Recent ecological research examining conventional oil development in Canada’s northern prairies provides an important lesson. While anthropogenic noise influenced animal behaviour under certain conditions, the physical presence of infrastructure produced the greatest and most persistent ecological changes, particularly by modifying habitat structure and species interactions.

Environmental impact assessments often focus on individual stressors. Noise is evaluated through acoustic models, while physical infrastructure is assessed through habitat disturbance, land occupation, or ecological fragmentation. However, infrastructure and noise rarely operate independently. Instead, they interact to shape how wildlife uses landscapes, responds to disturbance, and ultimately survives.

This distinction has important implications for environmental engineering.

Looking Beyond Noise Levels

Noise assessments traditionally focus on sound pressure levels, propagation models, and regulatory thresholds. These remain essential tools. Nevertheless, they represent only one component of a much broader environmental picture.

Infrastructure changes ecosystems in multiple ways. Roads, fences, well pads, access corridors, and permanent structures alter vegetation, fragment habitats, create new movement corridors, and modify predator-prey relationships long after construction ends.

Noise, by contrast, often acts differently.

Rather than permanently reshaping habitats, it influences how animals perceive risk, communicate, forage, and detect predators. Its effects are frequently behavioural, context-dependent, and highly influenced by the predictability, duration, and intensity of the sound source.

Consequently, asking whether noise or infrastructure has the greater impact may be the wrong question.

The more useful question is: How do both interact to influence ecological systems?

When Habitat Changes Become the Bigger Driver

One of the most valuable contributions of the research is its ability to separate the effects of physical infrastructure from the effects of sound.

Using controlled field experiments, the study compared active noise playback with silent infrastructure and existing inactive oil wells. This design allowed researchers to evaluate which factor explained observed ecological responses more effectively.

The results suggest that long-standing infrastructure can create lasting habitat modifications that persist even when the associated noise disappears.

Inactive wells continued to influence vegetation composition, increase burrowing activity, and modify landscape structure years after becoming silent. Those habitat changes subsequently affected how predators and prey used the landscape.

In other words, environmental impact does not necessarily end when the sound stops.

Noise Still Matters—But in Different Ways

Recognizing the importance of infrastructure does not diminish the importance of acoustics.

Instead, it clarifies its role.

The research found that noise modified behavioural responses such as vigilance, prey detection, foraging efficiency, and habitat use rather than consistently changing species abundance. Predictable and intermittent soundscapes produced different responses, highlighting that animals respond not only to sound levels but also to the characteristics of the acoustic environment.

This reinforces an idea that has become increasingly important in environmental acoustics: Sound is information.

Animals interpret acoustic environments continuously. When those environments change, ecological interactions can also change, even if population numbers remain relatively stable.

Why Environmental Assessments Should Integrate Both Perspectives

For developers, regulators, and environmental consultants, these findings suggest that future impact assessments should integrate multiple layers of analysis.

Effective environmental planning should consider:

• Acoustic propagation and exposure
• Physical habitat alteration
• Landscape fragmentation
• Species behaviour
• Predator-prey interactions
• Long-term habitat recovery

Evaluating these elements together provides a more realistic understanding of environmental risk than analysing any single factor in isolation.

Moreover, this integrated perspective supports stronger Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), more robust ESG reporting, and better-informed mitigation strategies.

At Acoustic Solutions, we believe environmental acoustics should contribute to a broader understanding of ecosystem performance.

Noise modelling remains fundamental. However, its greatest value emerges when combined with ecological knowledge, habitat analysis, and environmental monitoring.

By integrating acoustic engineering with environmental science, project teams can identify not only where sound propagates, but also how it may influence ecological processes alongside the physical footprint of infrastructure.

This systems-based approach supports better decision-making throughout the project lifecycle—from planning and permitting to operation, monitoring, and restoration.

Modern infrastructure does more than occupy space.

It changes landscapes.

At the same time, sound does more than generate decibels.

It changes behaviour.

Understanding the interaction between both provides a more complete picture of environmental impact and enables more effective mitigation strategies.

Because protecting biodiversity requires more than building quieter infrastructure.

It requires understanding how infrastructure and noise shape wildlife together.