ReviewAcoustic environments matter: Synergistic benefits to humans and ecological communities
Graphical abstract
Introduction
The total area of protected lands worldwide has more than doubled in the last three decades and designated terrestrial protected areas now cover 18.4 million km2 or 12.5% of the earth's land surface (Watson et al., 2014). The world's protected areas receive approximately 8 billion visits by people per year, 3.3 billion of which are in North America alone (Balmford et al., 2015). In the United States, the National Park Service (NPS) manages a little more than 10% of all protected areas and NPS's keystone parks present the most salient examples of tensions between protecting wildlife and providing for visitor enjoyment (Borrie et al., 2002). The Organic Act of 1916 (PL 39 Stat. 535) gives the NPS its mission, ' … which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations'. Protected areas are caught in a “park paradox” that reflects the negative covariance between visitor use and biodiversity (Runte, 1977).
Higher levels of visitor use and associated access are likely to lead to greater habitat degradation (Fahrig and Rytwinski, 2009) and it is clear that visitor transportation corridors in protected areas impose significant ecological costs (Benítez-López et al., 2010). Roadways are a dominant human footprint on earth and are rapidly expanding. Over 25 million kilometers of new roads are anticipated by 2050, a value 60% greater than the estimated ‘roadprint’ in 2010 (Laurance et al., 2014). Protected areas are not immune from new roads (Theobald et al., 2010, Theobald, 2010). Furthermore, use of protected areas is likely to continue, thus increasing associated impacts to the social and ecological conditions (Manning et al., 2014).
Noise from roadways and other sources is an important mediator of ecological costs (Fahrig and Rytwinski, 2009, Francis and Barber, 2013). In fact, recent evidence shows that broadcasting traffic noise in otherwise quiet habitats can experimentally induce many of the ecological effects of roads on wildlife and degrade habitat quality (McClure et al., 2013, McClure et al., 2016, Ware et al., 2015). Anthropogenic noise from other sources (e.g., energy sector noise - Bayne et al., 2008, Francis et al., 2009; talking visitors – Pilcher et al., 2009, Karp and Guevara, 2011; sonar and other sounds from military activities, Hatch and Fristrup, 2009) is an increasingly recognized cost of human activities; a cost imposed on both visitors (Newman et al., 2010b) and biodiversity in protected areas (Hatch and Fristrup, 2009). The potential for its influence is so great that the NPS created a new program – the Division of Natural Sounds and Night Skies – devoted to conserving the sounds of nature (Newman et al., 2013). These acoustic resources are monitored, managed and protected by mandate (Newman et al., 2013). Despite protection, NPS monitoring and modeling has shown that noise is a pervasive issue across the system (Buxton et al., 2017), yet it remains unclear how noise management integrates with or contributes to efforts to conserve critical habitats. Perhaps most importantly for conservation, it is unknown to what degree biological and ecological responses to altered acoustic conditions feedback on human experiences, and thus conservation ethic and action among citizens who visit and ultimately support the parks.
In this paper, we review literature across several disciplines that, collectively, point to the conclusion that management of acoustic resources both within and outside of protected areas is essential and that natural acoustic conditions should be thought of as a vital “ecosystem service.” Additionally, thorough understanding of acoustic resources through coupled human-nature relationships will enlighten management of protected area acoustic environments. We begin by reviewing the concept of a soundscape and explain how and why natural sounds are both ecologically critical and key to human experiences in natural settings. We then provide an overview of the relevance of rising anthropogenic noise levels by describing its global reach and introduce the concept of listening area and its relevance to the effects of noise on human wellbeing and ecological systems. Finally, we conclude with a conceptual framework explaining how soundscape modification via human activities should be considered alongside other well-recognized threats to biodiversity and human wellbeing, such as climate change and chemical pollution and emphasize how soundscapes are a key element that couples human experience and ecological systems through psychological ecosystem services and individual and collective human behavior relevant to conservation.
Section snippets
Soundscapes and the role of natural sounds
Soundscapes have been defined two ways. We prefer soundscape as a perceptual construct, following the Soundscape Working Group of the International Standards Organization and recent NPS policy: the acoustic environment as perceived by a receiver (i.e., a listener), and usually a person (ISO 12913-1:2014). Previous NPS policy and Farina (2014) define soundscape as encompassing all physical acoustic phenomena. Terminological ambiguity aside, the term soundscape underscores the substantial role
Human-influenced soundscapes
The influence of anthropogenic noise is global – soundscapes throughout the world are influenced by anthropogenic sounds that create, evolutionarily speaking, novel acoustic conditions (Swaddle et al., 2015). Over 80% of the contiguous United States experiences elevated sound levels (Mennitt et al., 2013, Fig. 1) and 65% of European citizens experience background sound levels exceeding 55 dB A-weighting [dB(A)] (Chepesiuk, 2005), which is a level known to degrade habitat quality for many
Human and natural system coupling through soundscapes
We hypothesize that biodiversity and human wellbeing are inextricably linked in a coupled dynamic that responds to and generates soundscape changes; psychological ecosystem services provided by natural soundscapes link wildlife to people and individual and collective human behaviors that alter soundscapes link humans to ecological systems. Importantly, the coupling that bridges ecological to human systems occurs through at least two mechanisms: first, soundscape characteristics influence the
Conclusions
The role of natural soundscape conditions for human experience and for processes within ecological communities is not yet fully known, but the weight of evidence suggests that soundscapes play a larger role in regulating ecological communities and human experiences than we would have ever imagined just ten years ago. Importantly, these conditions are changing so rapidly that we may lose the opportunities to understand how human and nonhuman systems operate in the absence of the din of human
Acknowledgements
We thank two anonymous reviewers for insightful comments on an earlier draft. This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant # CNH 1414171 to JRB, CDF, MG, CAM and PN. We thank Ted Dunn for artwork.
References (116)
- et al.
The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2010) - et al.
The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis
Biol. Conserv.
(2010) - et al.
Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions
Curr. Biol.
(2009) - et al.
Assessing biodiversity with sound: do acoustic diversity indices reflect phylogenetic and functional diversities of bird communities?
Ecol. Indic.
(2013) - et al.
Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks
Urban For. Urban Gree.
(2007) Effect of temporal and spectral noise features on gap detection behavior by calling green treefrogs
Behav. Process.
(2014)- et al.
Anthropogenic noise impairs owl hunting behavior
Biol. Conserv.
(2016) - et al.
The ecological implications of visitor transportation in parks and protected areas: examples from research in US National Parks
J. Transp. Geogr.
(2016) Relationship between traffic noise levels and song perch height in a common passerine bird
Transp. Res. D. – Tr. E.
(2014)- et al.
Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery
J. Environ. Psychol.
(2013)
Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation
Ecosyst. Serv.
Road traffic noise modifies behaviour of a keystone species
Anim. Behav.
A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound
Trends Ecol. Evol.
Influence of natural sounds on restoration
J. Park. Rec. Admin.
Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise
Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health
Cascading effects of bird functional extinction reduce pollination and plant density
Science
Nature-based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research
J. Sustain. Tour.
Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas
PLoS Biol.
Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest
Conserv. Biol.
Does anthropogenic noise in national parks impair memory?
Environ. Behav.
Natural sound facilitates mood recovery from stress
Ecopsychology
The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature
Psychol. Sci.
Winter visitors to Yellowstone National Park, their value orientations and support for management actions
Hum. Ecol. Rev.
The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation
P. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
Use of chorus sounds for location of breeding habitat in two species of anuran amphibians
Behav. Ecol.
Noise pollution is pervasive in U.S. protected areas
Science
Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations
Decibel hell
Environ. Health Perspect.
The impact of parks on property values: empirical evidence from the past two decades in the United States
Manag. Leis.
Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness
Bioscience
The Effects of Highway Noise on Birds [Report Prepared for the California
Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagements, with implications for planning
Elem. Outdoor Recreat. Plan.
Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the consumer connection
Oikos
Note on informational masking (L)
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds
Conserv. Biol.
Trophic downgrading of planet earth
Science
Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis
Ecol. Soc.
Soundscape Ecology
Vocal traits and diet explain avian sensitivities to anthropogenic noise
Glob. Change Biol.
A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation priority
Front. Ecol. Environ.
Noise pollution alters ecological services: enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal
P Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol.
Ornithology
Cues for acoustic detection of prey: insect rustling sounds and the influence of walking substrate
J. Exp. Biol.
Bats perceptually weight prey cues across sensory systems when hunting in noise
Science
Behavioral plasticity allows short-term adjustment to a novel environment
Am. Nat.
National Parks and the American Public: a National Public Opinion Survey on the National Park System: a Summary Report
Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla
J. Appl. Ecol.
Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success
J. Appl. Ecol.
Cited by (64)
Mapping and assessing natural soundscape quality: An indicator-based model for landscape planning
2024, Journal of Environmental ManagementAnthropogenic noise pollution and wildlife diseases
2023, Trends in ParasitologyHow to integrate the soundscape resource into landscape planning? A perspective from ecosystem services
2022, Ecological IndicatorsTen questions concerning soundscape valuation
2022, Building and EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :The natural capital and related eco-system services approach are used to assess flows of services from the natural environment. This approach can be applied to assess soundscape (or sound environment), particularly natural soundscape (or sound environment), and their enhancement or protection measures, for example noise reduction in national parks [66,67]. However, as with the impact pathway approach, the monetary values of any soundscape-based or -relevant eco-systems services, such as biodiversity, recreational and spiritual benefits, would need to be estimated separately.
Soundscape classification with convolutional neural networks reveals temporal and geographic patterns in ecoacoustic data
2022, Ecological IndicatorsCitation Excerpt :The value of different sounds across the landscape has long been recognized as socially valuable (Schafer, 1993; Southworth, 1969), and acoustic data are becoming more economical and efficient to collect, permitting characterization of spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity, human activity, and other sounds (Depraetere et al., 2012; Shonfield and Bayne, 2017). The acoustic quality of habitats is also recognized as a vital dimension of conservation (Dumyahn and Pijanowski, 2011; Schafer, 1993), as increasingly excessive human noise can have a range of direct deleterious effects on biodiversity (e.g., acoustic masking from overlapping communication frequency ranges) (Doser et al., 2019; Francis et al., 2017). Identifying naturally quiet landscapes and relating patterns in anthropogenic and biotic noise is essential in understanding the effects of changing human activity on biodiversity and noise reduction on conservation and management efforts of protected areas (Newport et al., 2014; Rice et al., 2020).