PROCEEDINGS of the23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

Assessment of quiet areas in Europe
Eulalia PERIS1; Núria BLANES2; Jaume FONS3; Miquel SÁINZ DE LA MAZA412

European Environment Agency, Denmark

European Topic Centre on Air Pollution, Transport, Noise and Industrial pollution - Universitat Autònoma deBarcelona, Spain

3

European Topic Centre on Air Pollution, Transport, Noise and Industrial pollution - Universitat Autònoma deBarcelona, Spain

4

European Topic Centre on Air Pollution, Transport, Noise and Industrial pollution - Universitat Autònoma deBarcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT
Living in a quiet area provides health benefits such as increased quality of life and well-being. Nearby accessto quiet areas can also offer psychological restoration and can help in reducing noise annoyance reactions.
Quiet areas are not only beneficial for human health but also help to protect areas of valuable habitat. The
Environmental Noise Directive (END) recognises the need to preserve areas of good acoustic quality,referred as “quiet areas”. However, the data reported as part of the END contains little information on how
the countries, regions and cities define and protect quiet areas in their territories and whether there has been asignificant improvement in designation and protection of these areas over the past years. The aim of thispaper is to present an overview of how countries define and protect of quiet areas in Europe. This is achieved
using data from case studies comprised of online questionnaires, which were completed by noise
representatives of different countries, regions and cities. In addition to the analysis of the questionnaires, acombined spatial assessment of noise exposure, land use and land cover data for areas potentially unaffectedby noise pollution in European cities is presented for 2012 and 2017.
Keywords: Noise abatement, Traffic noise, Road traffic noise, Aircraft noise, Railway noise, Quiet areas,Limit values

1. INTRODUCTION
Noise pollution is caused by a variety of sources and is widely present not only in the busiest urban
environments but also in natural environments [1]. Quiet areas offer lower sound levels from traffic
providing restoration from environmental stress and opportunities for rest and relaxation [2]. Apartfrom the physical and mental health benefits to humans, quiet areas are also important for animals [3].
The Environmental Noise Directive (END) recognises the need of preserving areas of goodacoustic environmental quality, referred as “quiet areas”, in order to protect the European soundscape[4]. However, the END does not provide a clear definition of quiet areas, leaving ample discretion forinterpretation to the countries [5]. Available guidance suggests that quiet areas are those where noise isabsent or at least not dominant [5, 6]. It is also understood that quiet areas generally have further
qualities than low noise levels. Even though people seek tranquility, they also want a safe and clean
place and a pleasant view, preferably with green or water [6]. Furthermore, quiet areas are also thoseperceived to have a pleasant soundscape made with natural or man-made sounds [7].
Although the European legislation aims to reduce noise pollution and highlights the need topreserve currently unaffected areas, the designation of quiet areas in Europe is still under development
1

eulalia.peris@eea.europa.eu
nuria.blanes@uab.cat
3jaume.fons@uab.cat
4
miquel.sainz@uab.cat
23580

and areas identified as quiet are not always protected through action plans [8]. Data reported as part of
the END currently contains little information on how the countries, regions and cities define andprotect quiet areas in their territories. Likewise, there is no available information on the state of areas
potentially unaffected by noise in Europe.
In this paper, an overview of how countries designate and protect quiet areas in Europe is given based onquestionnaires and spatial data. This paper aims to provide new information about:xxx

Characteristics taken into account to designate quiet areas inside agglomerations
Measures to protect quiet areas currently used by countries/regions/cities
Increase/decrease in potential quiet areas between 2012 and 2017

2. METHODS
2.1 Questionnaire
A questionnaire was used to collect information on how countries, regions and cities define,designate and protect quiet areas inside their territories. The questionnaire was prepared with the EU
survey platform (https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/) and was sent to the noise representatives from thecountries that are part of the partnership network of the European Environment Agency (EEA). The
noise representatives were also asked to distribute the survey to cities and regions in their country. The
type of information collected was qualitative. The questionnaire consisted mainly of open-ended
questions which aimed at collecting information on the following areas:
xxxxxxxx

Criteria used to designate quiet areas
Noise limits used for designating quiet areas
Differences between quiet areas in agglomerations and in the open country
Number and size of quiet areas designatedCharacteristics of the quiet areas
Reasons for not designating or protecting quiet areas
Legal instruments used to protect quiet areasMeasures implemented to protect quiet areas

A qualitative analysis was performed on the survey responses given by the noise representatives withthe a particular focus on the criteria used to designate quiet areas, noise limits used to designate quiet
areas and the measures implemented to protect quiet areas inside agglomerations.
2.2 Spatial Data
Noise contour maps of cities submitted under the END for the 2012 and 2017 round of noise
mapping were used to determine the changes in areas potentially unaffected by noise. The noise
contour maps for all sources of noise (road, rail, air and industry sources) were used. In addition to this,the CORINE Land Cover 2012 and 2018 were used to assess the changes in land cover type (Blanes etal. 2019). The rationale used to conduct the spatial analysis is shown in Figure 1.

3581

Figure 1 – Spatial analysis diagram used to assess changes in quiet areas.

The changes in quiet areas using noise contour maps of cities and land cover types were calculated
for cities where data was available.

Figure 2 – Analysis of noisy and quiet areas based on noise contour maps from 2012 and 2017

3. RESULTS
3.1 Overall questionnaire responses
A total of 21 countries replied the questionnaire (DE, HU, RO, SK, EE, DK, LT, CZ, IE, IT, SI, LU,BG, PT, UK, BE, MK, CH, TR, RS, KV). Information at regional level was collected for DE and IT (3regions for both) and 1 region reported information for Finland. 45 agglomerations from 9 different
countries reported information on quiet areas (AT, BE, BG, DE, FI, IE, IT, PL, PT). See Figure 3.
Out of the countries that responded, 85% indicated that criteria for designating quiet areas in theirterritories were in place and 60% had designated at least one quiet area. Respondents reported that thecriteria used are different between quiet areas in the open country and quiet areas inside
agglomerations. To date, most countries focus only on quiet areas inside agglomerations and therefore
the following sections report only responses reported by countries and regions regarding the state ofquiet areas inside agglomerations as well as the responses received by individual cities.

3582

Figure 3 – Distribution of responses
3.2 Designation and protection of quiet areas
According to the country questionnaires received, 60% of the countries that responded to thequestionnaire reported having some criteria to designate quiet areas inside agglomerations. According
to the questionnaires completed by the cities, 30 cities out of 45 reported to have criteria fordesignating urban quiet areas inside the city. The majority of quiet areas inside agglomerations weredesignated in the second reporting cycle of the END (2010 – 2014), and most of them were reported
through the END directive. The criteria used to designate quiet areas inside urban agglomerations isshown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Criteria for designating quiet areas inside agglomerations
Type
Acoustic criteria

Responsesxx

Areas undisturbed by noise. Countries and cities designate areas asquiet areas if noise levels in a substantial percentage or surface of the“quiet area” are below a certain noise threshold. The noise limit
values used to designate quiet areas are reported in Figure 4.
Difference in noise levels between the “quiet area” and surrounding
areas is established in some countries/cities. Differences reported arebetween 6 dB(A) to 15 dB(A).

Urban functionalityx

Quiet areas inside agglomerations are generally attributed to areas
with a certain type of functionality. A diverse range of functionalities
were reported such as health sensitive sites (i.e. hospitals, schools),
recreational sites (i.e. play-grounds, sporting facilities, outdoortheatres), parks, cultural heritage sites (i.e. castles, churches,archeologic sites) and public areas (i.e. urban squares, cemeteries).

Land cover typex

Green/blue landcovers (i.e. high degree of vegetation, city parks,gardens, green urban areas)

Location of the areax

A minimum distance from noisy activities from industry and majorroads needs to be met.

x

Areas within or adjacent to densely populated settlement area or nearresidential areas.

x

To be publicly accessible. One city has designated quiet areas as thosewhere at least 10.000 inhabitants have access to the relatively quiet
area within a walking distance (1 km).

x

Interconnected natural spaces connecting with inter-urban links to

Accessibility to thearea

3583

adjacent landscape areas through forests, green spaces, parks, fields
and meadows.
x

Quiet axes with networking function: connecting routes away fromthe main traffic routes in attractive inner-city open spaces.

Size of the areax

Minimum size needed. Different sizes have been reported from 0.3 hato 5 ha.

Visual qualities

xAreas with established scenic importance.

Subjective
judgementx

A quiet area needs to be perceived to have a pleasant soundscape.

The majority of countries also provided information on the specific noise limits that are applied todesignate quiet areas inside agglomerations. The noise limits reported can be seen in Figure 4. It
should also be highlighted that we found that more emphasis was given to the difference in noise level
between the core part of the quiet area and the surrounding areas.

Figure 4 – Noise indicators and limit values considered to designate quiet areas in urban areas.
32 cities provided information on the type of measures that were conducted to protect quiet area s,
including preserving the areas and preventing any deterioration of existing quietness . A summary ofthe different measures applied by cities is shown in Table 2. Nevertheless, the main reasons
highlighted by cities where no action plan has been conducted to protect quiet areas are that there is no
definition in place for quiet areas, there is a lack of protection tools, as well as a lack of interest fromthe population concerning quiet areas.
Table 2 – Measures carried out to protect quiet areas inside agglomerations
TypeMonitoringx

Monitoring noise levels in quiet areas and urbanised areas

Limitation of noisexx

Restriction of certain noise-making activities
Determine the appropriate noise limit values and include them in theecological and environmental impact assessment analysis (quiet areasin open country)x

Further limitations (linked to their use) in those areas (e.g. largeconcerts)xx

Speed control, traffic patterns, traffic management
Increase and prioritize the use of public transport

Traffic mitigationand management
measures3584

Responses

Urban planning

xxx
x

Promotion of cycle mobility
Creation of a cycle track/path/infrastructure
Installation of electronic speed detection system
Sustainable development of the urban transport system

xx
x
xx
x

Traffic bans / restricting car access to the central parts of the city
Replacement of intersections with roundabouts
Green wave light / optimization of traffic lightsSound-absorbing asphalt / improving road surfaces
Creation of 30 km/h zones
Road movement reorganization in some areas / reorganization ofspacesxInterventions for a more fluid traffic flow / traffic calmingx

Increase and widen pedestrian areasxx

Organizing car parks near the start and end stops of public transport
Designing sites for public use, reforestation of free areas andconstruction of landscaping zones and parks
Limiting the creation and development of ground infrastructures(roads, rail, recreation)

xxxx
x

Avoidance of construction in quiet areas
Creation of buffer zones within quiet areas
Determine the impacts concerning traffic planning
Consideration of quiet areas within (environmental) planning /development decisions

x

Consideration of environmental noise in new plans

Noise barriersxInstalling sound barriers, green barriers and protection screens

Promotion andawarenessx

Appropriate signage

3.3 Changes in urban quiet areas between 2012 and 2017
There is variability between cities in terms of gain/loss of potential quiet areas. Figure 5 shows thepercentage change of potential quiet areas between 2012 and 2017 for two different types of land use,green/blue areas and residential areas. As it can be seen, cities such as Bern, Zürich, Cork, Hamburg,Lausanne, Munich, Aalborg and Aarhus experienced a net gain in land that is green/blue andpotentially quiet (shown with a light green percentage denoting the “no quiet-quiet option” of thelegend). On the other hand, cities such as Vilnius, Praha, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Dublin, Copenhagen
and Valleta have experienced a decrease in potential quiet areas that are green/blue. Looking at thegain of residential quiet areas, it can be seen that Aarhus, Aalborg, Munich, Dublin, Hamburg, Cork,Zürich and Lausanne have experienced a net gain in potential quiet areas that are residential. Although
the reason for these changes is unknown, local noise action plans, nature conservation plans as well as
measures related to urban planning can have an effect on the gain or loss of quiet areas in urban
settings. On the other hand, a change in the modelling methodologies used for traffic could also lead tochanges that are not strictly related to a real increase/decrease of noise.

3585

Figure 5 – Gain and loss of green/blue and residential quiet areas between 2012 and 2017 inselected cities.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The designation and protection of quiet areas in agglomerations was investigated through theanalysis of a questionnaire completed by noise representatives of 21 countries, 7 regions and 45 cities.
The results show that the majority of respondents indicated to have definitions of quiet areas in place
as well as selection criteria to designate them. The responses indicate that the selecting criteria usedfor the designation of quiet areas vary widely. Sound-pressure levels seem to play an important role inthe selection criteria for designating quiet areas. However, sound levels are not the only importantfactor for designating these areas. Other factors taken into account to designate quiet areas are thoserelated to visual qualities of the area, distance from the noise sources, subjective perception of the area,accessibility to the area, size of the area as well as land use type and functionality of the area. These
results support the previous calls for new kinds of indicators as well as new methods for identification
or measurement of perceived acoustic quality/appreciation of quiet areas as current measurement
methods cannot discriminate pleasant natural sounds such as birds, water or wind from unwanted
sound from transportation, industry or recreational sources [5].
A significant number of competent authorities have made an effort to protect quiet areas. About
60% of the cities that completed the questionnaire indicated that they are applying some miti gation or
management measures to protect quiet areas inside their urban areas. Most of the measures applied arevery similar to those used for management and mitigation of transportation noise. Urban planningmeasures that are being used to protect quiet areas include pedestrianisation, and the evaluation ofnoise effects during the planning process of new infrastructure projects. Public engagement andawareness don´t seem to be widely used measures for protecting quiet areas. A higher promotion andawareness of quiet areas could be beneficial since cities have reported that one of the stoppers forprotecting quiet areas is that there is a lack of interest from the population concerning quiet areas.
A variability between cities in terms of gain/loss of potential quiet areas was found. However,further investigations are needed to determine whether these results are due to other factors such as theuse of different traffic noise modeling methodologies between 2012 and 2017, or a lack of common
assessment methods between cities.

3586

REFERENCES
1. European Environment Agency. Noise in Europe 2014.EEA Report-No 10/2014, European Environment
Agency, 2014. [Online]. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/noise-in-europe-2014.
2. Shepherd D, Welch D, Dirks KN, McBride D. Do quiet areas afford greater health-related quality of life
than noisy areas?. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(4):1284–1303. Published 2013 Mar 27.
doi:10.3390/ijerph10041284
3. Shannon, G., McKenna, M.F., Angeloni, L.M., Lynch, E., Warner, K.A., Nelson, M.D., et al. A synthesisof two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews, 2016, 91:4,pp.982–1005. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1111/brv.12207.
4. European Union. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002
relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12-25,pp.12–25.
5. European Environment Agency. Good practice guide on quiet areas. EEA Technical Report, EuropeanEnvironment Agency, 2014.
6. QSIDE. QSIDE 2013. [Online]. Available at: http://www.qside.eu/about.html [Accessed 4 April 2019].
7. Matsinos Y. G., Tsaligopoulos A. and Economou C. Identifying the Quiet Areas of a Small Urban
Setting: The Case of Mytilene. Global Nest Journal 2017 19:1 pp. 17-28 [Online]. Available at:https://journal.gnest.org/publication/gnest_01817 [Accessed 4 April 2019].
8. European Commission. Report from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council on theimplementation of the environmental noise directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive
2002/49/EC.
Brussels.
2017[Online].
Availableat:https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0321&from=EN[Accessed 7 December 2018].

3587