Well then, the best answer would be for them to offer to pay directly for upgrades to homes that would help mitigate the effects. Acoustic treatments for instance. And if those complaining were honest, they'd shake hands and get it done.
But most wouldn't use the payout for that. The assumption is that they can be bribed. Which is fine. Absent any legal issues, there's nothing inherently wrong with a bribe. The question then becomes what the cost is to buy off the complainer, not what it costs to enhance the property. Those are two completely different questions, and you shouldn't just swap between them.
They aren't trying to make the problem go away - they're trying to determine what it costs to get people to ignore it.
And I think that's a reasonable starting point. Nobody is forced to sign on. Forgo the offer and press for more, if that's your preference.
But, this being a charm offensive, refusing it probably not going to change the trajectory of the project. So there's that.