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:
-
-
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.
|
|