Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritizing Process in Action Plans: a Review of Approaches

  • Noise Pollution (PH Zannin, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Pollution Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

The 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 Findings

The 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.

Summary

The 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. European Parliament and Council: Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Official Journal of the European Communities L189/12, 18/07/2002.

  2. WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2011 Burden of disease from environmental noise: quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf. Accessed December 2016.

  3. UNI/TS 11387:2010 Linee guida alla mappatura acustica e mappatura acustica strategica - Modalità di stesura delle mappe. (Guideline for noise mapping and strategic noise mapping – how to draw up maps.)

  4. Brambilla G, Poggi A. Indicazioni operative per la costruzione dell’indicatore “popolazione esposta al rumore” in riferimento alla direttiva 2002/49/CE. (Practical guidance to the calculation of people exposed to noise according European Directive 2002/49/EC) I quaderni di ARPA Emilia Romagna “Inquinamento acustico”, Bologna; 2007, ISBN 88–87854–20–3, 65–71.

  5. Licitra G, Ascari E, Brambilla G. Comparative analysis of methods to estimate urban noise exposure of inhabitants. Acta Ascust united Ac 2012;98:659–66. doi:10.3813/AAA.918546.

  6. Leventhall G, Pelmear P, Benton S. A review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects, Tech. Rep. Contract ref:EPG 1/2/50, DEFRA (2003). https://docs.wind-watch.org/leventhall-defra-lowfreqnoise.pdf. Accessed December 2016.

  7. •• D’Alessandro F, Schiavoni S. A review and comparative analysis of European priority indices for noise action plans. Sci Total Environ. 518–519:290–301. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.102. In the article, several priority indexes are reviewed and are applied to a tested area and compared.

  8. D.M. 29 11 2000. Criteri per la predisposizione, da parte delle società e degli enti gestori dei servizi pubblici di trasporto o delle relative infrastrutture, dei piani degli interventi di contenimento e abbattimento del rumore, published on Official Gazette G.U. 6 December 2000, n. 285.

  9. Bönnighausen G, Popp C. Die Lärmkennziffer-Methode, ein Beitrag zur Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg: Baubehörde; 1988. (In German)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance note for noise action planning for the first round of the environmental noise regulations 2006. 2009. https://www.epa.ie/pubs/advice/noisemapping/EPA%20Guidance%20Note%20for%20Noise%20Action%20Planning.pdf. Accessed December 2016.

  11. Fredianelli L, Licitra G. Looking for a wind turbine noise legislation paying attention to annoyance: which metric, in: Proceedings of ICBEN 11th, 2014.

  12. European Commission Working Group on Dose-Effect Relations. Position paper on dose response relationships between transportation noise and annoyance. 2002 http://www.bruitparif.fr/en/resource/etudes-externes/noise-and-health#.WD_j6dThDGg. Accessed December 2016.

  13. Miedema HME, Oudshoorn CGM. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(4):409–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miedema HME. Relationship between exposure to multiple noise sources and noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(2):949–57. doi:10.1121/1.1766305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. • Hüsmen N, Türkel E, Shilton SJ, Rosão V, Grilo A, Assessment and management of environmental noise in Turkey, Proceedings of ICSV 22, Firenze Italy, July 2015. The article present objectives of the EuropeAid project in which new priority index is established.

  16. •• Ruiz-Padillo A, Torija AJ, Ramos-Ridao A, Ruiz DP. A methodology for classification by priority for action: selecting road stretches for network noise action plans. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ. 2014;29:66–78. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2014.04.002. The article present an innovative approach in considering complaints to build the priority noise score

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Coensel B, De Muer T, Yperman I, Botteldooren D. The influence of traffic flow dynamics on urban soundscapes. Appl Acoust. 2005;66:175–94. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2004.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Torija AJ, Genaro N, Ruiz DP, Ramos-Ridao A, Zamorano M, Requena I. Prioritization of acoustic variables: environmental decision support for the physical characterization of urban sound environments. Build Environ. 2010;45:1477–89. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.12.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruiz-Padillo A, de Oliveira TBF, Alves M, Bazzan ALC, Ruiz DP. Social choice functions: a tool for ranking variables involved in action plans against road noise. J Environ Manag. 2016;178:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Probst W. From noise maps to critical hotspots: priorities in action plans. In: Licitra G, editor. Noise mapping in the EU. Models and Procedures: CRC Press; 2012. p. 361–8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Miedema HME, Borst HC. Deliverable D1.5 of Quiet City, Transport (FP6 516420). 2007

  22. De Ruiter EPh.J. A tool for environmental noise control in urban planning: the population annoyance index, NAG/DAGA Rotterdam 2009.

  23. Scottish Government. Consultation on draft technical guidance for noise management areas, under strategic noise action plans. 2009. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/265318/0079478.pdf. Accessed December 2016.

  24. Licitra G, Gallo P, Rossi E, Brambilla G. A novel method to determine multiexposure priority indices tested for Pisa action plan. Appl Acoust. 2011;72:505–10. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weber M, Jabben J. An indicator for area specific noise impact: Gden. Lisbon: Proc. of Internoise; 2010.

  26. •• Licitra G, Ascari E. Gden: an indicator for European noise maps comparison and to support action plans. Sci Total Environ. 2014;482-483:411–9. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.014. The article presents an innovative approach in considering annoyance and multi-source approach in prioritizing process

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. European Environmental Agency. Good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health effects. Technical Report, 2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/good-practice-guide-on-noise. Accessed December 2016.

  28. • Palazzuoli D, Licitra G, Ascari E. The impact of noise exposure on citizen health in some Tuscany cities: what DALY can suggest to local administrators, Athens, Greece, July 2016. The article summarizes results of DALY calculation on reference areas in order to compare health risk due to different noise sources in different cities in Tuscany.

  29. Nilsson M, Berglund B. Noise annoyance and activity disturbance before and after the erection of a roadside noise barrier. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2178–88. doi:10.1121/1.2169906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kjellberg A, Tesarz M, Holmberg K, Landström U. Evaluation of frequency-weighted sound level measurements for prediction of low frequency noise annoyance. Environ Int. 1997;23:519–27. doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(97)00054-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schreurs E, Koeman T, Jabben J. Low frequency noise impact of road traffic in the Netherlands, in: Proceedings of Acoustics 08, 2008, pp. 1943–1948.

  32. Nilsson M, Andéhn M, Leśna P. Evaluating roadside noise barriers using an annoyance-reduction criterion. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124(6):3561–7. doi:10.1121/1.2997433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nilsson M. A-weighted sound pressure level as an indicator of short-term loudness or annoyance of road traffic sound. J Sound Vib. 2007;302:197–207. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2006.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. •• Ascari E, Licitra G, Cerchiai M, Teti L. Low frequency noise impact from road traffic according to different noise prediction methods. J Sci Total Environ. 2015;505:658–69. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.052. The article presents an indicator considering low frequency content, providing mapping method limitations in estimating it.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cohen JP, Coughlin CC. Spatial hedonic models of airport noise, proximity, and housing prices, Working Paper 2006–026C, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS, September 2007 http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-026.pdf. Accessed December 2016.

  36. • Borchi F, et al. LIFE+2008 HUSH project results: a new methodology and a new platform for implementing an integrated and harmonized noise action plan and proposals for updating Italian legislation and Environmental Noise Directive. Noise Mapping. 2016;3(1) doi:10.1515/noise-2016-0006. The article reports the procedure of merging priority values at dwellings to obtain hotspots as established in two EU-funded projects.

  37. • Schiavoni S, D’Alessandro F, Conte A. The contribution of LIFE+ NADIA project on the implementation of the European Directive on Environmental Noise. Noise Mapping. 2015;2(1):13–30. doi:10.1515/noise-2015-0002. The article reports main objectives of NADIA project, including procedures for hotspot identification.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IPCF-CNR, via Moruzzi 1, 56100, Pisa, Italy

    Gaetano Licitra

  2. ARPAT, via Marradi 114, 57125, Livorno, Italy

    Gaetano Licitra & Elena Ascari

  3. IDASC-CNR, via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Luca Fredianelli

Authors
  1. Gaetano Licitra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Ascari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luca Fredianelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaetano Licitra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Noise Pollution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Licitra, G., Ascari, E. & Fredianelli, L. Prioritizing Process in Action Plans: a Review of Approaches. Curr Pollution Rep 3, 151–161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-017-0057-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-017-0057-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation