Comparative Analysis of Methods to Estimate Urban Noise Exposure of Inhabitants

Abstract

Most of the European Member States have produced strategic noise maps according to the requirements issued by the 2002/49/EC directive (END)and after the first run the results are available on the web.Astraightforward comparison of estimated noise exposure data in each country is meaningless because, unfortunately,d i ff erent methods have been used to determine the reported data. This paper focuses on possible variations in people exposure estimate due to the method used to calculate noise levels at receivers and to assign levels to buildings, as well as to associate population to each building. Results showthat the choice of the method to estimate noise exposure of inhabitants is crucial for planning effective noise mitigation actions. Asimple method, considering only the noise levela tt he grid point closest to the building, is here proposed and it seems suitable to inform and to be understood by the public, even thought it is not appropriate for epidemiological studies or definition of action plans. Because inaccurate estimations of noise exposure may lead to misleading allocation of economical resources in action plans, the objective of the estimated exposure should be clear at the time of the choice of the calculation method in order to select the most appropriate one. PACS no. 43.50.Rq, 43.50.Sr

Cross-National Comparison of Soundscape in Urban Public Open Spaces between China and Croatia

“…Noise pollution represents a major health problem for the modern world and reducing noise exposure of inhabitants [13] would help avoiding the well-known health effects: sleep disorders [14], learning impairment [15,16], hypertension ischemic heart disease [17,18] and risk for diabetes annoyance [19]. Such noise exposure is generally produced by common source roads [20,21], railway traffic [22], airports [23], and industrial plants [24].…”

Analysis of Technical Criticalities for GIS Modelling an Urban Noise Map

“…This is a methodology in which the basic measure describing sonorous input is the acoustic indicator already introduced in (2). Like the NMPB, the XP S31-133 standard describes a detailed procedure for calculating acoustic levels, taking into account weather effects (Licitra et al 2012 Based on the results found in the literature (Licitra and Ascari, 2014), the Gden indicator was calculated for the same part of the historic center for which the noise map was developed. Also, the indicator was derived for other towns in Sicily and for other large population centers, so as to compare the results.…”

Assessing Health Effects and Soundscape Analysis as New Mitigation Actions Concerning the Aircraft Noise Impact in Small- and Middle-Size Urban Areas in Greece

“…In fact, noise occurring during the landing and takeoff cycles are some of the most undesired environmental issues related to airport operations, and new mitigation measurements are necessary to protect residential areas [4]. Even though comparative analysis of methods to estimate urban noise exposure of inhabitants has been realized [5], a systematic approach to assess the effectiveness of airport noise mitigation strategies has been conducted [6], noise pollution continues to be a major health problem in Europe, with health effects recognized. People perturbed by airport noise may experience a variety of negative responses, such as anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, withdrawal, helplessness, depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation, or exhaustion (see [7,8]).…”