PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Comparing noise policies of eight European cities using a noiseintervention classification scheme
Timothy VAN RENTERGHEM1; Hannelore HERNALSTEEN1; A. Lex BROWN2
1

Ghent University, WAVES research group, Department of Information Technology, Belgium
2

Griffith University, Griffith School of Environment, Australia

ABSTRACTOver the last decades, cities have been developing noise policies. Comparing such efforts, however, is notstraightforward. For this purpose, a previously proposed noise intervention classification scheme is used as aframework. This framework discriminates between source interventions, path interventions, closing/opening
new infrastructure, other physical interventions (e.g. achieving a quiet side) and communication/education
measures. Responsible officers dealing with noise at environmental departments of eight large European
cities were interviewed. The invitations for an interview were sent out taking into account the geographicaldistribution of cities over Europe while a reasonably high position on a sustainable cities ranking was
required. The interviews focused on the noise problem definition and what is in the noise management
toolbox of the city. In addition, it is assessed how noise policies are evaluated, and to what extent public
participation in the noise policy and planning process occurs. The interviews show highly contrasting
opinions and practices among the interviewed cities at almost any aspect of the noise management process.
Keywords: Noise policy, public participation, city noise planning

1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental noise management, or environmental noise control, is usefully conceived of as
interventions designed to improve human health. The World Health Organization, in its developmentof its recent Environmental Noise Guidelines (1), commissioned a range of systematic reviews ofhealth effects of environmental noise to provide an evidence base for guideline development,
including a review of measured changes in health effects arising from noise interventions. In theabsence of prior systematic examinations of noise intervention, Brown and van Kamp ( 2) found it
useful to develop a classification of interventions, and a simple framework illustrating wher e different
noise interventions potentially act along the pathway between noise sources and hum an health isshown in Figure 1.
This framework of interventions is used in this study to classify interview responses describing theimplementation of noise policies in a selection of European cities. The paper provides a snapshot of
current approaches to noise management in cities.

1
2

timothy.vanrenterghem@ugent.belex.brown@griffith.edu.au397

Figure 1 – Environmental noise intervention framework from Brown and van Kamp (2).

2. INTERVENTION CLASSIFICATIONInterventions on environmental noise were defined according to five broad categories based on theavailable intervention literature and the experience of decades of environmental noise management(see Table 1). Interventions Type A and B are self-explanatory. Intervention Type C categorizes
situations where noise levels from a source have changed from non -existent to high because of new
infrastructure (e.g. little or no road traffic adjacent to a newly opened freeway, or an area now under a
new flight path where previously there had been no overflights), or the converse where a roadway or a
runway has been closed. The Type C category is also extended to incorporate controls on building a
new dwelling near an existing noise source. In an urban planning sense, a noise manage ment
“intervention” is the requirement of some minimum distance between existing noise source and new
residential development. Type D, “other physical interventions” includes quiet sides (3) for dwellings
or changing the appearance of a neighbourhood. Type E includes education and communicationinterventions intended to change behaviours – this category could be broadened to include all “othersocial interventions”.
Table 1 – Categories of environmental noise interventions
Type

Intervention Category

A

Source interventions

B
C

D

Intervention Sub-categoryxchange in emission levels of sourcesxtime restrictions on source operations

xchange in the path between source and receiverxpath control through insulation of receiver’s dwelling

New/closedx

opening of a new infrastructure noise source

infrastructurex

closure of an existing onexplanning controls between (new) receivers and sources

physicalxchange in other physical dimensions of dwelling/neighborhood

behaviorxchange in behavior to reduce exposurex

avoidance or duration of exposurex

community education, communication

Path interventions

Otherintervention

E

Changeininterventions398

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 City selection
The selection of candidate cities in this study was based on the involvement in a few recent
European noise-focused research projects and Arcadis’ sustainable cities index (4). This increased thechance that the invited city departments were concerned with environmental topics including urban
noise. There is a focus on densely populated European cities, where the environmental noise problem
is likely to be relevant. In total, 25 cities were invited for an interview, of which 8 promptly accepted(see Figure 2). It is expected that there will be a bias towards cities with a more elaborate nois e policy
as these might be more inclined to spontaneously respond; noise policy was explicitly mentioned in theinvitation letter. Genève is the only non-EU (European Union) city involved.

Figure 2 – Geographic distribution of the European cities interviewed in this study.
3.2 Interviews
A video-chat interview was proposed. If there was interest to participate, but the interviewee
expected a significant language barrier, a paper survey (in English) was allowed. The interviewer
started with asking to position noise among the other environmental problems in the city and how
noise issues were assessed. Secondly, the noise mitigation measures typically used in the city wereasked for. Thirdly, evaluation procedures to follow up the effectiveness of the noise poli cy werequeried. Additional questions were posed regarding the degree of public participation at any stage inthe urban (noise) planning process. Although this same questioning structure was followed in eachinterview, the person responding will inevitably have a large influence in such a narrative
open-questioned interview with plenty of possibilities to expatiate. It is nevertheless assumed that - atleast - the major lines from the city noise policy will be brought forward by the person who declared to
be a relevant interviewee on this topic.

4. RESULTS
4.1 Noise problem assessment
For the interviewed city departments, noise is typically considered as the second biggest urban
environmental issue (see Table 2). Air pollution is generally seen as the main problem. Somewhat
contrasting, the officer of Madrid referred to a population-based survey where noise did not even end
up in the top ten. In Hamburg, the lack of legal noise limits was declared to diverge political interest
away from the topic. When talking about urban noise, it is clearly all about (road) traffic noise, unlessan airport at close distance from the city centre was present. In the EU countries, noise mapping is399

indicated as the main objective assessment method, while monitoring is only mentioned by two cities
as a policy instrument for noise problem definition. Public participation in the latter is typically
centered around the obliged population consulting in the framework of the END (5) action planning.
Antwerpen mentioned a strong push from action groups that actually put noise on the local (political)
agenda. Ad-hoc complaints and general environmental surveys are mentioned as well. In Eindhoven,public participation is deemed unnecessary to identify noise problems given their “well -organized andelaborate noise planning policy”.
Table 2 – Aspects of the environmental noise problem assessment.
Antwerpen

Eindhoven

(BE)

(NL)

Genève (CH)

Hamburg (DE)Air pollution

1. Air pollution
Positioning of noise among

2. Noiseother environmental issues

3. Lack of green
space

1. Noise

1. Air pollution

2. Air pollution

2. Water quality

3. Safety

3. Noise("noiseexposure has nolegal limits soless policy
interest")

Noise sources of mainconcern
Objective assessment ofnoise issues

Traffic noise

Noise mapping

Road traffic

1. Road traffic

noise, railway

noise 2. Airport

noise, leisurenoise 3. Leisure

noise

noise

Noise mapping

Monitoring

Traffic noise

Noise mapping
Publichearings/online
platforms

Strong pushPublic participation innoise problem definition

Might emerge

during END

from action

No public

during 2-yearly

action plans,groups putting

participation for(general)might appear innoise on thetransport noise

environmental

the obliged

surveyspublicpolitical agenda

consultation in
any urban
planning project400

Table 2 – (continued)
Madrid (ES)München (DE)Warschau (PL)Wien (AT)All

Positioning of noise among
other environmental issues

Noise not in top

Not assessedten (following(but noise is an

public survey)

important issue)

environmental
1. Air pollution

disturbances

2. Noisedue to traffic(air quality,
noise, ...)
1. Traffic noise

Noise sources of main

1. Traffic noise

concern

2. Leisure noise

2. Neighbor

1. Traffic noise
2. Industrial

Traffic noise

noise 3.
Construction

noise

noise
Objective assessment of

Monitoring andnoise issues

noise mapping

Noise mapping

Noise mapping

Noise mapping

Publichearings/online
platforms

Public participation innoise problem definition

Complaint

during END

Complaint

Inclusion indriven byaction plans,

driven or part ofwell organised

individuals or

might appear in

END action

Vienna districtneighborhood

the obliged

plan public

cooperative

associations

publicconsultation

procedures

consultation in
any urban
planning project
4.2 Noise mitigation toolbox
Overall, there is a strong emphasize on source interventions (type A, see Table 3), except for thecity of Antwerpen. Their urban ring road was identified as the main cause for the city’s noise exposure.
Silent road pavements are considered inapplicable given the high share of heavy traffic, and sinceregular replacement of the top layer would lead to a “traffic infarction for a large part of Flanders’region” (i.e. the Northern half of Belgium). In contrast, Genève applies silent road pavements
city-wide as the main noise management measure. Satisfying results upon large-scale noise monitoring
were declared. Sound pressure level decreases by speed reduction attract interest in various cities (likeMadrid and München) and have been applied in Hamburg (50 to 30 km/h near densely inhabited zones),
although still controversial.
Path interventions (type B) are slightly less applied/preferred compared to source interventions.
Dwelling facade insulation is often cited as an important measure and takes a major part in the toolboxof Eindhoven, Hamburg and München. However, the exposure levels near the dwelling (e.g. ingardens) are then mentioned as a remaining problem. Extensive undergrounding or road coverings
have been applied in Madrid and are currently studied/debated in Antwerpen.
City growth and consequently increasing housing demands forces the cities to use zones that are401characterized by sound pressure levels that are actually too high to safeguard human health. This is arecurring remark by the interviewees. Intervention type C, containing buffer zones, can therefore often
be considered as inapplicable/unrealistic in many cities. Nevertheless, Eindhoven tries to apply thismeasure in the first place aiming at preventing future noise issues (using estimated t raffic loads at
nearby roads within a time frame of 10 years for new dwelling projects).
Sound perception/soundscape measures (belonging to type D) are only mentioned by the city of
Antwerpen. Exploiting wind-induced vegetation noise (e.g. introduction of Populus tremula) or watersounds (introduction of fountains) in parks bordering busy roads are currently being considered. The
city of München reported specific measures to achieve quiet sides/facades (type D) at buildings (e.g.
building orientation optimization and creating so-called “in-fills”).
A few cities mention measures that belong to intervention type E, generally aiming at noise
awareness raising. This should not only be seen as people trying to minimize their own exposure (levelor duration), but also deals with the fact that citizens are noise producers themselves. Stimulating
modal shift (towards bicycle or public transport use) is part of the policy in Madrid, München and
Hamburg.
Table 3 – Road traffic noise management focus following the intervention classification system. The scalefrom “+++” to “0” stands for “a strong emphasize on” to “not considering at all”.
Antwer

A Source
interventions
B Pathinterventions
C New/closed
infrastructurepenEindhov

GenèveHamburMadridMüncheWarschWien(BE)en (NL)(CH)

g (DE)(ES)n (DE)au (PL)

(AT)

0

+/++

+++

+

++

++

+

++

++

++

+

++

+

++

+

+

0

+

+

0

0/+

0

+

0/+

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

+

+/++

+

0

0

D Otherphysicalinterventions
E Education/communication4.3 Evaluating noise policy
Antwerp, Eindhoven, Genève, Hamburg and Madrid mention that project based (ad -hoc) noise
measurements after interventions are common practice for manifold reasons (to learn about theeffectiveness of a measure, to check a priori modelling during the planni ng phase, for communication
to the population, etc.). Genève and Madrid, in addition, use their (available) noise monitoring
network to check long-term effects. München, Warschau and Wien will typically await the next roundof strategic noise mapping to evaluate the measures taken.
4.4 Public participation
There is a high diversity in public participation in the noise planning processes in the cities
considered (see Table 4). At the lowest level, there are ad -hoc complaints (so-called “push” fromcitizens), facilitated by making telephone numbers easily available or by automated web -forms. In asecond step, the obliged interaction with the population in relation to the END noise action plans canbe mentioned where the city administration needs to “pull” reactions (e.g. by means of roadshows). A
higher degree of participation is the involvement of citizen groups at various or at every stage of402

important city planning projects. This becomes even stronger when such a requirement is hardcoded in(local) law. An outlier among the cities considered is Eindhoven, where the strict noise planning
regulations for any (new) development are considered as adequate so that participation from the publicat large is actually deemed unnecessary for road traffic noise problems.
Table 4 – Qualitative estimate of the degree of public participation in the environmental noise policy. The
scale from “+++” to “0” stands for “extensive participation” to “no participation at all”.
Antwerpen

Eindhoven

GenèveHamburg

MadridMünchenWarschau

Wien

(BE)

(NL)

(CH)

(DE)

(ES)

(DE)

(PL)

(AT)

++

0

+

++

+/++

++

0/+

++/+++

4.5 Integration of noise in the urban planning process
The degree at which environmental noise is integrated in the urban planning process is quite
different (see Table 5). In Antwerpen, noise is starting to be considered as an important aspect in urban
planning; the city department is building up experience with such an early integration. However, they
see a problematic lack of knowledge with external planning contractors on th e topic of noise.
Eindhoven has a high degree of legally-enforced integration of noise in their urban planning process.
Silent roads are included standard in new urban developments in Genève, and there is an extensive
project-based interaction with the noise specialists from their environmental department. The latter isindicated by the city of Madrid as well, but probably to a somewhat lesser degree than in Genève. In
Hamburg, noise is considered in the planning process mainly when raised as an issue durin g the public
consultation. Warschau sees many problems when noise would need to be considered, as this would
further complicate the urban planning process. Although Wien has an extensive public participation
procedure, noise is considered only as a small aspect of urban planning and there is no full integration.
Table 5 – Qualitative estimate to what degree noise is integrated in urban planning
Antwerpen

Eindhoven

GenèveHamburg

MadridMünchenWarschau

Wien

(BE)

(NL)

(CH)

(DE)

(ES)

(DE)

(PL)

(AT)

+/++

+++

+/++

0/+

+

?

0

0/+

5. CONCLUSIONS
Noise is a well-recognized environmental issue in most European cities consulted. The proposedclassification procedure for noise measures can be used to frame the noise policies of cities, allowing
an inter-comparison. Overall, most common are source type interventions, closely followed by pathinterventions. Other types of interventions are clearly much less exploited. Although all cities
considered are European, there are remarkable differences regarding public partici pation (“at every
stage of the planning process” to “none at all for road traffic noise exposure”), the type of noise
measures taken (“a main role for silent road surfaces” to declaring that the latter is an “inapplicablemeasure”), and evaluation procedures for interventions (“awaiting the next round of strategic noise
mapping” to “using extensive city-wide noise monitoring networks”).

REFERENCES
1. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, WHO Regional Office for Europe,
Copenhagen, 2018.
2. Brown AL, van Kamp I. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic
Review of Transport Noise Interventions and their Impacts on Health. International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public Health, 14 (8), 2017.
3. Öhrström E, Skanberg A, Svensson H, Gidlöf-Gunnarsson A. Effects of road traffic noise and thebenefit of access to quietness. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 295(1-2), 40-59, 2005.
4. Arcadis’ sustainable cities index (http://www.arcadis.com), 2018.
5. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to theassessment and management of environmental noise (END).

403