Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2006) 120: 499–525

DOI: 10.1007/s10661-005-9077-5 
c Springer 2006

EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN

AHMAD JAMRAH1,∗ , ABBAS AL-OMARI2 and REEM SHARABI1

1
Department of Civil Engineering and 2 Water and Environment Research and Study Center,
University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mails: jamrah@ju.edu.jo; jamrah@squ.edu.om)

(Received 22 July 2005; accepted 7 October 2005)

Abstract. The City of Amman, Jordan, has been subjected to persistent increase in road traffic due to
overall increase in prosperity, fast development and expansion of economy, travel and tourism. This
study investigates traffic noise pollution in Amman. Road traffic noise index L 10 (1 h) was measured
at 28 locations that cover most of the City of Amman. Noise measurements were carried out at these
28 locations two times a day for a period of one hour during the early morning and early evening
rush hours, in the presence and absence of a barrier. The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)
prediction model was employed to predict noise levels at the locations chosen for the study. Data
required for the model include traffic volume, speed, percentage of heavy vehicles, road surface,
gradient, obstructions, distance, noise path, intervening ground, effect of shielding, and angle of view.
The results of the investigation showed that the minimum and the maximum noise levels are 46 dB(A)
and 81 dB(A) during day-time and 58 dB(A) and 71 dB(A) during night-time. The measured noise
level exceeded the 62 dB(A) acceptable limit at most of the locations. The CTRN prediction model
was successful in predicting noise levels at most of the locations chosen for this investigation, with
more accurate predictions for night-time measurements.

Keywords: noise pollution, road traffic noise, CRTN prediction model

Introduction

Noise pollution is a significant environmental problem in many urban areas. This

problem has not been properly recognized despite the fact that it is steadily growing
in developing countries (Barboza et al., 1995). Davis and Masten (2004) stated three
valid reasons as to why widespread recognition of noise pollution problem has not
materialized in a similar fashion as have air and water pollution problems. These
reasons are summarized in the definition and perception of noise as a subjective
experience, short decay time, and difficulty to associate cause with effect when it
comes to health impacts.
Existing evidence indicating that noise pollution may have negative impacts on
human health has justified research in order to provide better understanding of noise
pollution problems and control (Georgiadou et al., 2004). Noise pollution has been
stated as a serious health hazard (Bies and Hansen, 1996), with noise-related damage
to humans ranging from annoyance to insanity and death (Mato and Mufuruki,
1999). Maschke (1999) treated the impact of noise as a stress inductor, and stated
that induced stress by noise has a psychosocial component. Nelson (1987) reported
500 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

that long term exposure to high occupational noise can result in permanent hearing
loss. Additionally, commonly experienced noise effects may include annoyance,
deterioration of sleep quality, and stress-related ischaemic heart disease (NHC,
1997; Morrell et al., 1997).
Adverse effects due to exposure to noise may include interference with speech
communication and decreasing children’s learning skills (Mato and Mufuruki,
1999). More recently, attempts have been made to estimate health and economic im-
pacts due to noise pollution. Franssen et al. (2002) showed that significant portion
of hypertension is attributed to aircraft noise when they presented a comprehensive
approach for assessing health consequences in environmental impact assessment
due to the noise resulting from the operation of Schiphol airport in Amsterdam.
Moreover, there have been some attempts to financially quantify the cost of dam-
ages to residential areas and environment due to noise pollution (Levinson and
Gillen, 1997; Theebe, 2004).
Traffic is the dominating source of noise (Skanberg and Ohrstrom, 2002) and is
the major source of nuisance and annoyance as cited in social surveys (Pandya,
2003). Additionally, traffic noise has significant economical impacts on house
prices. Theebe (2004) reported that, in a rising market, the impacts of traffic noise
on house prices reached a maximum of 12 percent with an average of about 5 per-
cent. This has lead researchers in many countries to investigate and characterize
traffic noise pollution problems (Sommerhoff et al., 2004; Piccolo et al., 2004;
Georgiadou, 2004; Theebe, 2004; Abo-Qudais and Alhiary, 2004; Pandya, 2003;
Ramis et al., 2003; Bhadram, 2003; Zannin et al., 2001, 2002; Abdel-Raziq et al.,
2000; Zeid et al., 2000; Suksaard et al., 1999; Funk and Rabl, 1999; Stoilova and
Stoilov, 1998; Mateu and Vicente, 1997; Zheng, 1996).
The noise pollution situation in the Greater Municipality of Amman, Jordan,
is similar to that in many urban areas. Actual traffic noise data and information
in Amman are very scarce. Data collection and agglomeration is one of the im-
portant elements in the assessment and management of urban environmental noise
(Sommerhoff et al., 2004). Analysis of traffic noise generally constitutes an im-
portant component of any environmental impact assessment which is needed for
highway development and improvement (Bhattacharya et al., 2002). Additionally,
measurement and estimation of traffic noise are significant tasks that can lead to
the development of efficient methods of control (Geordiadou, 2004).
The city of Amman is a relatively large city with a population of about 2 mil-
lion. The city has been expanding continuously in all directions in the past two
decades. Many significant changes have been experienced in terms of urbanization,
industrialization, expansion of road network and infrastructure. The city has been
subjected to persistent increase in road traffic due to overall increase in prosperity,
fast development and expansion of economy, and travel and tourism.
Very few studies have been carried out to investigate and assess noise pollution
in the City of Amman. Abdelazeez and Hammad (1987) studied the traffic noise and
related annoyance in the City of Amman. Many recent changes in the demography
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 501

and urban boundaries of the city have taken place; and consequently, further in-
vestigation of this phenomenon is needed. Abo-Qudais and Alhiary (2004) studied
the effect of distance from road intersection on developed traffic noise levels. Pre-
diction of noise pollution along with community response to such noise need to be
emphasized to render such investigation significant for city planning.
Data on the growth in the national vehicle registration between the years 1970
and 1997 shows that the number of vehicles in Jordan has increased from about
20,000 to approximately 310,000 in that 27 year-period (JAPS, 1997). This indicates
that the number of vehicles nationwide has increased by more than fifteen folds,
which constitutes an average annual increase of about 53%. Between the years
1997 and 2005, the national vehicle registration jumped from 310,000 to 575,000
(JEWS, 2005) which represents an average annual increase of about 11%. These
experienced percentages of annual increase are much higher than the reported
percentages of annual increase of vehicle ownership in most of the European and
Asian countries for the same period (Dargay and Gately, 1999; Pandya, 2003).
Abdelazeez and Hammad (1987) reported that the vehicles operating in the City of
Amman constitute about 82.7% of the total number of vehicles operating in Jordan.
This indicates that problems associated with traffic noise are expected to be more
significant.
Figures 1 and 2 show; respectively, the distribution of vehicle registration in
Jordan and in the city of Amman for the year 1997. The figures show that the
percentage of registered vehicles; excluding passenger cars, in both Jordan and
Amman is 32.5% and 27.5%; respectively. This is somewhat comparable to the
percentages reported for many of the European and Asian countries (Dargay and
Gately, 1999; Pandya, 2003; Piccolo et al., 2004). This high percentage of heavy
vehicles along with the continuously increasing rate of growth in vehicle ownership

Figure 1. Distribution of vehicle registration in Jordan for the year 1997 (JAPS, 1997).
502 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

Figure 2. Distribution of vehicle registration in the City of Amman for the year 1997 (JAPS, 1997).

Figure 3. Car ownership per 1000 inhabitants in various countries; including Jordan and the City of
Amman (Dargay and Gately, 1999; JAPS, 1997; JEWS, 2005).

in Amman indicates that the noise pollution problem is expected to exacerbate.

Accordingly, data collection and investigation of noise pollution in the City of
Amman and on the national level is justified and should receive significant attention.
Figure 3 summarizes the car ownership levels (defined as the number of cars per
1000 inhabitants) in various countries; including Jordan and the city of Amman. It
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 503

should be noted that historical data regarding car ownership between the years 1970
and 1992 in various countries around the world revealed that the average annual
growth rate in car ownership is almost constant and less than 2.0% for the majority
of developed countries such as The United States, Great Britain, Austria, France,
Germany, Finland, Spain, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and Australia
(Dargay and Gately, 1999). Less developed countries showed a much higher average
annual growth rate in car ownership. This trend in average growth rate was also
observed for heavy vehicles in both developed and developing countries. This
indicates that problems associated with traffic noise pollution are expected to worsen
in developing countries such as Jordan.

Objectives and Methodology

The importance of road traffic noise (RTN) stems from the fact that it constitutes
the major source of urban noise pollution. Aside from environmental and health
impacts, predictions and measurements of road traffic noise levels are essential for
roadway planning, residential entitlement for sound insulation, and for the control of
noise. Additionally, traffic noise monitoring and prediction can be used to estimate
the traffic intensity and the queue lengths of vehicles (Stoilova and Stoilov, 1998).
Authorities in Jordan are increasingly aware of the effects of road traffic noise
(RTN) in urban areas. However, it is not a common practice for planners to consider
road traffic noise in their studies in Jordan. Moreover, roads are being built through
residential areas to relieve congestion without paying attention to the main effects
of road traffic noise on residents. These facts justify this investigation. In addition,
the response of the community to this growing problem needs to be addressed.
The primary objectives of this investigation are (1) to evaluate the environmental
noise pollution in the Greater Municipality of Amman due to traffic noise, (2)
to assess and rate noise exposure in the different urban zones of the city, (3) to
predict the traffic noise levels in the city by the use of Calculation of Road Traffic
Noise (CRTN) prediction model, starting from the knowledge of traffic flow and
composition, and (4) to compare measured and predicted noise levels in the city in
order to examine the applicability of the mathematical model.
Noise is measured by a sound level meter; which is an instrument which re-
sponds to sound in approximately the same way as the human ear and which gives
reproducible measurements of sound level (Mato and Mufuruki, 1999). The equiv-
alent continuous equal energy level (L eq ) is applied to fluctuating noise level. The
L eq is defined as the constant noise level that expends the same amount of energy as
the fluctuating level over the same time period (Davis and Masten, 2004). The time
period over which L eq is defined has to be relatively long (1, 8, 12 or 24 h), and the
L eq is measured for traffic noise along with the statistical levels L 10 , L 50 , and L 90
which are the noise levels exceeded 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time; respectively
(Georgiadou et al., 2004). O’Cinneide (1997) stated that L 10 provides an indication
504 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

of the upper end of the level range; while L 90 constitutes the background level in
the absence of nearby noise sources.
The general practice in Amman is to use the same L 10 (18 h) descriptor as used
in the United Kingdom, or the L eq used in United States. This is due to the fact
that there is not any international agreement on the index which should be used to
determine road traffic noise. The assigned noise index can result in a reasonable
outcome if it correlates well with dissatisfaction, and if it contains accurate set of
design rules for predicting the index (Salter and Hothersal, 1977).
A Reten Electronic RS103 sound level meter with an A-filter and a sound level
calibrator was used to measure noise level throughout this investigation, and the
noise was given as dB(A). Road traffic noise was measured at 28 locations in the
City of Amman. These locations were selected because they represent residential
areas that cover most of the City of Amman, in addition to the fact that these
locations suffer from a persisting traffic noise problem. The locations chosen for
the study are listed in Table I and shown on the map of the City of Amman illustrated
in Figure 4.
The noise meter was held in the arms about 1.5 m above the ground. The sound
index that was measured is the L 10 (1 h). Noise level readings were taken twice a day;
from 07:00 to 08:00 during the early morning rush hour and from 07:00 to 08:00
during the early evening rush hour. It should be noted that noise measurements
took place during a week day in the summer where streets were dry, and that all
measurements took place at the same time. Due to the residential nature of the

TABLE I
Locations chosen for the noise level measurements in the City of Amman (See Figure 4)

Designated Designated
number Location number Location

1. Interior Roundabout 15. Sweileh Roundabout

2. First Circle 16. University Street
3. Second Circle 17. Sports City Roundabout
4. Third Circle 18. Safeway-Gardens Junction
5. Fourth Circle 19. Gardens Street
6. Fifth Circle 20. Al-Abdali
7. Sixth Circle 21. Jabal Al-Hussein
8. Seventh Circle 22. Jordan (Al-Urdon) Street
9. Eighth Circle 23. Al-Mahata Street
10. Airport Highway 24. South Buses Terminal
11. Abdoun 25. Ras El-Ein
12. Abdoun Roundabout 26. King Hussein Street
13. Sweifeyah 27. Raghdan Buses Terminal
14. Al-Sina’a Street 28. Al-Istiqlal Street
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 505

Figure 4. Overview of the City of Amman showing the locations of noise measurements throughout
this study (Courtesy; Web Site of His Majesty King Hussein, www.kinghussein.gov.jo).

locations chosen for this investigation; noise level measurements were carried out
twice at each location; once in the presence of an existing sound barrier and once
in the absence of a sound barrier.
The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) prediction model (Kuglar et al.,
1976) was employed to predict noise levels at the 28 locations chosen for the study.
This method of road traffic noise prediction allows the calculation of L 10 (1 h), which
is based on observation of the noise of freely flowing traffic along with data col-
lection. The input data for the prediction method were collected from the different
locations of the study. These data include traffic volume and vehicle registration,
speed, road surface, road gradient, road obstructions, distance, noise path, inter-
vening ground, effects of shielding whether man made or natural, and the angle
of view. The vehicle registrations include cars, jeeps, and 4 wheel-drives, taxis,
service vehicles, pick-ups and vans, mini-buses, buses, light good vehicles (LGV),
medium good vehicles (MGV) and heavy good vehicles (HGV).
The CRTN prediction method was first applied to estimate the basic noise level
L 10 (1 h) from the traffic flow assuming no heavy vehicles, zero gradient, measured
mean speed, conventional road surface, and 7-m distance from center of the road.
This was followed by application of correction factors through a series of manual
506 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

steps and calculations using simple nomograms. Corrections were applied for speed
and percentages of heavy vehicles. Road gradient was taken at 3% throughout
Amman, except for Omar Matar Street and King Hussein Street where the gradi-
ents were taken at 7% and 5%, respectively. Road surface throughout Amman was
assumed to be impervious, and hard ground was assumed between the source and re-
ceiver to account for ground absorption. No correction was applied for obstruction of
sound propagation path, and a view angle of 10◦ was assumed throughout Amman,
except for Omar Matar Street where 18◦ was assumed. Finally, to account for reflec-
tions, it was assumed that the sound level was measured at a distance of 1 m from a
façade and that no substantial reflection surface exists on the far side of the traffic
flow. Traffic noise prediction was carried at the 28 locations of the study using the
CTRN method and the measured as well as assumed conditions. Predicted noise lev-
els were then compared to measured noise levels during the day-time and night-time.

Results and Discussion

Results of background noise level (L 90 ), the statistical noise level L 10 (1 h), and
traffic noise index (TNI) in the presence and absence of barriers at the 28 locations
selected for the study in Amman are givin in Tables II and III for day and night,
respectively. It should be noted that the background noise level corresponds to noise
level in the absence of nearby noise sources, while the statistical noise level L 10
corresponds to the upper end of the noise level range (Georgiadou et al., 2004).
The traffic noise index (TNI) is a method used to estimate annoyance responses
due to traffic noise, which is computed using the following formula (Langdon and
Scholes, 1968):

TNI = 4 × (L 10 − L 90 ) + (L 90 − 30)

Investigation of Table II shows that the day-time statistical noise level L 10 through-
out Amman has an average of 69 dB(A) and ranges between 46 and 81 dB(A) in the
streets. These levels are somehow less in the presence of a barrier, and have an aver-
age of 58 dB(A) and range between 45 and 76 dB(A). These noise levels are similar
to those reported for other cities around the world in Italy, Brazil, Greece and India
(Piccolo et al., 2004; Zannin et al., 2002; Georgiadou et al., 2004; Pandya, 2003).
Additionally, these noise levels are higher than those reported by Abdelazeez and
Hammad (1987) for many of the locations chosen for the study in the city of Am-
man. It should be noted that these noise levels are mostly considered unacceptable,
resulting in the fact that voice must be raised to be understood, and are intolerable
for phone use even behind a barrier similar to office setting. The traffic noise index
(TNI) shown in Tables II and III indicates that the locations of Al-Mahata Street
and Abdoun Mall have the highest and lowest annoyance responses due to traffic
noise, respectively. These locations experience TNI of 114 and 19 in the absence
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 507

TABLE II
Measured day-time background noise level (L 90 ), statistical noise level L 10 (l hr), and traffic noise index
(TNI) with and without barrier at 28 locations in the City of Amman

W/O Barrier W/Barrier

No. Location Time L 90 L 10 TNI L 10 TNI

1 Ministry of Interior Roundabout 7:30–8:30 55 67 73 56 29

2 1st Circle 7:30–8:30 56 66 66 57 30
3 2nd Circle 7:30–8:30 56 66 66 60 42
4 3rd Circle 7:30–8:30 56 68 74 56 26
5 4th Circle 7:30–8:30 50 65 80 55 40
6 5th Circle 7:30–8:30 53 66 75 55 31
7 6th Circle 7:30–8:30 52 62 62 53 26
8 7th Circle 7:30–8:30 54 65 68 55 28
9 8th Circle 7:30–8:30 55 64 61 56 29
10 Airport Street 7:30–8:30 55 69 81 45 –
11 Abdoun Mall 7:30–8:30 45 46 19 45 15
12 Abdoun Roundabout 7:30–8:30 45 53 47 51 39
13 Sweifeyah 10:00–11:00 50 61 64 48 12
14 Al-Sina’a Street 7:30–8:30 55 68 77 59 41
15 Sweileh Roundabout 7:30–8:30 60 78 102 69 66
16 Al-Jam’a Street 7:30–8:30 60 76 94 64 46
17 Sports City Roundabout 7:30–8:30 60 70 70 66 54
18 Safew Ay-Gardens Inter- Junction 7:30–8:30 56 73 94 67 70
19 Gardens Street 7:30–8:30 57 73 91 58 31
20 Al-Abdali 7:30–8:30 57 70 79 60 39
21 Jabalal-Hussein 10:00–11:00 56 72 90 56 26
22 Al-Urdon Street 7:30–8:30 54 73 100 64 64
23 Al-Mahata Street 7:30–8:30 60 81 114 76 94
24 South Buses Terminal 7:30–8:30 54 70 88 – –
25 Gam (Omarmatar ST.) 7:30–8:30 55 67 73 60 45
26 Al-Malek Hussein ST. 7:30–8:30 62 77 92 65 44
27 Raghdan Buses Terminal 7:30–8:30 60 80 110 – –
28 Al-Istiklal Street 7:30–8:30 58 78 108 61 40
Minimum 45 46 19 45 12
Maximum 62 81 114 76 94
Average 55 69 79 58 40
Standard deviation 4.1 7.7 20.3 7.2 18.2

of a barrier, and 94 and 15 in the presence of a barrier. The table also shows that
Sweifeyah enjoys a very low TNI in the presence of a noise barrier. It should be
noted that a TNI of 74 dB(A) has been reported to be associated with less than 3%
annoyance in social surveys.
508 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

TABLE III
Measured night-time background noise level (L 90 ), statistical noise level L 10 (l hr), and traffic noise
index (TNI) with and without barrier at 28 locations in the City of Amman

w/o Barrier w/Barrier

No. Location Time L 90 L 10 TNI L 10 TNI

1 Ministry of Interior Roundabout 7:00–8:00 53 65 71 55 31

2 1st Circle 7:00–8:00 53 61 55 56 35
3 2nd Circle 7:00–8:00 52 60 54 51 18
4 3rd Circle 7:00–8:00 54 65 68 52 16
5 4th Circle 7:00–8:00 49 65 83 55 43
6 5th Circle 7:00–8:00 56 61 46 52 10
7 6th Circle 7:00–8:00 52 59 50 55 34
8 7th Circle 7:00–8:00 53 58 43 56 35
9 8th Circle 7:00–8:00 58 69 72 53 8
10 Airport Street 7:00–8:00 52 65 74 43 –
11 Abdoun Mall 7:00–8:00 50 58 52 53 32
12 Abdoun Roundabout 7:00–8:00 45 60 75 56 59
13 Sweifeyah 7:00–8:00 54 67 76 48 0
14 Al-Sinaa Street 7:00–8:00 50 63 72 57 48
15 Sweileh Roundabout 7:00–8:00 56 66 66 57 30
16 Al-Jam’a Street 7:00–8:00 57 62 47 57 27
17 Sports City Roundabout 7:00–8:00 57 67 67 59 35
18 Safew Ay-gardens Inter- junction 7:00–8:00 55 70 85 65 65
19 Gardens Street 7:00–8:00 55 69 81 57 33
20 Al-Abdali 7:00–8:00 50 62 68 56 44
21 Jabalal-Hussein 7:00–8:00 54 66 72 56 32
22 Al-Urdon Street 7:00–8:00 53 68 83 57 39
23 Al-Mahata Street 7:00–8:00 56 71 86 66 66
24 South Buses Terminal 7:00–8:00 50 68 92 60 60
25 Gam (Omarmatar ST.) 7:00–8:00 54 63 60 58 40
26 Al-Malek Hussein ST. 7:00-8:00 52 64 70 55 34
27 Raghdan Buses Terminal 7:00–8:00 55 69 81 – –
28 Al-Istiklal Street 7:00–8:00 57 70 79 57 27
Minimum 45 58 43 43 0
Maximum 58 71 92 66 66
Average 53 65 69 56 35
Standard deviation 2.9 3.9 13.4 4.5 16.5

Noise levels reported in Table III show that the night-time statistical noise level
L 10 throughout Amman has an average of 65 dB(A) and ranges between 58 and
71 dB(A) in the streets. These levels are somehow less in the presence of a barrier,
and have an average of 56 dB(A) and range between 43 and 66 dB(A). These
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 509

night-time noise levels are very comparable to those reported for the day-time
noise. Additionally, these noise levels are very much higher than the levels reported
for living rooms. The bedroom noise level of 25–30 dB(A) reported by Davis and
Masten (2004) has been exceeded in all locations of Amman even during the night-
time and behind the barrier, resulting in more possible sleep disturbance due to traffic
noise. It should be noted that the World Health Organization recommends a noise
level of less than 35 dB(A) based on the continuous equal energy concept for the
restorative process of sleep (Mufuruki, 1997). The traffic noise index (TNI) shown
in the table indicates that the locations of South Buses Terminal, Al-Mahata Street
have the highest annoyance due to traffic noise, while 7th Circle and Sweifeyah
have the lowest annoyance responses due to traffic noise.
The data presented in Tables II and III are further investigated in order to better
understand the relative importance of the day-time versus the night-time L 90 and
L 10 noise levels, and the effect of barriers on the day-time and the night-time L 90
and L 10 noise levels. Figures 5 and 6, respectively, show the measured day-time
and night-time statistical noise levels, L 10 (1 h), with and without barrier at the
28 locations in the City of Amman. The figures also reflect the fact that barriers
result in a consistent, but variable noise reduction. This noise reduction is generally
associated with the type and height of barrier present, as well as the distance from
the noise sources as will be investigated later. Figures 7, 8 and 9, respectively, show
comparisons of measured day-time and night-time statistical background noise
levels L 90 , day-time and night-time statistical noise levels L 10 (1 h) without barrier,
and day-time and night-time statistical noise levels L 10 (1 hr) with barrier at the 28
locations in the City of Amman. With very few exceptions, the figures show that the
night-time noise level is less than the day-time noise level. Figure 7 shows that some
locations in Amman such as the 5th Circle, 8th Circle, Abdoun Mall, and Suweifah
experience higher background noise level during the night than during the day.

Figure 5. Measured day-time statistical noise levels, L 10 (1 hr), with and without barrier at 28 locations
in the City of Amman.
510 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

Figure 6. Measured night-time statistical noise levels, L 10 (1 hr), with and without barrier at 28
locations in the City of Amman.

Figure 7. Comparison of measured day-time and night-time statistical background noise levels, L 90 ,
at 28 locations in the City of Amman.

Since background noise level corresponds to noise level in the absence of nearby
noise sources, it can then be argued that the background noise at these locations is
mainly due to the prevailing life-style in these areas of Amman where night-time
activities are more than those during day-time activities. Figure 8 shows that the
measured statistical noise level L 10 without a barrier during the night-time is more
than that during the day-time at locations such as 8th Circle, Abdoun Mall, Abdoun
Roundabout, and Sweifeyah. Figure 8 shows that the measured statistical noise level
L 10 without a barrier during the night-time is more than that during the day-time at
locations such as 8th Circle, Abdoun Mall, Abdoun Roundabout, and Sweifeyah.
Similar results are indicated by Figure 9 for the measured statistical noise level
L 10 with a barrier during the night-time is more than that during the day-time at
locations such as 6th Circle, 7th Circle, Abdoun Mall, and Abdoun Roundabout.
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 511

Figure 8. Comparison of measured day-time and night-time statistical noise levels, L 10 (1 hr), without
barrier at 28 locations in the City of Amman.

Figure 9. Comparison of measured day-time and night-time statistical noise levels, L 10 (1 hr), with
barrier at 28 locations in the City of Amman.

Further investigation in order to understand and compare the noise measurement

data presented in Tables II and III and Figures 5–8 and 9 is shown in Table IV. The
table shows a summary of statistical inference on the noise data collected throughout
the study showing the 90% confidence interval on the difference in means. The table
shows that the average day-time noise level in the absence of barrier is greater than
the average day-time noise level in the presence of barrier by 7.6–14.4 dB(A). The
table also shows that the average night-time noise level in the absence of barrier is
greater than the average night-time noise level in the presence of barrier by 7.1–
10.9 dB(A). Table IV also shows that in the absence of noise barriers, the average
day-time noise level is greater than the average night-time noise level by 1.3–6.8
512 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

TABLE IV
Summary of statistical inference on the noise data collected throughout the study showing the 90%
confidence interval on the difference in means

Degree of Lower Upper

Sample type Variable Size Mean Variance freedom t-value limit limit

Day-Time Noise w/Barrier 26 58 7.2 54 1.675 7.60 14.40

w/o Barrier 28 69 7.7
B.G. Level 28 55 4.1 40 1.684 0.29 5.71
w/Barrier 26 58 7.2
B.G. Level 28 55 4.1 42 1.683 11.23 16.77
w/o Barrier 28 69 7.7
Night-Time Noise w/Barrier 27 56 4.5 53 1.686 7.08 10.92
w/o Barrier 28 65 3.9
B.G. Level 28 53 2.9 46 1.688 1.27 4.73
w/Barrier 27 56 4.5
B.G. Level 28 53 2.9 52 1.686 10.45 13.55
w/o Barrier 28 65 3.9
Day-Night Noise B.G.Level Day 28 55 4.1 50 1.678 0.41 3.59
B.G. Level Night 28 53 2.9
w/Barrier Day 26 58 7.2 43 1.682 −0.79 4.79
w/Barrier Night 27 56 4.5
w/o Barrier Day 28 69 7.7 41 1.683 1.25 6.75
w/o Barrier Night 28 65 3.9
w/Barrier: with barrier.
w/o Barrier: without barrier.
B.G. Level: background level.

dB(A). Additionally, day-time and night-time noise levels are statistically similar
in the presence of noise barriers. These findings indicate that the employed noise
barriers throughout the locations of the study are effective in reducing noise, as will
be investigated further.
As stated earlier, the statistical noise level L 10 (1 h) represents the upper end of
the sound level range. Accordingly, measurement and reporting of L 10 to represent
traffic noise pollution would become more reasonable when the background sound
level is dominated by the sound of road traffic. For non-constant noise source, the
equivalent continuous sound level L eq is generally reported to represent the constant
noise level containing the same quantity of sound energy over a time period as the
actual varying noise level (Georgiadou et al., 2003). The equivalent continuous
noise level L eq is related to the statistical noise level L 10 by the following empirical
relationship (Nelson, 1987; Tang and Chu, 2001; Piccolo et al., 2004):

L 10 = L eq + 3.0 dB(A)
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 513

Figure 10. Relationship between measured day-time and night-time statistical background noise level
(L 90 ) and the calculated equivalent continuous noise level L eq without barrier in 28 locations in the
City of Amman.

Background noise level data L 90 reported in Tables II and III and equivalent continu-
ous noise level L eq calculated from the above equation were correlated to investigate
the presence of a relationship between the two types of noise data. Figure 10 presents
the relationship between measured day-time and night-time statistical background
noise level (L 90 ) and the calculated equivalent continuous noise level L eq without
barrier in 28 locations in the City of Amman. The figure indicates that the two noise
levels are linearly related according to the following relationship:

L 90 = 0.467 × L eq + 24.60

The prevailing coefficient of determination R 2 is 0.644. This coefficient indicates

that a high percentage of the equivalent continuous noise level L eq can be explained
by the variation in the background noise level data L 90 (Montgomery and Runger,
1999), indicating that the background noise level is dominated by the noise of road
traffic. Tang and Chu (2001) pointed out that the scattering of noise data reflect
the randomness of noise level fluctuations in the outdoor environment. In addition,
high scatter of noise data can be attributed to the sensitivity of L eq noise levels to
other sources of noise and short-duration noisy events.
Barriers can result in significant reduction in noise levels as can be seen from the
data presented in Tables II and III and Figures 5 and 6. This noise reduction due to
barriers is investigated further in Tables V and VI; which present the reduction in the
statistical noise level L 10 (1 hr) due to presence of barrier at the 28 locations in the
City of Amman during day-time and night-time, respectively. The noise reduction
presented in Tables V and VI was calculated using the following relationship (Garg,
1994):
 
20H 2
Noise Reduction = 10 × log
λR
This relationship was reported to be valid for any distance (D) farther from the
source than the barrier. In a mathematical form, D ≥R and R  H , where H refers
 TABLE V
Day-time reduction in the statistical noise level L 10 (1 hr) due to presence of barrier at 28 locations in the City of Amman 514

Day-Time Barrier

B.G. w/o Height Noise Theoretical

No. Location Time Level Barrier w/Barrier Type (m) R (m) reduction noise level

1 Ministry of Interior Roundabout 7:30–8:30 55 67 56 Concrete 3 10 13 54

2 1st Circle 7:30–8:30 56 66 57 Concrete 2.5 10 11 55
3 2nd Circle 7:30–8:30 56 66 60 Stone 3 12 12 54
4 3rd Circle 7:30–8:30 56 68 56 Stone 3 13 11 57
5 4th Circle 7:30–8:30 50 65 55 Concrete 3 14 11 54
6 5th Circle 7:30–8:30 53 66 55 Stone 2.5 8 12 54
7 6th Circle 7:30–8:30 52 62 53 Stone 3 14 11 51
8 7th Circle 7:30–8:30 54 65 55 Concrete 4 16 13 52
9 8th Circle 7:30–8:30 55 64 56 Stone 2 10 9 55
10 Airport Street 7:30–8:30 55 69 45 Stone 3 8 14 55
A. JAMRAH ET AL.

11 Abdoun Mall 7:30–8:30 45 46 45 Stone 3 7 14 32

12 Abdoun Roundabout 7:30–8:30 45 53 51 Concrete 3 8 14 39
13 Sweifeyah 10:00–11:00 50 61 48 Glass 3 7 14 47
14 Al-Sina’a Street 7:30–8:30 55 68 59 Stone 2 8 10 58
15 Sweileh Roundabout 7:30–8:30 60 78 69 Wood 2 7 11 67
16 Al-Jam’a Street 7:30–8:30 60 76 64 Trees 7 20 17 59
17 Sports City Roundabout 7:30–8:30 60 70 66 Steel 3 15 11 59
18 Safeway-Gardens Inter-Junction 7:30–8:30 56 73 67 Glass 2.5 12 10 63
19 Gardens Street 7:30–8:30 57 73 58 Stone 3 15 11 62
20 Al-Abdali 7:30–8:30 57 70 60 Glass 3 12 12 58
(Continued on next page)
 TABLE V
(Continued)

Day-Time Barrier

B.G. w/o Height Noise Theoretical

No. Location Time Level Barrier w/Barrier Type (m) R (m) reduction noise level

21 Jabal Al-Hussein 10:00–11:00 56 72 56 Glass 3 9 13 59

22 Al-Urdon Street 7:30–8:30 54 73 64 Concrete 3 8 14 59
23 Al-Mahata Street 7:30–8:30 60 81 76 Concrete 1.8 7 10 71
24 South Buses Terminal 7:30–8:30 54 70 – – – – – –
25 Gam (Omar Matar ST.) 7:30–8:30 55 67 60 Stone 3 15 14 53
26 Al-Malek Hussein ST. 7:30–8:30 62 77 65 Stone 2.5 14 10 67
27 Raghdan Buses Terminal 7:30–8:30 60 80 – – – – – –
28 Al-Istiklal Street 7:30–8:30 58 78 61 Concrete 4 9 16 62
R: distance between source and barrier.
EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN
515
 TABLE VI
Night-time reduction in the statistical noise level L 10 (1 hr) due to presence of barrier at 28 locations in the City of Amman 516

Night-Time Barrier

B.G. w/o Height Noise Theoretical

No. Location Time Level Barrier w/Barrier Type (m) R (m) reduction noise level

1 Ministry of Interior Roundabout 7:00–8:00 53 65 55 Concrete 3 10 13 52

2 1st Circle 7:00–8:00 53 61 56 Concrete 2.5 10 11 50
3 2nd Circle 7:00–8:00 52 60 51 Stone 3 12 12 48
4 3rd Circle 7:00–8:00 54 65 52 Stone 3 13 11 54
5 4th Circle 7:00–8:00 49 65 55 Concrete 3 14 11 54
6 5th Circle 7:00–8:00 56 61 52 Stone 2.5 8 12 49
7 6th Circle 7:00–8:00 52 59 55 Stone 3 14 11 48
8 7th Circle 7:00–8:00 53 58 56 Concrete 4 16 13 45
9 8th Circle 7:00–8:00 58 69 53 Stone 2 10 9 60
10 Airport Street 7:00–8:00 52 65 43 Stone 3 8 14 51
A. JAMRAH ET AL.

11 Abdoun Mall 7:00–8:00 50 58 53 Stone 3 7 14 44

12 Abdoun Roundabout 7:00–8:00 45 60 56 Concrete 3 8 14 46
13 Sweifeyah 7:00–8:00 54 67 48 Glass 3 7 14 53
14 Al-Sina’a Street 7:00-8:00 50 63 57 Stone 2 8 10 53
15 Sweileh Roundabout 7:00–8:00 56 66 57 Wood 2 7 11 55
16 Al-Jam’a Street 7:00-8:00 57 62 57 Trees 7 20 17 45
17 Sports City Roundabout 7:00–8:00 57 67 59 Steel 3 15 11 56
18 Safeway-Gardens Inter-Junction 7:00–8:00 55 70 65 Glass 2.5 12 10 60
19 Gardens Street 7:00–8:00 55 69 57 Stone 3 15 11 58
20 Al-Abdali 7:00-8:00 50 62 56 Glass 3 12 12 50
(Continued on next page)
 TABLE VI
(Continued)

Night-Time Barrier

B.G. w/o Height Noise Theoretical

No. Location Time Level Barrier w/Barrier Type (m) R (m) reduction noise level

21 Jabal Al-Hussein 7:00–8:00 54 66 56 Glass 3 9 13 53

22 Al-Urdon Street 7:00–8:00 53 68 57 Concrete 3 8 14 54
23 Al-Mahata Street 7:00–8:00 56 71 66 Concrete 1.8 7 10 61
24 South Buses Terminal 7:00–8:00 50 68 60 – – – – –
25 Gam (Omar Matar ST.) 7:00–8:00 54 63 58 Stone 3 15 14 49
26 Al-Malek Hussein ST. 7:00–8:00 52 64 55 Stone 2.5 14 10 54
27 Raghdan Buses Terminal 7:00–8:00 55 69 – – – – – –
28 Al-Istiklal Street 7:00–8:00 57 70 57 Concrete 4 9 16 54
EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN
517
518 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

to the height of the barrier, D refers to the distance between barrier and receiver, R
refers to the distance between source and barrier, and λ refers to the wave length of
sound. Garg (1994) reported that when noise reduction due to barriers is assessed,
substantial noise reductions are defined as those ranging from 5–10 dB(A). Noise
reductions calculated and presented in Tables V and VI for the day-time and night-
time indicate that significant reductions have been achieved due to the presence
of barriers, with a minimum noise reduction of 9 dB(A) at the 8th Circle, and a
maximum noise reduction of 17 dB(A) at University Street. The tables also present
values of the theoretical noise level, which are calculated as the difference between
the prevailing noise levels without barrier and the noise reduction due to the barrier.
This theoretical noise level was compared to the background noise level L 90 to
illustrate the effectiveness of barriers in reducing noise. Statistical inference on the
difference between means of background noise and theoretical noise levels resulted
in a 90% confidence interval of (−1.54, 5.54) dB(A) for day-time noise levels, and
(1.79, 6.21) dB(A) for night-time noise levels. This indicates that during day-time,
the barriers successfully counterbalanced the noise originating from sources other
than the background. On the other hand, the average night-time noise level in the
presence of barrier was greater than the average background noise by 1.79–6.21
dB(A), indicating that traffic noise constitutes a more noticeable problem during
night-time than during day-time.
Results of relevant traffic data are collected in order to assist in traffic noise
prediction using the CRTN method. Collected data is shown in Table VII, which
presents the average speed and distribution of vehicle registration at the 28 loca-
tions chosen for the study in the City of Amman. The data presented include traffic
volume, and the vehicle registrations include cars, jeeps, and 4 wheel-drives, taxis,
service vehicles, pick-ups and vans, mini-buses, buses, light good vehicles (LGV),
medium good vehicles (MGV) and heavy good vehicles (HGV). The vehicle reg-
istration data presented in Table VII are summarized in Figure 11. Investigation of
Table VII and Figure 11 shows that passenger vehicles (car, jeep, and 4 WD) con-
stitute the majority of vehicles at the 28 locations chosen for the study in Amman.
This follows a similar trend to that presented in Figures 1 and 2 which show the
distribution of vehicle registration for Amman and Jordan in the year 1997.
The CRTN prediction method along with the data presented in Table VII were
used to estimate the statistical noise level L 10 (1 h) for the 28 study locations in
Amman. Table VIII and Figure 12 both present a comparison of day-time and
night-time measured statistical noise levels with the predicted L 10 (1 hr) obtained
using the CRTN method at the 28 locations in the City of Amman. The results
presented indicate that the predicted noise levels for both day-time and night-time
are not significantly distant from the measured levels. This indicates that the CTRN
method can be applied to predict road traffic noise for the conditions of road and
traffic flow in Amman. The results presented in Figure 12 indicate that the CTRN
method was more reasonable in predicting night-time noise level than day-time
noise level. This can be attributed to the relatively higher day-time background
 TABLE VII
Average speed and distribution of vehicle registration at the 28 locations chosen for the study in the City of Amman

Speed Car, Jeep,

No. Location (km/hr) 4WD Taxis Service Pick-up/Van Mini-Bus Buses LGV MGV, HGV Total

1 Ministry of Interior Roundabout 58.07 1857 904 258 562 102 25 98 39 3845
2 1st Circle 43.20 765 574 122 233 14 25 43 3 1779
3 2nd Circle 45.72 1578 706 72 390 61 6 55 5 2873
4 3rd Circle 55.79 1706 530 112 215 13 23 40 2 2641
5 4th Circle 44.97 2347 747 31 577 34.5 51 94 31 4016
6 5th Circle 47.97 2166 690 29 532 128 47 87 28 3707
7 6th Circle 32.54 2613 840 26 581 143 47 90 32 4372
8 7th Circle 50.65 2761 752 34 601 165 52 98 49 4512
9 8th Circle 52.47 1870 588 40 538 208 41 99 22 3406
10 Airport Street 71.30 2613 228 15 868 193 43 313 204 4477
11 Abdoun Mall 48.71 589 150 – 116 13 1 19 7 895
12 Abdoun Roundabout 49.88 1402 255 11 271 27 4 43 27 2040
13 Sweifeyah 44.21 1528 909 – 321 31 – 15 3 2807
14 Al-Sina’a Street 50.10 689 130 5 300 16 8 102 40 1290
15 Sweileh Roundabout 47.65 1245 259 69 828 271 67 263 144 3146
16 Al-Jam’a Street 58.54 4193 1262 107 998 451 88 217 73 7389
17 Sports City Roundabout 52.52 3391 1038 85 916 319 61 208 93 6111
EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN

18 Safeway-Gardens Inter-Junction 47.89 2575 1126 107 612 57 24 141 32 4674

19 Gardens Street 52.24 2377 1039 99 565 53 22 130 30 4315
20 Al-Abdali 44.23 939 533 251 233 40 23 31 7 2057
(Continued on next page)
519
 520

TABLE VII
(Continued)

Speed Car, Jeep,

No. Location (km/hr) 4WD Taxis Service Pick-up/Van Mini-Bus Buses LGV MGV, HGV Total

21 Jabal Al-Hussein 49.60 1655 1078 386 397 64 9 63 7 3659

22 Al-Urdon Street 68.52 686 289 31 275 36 3 76 13 1409
23 Al-Mahata Street 46.52 752 405 112 384 71 21 105 27 1877
24 South Buses Terminal 50.21 1150 168 29 1211 349 25 625 498 4055
25 Gam (Omar Matar ST.) 48.55 253 131 126 108 20 – 16 8 662
A. JAMRAH ET AL.

26 Al-Malek Hussein ST. 41.80 995 528 335 314 179 32 20 7 2410
27 Raghdan Buses Terminal 63.20 4542 1368 116 1081 489 95 235 79 8005
28 Al-Istiklal Street 62.40 2368 896 172 822 157 29 149 78 4671
LGV: light good vehicles, MGV: medium good vehicles, and HGV: heavy good vehicles.
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 521

TABLE VIII
Comparison of day-time and night-time measured noise levels with the predicted statistical noise
level L 10 (1 hr) obtained using the CRTN method at 28 locations in the City of Amman

Noise Level, dB(A)

No. Location Day-Time Night-Time Predected

1 Ministry of Interior Roundabout 67 65 66

2 1st Circle 66 61 62
3 2nd Circle 66 60 63
4 3rd Circle 68 65 64
5 4th Circle 65 65 66
6 5th Circle 66 61 65
7 6th Circle 62 59 65
8 7th Circle 65 58 67
9 8th Circle 64 69 66
10 Airport Street 69 65 70
11 Abdoun Mall 46 58 59
12 Abdoun Roundabout 53 60 63
13 Sweifeyah 61 67 62
14 Al-Sina’a Street 68 63 63
15 Sweileh Roundabout 78 66 67
16 Al-Jam’a Street 76 62 70
17 Sports City Roundabout 70 67 68
18 Safeway-Gardens Inter-Junction 73 70 66
19 Gardens Street 73 69 66
20 Al-Abdali 70 62 62
21 Jabal Al-hussein 72 66 65
22 Al-Urdon Street 73 68 64
23 Al-Mahata Street 81 71 63
24 South Buses Terminal 70 68 70
25 Gam (Omar Matar ST.) 67 63 62
26 Al-Malek Hussein ST. 77 64 63
27 Raghdan Buses Terminal 80 69 70
28 Al-Istiklal Street 78 70 68
Minimum 46 58 59
Maximum 81 71 70
Average 69 65 65
Standard deviation 7.7 3.9 2.94

noise level which indicates higher noise day-time level in the absence of traffic
noise.
Statistical inference on the data presented in Table VIII to test the difference
between means of predicted noise level and measured day-time noise level resulted
522 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

Figure 11. Distribution of vehicle registration at the 28 locations chosen for the study in the City of
Amman.

Figure 12. Comparison of day-time and night-time measured statistical noise levels with the predicted
L 10 (1 hr) obtained using the CRTN method at 28 locations in the City of Amman.

in a 90% confidence interval of (1.37, 6.63) dB(A). Similarly, a 90% confidence

interval of (−1.56, 1.56) dB(A) was obtained for the difference between means
of predicted noise level and measured night-time noise level. This indicates that
the predicted and measured night-time noise levels are statistically similar, with a
possible mean error of up to 1.56 dB(A). This is consistent with the findings of Lang-
don and Griffiths (1981) who reported a prediction accuracy of the CTRN method
ranging from +1.4 dB(A) to −1.2 dB(A) for actual noise range of 50–85 dB(A).
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 523

Conclusions

This study was carried out to evaluate the environmental noise pollution in the city
of Amman due to traffic noise, to investigate the diurnal variations of traffic noise
levels in the city, to assess and rate noise exposure in the different urban zones of
the city, to predict traffic noise levels in the city using the CTRN method starting
from the knowledge of traffic flow and composition.
The study concluded that the day-time statistical noise level L 10 throughout
Amman has an average of 69 dB(A) and ranges between 46 and 81 dB(A) in the
streets. These levels are somehow less in the presence of a barrier, and have an
average of 58 dB(A) and range between 45 and 76 dB(A). These noise levels are
similar to those reported for other cities around the world.
The night-time statistical noise level L 10 throughout Amman has an average
of 65 dB(A) and ranges between 58 and 71 dB(A) in the streets. These levels are
somehow less in the presence of a barrier, and have an average of 56 dB(A) and
range between 43 and 66 dB(A). These night-time noise levels are very comparable
to those reported for the day-time noise. Additionally, these noise levels are very
much higher than the levels reported for living rooms and bedrooms even during
the night-time and behind the barrier, resulting in more possible sleep disturbance
due to traffic noise.
Noise reductions for the day-time and night-time indicate that significant reduc-
tions have been achieved due to the presence of barriers, with a minimum noise
reduction of 9 dB(A) at the 8th Circle, and a maximum noise reduction of 17 dB(A)
at University Street. During day-time, the barriers successfully counterbalanced
the noise originating from sources other than the background. The average night-
time noise level in the presence of barrier was greater than the average background
noise by 1.79–6.21 dB(A), indicating that traffic noise constitutes a more noticeable
problem during night-time than during day-time.
The study concluded that the CTRN method can be applied to predict road traffic
noise for the conditions of road and traffic flow in Amman. The CTRN method was
more reasonable in predicting night-time noise level than day-time noise level. This
can be attributed to the relatively higher day-time background noise level which
indicates higher noise day-time level in the absence of traffic noise.

References

Abdel-Raziq, I. R., Zeid, Q. and She, M.: 2000, ‘Noise measurements in the county of Nablus in
Palestine’, Acoustica 86, 578–580.
Abdelazeez, M. K. and Hammad, R. N. S.: 1987, ‘Traffic noise in Amman and measurement of the
related annoyance’, Dirasat 56, 123–134.
Abo-Qudais, S. and Alhiary, A.: 2004, ‘Effect of distance from road intersection on developed traffic
noise levels’, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 31(4), 533–538.
524 A. JAMRAH ET AL.

Barboza, M. J., Carpenter, S. P. and Roche, L. E.: 1995, ‘Prediction of traffic noise: A screening
technique’, Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 45, 703–708.
Bhadram, V. K.: 2003, ‘Noise pollution status in Visakhapatnam city’, Nature Env Polln Techno 2(2),
217–219.
Bhattacharya, C. C., Jain, S. S. and Parida, M.: 2002, ‘R&D efforts in prediction of highway traffic
noise’, J Inst Engrs India (Environ Engng Div) 38, 7–13.
Bies, D. A. and Hansen, C. H.: 1996, Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., E
and FN SPON, London.
Dargay, J. and Gately, D.: 1999, ‘Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960–
2015’, Transportation Research Part A33, 101–138.
Davis, M. L. and Masten, S. J.: 2004, Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science, McGraw-
Hill.
Funk, K. and Rabl, A.: 1999, ‘Electric versus conventional vehicles: Social costs and benefits in
France’, Transportation Research Part D (4), 397–411.
Franssen, E. A., Staatsen, B. A. and Lebret, E.: 2002, ‘Assessing health consequences in an envi-
ronmental impact assessment: The case of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol’, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 22, 633–653.
Garg, S. K.: 1994, Sewage Disposal and Air Pollution Engineering, in Environmental Engineering,
Vol. 2, 9th ed. McGraw-Hill.
Georgiadou, E., Kourtidis, K. and Ziomas, I.: 2004, ‘Exploratory traffic noise measurements at five
main streets of Thessaloniki, Greece’, Global NestI International Journal 6(1), 53–61.
JAPS, Jordan Administrative of Public Security: 1997, Achievements and activities.
JEWS, Jordan Environment and Wildlife Society: 2005, Released Press.
Kugler, B. A., Commins, D. E. and Galloway, W. J.: 1976, Highway Noise, A Design Guide for
prediction and Control. NCHRP Report 174.
Langdon, F. J. and Griffiths, I. D.: 1981, ‘Subjective effects of traffic noise exposure’, Journal of
Sound and Vibration.
Langdon, F. J. and Scholes, W. E.: 1968, ‘The traffic noise index: A method of controlling noise
nuisance’, Building Research Current Papers 38168, 2–3.
Levinson, D. and Gillen, D.: 1997, ‘The full cost of intercity highway transportation’, Transportation
Research Part D4 (3), 207–223.
Maschke, C. P.: 1999, ‘Preventive medical limits for chronic traffic noise exposure’, Acoustica 85,
448.
Mateu, G. and Vicente, J.: 1997, Statistical Analysis of Noise Level Measurements Carried Out During
24 Hours in Spanish Urban Areas. PhD Thesis, UMI Company.
Mato, R. R. and Mufuruki, T. S.: 1999, ‘Noise pollution associated with the operation of the Dar es
Salaam International Airport’, Transportation Research Part D, 81–89.
Montgomery, D. C. and Runger, G. C.: 1999, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 2th
ed., John Wiley and Sons.
Morrell, S., Taylor, R. and Lyle, D.: 1997, ‘A review of health effects of aircraft noise’, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21, 221–236.
Mufuruki, T. S.: 1997, Environmental impacts arising from the operation of Dar es Salaam Inter-
national Airport, Advanced Diploma Project, Environmental Engineering Dept., UCLAS Dar es
Salaam.
Nelson, P. M.: 1987, Transportation Noise Reference Book (ed.) Buttrworth & Co., London.
NHC, Netherlands Health Council: 1997, Committee on a Uniform Environmental Noise Exposure
Metric, 1995: Assessing Noise Exposure for Public Health Purposes, Report 1997/23E.
O’Cinneide, D.: 1997, ‘Noise pollution, in: Kiely G. (ed.), Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill.
Panadya, G. H.: 2003, ‘Assessment of traffic noise and its impact on the community’, International
Journal of Environmental Studies 60(6), 595–602.
 EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE POLLUTION IN AMMAN, JORDAN 525

Piccolo, A., Plutino, D. and Cannistraro: 2004, ‘Evaluation and analysis of the environmental noise
of Messina, Italy’, Applied Acoustics.
Ramis, J., Alba, J., Garcia, D. and Hernandez, F.: 2003, ‘Noise effects of reducing traffic flow through
a Spanish city’, Applied Acoustics 64, 343–364.
Salter, R. J. and Hothersal, D. C.: 1977, Transport and Environment, Granada Publishing limited,
London.
Skanberg, A. and Ohrstrom, E.: 2002, ‘Adverse health effects in relation to urban residential sound-
scapes’, Journal of Sound and Vibration 250(1), 151–155.
Sommerhoff, J., Recuero, M. and Suarez, E.: 2004, ‘Community noise survey of the city of Valdivia,
Chile’, Applied Acoustics 65: 643–656.
Stoilova, K. and Stoilov, T.: 1998, ‘Traffic noise and traffic light control’, Transportation Research
Part D (6), 399–417.
Suksaard, T., Sukasem, P., Tabucanon, S.M., Aoi, I., Shirai, K. and Tanaka, H.: 1999, ‘Road traffic
noise prediction model in Thailand’, Applied Acoustics 58, 123–130.
Tang, S. K. and Chu, S. H.: 2001, ‘Noise level distribution functions for outdoor applications’, Journal
of Sound and Vibration 248(5), 887–911.
Theebe, M. A.: 2004, ‘Planes, trains, and automobiles: The impact of traffic noise on house prices’,
The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 28(2 3), 209–234.
Zannin, P. H. T., Calixto, A., Diniz, F. and Ferreira, J.A.: 2002, ‘A survey of urban noise annoyance
in a large Brazilian city: The importance of subjective analysis in conjunction with an objective
analysis’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22.
Zannin, P. H. T., Diniz, F., Calixto, A. and Barbosa, W.: 2001, ‘Environmental noise pollution in
residential areas of the city of Curitiba’, Acoustica 87, 1–4.
Zeid, Q., She, M. and Abdel-Raziq, I. R.: 2000, ‘Measurement of the noise pollution in the community
of Araba’, Acoustica 86, 376–378.
Zheng, X.: 1996, ‘Study on personal noise exposure in China’, Applied Acoustics 48, 59–70.