Literature DB >> 25770451

A review and comparative analysis of European priority indices for noise action plans.

Francesco D'Alessandro1, Samuele Schiavoni2.   

Abstract

The European Union has provided in recent years (and is going to update) several tools to harmonise noise mapping methodologies through directives and guidelines. Unfortunately the same efforts have not been put in the harmonisation of approaches for Noise Action Plans, the effective instruments to manage noise impacts. As a consequence, each European Member State at national or even at local level defined its own methodology, usually considerably different one from the others. Nevertheless, the most common approach to deal with noise impact at a policy, economic and strategy level is the use of priority indices focused to highlight areas or buildings where mitigation actions are more advisable or urgent. The aim of the present research is to provide a review of the most used European priority indices and also to test some of them in a study area. The comparative analysis demonstrates that the method chosen for the prioritisation deeply affects the ranking of the areas where noise measures need to be realized. Some methods tend to give high priority to noise sensitive locations, others to high populated buildings, and others to the areas where noise levels are high. The study proves how much common approaches are needed also for Noise Action Plans to reach a coherent noise policy within European boundaries.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Action plan; Annoyance; Environmental noise; Health effects; Noise planning; Priority indices

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25770451     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  5 in total

1.  Airport noise disturbs foraging behavior of Japanese pipistrelle bats.

Authors:  Weiwei Wang; Huimin Gao; Chengrong Li; Yingchun Deng; Daying Zhou; Yaqi Li; Wenyu Zhou; Bo Luo; Haiying Liang; Wenqin Liu; Pan Wu; Wang Jing; Jiang Feng
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-06-12       Impact factor: 3.167

2.  Cognitive-Motivational Determinants of Residents' Civic Engagement and Health (Inequities) in the Context of Noise Action Planning: A Conceptual Model.

Authors:  Natalie Riedel; Irene van Kamp; Heike Köckler; Joachim Scheiner; Adrian Loerbroks; Thomas Claßen; Gabriele Bolte
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 3.  Comparison of Road Noise Policies across Australia, Europe, and North America.

Authors:  Maxime Perna; Thomas Padois; Christopher Trudeau; Edda Bild; Josée Laplace; Thomas Dupont; Catherine Guastavino
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-12-24       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Community Response to Noise from Hot-Spots at a Major Road in Quito (Ecuador) and Its Application for Identification and Ranking These Areas.

Authors:  Virginia Puyana-Romero; Jose Luis Cueto; Giuseppe Ciaburro; Luis Bravo-Moncayo; Ricardo Hernandez-Molina
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Source characterization guidelines for noise mapping of port areas.

Authors:  Luca Fredianelli; Tomaso Gaggero; Matteo Bolognese; Davide Borelli; Francesco Fidecaro; Corrado Schenone; Gaetano Licitra
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-03-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.