade and city
TOT_HOLC_AREA_SQM: total area in square meters covered by the HOLC grade in given city
N_median: N measure of excess noise where N = (grade area with noise pixels * median noise per grade)/total area in grade
city: city where analysis was performed
state: state that the city was in
Proportion HOLC with noise over 35 dB: the proportion of a HOLC grade in the target city with noise over 35 dB, calculated as (area of HOLC grade per city covered by noise above 35 dB/total area of HOLC grade per city)
Part II: Literature Review Dataset Variables and Definitions
Spreadsheet name: Urban_noise_wildlife_literature_review_Dryad
Paper Origin: dataset (Shannon et. al 2016 or New Review)
Full citation: Full citation of paper
Meets Criteria: whether or not the paper met our inclusion criteria
Study type: Natural experiment, playback, theoretical, combination
Notes for study type: notes describing study type
Location of Experiment: lab, field, both, or theoretical
Geographic region: The general geographic region in which the study took place: Africa, Antartica, Asia, Atlantic Ocean, Australia, Baltic Sea, Europe, Global, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, North America, Pacific Ocean, South America,
Biological response measured: The response of the study organism(s), specifically the response to anthropogenic noise: ecosystem, foraging behavior, life history/reproduction, mating behavior, movement behavior, physiological, population, vigilance behavior, vocal behavior
2nd Biological response measured: same as above
Measured response? Whether the study collected a metric measuring the biological response
Group type: Birds, fish, herpetofauna, invertebrates, mammals, multiple
Trophic level: Carnivore, herbivore, omnivore, multiple
Habitat: Aquatic, terrestrial
Noise stimulus category: industrial, transportation, environmental, military, recreation, other
Frequency of Noise: Whether the frequency range of the received noise was reported in the paper
1st Background Level Mean Value: The range or point estimate for background (ambient) noise level(s) if it was reported
2nd Background Level Mean Value: The range or point estimate for background (ambient) noise level(s) if it was reported
Background Level Units: units of noise metric, e.g. dB(A)
Mitigation: Whether or not the study tested mitigation to address impacts of noise
Explain Mitigation (if applicable): a description of what the mitigation study did if applicable
First noise level that caused a response: The noise level at which the study organism responded (measured biological response) to the sound/noise stimulus.
Noise Level Units: Report associated unit for the first response (dB, Hz, etc.)
Noise Level Minimum Value: The value of noise that caused a response when the reported value was a minimum level (for the first response)
Noise Level Maximum Value: The value of noise that caused a response when the reported value was a maximum level (for the first response)
Noise Level Mean Value: The value of noise that caused a response when the reported value was a mean level (for the first response)
Noise Level Standard Deviation: The standard deviation associated with the noise value, when reported (for the first response)
Notes on Response Level 1: Additional notes are details describing the first biological response data collected
What was the SPECIFIC biological response(s) from the organism from Response Level 1?: How did the biological response change? E.g., Minimum frequency, number of songs, or duration of calls increased or decreased, species richness increased or decreased, etc. (for the first response)
Second noise level that caused a response: The noise level at which the study organism responded (measured biological response) to the sound/noise stimulus.
Second Noise Level Units: Report associated unit for the second response (dB, Hz, etc.)
Second Noise Level Minimum Value: The value of noise that caused a response when the reported value was a minimum level (for the second response)
Second Noise Level Maximum Value: The value of noise that caused a response when the reported value was a maximum level (for the second response)
Second Noise Level Mean Value: The value of noise that caused a response when the reported value was a mean level (for the second response)
Second Noise Level Standard Deviation: The standard deviation associated with the noise value, when reported (for the second response)
Notes on Response Level 2: Additional notes are details describing the second biological response data collected
What was the SPECIFIC biological response(s) from the organism from Response Level 2?: How did the biological response change? E.g., Minimum frequency, number of songs, or duration of calls increased or decreased, species richness increased or decreased, etc. (for the second response)
Notes on Other Significant Responses: Notes describing any other significant responses reported in the study
Non-significant biological responses: List of any non-significant biological responses to noise described in the paper
Time period: When the study took place
NA values in the data indicate instances where data were not collected because they did not meet the study criteria.
Sharing/Access information
Links to other publicly accessible locations of the redlining boundaries and the transportation noise datasets.
- https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=5/39.1/-94.58&text=downloads
- https://geodata.bts.gov/
Data was derived from the following sources:
- Robert K. Nelson, LaDale Winling, Richard Marciano, Nathan Connolly, et al., “Mapping Inequality,” American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers, accessed October 7, 2023, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/[YOUR VIEW].
- BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Code Information
R coding script for regression models used to evaluate relationships between the N_median variable and the HOLC grade and population predictor variables.
Spatial Analysis of Urban Noise Pollution
To evaluate noise exposure across HOLC redlining grades for 83 U.S. cities in our study, we acquired spatial data on the distribution of HOLC grades across U.S. cities from the Mapping Inequality Project. We also acquired data on road, rail, and aircraft noise (hereafter transportation noise models), from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Noise Map 2018. The transportation noise models represent potential exposure to transportation noise reported on a decibel scale in a 30m x 30m pixel resolution. Here noise represents the average noise energy produced by road, rail, and aviation networks over a 24-hour period, measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA) (LAeq, 24h) at sampling locations deployed across a uniform grid in each city at an elevation of 1.5 m above ground level. Noise levels below 35 dBA are assumed to have minimal negative impacts to humans and the environment and thus are represented with null values in the transportation noise models.
For each HOLC grade and each city, we used zonal statistics in ArcGIS Desktop v. 10.7 to calculate descriptive statistics (median, minimum, maximum, area) for the 30m x 30m pixels in the transportation noise models with non-null noise values (i.e., values > 35 dBA). We used the resulting zonal statistics estimates to calculate an area-corrected measure of excess noise:
N = (r * Md)/a
where N is excess noise in each HOLC grade (with units of dBA/900 m2); r is the area covered by the 30m x 30m pixels with noise values >35 dBA across all polygons of the same HOLC grade in each city; Md is the median transportation noise value (in dBA) for those same pixels; and a is the total area of all polygons of the same HOLC grade in each city.
Literature Review Methodology
To assess the effects of noise on wildlife in urban environments, we conducted a literature review using Thompson’s ISI Web of Science and adapting the methods of Shannon et al. (2016). We adjusted Shannon et al. (2016) search criteria to include urban phrases, resulting in the following search terms (TS=(WILDLIFE OR ANIMAL OR MAMMAL OR REPTILE OR AMPHIBIAN OR BIRD OR FISH OR INVERTEBRATE) AND TS=(NOISE OR SONAR) AND TS=(CITY OR *URBAN OR METROPOLITAN)). We only selected papers published between 1990 and 23 June 2021 (i.e., the date we conducted our search) within the ISI Web of Science categories of ‘Acoustics’, ‘Zoology’, ‘Ecology’, ‘Environmental Sciences’, ‘Ornithology’, ‘Biodiversity Conservation’, ‘Evolutionary Biology’, and ‘Marine Freshwater Biology’. This returned 691 peer-reviewed papers, which we filtered so only empirical studies focused on documenting the effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife in urban or suburban ecosystems or the effects of urban noise on wildlife in rural environments were included in the final data set. We excluded reviews, meta-analyses, methods papers, and research that took place outside of urban or suburban areas where the noise was not explicitly denoted as urban (e.g., omitted studies that measured traffic noise by parks and reserves in rural areas).
For the 241 articles previously analyzed in Shannon et al. (2016), one of our authors reviewed each paper to determine which studies were focused on urban noise. We also verified the noise levels that caused a significant biological response, noting each noise level if multiple responses were recorded. For any new articles published since the Shannon et al. (2016) dataset or those published between 1990 and 2013 but not reviewed by Shannon et al. (2016) (n = 96), two of our authors reviewed each paper to first determine which studies met our criteria and then compiled data on a number of variables of interest, including the noise levels and their resulting biological responses that were statistically significant. For this subset of papers, one author was randomly assigned a list of papers and then a second author was randomly assigned to assess the accuracy of the data collected by the first author. Any discrepancies were discussed as a group until an agreement was reached.
Noise categories (environmental, transportation, industrial, multiple, other) were chosen for each paper by noting the explicitly stated source or description of urban noise described in the methodology. Noise levels and their units were reported for each paper, with only noise levels reported in decibels (dB) being used in data analysis. We recorded the sound metric used (i.e., SPL, SPL Max, Leq) for each paper and also recorded the weightings for each noise level.
Data can be viewed using any software that can open a .csv file. Code can be viewed using any software that can open a .txt file.