www.chiaramonte-consult.eu Lisbon
Good Practice Guide on Quiet Areas

Introduction

Sound, noise and quiet

Definitions and selection criteria

Health benefits of quiet &  biodiversity 

The economic value of quiet areas

Lessons learned from commitments by MS and other competent authorities

Methods for identifying quiet areas

Recommendations and Conclusions


More on:
- references & useful documents and links
- health effects
- quiet facades
-  protection and monitoring

Disclaimer: this site is based on the published EEA document, but not identical. Over time the differences will increase as more recent material will be added to this site by Chiaramonte Consult. Please send your comments and suggestions for extensions and improvment to info@quietareas.eu.
Lessons (to be) learned

Several authorities have made a conscious effort to promote or protect quiet areas. Although – as stated before – approaches vary because of cultural differences including language differences and difficulties in translating ‘quiet area’) and the still limited experience from quiet areas much can be learned from these efforts.

Table 3 .           Action Plans and Policy papers with a focus on Quiet Areas

Name of principal location

Level  authority

1)

Type

2)

Indicator

Value (dB)

Selection method

Observations

Oslo

Ag

AP

% area > Lden

<55

    Discussion with key persons in the City of Oslo that have good knowledge of potential areas

    Review of registered green areas and meeting places in Oslo

    Use of the result of the noise mapping

    Site visits, use of the registration schedule

    Discussions with representatives from city districts and special interest organisations

Of 77 potential areas 14 selected. Additional criteria number of inhabitants < 500 meter from quiet area. Brochures, internet site. 

Leipzig

Ag

AP

Lden

<55

Acoustic

Natural and recreational areas

100 ha outside agglomerations

20 ha inside agglomerations

    > 5 dB difference between centre and margin inside agglomerations

 

 

 

5 areas outside agglomeration. Total 3.000 ha designated. 10 areas inside agglomeration, ca 800 ha. General stand still policy for these areas and improvement whenever possible.

UK

MS

PP

-

-

    Accessibility

    Quantity

      – amount of provision of quiet open space

      – measure using count, area (or time?)

    Quality – appropriateness for purpose

    Multi-functionality / Primary purpose

 

Warsaw

Ag

AP

Lden

<55

    Demographical – people’s density,

    Land-use plans with maps for transportation net development,

    Spatial management, taking into consideration

    Guides for future land-use planning and spatial management

    Nature preservation areas, especially areas of the Nature 2000 net

 

Netherlands

MS

PP

-

-

    Ecological infrastructure (EHS)

    Sound quality fitting for function of area

Monitoring actions (for the Treasury) show that 70% of the EHS-areas are over 39 Lden (translation of LAeq,24h of 40 ). Stand still (2000-2010) reached.

Limburg (NL)

Re

AP

LAeq,24h?

40

    Sites of natural and cultural interest

    Acoustic

31 areas covering 20.000 ha. Elaborate regulation against noisy activities. Regular evaluation shows that policy is highly appreciated by communities and visitors.

Flevoland

(NL)

Re

AP

LAeq,1hr

35

    Acoustic

    Recreational value

    Nature area

Monitoring of % quiet area over indicator

Gelderland

(NL)

Re

AP

 

 

Sites of natural and cultural interest

    Acoustic

There are 15 true quiet areas and about 5 quiet policy areas. The largest (20 x 50 km) seems to form a buffer around the quiet areas. Elaborate regulation against noisy activities. Provincial policy is to use quiet asphalt where the road is close to a quiet area.

Bilbao (Es)

Ag/RI

AP

Lday, Levening

60

    Acoustic

    Surface >2 ha

    Open access

    Recreational/cultural value

    Approved by city council

The use of L95-L5 is considered as an indicator

Lyon

Ag

AP

Lden

50

 

 

Scotland

Re

PP

Lden

55

    Acoustic

    Minimum area of 9 ha

Quiet areas included in action plans

Wales

Re

PP

Lday(?)

55

    Natural rather than mechanical sounds are favoured.

    Visual quality can enhance ‘quietness’ or tranquillity.

    Size as such is immaterial – small spaces in inner cities can have high value in terms of providing respite, opportunity for relaxation and exercise.

    Attitudes to what constitutes quiet are to some extent determined by culture and location.

    The WHO guideline of 55 dB(A) has been taken as a starting point for looking at the designation of quiet areas.

    A substantial part of a space being at least 6 dB below the typical daytime level of its surroundings might be a practical early guideline.

Position paper contains checklist to assess “tranquillity”. Items are: soundscape, presence of nature, visual or aesthetic quality, sense of personal safety, culture and freedom.

London

Ag

AP

LAeq,1min

LAeq,15min

 

    Understanding noise environment

    Understanding the view of visitors

    Coordinating approach QA’s with other initiatives

 

Special projects which may feed into quiet area:

-iconic sounds of the city

-city sound walk

-area based initiatives

Florence

Ag

AP

LAeq,day

LAeq,night

 

Quality level of function is leading; relevant classes:

    Class I: special protected areas- hospitals, schools, recreational areas, special urbanistic areas: 45 Lday, 35 Lnight

    Class II: low density residential : 50 Lday, 40 Lnight

Measures for quiet areas will be integrated in hotspot-measures of action plan.

Czech Rep.

MS,

RI

PP

Lday,

Lnight

40,

40

Land use plan: natural parks and protected landscapes.

    Luxury- Lday & Lnight < 40

    Comfortable: Lday < 50, Lnight < 40

    Good: Lday < 55, Lnight < 45

    Acceptable: Lday < 60, Lnight < 50

    Unfavourable: Lday > 60, Lnight > 50

Quiet areas in agglomerations may include Luxury and Comfortable areas

Sweden

MS

PP

LAeq

25

Determine acoustic landscape

Determine positive experienced sounds

Determine negative experienced sounds

Assess overall acoustic quality on a scale

Class A: freedom of noise < 25 dB. 1-2 events < 5 minutes/week

Class B: < 35 dB. 3-4 events < 5 minutes/day

Class C: < 45 dB. 60-120 events < 1hour/day

Class D: < 45 dB. 120-240 events < 2 hours/day

Class E: < 50 dB, or 10-20 dB below surroundings

 

 

Flanders (Be)

Re

PP

 

 

 

Leaflet with instructions to derive quiet areas. See Dender-Mark area for content.

Dender-Mark area (Be)

Re

AP

L50, 15min

Lnight

45

 

30

    L50 value of not area specific sounds

    Lnight value of not area specific sounds

    Visitor’s score of quietness

    % of time that non area sounds are perceived

    Perception of non area specific sounds

    Number of non area specific events per 15 min.

    Perceived appropriateness of area sounds

    Geographic cohesion

    Natural or cultural value of landscape

The acoustic quality of an area must be guaranteed 80% of the year (anywhere) and any day in at least 80% of the area.

1)        Ag=agglomeration, MS=Member State, Re=Region, RI=research institute

2)        AP=Action Plan, PP=Position Paper

 One must extend a tribute to the ingenuity of the policy makers. Every possible definition of ‘quiet area’ must have been explored.  Sound-pressure levels play an important role in almost all schemes, but there are exceptions, indicating that sound-pressure levels is not the only factor of importance with regards to quiet areas. Some Member States, where the soundscape approach is most developed (Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, UK), acknowledges that acoustic quality also concern how an area is perceived by people, including the balance between wanted and unwanted sound and the area’s recreational value, or how appropriate the sounds present are to the area and its use. This calls for new kinds of indicators, as well as new methods for identification or measurement of perceived acoustic quality/appreciation of quiet areas.  Because there are few evaluation studies, it is not possible to determine which of the current approaches works best. This underlines the need of further research into this area.

The more complex methods (Sweden, Belgium) require more data and will perhaps create a problem when trying to control the sound-pressure levels once the quiet area is operational. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that the definition of quiet area in an agglomeration presupposes that sound-pressure levels of noise sources may be measured in isolation from other kinds of sounds, like wanted sounds of humans and nature. However, in agglomerations wanted sound may be as loud as unwanted sound. An example is how people in an urban park sit by a fountain because it masks the background sound of road traffic. Present sound-level meters do not have the capacity to separate the sound-pressure levels of noise sources from the sound-pressure levels of wanted sounds. Consequently, detailed measurement of sound-pressure levels of noise sources in a quiet area in an agglomeration may be practically impossible. The solution is to rely entirely on calculated sound-pressure levels based on noise mapping, which is not the same as actual measurements. This supports the observation that there is a need for new approaches to the acoustic quality of quiet areas that moves beyond sound-pressure levels. Soundscape is such a new approach.

The simpler approaches (just Lden) can be effective in quiet areas in open country, because in open country loud sounds are more likely to originate from sources like traffic, industry or recreational activities. Thus, if sound-pressure levels are below a certain level (e.g., < 40 dB) on a calm day, the area is probably free of such sources. The Dutch regions laid down special regulations in which regional inspectors get the right to control noisy activities before they occur (like a planned motor bike tour), or once they are perceived. Such a mechanism seems to be missing or is not made explicit in other plans.

 

 

EU-27berlin


clip vlaanderen



Sweden



Oslo