噪音污染

　　Shhhh!

　　嘘！小声点！

　　Why quiet carriages don’t work, and how they might be made to?

　　安静车厢的推广之途屡屡受挫。原因何在，如何改之？

　　QUIET carriages on trains are a nice idea: travellers voluntarily switch phones to silent, turn stereos off and keep chatter to a minimum. In reality, there is usually at least one inane babbler to break the silence.

　　在列车上设 “安静车厢”是个不错的想法：旅客们自觉将手机调成静音，关掉随身听，轻声地交谈。而在现实中，通常至少会蹦出一个无脑的大嘴巴打破车厢的宁静气氛。

　　A couple of problems prevent peaceful trips. First, there is a sorting problem: some passengers end up in the quiet carriage by accident and are not aware of the rules. Second, there is a commitment problem: noise is sometimes made by travellers who choose the quiet carriage but find an important call hard to ignore.

　　安静之旅基于以下一些原因无法实现。首先是车厢分类问题：一些乘客阴差阳错的坐到了安静车厢，而没有留意乘车守则。其次是乘车义务问题：选择就坐安静车厢的乘客在途中接到一通无法忽视的重要电话，无奈之下发出了声响。

　　The train operators are trying to find answers. Trains in Queensland Australia, are having permanent signs added to show exactly what is expected; a British operator has invested in signal-jamming technology to prevent phone calls. Microeconomics suggests another approach: putting a price on noise.

　　列车运营商正试图找寻解决之道。 澳大利亚昆士兰州的火车里常设标识，提醒乘客遵守乘车守则；英国的一家列车运营商引用信号干扰技术来避免电话骚扰。而微观经济学则提出了另一种方法——金钱同噪音挂钩。

　　Fining people for making a din would surely dissuade the polluter and is a neat solution in theory, but it requires costly monitoring and enforcement. Another tack would be to use prices to separate quiet and noisy passengers—in effect, creating a market for silence. A simple idea would be to sell access to the quiet carriage as an optional extra when the ticket is bought. Making the quiet coach both an active choice and a costly one would dissuade many of those who do not value a peaceful ride.

　　开噪音罚单肯定会减少噪声污染者，并且从理论上讲乃一剂良方，但此方案需耗费大量监管和执行费。另一种方案是从票价上区分喜静的和喜闹的乘客，实际上是开辟“花钱买清静”的交易。一种简单的区分方法是，售票时提供安静车厢选项，乘客可选择支付额外费用在安静区就坐。如此一来，“安静座位”不仅可由乘客主动选择，高票价还可将大量不珍惜安静旅途的人拒之门外。

　　Charging may also solve the commitment problem. This is particularly tricky, as attitudes to noise can change during the journey. Some passengers would pay the quiet premium but still chatter away when some vital news arrives. Schemes that reward the silent—a ratings system among fellow passengers, for example—could help. The idea is that losing your hard-won reputation offsets the short-term gain from using the phone. But such a system also fails the simplicity test.

　　收费也有可能解决义务问题。乘客对待噪音的态度在旅途中或多或少会有所改变，这就使得义务问题变得尤为复杂——有些乘客虽然愿意额外花钱到安静车厢就坐，而在看到某些重要新闻时，仍旧按耐不住自己开始喋喋不休。旨在奖励安静乘车旅客的奖励计划或大有裨益。例如，同车乘客打分系统，理念是以来之不易的声誉换取接电话来带的片刻享受。但该系统也不会通过易用性测试。

　　A 2010 book by George Akerlof and Rachel Kranton argues that “norms”—feelings about how everyone should behave—also play a role in decision-making. Charging a price, even if just a token amount, means the quiet carriage becomes a service that fellow passengers have bought, not just a preference they have expressed. Perhaps different norms would come into play, encouraging calm. If not, a personal bubble is always an option: noise-cancelling headphones start at around $50.

　　乔治·阿克尔洛夫和瑞秋·克拉顿在2010年出版的一书中认为，人类对个体该如何行止的感觉就是“行为规范”，这种规范也影响决策过程。即便是象征性收取少量金额，单凭收费这一行为，就意味着安静车厢不再是同行乘客的偏好之选，而是他们所购买的一项服务。或许在鼓励人们保持车厢安静时，应该引入不同的行为规范。若此方案也行不通，那么在列车上出售$50起价的降噪耳机，创造“个人空间”总是不二之选。