英文原文
Urban Noise Pollution: the Insidious Health Threat
Around the corner from my office in downtown Washington, workers are busy putting in new infrastructure underneath the street. The operation is messy, inconvenient (it requires a pedestrian detour) and, above all, noisy. Jackhammer noisy. I hold my ears closed as I walk by. I recognize that infrastructure work is necessary, but I'm beginning to wonder if it has to be quite so loud so much of the time.
Clearly less necessary are the blaring car horns of impatient drivers, more and more prevalent in our city, to say nothing of the noise of the vehicles themselves. There's building construction, too, which generally is a good thing, a sign that the city is alive. But, again, there's the noise. I'm admittedly a curmudgeon about such things, but it's starting to get to me.
For example, one would think that, at least at home in my residential neighborhood, there would be respite. And there is, to a degree. But it's been leaf-blowing season. A small price to pay for living in a part of the city with leaves, I suppose, but whatever happened to rakes? Heaven knows, they weren't less efficient; leaf blowers seem to take hours to accomplish their tasks, even in our neighborhood of compactly arranged, semi-detached houses with tiny lots. And don't get me started on power tools, which are plentiful in our neighborhood of older homes and do-it-yourself residents; or the rental house full of 20somethings across the alley who move their sound system outside in nice weather.
Heck, here in DC, we have an additional assault on the ears: military and other government helicopters flying overhead several times per day. I live in between the vice president's residence and the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, which I suppose is part of the reason, though I actually have no idea.
All this aside, I suppose I'm lucky that the our Metro system runs a bit more quietly than do, say, the subway trains in New York City. Researching this article, I read several summaries of transit noise, the best on Hear-it.org, a non-commercial web site that has been established to increase public awareness of hearing loss. Some facts from the site:
"According to a study published by Columbia University in New York City, as little as 30 minutes in the New York subway may result in hearing loss."
"The study indicated that noise levels in the subway at times are significantly above the 85 dB maximum recommended levels by the United Nations World Health Organization, WHO, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency."
"Average noise levels of 94 dB were recorded on the platforms with peak levels repeatedly at 106 dB. Inside the train cars the noise was even louder. According to WHO and EPA, such noise levels are unsafe when sustained for more than 30 seconds."
As my neighbor once memorably told me when I complained (gently, I thought) about some noise in our neighborhood, "that's city livin'."
But does it have to be? We're moving into a more urban age, absorbing more growth and density in city districts, as we must, in my opinion. A quieter life is one of the things that those who prefer suburban lifestyles cite among the reasons for their preference. I find that perfectly understandable. Is an abundance of unwanted noise a reasonable price for a city lifestyle, and is there a happy medium somewhere?
Noise pollution and the commons
The Noise Pollution Clearinghouse describes the quest for quieter cities as an effort to protect "the commons," our "public realm" including those public spaces that we as a citizenry have a shared interest in protecting and enhancing. Through the work of organizations such as the first-rate Project for Public Spaces, there has been a welcome increase in awareness in recent years of the urban commons and its importance. In all sorts of ways, we need to do better by our public realm, which frequently suffers in the US compared to our "private realm" of lavish homes and corporate offices.
"Polluting the commons is not a right," says the NPC. The organization elaborates:
"Our effort to reduce noise pollution is similar to other efforts to reduce pollution and reassert our collective stewardship over the commons. Whether the issue is second-hand smoke, elevated mercury levels, or ground level ozone, the strategy is to protect the environment and our health and well-being by creating an ethic of the commons."
The health effects of urban noise can be quite significant. One of the best articles I discovered on the subject was written by Robert Earle Howells and posted on, of all places, Oprah Winfrey's web site. Bear with me here for another long quote, this one from Howells, because it's important:
"Given the general din of the modern world, the rest of us might be tempted to rationalize noise--to dismiss it as something we can simply get used to. But the research suggests that this is a risky approach. We process noise subconsciously as a danger signal that triggers a fight-or-flight response in our sympathetic nervous system. So even if we manage to tune it out or sleep through it, noise works insidiously, raising our blood pressure and heart rate, and causing hormonal changes with potentially far-reaching consequences, including anxiety, stress, nervousness, nausea, headaches, sexual impotence, mood swings, and neuroses.
"Environmental noise has also been linked to tinnitus (a chronic ringing in the ears that can lead to insomnia), irritability, and depression. Noise has even been associated with a small increase in cardiovascular disease."
Sonic strategies
So, what to do? In the colorfully titled "The sounds of our lives suck! How to make cities better by ending the blight of noise," Salon's Henry Grabar suggests that cities adopt "sonic strategies," adding as well as subtracting sounds from the public realm to reach a sort of engineered equilibrium of sound that is more good than bad.
Although I have my doubts about the addition part of the equation, there's no question that we do have some sounds that are considered positive and close to being universally appreciated: think of certain fountains, or songbirds on a spring morning; the rustle of leaves underfoot or the tinkling of a wind chime. I remember an evening a couple of decades ago when an arty friend took me along on a visit to the studio of a sonic artist in lower Manhattan. He was working on an installation of very subtle, low-volume sounds that would emanate from small speakers hidden in public landscapes. A passerby would likely notice the sound only when it stopped, as it was programmed to do periodically. The entire sonic experience would be experienced only in memory. Would that sort of thing help?
Certainly, places that we do perceive as "quiet" are seldom literally silent. In Howells' article on Winfrey's site, he describes the Hoh Rain Forest in Washington state's Olympic National Park, which "feels untouched by outside forces." Even as Howell describes the Hoh as quintessentially quiet, though, he listened to "a dozen versions of falling water, half a dozen different rustles of leaves." And I suppose that's the key: a rain forest would likely be far from silent, but we are unlikely to be offended if the sounds are natural ones. But is it realistic to find or create "natural" sounds in a city, assuming one isn't in a city park surrounded by nature?
I won't completely dismiss the idea of a city that masks unpleasant sounds with pleasant, natural-seeming ones, but I think I might like even more the idea of a city that is simply quieter. I just don't have much in the way of pragmatic ideas of how to get there, other than things like better, quieter vehicles - including quieter transit vehicles; more regulation to require quieter construction equipment; more regulation of consumer appliances such as leaf blowers, assuming there's no political will to ban them altogether (which I would prefer); and careful restrictions on hours of operation for everything else. That's already unrealistic, of course; transit agencies are out of money as it is, and certainly won't have enough to lower the volume significantly anytime soon.
A comprehensive approach
Fortunately considering my own limitations in this area, others have been thinking comprehensively about these matters. In 2004, the then-mayor of London Ken Livingstone released a 320-page (with appendices and index) manual called Sounder City: The Mayor's Ambient Noise Strategy. I haven't had time to read it all (!), but I've skimmed enough to like much of what I see, from simple strategies such as planting of sound-absorbent trees to more complex ones such as vehicle regulation and neighborhood design. Some of the principal categories of unwanted sound addressed in the manual include road traffic; railway noise; aircraft noise; industrial noise; and "neighbor noise."
I was particularly intrigued by a section on "sound-conscious urban design" and a closing chapter on "integrated noise management." The section on urban design, for example, includes the following passage:
"The balance of advantage between contained and more open layouts will depend on the relative contributions of different noise sources. In noisy areas, acoustic absorbency within 'courtyard' areas should normally be maximized, especially from dense vegetation and soft ground. Rooftop planting may be useful on lower level roofs. In quieter spaces, sound reflection can help people sense where they are. Paving design should consider noise not just from road vehicles, but trolleys, and, particularly over or near bedrooms, footfall."
I particularly like courtyards and love the use of nature as noise-reducing strategies. The section also includes advice on building heights, awareness of "quiet sides" of buildings, window design, vehicle access and parking, and maintenance and cleaning ("e.g. raking, sweeping and local composting, rather than leaf blowing and carting away"), among other subjects.
Mostly I like the idea that cities can, and should, think about noise the way they think about other pollutants: as something detrimental to our well-being, worthy of a sophisticated and comprehensive strategy. In some ways, it seems odd that this is actually a relatively new way of thinking, as the London manual's section on integrated noise management acknowledges:
"By contrast with other pollutants, it is almost universal in our urban areas, is increasingly encroaching on rural, 'tranquil' areas, and is progressively eroding the period of night-time quiet. Despite this, the control of noise has never been subject to an overarching policy or legislative framework, in the same way as, for example, air quality or waste disposal. This neglect may be partially explained by the fact that the effects of noise on the general population have been historically easy to overlook. In addition, the nature of noise, and the reaction of people to it, does not lend it easily to the sort of mechanistic approach available to other pollutants."
While I suspect that London remains as noisy as ever, I commend Livingstone for undertaking the subject.
Other cities should follow suit. The fact that urban noise pollution is difficult to comprehend and tackle does not render it unimportant. We need cities to work better and be as successful as possible in order to secure a more sustainable future for both people and the planet. We need the kinds of cities that people love to live in, and it's hard to have love for "city livin'" when your ears are being assaulted.
With that in mind, I leave you with a video of Mr. Van Morrison, O.B.E., and his wonderful 1990 song, "So Quiet in Here":
中文翻译
城市噪音污染：隐形的健康威胁
在我华盛顿市中心的办公室拐角处，工人们正忙着在街道下方铺设新的基础设施。这项工程杂乱、不便（需要行人绕道），最重要的是噪音很大。电钻的噪音。我走过时捂住耳朵。我认识到基础设施工作是必要的，但我开始怀疑它是否必须如此长时间地大声。
显然更不必要的是不耐烦司机刺耳的汽车喇叭声，在我们城市越来越普遍，更不用说车辆本身的噪音了。还有建筑施工，这通常是件好事，是城市活力的标志。但是，再次强调，有噪音。我承认我对这些事情很挑剔，但它开始影响到我了。
例如，人们可能会认为，至少在我居住的社区家里，会有喘息的机会。在某种程度上，确实有。但现在是吹叶季节。我想，这是生活在城市有树叶区域的小代价，但耙子怎么了？天知道，它们效率并不低；吹叶机似乎需要几个小时才能完成任务，即使在我们紧凑排列、半独立式房屋的小地块社区也是如此。更不用说电动工具了，在我们这个老房子和DIY居民众多的社区里很常见；或者小巷对面那栋满是20多岁年轻人的出租屋，他们在好天气时把音响搬到外面。
哎呀，在华盛顿特区，我们还有额外的听觉攻击：军用和其他政府直升机每天几次飞过头顶。我住在副总统官邸和国土安全部总部之间，我想这是部分原因，尽管我实际上不知道。
除此之外，我想我很幸运，我们的地铁系统运行得比纽约市的地铁列车安静一些。在撰写这篇文章时，我阅读了几篇关于交通噪音的总结，最好的是Hear-it.org上的，这是一个非商业网站，旨在提高公众对听力损失的认识。该网站的一些事实：
“根据纽约市哥伦比亚大学发表的一项研究，在纽约地铁中仅30分钟就可能导致听力损失。”
“研究表明，地铁中的噪音水平有时显著高于联合国世界卫生组织和美国环境保护署建议的85分贝最高水平。”
“站台记录的平均噪音水平为94分贝，峰值水平反复达到106分贝。列车车厢内的噪音更大。根据世卫组织和环保署的说法，这种噪音水平持续超过30秒是不安全的。”
正如我的邻居曾经令人难忘地告诉我，当我抱怨（我想是温和地）我们社区的一些噪音时，“这就是城市生活”。
但必须如此吗？我们正进入一个更城市化的时代，吸收更多的增长和城市区域密度，在我看来，这是必须的。更安静的生活是那些偏爱郊区生活方式的人列举的原因之一。我觉得这完全可以理解。过多的不需要的噪音是城市生活方式的合理代价吗？是否存在一个快乐的中间地带？
噪音污染与公共资源
噪音污染信息中心将寻求更安静的城市描述为保护“公共资源”的努力，即我们的“公共领域”，包括我们作为公民有共同利益保护和增强的公共空间。通过一流公共空间项目等组织的工作，近年来对城市公共资源及其重要性的认识有了可喜的提高。在各种方面，我们需要更好地对待我们的公共领域，在美国，与“私人领域”的豪华住宅和企业办公室相比，公共领域经常受损。
“污染公共资源不是一种权利，”NPC说。该组织详细说明：
“我们减少噪音污染的努力类似于其他减少污染和重申我们对公共资源集体管理的努力。无论是二手烟、汞水平升高还是地面臭氧问题，策略都是通过创建公共资源伦理来保护环境和我们的健康与福祉。”
城市噪音对健康的影响可能非常显著。我发现关于这个主题最好的文章之一是由Robert Earle Howells撰写并发布在奥普拉·温弗瑞网站上的。请耐心听我引用Howells的另一段长引文，因为它很重要：
“鉴于现代世界的普遍喧嚣，我们其他人可能倾向于合理化噪音——将其视为我们可以习惯的东西。但研究表明这是一种冒险的方法。我们潜意识中将噪音处理为危险信号，触发我们交感神经系统的战斗或逃跑反应。因此，即使我们设法忽略它或在其中睡觉，噪音也会隐性地起作用，提高我们的血压和心率，并导致激素变化，可能产生深远后果，包括焦虑、压力、紧张、恶心、头痛、性功能障碍、情绪波动和神经症。”
“环境噪音也与耳鸣（一种可能导致失眠的慢性耳鸣）、易怒和抑郁有关。噪音甚至与心血管疾病的轻微增加有关。”
声音策略
那么，该怎么办？在标题生动的“我们生活中的声音糟透了！如何通过结束噪音祸害让城市更好”中，Salon的Henry Grabar建议城市采用“声音策略”，在公共领域中增加和减少声音，以达到一种工程化的声音平衡，使好的声音多于坏的声音。
尽管我对增加部分持怀疑态度，但毫无疑问，我们确实有一些被认为是积极且几乎普遍欣赏的声音：想想某些喷泉，或春天早晨的鸣鸟；脚下的树叶沙沙声或风铃的叮当声。我记得几十年前的一个晚上，一位艺术朋友带我去参观下曼哈顿一位声音艺术家的工作室。他正在制作一个非常微妙、低音量的声音装置，这些声音将从隐藏在公共景观中的小扬声器中发出。路人可能只在声音停止时注意到它，因为它被编程为定期停止。整个声音体验将只在记忆中体验。那种东西会有帮助吗？
当然，我们感知为“安静”的地方很少是字面上无声的。在Howells在温弗瑞网站上的文章中，他描述了华盛顿州奥林匹克国家公园的霍河雨林，它“感觉未受外界力量影响”。尽管Howell将霍河描述为典型的安静，但他听到了“十几种落水声，六种不同的树叶沙沙声”。我想这就是关键：雨林可能远非寂静，但如果声音是自然的，我们不太可能被冒犯。但在城市中找到或创造“自然”声音现实吗？假设一个人不在被自然包围的城市公园里。
我不会完全否定用愉快、看似自然的声音掩盖不愉快声音的城市想法，但我想我可能更喜欢一个更安静的城市想法。我只是没有太多实用的想法来实现它，除了更好的、更安静的车辆——包括更安静的交通工具；更多法规要求更安静的建筑设备；更多对消费电器如吹叶机的监管，假设没有政治意愿完全禁止它们（我更喜欢）；以及对其他一切操作时间的仔细限制。这当然已经是不现实的；交通机构已经没钱了，肯定不会有足够的资金在短期内显著降低音量。
综合方法
幸运的是，考虑到我自己在这个领域的局限性，其他人一直在全面思考这些问题。2004年，当时的伦敦市长肯·利文斯通发布了一份320页（含附录和索引）的手册，名为《更健全的城市：市长环境噪音策略》。我没有时间全部阅读（！），但我浏览了足够多，喜欢我看到的许多内容，从简单的策略如种植吸音树到更复杂的策略如车辆监管和社区设计。手册中解决的不需要声音的主要类别包括道路交通；铁路噪音；飞机噪音；工业噪音；和“邻居噪音”。
我对“声音意识城市设计”部分和“综合噪音管理”结尾章节特别感兴趣。例如，城市设计部分包括以下段落：
“封闭和更开放布局之间的优势平衡将取决于不同噪音源的相对贡献。在嘈杂区域，‘庭院’区域内的声学吸收通常应最大化，尤其是通过密集植被和软地面。屋顶种植在较低层屋顶上可能有用。在更安静的空间，声音反射可以帮助人们感知自己的位置。铺装设计应考虑噪音，不仅来自道路车辆，还有手推车，特别是卧室上方或附近的脚步声。”
我特别喜欢庭院，并喜欢使用自然作为降噪策略。该部分还包括关于建筑高度、建筑“安静面”意识、窗户设计、车辆通道和停车以及维护和清洁（“例如，耙、扫和本地堆肥，而不是吹叶和运走”）的建议，以及其他主题。
我主要喜欢城市可以而且应该像考虑其他污染物一样考虑噪音的想法：作为对我们福祉有害的东西，值得一个复杂和全面的策略。在某些方面，这实际上是一种相对较新的思维方式似乎很奇怪，正如伦敦手册的综合噪音管理部分所承认的：
“与其他污染物相比，它几乎在我们所有城市区域普遍存在，正日益侵蚀农村‘宁静’区域，并逐渐侵蚀夜间安静期。尽管如此，噪音控制从未像空气质量或废物处理那样受到总体政策或立法框架的约束。这种忽视可能部分解释为噪音对普通人群的影响在历史上容易被忽视。此外，噪音的性质以及人们对它的反应，不容易适应其他污染物可用的机械方法。”
尽管我怀疑伦敦仍然和以往一样嘈杂，但我赞扬利文斯通承担了这个主题。
其他城市应该效仿。城市噪音污染难以理解和解决的事实并不意味着它不重要。我们需要城市更好地工作并尽可能成功，以确保人类和地球更可持续的未来。我们需要人们喜欢居住的那种城市，当你的耳朵受到攻击时，很难对“城市生活”产生爱。
考虑到这一点，我留给你范·莫里森先生，O.B.E.，和他美妙的1990年歌曲“这里如此安静”的视频：
文章概要
本文探讨了城市噪音污染对健康的隐形威胁，以华盛顿特区为例，描述了建筑噪音、交通噪音、吹叶机等日常噪音源对居民的影响。文章引用研究指出，地铁等交通噪音可能超过安全水平，导致听力损失和健康问题，如焦虑、压力、心血管疾病等。作者讨论了噪音污染作为公共资源问题，呼吁城市采取综合策略，如声音意识城市设计、自然降噪和法规监管，以实现更安静的城市环境，提升居民福祉。
高德明老师的评价
用12岁初中生可以听懂的语音来重复翻译的内容
这篇文章讲的是城市里有很多噪音，比如建筑工地的电钻声、汽车的喇叭声、吹叶机的声音，这些噪音听起来很吵，可能会让我们的耳朵不舒服，甚至影响健康。作者说，噪音就像一种看不见的污染，它让我们感到紧张和压力，就像听到危险信号一样。文章建议城市可以想办法减少噪音，比如种更多的树来吸收声音，或者制定规则让机器更安静，这样我们就能在城市里生活得更开心、更健康。
TA沟通分析心理学理论评价
从TA沟通分析心理学理论来看，这篇文章展现了成人自我状态在噪音管理中的挑战和潜力。作者通过理性分析城市噪音的来源和影响，体现了成人自我状态的功能，即收集信息、评估现实并做出决策。例如，作者引用科学研究数据，如噪音分贝水平和健康后果，这反映了成人自我状态对客观事实的依赖。同时，文章中对噪音的情感反应，如“开始影响到我了”，可能涉及儿童自我状态的情绪表达，而呼吁城市采取行动则体现了父母自我状态的关怀和保护倾向。在TA理论中，健康的成人自我状态能够协调父母和儿童自我状态，促进适应性行为。本文中，作者通过综合策略建议，如声音意识设计和法规监管，展示了成人自我状态在解决噪音问题中的主导作用，这有助于减少噪音引发的应激反应，促进个体和社区的福祉。噪音作为环境刺激，可能触发个体的不适应脚本，如焦虑或逃避行为，而通过成人自我状态的干预，可以改写这些脚本，培养更积极的应对方式。
在实践上可以应用的领域和可以解决人们的十个问题
在实践上，基于TA沟通分析心理学理论，城市噪音管理可以应用于多个领域，解决人们的以下十个问题：1. 减少焦虑和压力，通过降低噪音触发儿童自我状态的恐惧反应。2. 改善睡眠质量，避免噪音干扰休息时的放松状态。3. 增强专注力，帮助成人自我状态在安静环境中更有效地处理任务。4. 促进情绪稳定，减少噪音引起的情绪波动和易怒。5. 提升社交互动，在更安静公共空间中鼓励积极沟通。6. 支持心理健康，降低噪音相关的抑郁和神经症风险。7. 增强社区归属感，通过共同管理噪音资源培养合作精神。8. 改善身体健康，如降低血压和心血管疾病风险。9. 提高工作效率，在安静办公环境中提升成人自我状态的决策能力。10. 培养环境意识，通过噪音管理教育强化个体对公共资源的责任感。