# Impact of Anthropogenic Activities on Underwater Noise Pollution in Venice

Jacopo Boaga, Lapo Boschi

► To cite this version:

Jacopo Boaga, Lapo Boschi. Impact of Anthropogenic Activities on Underwater Noise Pollution in Venice. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2022, 233 (6), pp.221. 10.1007/s11270-022-05653-2. hal-03979992

HAL Id: hal-03979992

https://hal.science/hal-03979992

Submitted on 16 Feb 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Impact of Anthropogenic Activities on Underwater Noise Pollution in Venice

Jacopo Boaga ID · Lapo Boschi

Received: 25 November 2021 / Accepted: 3 May 2022 / Published online: 7 June 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

**Abstract** We illustrate the implementation and results of a field experiment, consisting of recording continuous signal from a hydrophone 3 m deep in the Venetian lagoon. We simultaneously recorded audio signal through a microphone placed on a nearby pier. We investigate the potential of this simple instrumental setup to explore the small touristic boat traffic contribution to the underwater noise. The ultimate goal of our work is to contribute to quantifying underwater noise pollution due to motorboat passages and its impact on the ecosystem. Efforts such as ours should

help to identify measures that could diminish noise pollution, focusing specifically on the aspects that are most disruptive to underwater life. After this preliminary test, more work can be planned, involving the deployment of a larger network of similar instruments around the lagoon. At this point, we can conclude that (i) our instruments are sensitive enough to detect motorboats and identify some of their characteristics; (ii) the area of interest is characterized by a large (approx. 20 dB) day/night difference in ambient noise; and (iii) the historic center of Venice and its immediate surroundings are particularly noisy, in comparison to other similarly studied locations.

## Highlights

* Noise carried by water and air was analyzed at a location in the historic center of Venice;

* Different motorboats show different acoustic footprints in both audio and underwater data;

* Anthropogenic noise around the historic center of Venice is high and deserves to be measured and analyzed in further detail.

**Keywords** Cultural noise · Motorboat noise · Underwater noise · Venice historic center

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of the experiment presented in this paper was to determine whether a simple instrument setup, typically employed in seismic exploration, could provide useful information on the soundscape of a busy harbor area, and in particular on the noise produced by motorboat traffic and, possibly, other anthropic activities. We accordingly deployed a set of hydrophones on the bottom of one of the channels bordering the city of Venice, near a convenient observation point on the premises of the Navy School “F. Morosini”, island of Sant’Elena (see Fig. 1).

J. Boaga (✉) · L. Boschi
Dipartimento di Geoscienze, Università degli Studi di Padova, Padua, Italy
e-mail: jacopo.boaga@unipd.it

L. Boschi
Sorbonne Université, CNRS, INSU, Institut des Sciences de la Terre de Paris, ISTeP UMR 7193, F-75005 Paris, France

L. Boschi
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Bologna, Italy
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Experimental setup. (a) Map of Italy (Google Earth image); (b) map of the historic center of Venice and the location of our deployment (red star), along the S. Niccolò channel (Google Earth image); (c) bathymetry (http://dx.doi.org/</figcaption></figure>

10.6084/m9 figshare.1293558 (open data CC-BY 4.0), mod.); (d) photograph of our recording equipment, on the pier of F. Morosini high school

We complemented this setup with a portable audio recorder.

There are important reasons today for studying marine soundscapes. Human activities are well known to have a profound and growing impact on biodiversity and on the environment as a whole (Frisk, 2012). In March 2021, the new “Horizon Europe” strategic plan of the European Union identified “Healthy oceans, seas, coastal and inland waters” as one of its five “mission areas” European Commission (2021). One important aspect of our impact on wildlife is noise pollution, whether in the form of elastic (e.g., seismic noise from farms, oil and gas rigs) or acoustic waves (seismic surveys, shipping). It has been proved that marine wildlife is affected by shipping traffic, seismic surveys, and other anthropic activities (e.g., Kedar et al. 2008): the frequency range of anthropic and biological signals overlap, resulting in disruption

of animal behaviors, such as masking communication or hindering larval settlement.

The environment of Venice historic center is particularly fragile and threatened both by climate change and the growing impact of mass tourism. Climate change impacts sea level rise, and as such has led to the design and implementation of mitigation policies (Del Bello 2018; Zanchettin et al. 2021); mass tourism, on the other hand, has scarcely been considered as an environmental issue by policy-makers. Nevertheless, growing cruise-ship traffic and the growing demand for tourist transportation are among the main causes of water and air pollution in Venice (Contini et al. 2011; Scarpa et al. 2019). The same activities impact significantly the noise level of the area, both in air (Agenzia Regionale per la Prevenzione e Protezione Ambientale Regione Veneto and Comune di Venezia 2002) and underwater. Bolgan
et al. (2016) measured underwater noise at the bor-
der of Venice city center for a short diurnal period,
highlighting the relevant noise level increase (up to
138 dB with respect to 1 µPa) associated with the
passage of large ships. Tegowski et al. (2019) stud-
ied the seasonal variations of underwater noise in
Venice, showing that summer is considerably noisier
than winter, owing mainly to mass tourism and fish-
ery. Picciulin et al. (2021) proved that motorboats and
anthropic activities in Venice lagoon and tidal inlets
significantly affect the life and behavior of fish. It is
known that motorboats generate noise in a frequency
range that can bother several coastal fish species, such
as *Chromis chromis* and *Gobius cruentatus* (Coda-
rin et al. 2009), *Pimephales promelas* (Scholik and
Yan 2002), goldfish (Smith et al. 2004); largemouth
bass (Graham and Cooke 2008); damselfish (McClo-
skey et al. 2020; Holmes et al. 2017) and cetaceans
(Marley et al. 2017). In particular, intense motorboat
activities affect the reproductive behavior of *Sciaena
umbra* (Picciulin et al. 2021), a widespread species
in the Venice lagoon environment. The impact of
anthropic activities on the underwater environment of
Venice Lagoon was confirmed by Braga et al. (2020),
who observed the effects of the recent lockdown
imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The associated
reduction in boat and ship traffic led to observable
changes in water transparency, and to the attenuation
of noise pollution.

In the following, we contribute to quantifying the
underwater noise level floor of the Venice city center
due to motorboat traffic and other anthropic activi-
ties, comparing the soundscape at rush hour vs. night-
time. We focus on the low-frequency range induced
by the passages of several types of motorboats. Our
results show that the Venice historic center is con-
stantly subjected to high underwater noise, if com-
pared to other coastal environments (Kaplan and
Mooney 2015; Merchant et al. 2016; Pieretti et al.
2020). Further work is needed to better identify spe-
cific noise sources, with the goal of guiding future
mitigation policies.

## 2 Material and Methods: Experimental Setup and Observations

On June 24, 2021, we deployed three ETL-tech
P-44A hydrophones in the S. Nicolò canal, some

20 m offshore from the Island of S. Elena, in Ven-
ice, Italy (Fig. 1). The area is characterized by rela-
tively heavy motorboat traffic and can be considered
as representative of the channels bordering the center
of Venice. We additionally placed one TASCAM
audio recorder, operating its built-in stereo micro-
phone, on the pier where all our recording equip-
ment was installed. The hydrophones were dropped
into approximately 3 m deep water. The three hydro-
phones were connected to one another by cable, lying
on the sea bottom and spaced about 0.5 m from one
another. Their frequency response is flat above 8 Hz.
They were operated through a 12-channel DAQ LINK
III recorder, which is a portable seismograph with a
24-bit digitizer, 112 dB dynamic range, noise floor
< 0.2 µV RMS (@ 2ms), integrated anti-aliasing filter
and GPS clock.

Our experiment consisted of simultaneously
recording hydrophone and audio data for 80 min
starting at 11:10 am, and again hydrophone data for
60 min starting at 9:30 pm, i.e., in the late evening
when traffic is usually reduced. In both cases, we set
the sampling rate at 1000 Hz. During the evening
recording session, relatively strong winds (approx. 20
km/h) resulted in a very noisy audio recording, that
we soon decided to interrupt: for this reason, no audio
data of the evening session are available.

Day-time and night-time hydrophone observations
are summarized in Fig. 2. No significative differences
are observed between the signals recorded by the
three sensors that we had deployed, and in the interest
of brevity, here and throughout the rest of the paper,
we are only showing data from one hydrophone.

A significant difference in the overall energy of
the recorded signal is immediately apparent in Fig. 2,
with the night-time much quieter than day-time
(roughly 10 to 20 dB on average). This is not sur-
prising, but confirms that the majority of underwater
noise in the Venetian lagoon is the result of anthropic
activities, at least in the instrumented area. The power
spectra are relatively flat at most frequencies. The
50 Hz peak in the night-time recording can be inter-
preted as interference from the electrical illumination
of the pier where our recording gear was located.

## 2.1 Footprints of Different Motorboats

We next investigate in some detail individual
“noise events”, via the analysis of simultaneous
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Day-time (left) vs. night-time (right) records. Top: time series; middle: power spectra of the Fourier transforms; bottom: spectrograms of the signal. The overall drop in noise level can be appreciated in all three visualizations of the data</figcaption></figure>

hydrophone and audio recordings during the passage of motorboats. We pick three examples, each associated with one of the common motorboats sketched in Fig. 3. During the day-time recording

session, sea state was < 2 on the Douglas scale, and wind speed < 10 km/h.

The three types of boat have different underwater and audio noise signals. We show in Fig. 4 the

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Sketches of the three most typical motorboats used in the Venice area: “taxi” (a), “Gran Turismo” (b) and small outboard motorboard (c). Typical total length in m and displacement in tons are indicated in each panel. (a) and (b) are diesel-powered, while (c) runs on petrol</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** 2-minute hydrophone (left) and audio (right) recordings, taken 52 min after the beginning of the day-time recording session during the passage of a taxi boat (Fig. 3a). Time series (top), power spectrum (middle) and spectrogram (bottom) are all shown. Both spectrograms were obtained using</figcaption></figure>

footprint of the passage of a taxi boat (model a) passing at moderate velocity (approx. 15 knots) close to our sensors (roughly 50 m). During the time we spent on the pier, we repeatedly saw such boats passing relatively close (from 30 to 50 m) to the location of our receivers.

Both the hydrophone and microphone appear to be sensitive to this event, with hydrophone data showing multiple sharp peaks that presumably reflect the power and make of the engine (e.g. Holmes et al. 2017; Tegowski et al. 2019). The intensity peak in the time series occurs at the same time as the frequency shift in the spectrogram, and we interpret the latter as an instance of the Doppler effect: compare, e.g., with Fig. 4b of Trabattoni et al. (2020). Audio data show qualitatively similar spectral peaks at relatively low frequencies (below 500 Hz), with one isolated peak at 800 Hz.

Figure 5 shows the passage of a typical tourist transportation boat (Fig. 3b), passing at a larger distance (roughly 200 m) from our receivers at moderate

938-ms-long temporal windows with 50% overlap, and frequency resolution bandwidth of 4 Hz. The amplitude scales of hydrophone and audio “raw” data shown here are normalized differently and cannot be compared quantitatively; hydrophone data are converted to SPL in the following

velocity (approx. 10 knots). This, again, corresponds to our visual observation of boat traffic from the pier.

Again, both hydrophone and microphone are sensitive to this event, and, in particular, the frequency peaks in hydrophone data are distributed over a much broader range than those of Fig. 4. A few, relatively less energetic but well-spaced lower-frequency peaks are visible in the hydrophone power spectrum; higher-frequency peaks are numerous and very closely spaced, so that the lower-frequency ones might be most useful in an effort to identify the nature of the event (technical characteristics of the boat, etc.)

Figure 6 shows the passage of a small outboard boat roughly 30 m from our pier at an estimated velocity of around 15 knots. These boat passages were frequent during our day-time recordings. Compared to other boats, small motorboats are characterized by relatively high power in the high-frequency range, while in the microphone recording multiple sharp peaks at low frequencies are detected (below 300 Hz).
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Same as Fig. 4, but data recorded 35 min after the beginning of the day-time session during the passage of a “Gran Turismo” boat (Fig. 3b)</figcaption></figure>

Numerous events, with characteristics similar to those illustrated in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 are observed throughout our data set. We chose to focus on the described popular types of motorboat, that are the main responsible of the city waters swell.

## 2.2 Analysis of “Background” Signal

As seen from Fig. 2, while less intense than during the day, traffic was still non negligible during our night-time recording session. To evaluate the soundscape of the Venice lagoon in the absence of nearby motorboat traffic, we selected 1 min of recording during which no traces of motorboat passages are visible and no boats were detected in the surrounding, to be compared with a typical passage of motorboat.

We show in Fig. 8 the power spectra obtained from the time series of Fig. 7, quantifying the noise produced by a typical taxi boat in comparison with a reference, “quiet” noise level (night-time, no discernible nearby boat passages). The spectrum is provided here in terms of sound pressure level

magnitude, expressed in decibels relative to 1 µPa, which should facilitate comparison with the results of other studies in the literature. Based on the limited data available to us at this point, we estimate a difference of at least 30 dB between overall noise level during a typical, “silent” day-time recording, and the quietest night-time intervals that we have been able to record.

## 3 Discussion and Conclusions

Our pilot experiment has shown that a small set of instruments, originally designed for seismic exploration purposes, have significant sensitivity to underwater acoustic signals generated by motorboat traffic. The details of the spectrograms and power spectra that we have obtained (see the examples in Figs. 4 and 5) suggest that certain technical characteristics of a motorboat might be determined from such data alone. Further work is needed to substantiate this speculation. We note, however,
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Same as Fig. 4, but data recorded 12 min after the beginning of the day-time session during the passage of a small outboard motorboat (Fig. 3c)</figcaption></figure>

that boat engines are known to excite discrete sets of “tonal” peaks, at least qualitatively similar to what we have recorded, related to the propeller type, the number of revolutions and the hull shape (e.g., Carlton 2018).

We find that common motorboats used in Venice, such as the “Gran Turismo” of Fig. 3b, generate significant underwater noise in the frequency range 200–300 Hz that is relevant, e.g., to the *Sciaena Umbra* (Picciulin et al. 2021). In the same frequency range, smaller motorboats are much quieter (-30 dB), according to both audio and hydrophone data. We surmise that policy-makers should take account of observations such as ours, in view of implementing regulations (involving, e.g., the values of boat engine parameters noted above) that should reduce disruption of animal life, with a reasonable impact on human activities.

We have also evaluated the background noise level, in the absence of nearby boat traffic, both in day- and night-time (Fig. 7). At most frequencies, we find noise to be around 130 dB during the day in the absence of traffic; this is amplified to about 150 dB

at the passage of a motorboat, and drops to 110 dB at night, again in the absence of traffic. After compiling a selection (certainly not complete, but hopefully sufficiently representative) of related literature, we are able to compare our findings to those of other authors, who studied the same or other, more or less similar areas.

Table 1 confirms that the underwater soundscape of Venice seems to be relatively very noisy, even in comparison with busy ports such as Naples and Trieste. Our estimate of day-time background noise is comparable with the observation made by Bolgan et al. (2016) also in the Venice lagoon. Night-time background noise, as we observe it, drops to below the average (day and night) value observed, again in the Venice lagoon, by Tegowski et al. (2019). We surmise that, besides motorboat traffic, this high level of noise might be explained in terms of the wide range of anthropic activities taking place in the city. A recent paper by our team (Poli et al. 2021) has shown that the 2020 pandemics-related lockdown resulted in a reduction of ambient seismic noise more drastic in Florence than in any other
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** Noise vs. silence: passage of a taxi boat during daytime (left panels), compared with 1 min of signal, recorded by the hydrophone 36 min after the beginning of the nighttime recording session when no events that can be attributed</figcaption></figure>

to anthropic activities are recognized (right). Top: time series, bottom; spectrogram of the signal. The A/C electric noise at 50 Hz was removed from night-time data through a notch filter

investigated Italian city. The economy of Florence, like that of Venice, is largely based on tourism: we accordingly infer from our findings and those of Poli et al. (2021) that activities related to tourism could result in particularly significant levels of noise pollution.

In summary, our study confirms that boat traffic contributes a great deal to the noise in the Venice channel. Several different anthropogenic activities (including, but not limited to motorboat traffic) have probably a constant impact on the soundscape of the Venice lagoon, an environmentally fragile area with, in addition, significant cultural value. In agreement with the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Commission 2008), and Horizon Europe missions (European Commission 2021), it will be important to monitor the future evolution of background noise in the lagoon, and determine how disruptive it might be for underwater life.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8** Sound pressure level magnitude during a boat passage (red line) vs. during the quietest night period recorded (blue line)</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1** Selected observations of underwater background noise levels, given in dB with respect to 1 µPa</caption><thead><tr><td>Bibliography reference</td><td>Area of study</td><td>Noise level</td><td>Time of recording</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bolgan et al. (2016)</td><td>Venice, Italy</td><td>120–130</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Cafaro et al. (2018)</td><td>Civitavecchia, Italy</td><td>106</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Codarin et al. (2009)</td><td>Trieste, Italy</td><td>108</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Holmes et al. (2017)</td><td>Lizard, Australia</td><td>80</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Kaplan and Mooney (2015)</td><td>Virgin Islands, USA</td><td>90</td><td>Day- and night-time</td></tr><tr><td>Picciulin et al. (2021)</td><td>Trieste, Italy</td><td>100</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Pieretti et al. (2020)</td><td>Naples, Italy</td><td>124</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Merchant et al. (2016)</td><td>UK</td><td>90</td><td>Day-time only</td></tr><tr><td>Tegowski et al. (2019)</td><td>Venice, Italy</td><td>115</td><td>All season average</td></tr><tr><td>Soares et al. (2020)</td><td>Ria Formosa, Portugal</td><td>100</td><td>Day- and night-time</td></tr><tr><td>This study</td><td>Venice, Italy</td><td>145, 110</td><td>Day- and night-time</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Acknowledgements** Our field work was conducted on the premises of the Italian Navy School F. Morosini; we are grateful to the Commander M. Ortiz Neri and Vice Commander M. Natali for allowing and facilitating our experiment. Field instrumentation except for the audio recorder was kindly provided to us by Lorenzo Petronio of OGS-Trieste. This work benefitted from LB's numerous exchanges with Lucia Di Iorio, Carlo Giunchi and Marco Olivieri.

**Author Contributions** Conceptualization: JB and LP. Data curation: JB. Formal analysis: JB and LP. Methodology: LP. Resources: JB and LP. Writing and editing: JB and LP.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

**Declarations**

**Conflict of Interest** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

**References**

Agenzia Regionale per la Prevenzione e Protezione Ambientale Regione Veneto and Comune di Venezia (2002). Comune di Venezia, Analisi dell'inquinamento acustico generato dal traffico acqueo nel Rio Novo - Rio de Ca' Foscari

Bolgan, M., Picciulin, M., Codarin, A., Fiorin, R., Zucchetta, M., & Malavasi, S. (2016). Is the Venice lagoon noisy? First passive listening monitoring of the Venice lagoon: Possible effects on the typical fish community. In A. N. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), *The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II* (pp. 83–90). New York: Springer.

Braga, F., Scarpa, G. M., Brando, V. E., Manfè, G., & Zaggia, L. (2020). COVID-19 lockdown measures reveal human impact on water transparency in the Venice Lagoon. *Sci. Total Environ.*, 736, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139612

Cafaro, V., Piazzolla, D., Melchiorri, C., Burgio, C., Fersini, G., Conversano, F., Piermattei, V., & Marcelli, M. (2018). Underwater noise assessment outside harbor areas: the case of Port of Civitavecchia, northern Tyrrhenian Sea. *Italy Mar. Pollut. Bull.*, 133, 865–871.

Carlton, J. (2018). *Marine Propellers and Propulsion*. Elsevier.

Codarin, A., Wysocki, L. E., Ladich, F., & Picciulin, M. (2009). Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, Italy). *Mar. Pollut. Bull.*, 58, 1880–1887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.07.011

Contini, D., Gambaro, A., Belosi, F., Pieri, S. D., Cairns, W., Donateo, A., Zanotto, E., & Citron, M. (2011). The direct influence of ship traffic on atmospheric PM2. 5, PM10 and PAH in Venice. *Jour. Env. Management*, 92, 2119–2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.01.016

Del Bello, L. (2018). Venice anti-flood gates could wreck lagoon ecosystem. *Nature*, 7734, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41,586-018-07,372-3,2009

European Commission (2008). EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/environment/oceans-and-seas/
eu-marine-strategy-framework-directive_en, Accessed: 2021-08-31

European Commission (2021). Missions in Horizon Europe, https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/fundi ng/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and- open-calls/horizon-europe/missions-horizon-europe_en, Accessed: 2021-08-31

Frisk, G. (2012). Noiseomics: The relationship between ambi- ent noise levels in the sea and global economic trends. *Sci- entific Reports*, 2, 437. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00437

Graham, A., & Cooke, S. (2008). The effects of noise distur- bance from various recreational boating activities com- mon to inland waters on the cardiac physiology of a fresh- water fish, the largemouth bass (micropterus salmoides). *Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys- tems*, 18(7), 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.941

Holmes, L. J., McWilliam, J., Ferrari, M. C., & McCormick, M. I. (2017). Juvenile damselfish are affected but desen- sitize to small motor boat noise. *J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.*, 494, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.05.009

Kaplan, M. B., & Mooney, T. A. (2015). Ambient noise and temporal patterns of boat activity in the US Virgin Islands National Park. *Mar. Pollut. Bull.*, 98, 221–228. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.06.047

Kedar, S., Longuet-Higgins, M., Webb, F., Graham, N., Clayton, R., & Jones, C. (2008). The origin of deep ocean micro- seisms in the North Atlantic Ocean. *Proc. R. Soc., Ser. A*, 464, 777–793. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.0277

Marley, S., Salgado Kent, C., Erbe, C., Parnum, I. (2017) Effects of vessel traffic and underwater noise on the move- ment, behaviour and vocalisations of bottlenose dolphins in an urbanised estuary, *Scientific Reports*, 7(1), https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13252-z

McCloskey, K., Chapman, K., Chapuis, L., McCormick, M., Radford, A., & Simpson, S. (2020). Assessing and miti- gating impacts of motorboat noise on nesting damselfish. *Environmental Pollution*, 266, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envpol.2020.115376

Merchant, N. D., Brookes, K. L., Faulkner, R. C., Bicknell, A. W. J., Godley, B. J., & Witt, M. J. (2016). Underwater noise levels in UK waters. *Sci. Rep.*, 6, 36,942. https://doi. org/10.1038/srep36,942

Picciulin, M., Facca, C., Fiorin, R., Riccato, F., Zucchetta, M., & Malavasi, S. (2021). It is not just a matter of noise: Sciaena Umbra vocalizes more in the busiest areas of the Venice tidal inlets. *Journal of Marine Science and Engi- neering*, 9, 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9020237

Pieretti, N., Martir, M. L., Corinaldesi, C., Musco, L., Dell'Anno, A., & Danovaro, R. (2020). Anthropogenic noise and biological sounds in a heavily industrialized coastal area (gulf of naples, mediterranean sea). *Mar. Environ. Res*, 159, 105,002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marenvres.2020.105.002

Poli, P., Boaga, J., Molinari, I., Cascone, V., & Boschi, L. (2021). The 2020 coronavirus lockdown and seismic mon- itoring of anthropic activities in Northern Italy. *Sci. Rep.*, 10, 9404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41,598-020-66,368-0

Scarpa, G., Zaggia, L., Manfe, G., Lorenzetti, G., Parnel, K., Soomere, T., et al. (2019). The effects of ship wakes in the Venice Lagoon and implications for the sustainability of shipping in coastal waters. *Sci. Rep.*, 9, 19,014. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41,598-19-55,238-z

Scholik, A., & Yan, H. (2002). Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, pime- phales promelas. *Environmental Biology of Fishes*, 63(2), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014266531390

Smith, M., Kane, A., & Popper, A. (2004). Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in goldfish (carassius auratus). *Journal of Experimental Biology*, 207(3), 427– 435. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00755

Soares, C., Pacheco, A., Zabel, F., González-Goberña, E., Sequeira, C. (2020). Baseline assessment of underwater noise in the ria formosa, *Marine Pollution Bulletin*, 150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110731

Tegowski, J., Madricardo, F., Kruss, A., Zdroik, J., Janowski, L. (2019). Monitoring of anthropogenic underwater noise in the Venice lagoon, Italy, In: UACE2019 - Confer- ence Proceedings, pp. 367–373.

Trabattoni, A., Barruol, G., Dreo, R., Boudraa, A., & Fontaine, F. R. (2020). Orienting and locating ocean-bottom seis- mometers from ship noise analysis. *Geophys. J. Int.*, 220, 1774–1790. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz519

Zanchettin, D., et al. (2021). Sea-level rise in venice: historic and future trends, *Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.*, 21(2463).

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.