Elena Ascari

Gden: An indicator for European noise maps comparison and to support action plans.

Ten years after the approval of the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC (END) a large experience have been acquired to develop noise maps and action plans: the Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe maintained by the European Environment Agency (EEA) on behalf of the European Commission contains all data delivered in accordance with the END by Members States within the first round of implementation of the END. This large database should be useful to evaluate the pollution of Europe and to guide policy makers to establish best practices. However, local procedures and national methods do not permit a direct comparison of data reported. A comparison within agglomerations in EU is here carried out in order to find suitable indicators to identify most polluted cities despite different methods used. Critical and quiet areas have been assessed in action plans, but national laws and requirements are various, as different indicators used for their identification. The analysis was performed on noise exposure classes distribution, grouping them together using Gden and Gnight indicators to offer a new tool for presenting noise maps of the cities to the public permitting their comparison and for drawing detailed action plans. Strong relationship between these indicators and highly annoyed and highly sleep-disturbed people percentages are obtained. Furthermore, a comparison between Gden and Qcity Noise Scoring for local hot spot identification is carried out for the agglomeration of Pisa, where different transportation noise sources are present. The final goal is to define faster methods for suitable indicators calculation in hot spot identifications.

Low frequency noise impact from road traffic according to different noise prediction methods

The European Noise Directive 2002/49/EC requires to draw up noise action plans. Most of the implemented solutions consist in using barriers, even if some studies evidenced that annoyance could increase after their installation. This action dumps the high frequencies, decreasing the masking effect on low ones. Therefore, people annoyance and complaints may increase despite the mitigation. This can happen even in pedestrian zones near main roads due to the screening effect of first buildings row. In this paper, the authors analyze the post-operam screening effects in terms of low frequency noise. The difference between C- and A-weighted levels is calculated as annoyance indicator (LC-A). Different methods able to map noise with octave bands detail are tested in order to establish differences in the estimates of annoyance exposure. In particular, a comparison is carried out between data from interim method NMPB 96, its updated version 2008, NORD 2000 and those provided by a customized procedure through ISO 9613 propagation and Statistical Pass By measurements. Test sites are simulated in order to validate each model results through measurements. Results are discussed for real locations in Pisa city center and virtual scenarios in a rising scale of complexity.

Global noise score indicator for classroom evaluation of acoustic performances in LIFE GIOCONDA project

Abstract The LIFE GIOCONDA is an ongoing project that aims to provide an innovative methodology to the authorities for supporting the environment & health policies by involving the young people in the decision-making processes. The project suggests a web platform able to relate air and noise pollution data in the schools with the students’ pollution awareness. GIOCONDA aims to enhance the awareness of students, teachers and local administrations on the noise issues in schools, presenting suitable tools to improve the public participative processes. This paper presents a new method that has been developed within the Project. It aims to evaluate the acoustic performances of a classroom and to suggest the use of a global indicator based on a group of acoustic parameters compared with their limit values. Whit the new method the comparison between different classrooms or different schools becomes possible, together with a homogeneous evaluation of the priority for planning noise mitigation actions. Several noise measurement campaigns have been performed to characterize the students’ exposure in eight Italian schools. The results are useful to describe the acoustic performances of classrooms.

Annoyance Judgment and Measurements of Environmental Noise: A Focus on Italian Secondary Schools

The effects of noise on students’ health, well-being, and learning are of growing concern among both the general public and policy-makers in Europe. Several studies have highlighted the consequences of noise on children’s learning and performance at school. This study investigates the relationship between noise judgment in school goers aged 11–18 and noise measurements aimed at evaluating their exposure at school. For this purpose, a questionnaire was administered to 521 individuals in 28 classrooms in eight schools of four cities in Italy, with different environmental characteristics. Using a Likert-type scale, a selected set of responses related to noise generated an Annoyance Index (AI) score for each student and a classroom median score (MAI). From the noise data acquired, a global noise score (GNS) was assigned to each classroom. A higher AI was found in industrialized areas and among younger students. No significant differences in noise judgment were found by gender. A significant inverse correlation was described between MAI and GNS, thus the better the acoustic quality of the classrooms, the less the perceived noise and annoyance. The results show that noise perception and consequent disturbance are highly correlated with classroom acoustics, and confirm that annoyance represents the most widespread subjective response to noise.

Prioritizing Process in Action Plans: a Review of Approaches

Purpose of the ReviewThe paper is focused on the prioritization process in noise action plans. The available indicators (noise scores) and methodologies for defining hotspots are analysed and discussed. Indicators and methodologies are classified in order to highlight their suitability for different specific aims.Recent FindingsThe revised annex II of the European Directive 2002/49/EC fixed population exposure and modelling issues leading to different approaches in the prioritization process. Unfortunately, the indicators for rating areas are not commonly defined and a validated procedure is still not recognized at EU level. Furthermore, the importance of considering annoyance in the mitigation process arose, and this paper summarizes the pros and cons of their use for the purpose of prioritization process. A recent attempt to combine annoyance evaluations with limits compliance in noise score for the priority definition is presented.SummaryThe paper classifies various priority indicators basing on their inclusion of compliance limits compliance, annoyance or both. Then, the methods for merging index values at dwelling for hotspot identification are classified according to their approaches, particularly between those using geometrical approaches, or needing reference administrative areas. The paper highlights the suitability of each method to specific sources, contexts and aims of the prioritization process. Merging methods resulted necessary whenever the epidemiological study is not the aim of the calculation; indeed, the mitigation measures could be planned for delimited and prioritized areas and not directly derived from building noise scores.

Tranquility analysis by soundwalks in Pisa's green areas

Identification and analysis of main quiet areas in Pisa agglomeration has been carried out by the University of Pisa and Tuscany Environmental Protection Agency (ARPAT). According to suggestions given by the Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2002/49/CE, authors measured noise levels (using different indicators) and perceived tranquility of users at four different park/green areas in the city (Monumental site – Miracle square, Botanic Garden, Riverside park “Le Piagge”, City Park “Giardino Scotto”). In order to analyze tranquility, measurements and analysis on site has been carried out including noise levels acquisition, video recording, binaural audio acquisition and users surveys. At first some different methodologies has been tested and compared to identify most suitable measurement instruments and analysis procedures. The survey, based on similar studies carried out by G. Watts in UK, intended to identify most annoying sources and subjective users impression of the park. In the same sites, soundwalks have been recorded to allow a laboratory test to obtain a second evaluation of the park (video and binaural audio reproduction). First results highlighted the negative effects on objective and subjective evaluation of tranquility done by different type of transport ( trains, cars, aircraft) in Pisas parks.

Noise policy development in Italy and the EU

Since the approval of European Directive 49/2005, in Europe many studies and developments have been done to improve quality and accuracy of noise mapping and action planning. With the end of the first round of agglomerations mapping, a comparison between mapping methods and exposure of cities is available. In Italy, tests have been done to compare procedures and results of different cities to understand how to improve quality and effectiveness of noise maps. In the meantime, EU Community worked to change calculation methods in order to find a procedure adaptable for each country but with a common structure. In fact, we have already seen that each country, also using an interim method has produced very different results. In particular, example within Italian maps will be shown and also between ones of different countries in Europe. The level assignment method to population will change too, in order to move towards a more realistic photograph of health conditions: maximum level was too preventive, when cons...