Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Abstract

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 1977, 3 (3) 54; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1977.3.3.54
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Cook, D.I. and D.F. Van Haverbeke. 1976. Residential traffic noise control using three-shrub-barrier combinations, p. 112-116. In Shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Proc. Symp. Denver, Colo., Apr. 1976, Great Plains Agric. Council. Publ. 78, 218 p.

Noise is perhaps mankind’s most widespread social irritant, and also the most insiduous. Ever since the days when Julius Caesar banned chariots from the streets of Rome at night, man has attempted to control noise. Suburban noise, resulting from increased vehicular traffic has been a major concern of highway engineers and property owners who live adjacent to main thoroughfares. Researchers measuring sound levels at 48 locations in Buffalo, New York have found some suburban areas to be almost as noisy as downtown locations during the rush-hour. Individual attempts have often been made to control this noise, with some success, but the process has been rather haphazard, and more concerted efforts are needed. It has been known for many years that plant materials have some ability to absorb, and diffuse sound, thereby reducing noise levels; also solid barriers of earth concrete or wood are known to reduce noise transmission, when properly placed. Experiments by the authors in 1972, using combinations of belts of tall trees and earthen dykes or land firms, gave indications that the loudness of sounds could be reduced by half over distances from 45 to 140 meters when a barrier consisting of trees and land form was interposed between the noise source and receiver. More recently experiments in residential areas of the city in 1975 have shown that significant reductions are possible by the proper use of plant materials and barriers, and in many cases the devices used may be both attractive and relatively inexpensive.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. To reduce noise from suburban automobiles and light trucks to an acceptable level where the residence is at least 25 meters from the centerline of the roadway, plant one or two continuous rows of dense shrubs as close to the curb as possible, and one or two continuous rows of dense trees behind the shrubs. One or both plantings should be of evergreens for year-round protection.

  2. Where immediate relief from traffic noise is desired, erect an earthen dike, masonry wall, or solid wooden fence. The height should be sufficient to screen the noise source from view at the location to be protected. Landscaping should be included to provide additional protection, when the trees become larger, and to decrease the reflection from the hard wall surface back across the street.

  3. Where the residence is less than about 20 meters from the centerline of the roadway, both trees and a solid barrier are necessary, as in recommendations 1 and 2.

  • © 1977, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 3, Issue 3
March 1977
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abstract
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1977, 3 (3) 54; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1977.3.3.54

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1977, 3 (3) 54; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1977.3.3.54
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire