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

Overview of environmental noise limits in the European Region
Rosan NUSSELDER1; Bert PEETERS1
1

M+P, The Netherlands

ABSTRACTIn October 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) published environmental noise guidelines
based on dose-response curves for relevant noise-related health impacts. The guidelines provide
recommended noise limits, but do not describe what consequences of exceedance should be. Also, it
is helpful to know how the currently adopted limit values in European countries relate to therecommended limit values. Our research aims to address these questions. To do so, a survey has been
sent out to national experts to collect data regarding current critical noise limits. From the output, an
overview has been created which allows a comparison of limit values between countries. Also, acomparison is made with respect to the new WHO recommendations, revealing the current state ofnoise legislation in the European region. In addition, information has been gathered on the s cope andbasis of these values, as well as detailed information on their assessment, exceptions and legal
consequences. From it, general trends in noise level policy and enforcement methods are extracted.
The results provide insight in the broad spectrum of noise legislation within the European region andform a basis from which to build best practices for countries that aim to implement the WHO
guidelines.
Keywords: Noise, Limits, Health

1. INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization (WHO) has published its "Environmental noise guidelines for theEuropean Region" in October 2018 (1). To understand how current European noise legislation relates
to the recommendations of the WHO, an overview of noise limit values in European countries iswanted. In order to obtain such an overview, the current national situation has been analyzed basedon input from national experts in nearly 30 European countries.
This study aims to address two main questions: (a) how do limit values relate to the WHO
recommendations? and (b) in which way are limit values implemented: what is their scope, and what
are the consequences of exceedance? In this paper we provide the State-of-the-Art of current noise
limits in European countries, including a description of related re gulations and consequences. From
this information, recommendations are derived for countries that aim to implement the WHO
guidelines.

2. RESEARCH METHODS
2.1 Scope
The scope of this study is co-determined by the scope of the WHO publication from 2018. Of
primary interest are limit values regarding noise immission at the facade of dwellings, outdoors. Like
the WHO guidelines, the study differentiates between different sources of sound: roads, railways,
aircrafts, wind turbines and industry. Although the WHO does not provide recommendations forindustry noise, it is regarded as an interesting supplementary source to take into account as it can havestrong negative effects on human health, and as it is included in the END noise mapping obligations.
13572

rosannusselder@mp.nl, bertpeeters@mp.nl

The study focusses on national limit values, not on threshold values set in the context of theEnvironmental Noise Directive. Although countries may determine threshold values in the process ofsetting up action plans, these values do not protect citizens against noise the same way limit values
do, as an actual follow-up of the action plans is not mandatory.
The term ‘limit’ value is not clearly defined. In this study, in order for a noise limit to be considered alimit value, there needs to be a legal obligation to assess noise levels against that value, even if there are noconsequences attached to it. In that sense, a limit value may be used as a ‘target value’: a value below which
there will be no action, and above which there is an obligation to consider taking actions (see Figure 1). Somecountries report using both target values and limit values, the latter of which should not be exceeded. Eventhen, exceptions that allow exceedance of the limit value may apply.

Figure 1 – Limit vs. target values
2.2 Method
Because information available on the internet, such as (2), was not sufficient to get an up-to-dateand in-depth overview of noise limits in Europe, it was decided that the most appropriate source of
information would be noise experts from the European countries themselves. Therefore, aquestionnaire was prepared and sent out to 33 countries represented in the EIONET NRC noise
community. The questionnaire was presented in the format of a fact sheet. This was done because thefact sheet in itself is suitable for presentation of the information provided , and secondly, because thefact sheet format provides a way of presenting questions in a structured fashion.
In short, among the following research questions were included:x What types of limit values exist for the different sources?
x Which quantities are used? Are these all Lden and L night, or are other indicators used as well?
x What is the scope of limits in force and what are legal consequences of exceedance?
x Based on which criteria have limit values been established?
The questions in the factsheet are grouped together into eight sections. The first section serves tomake a distinction between END threshold values and other national noise-related legislation (seeparagraph 2.1). In section two, a bar graph is presented that graphically summarizes limit values set
in the particular country. The analysis of the data is based on the limit values that are shown in thebar graph. An example is shown in figure 2.

3573

Figure 2 – Section 2 from the fact sheet of the Netherlands, with the bar graph representing the limit values
Under section 3 of the fact sheet, supplementary information is provided regarding the limit values.
A definition is given of the indicators (metrics) used, and nuisance penalties and/or correction values
are described. Then, under section 4, respondents are asked to choose from a set of possible
consequences resulting from exceedance of the limit values. The question is presented in a tickbox
format, such that the possibly widely varying forms of consequences and situations to which they
apply are brought down to a result that allows for a meaningful analysis of the information provided.
Below the tick boxes, additional information may be provided by the respondent.
In section 5, respondents are asked to indicate at which position of the dwelling limit values areassessed. The receiver position, which may be a microphone or a receiver point in an acoustic
calculation model, is important for the comparison since it may affect the results. In section 6,
respondents are asked how limit values were established. This could be, for example, based on theprevious WHO recommended noise limits from 1995, or by a national study including cost/benefit
considerations. Finally, under section 7, respondents are asked to provide the name of main legal
documents, and any other relevant information may be supplemented under section 8.

3. RESULTS
3.1 Occurrence of limit values
The results show that there is a certain degree of noise legislation in virtually all countries, with 90% of
the countries reporting the use of limit values for environmental noise with a legal obligation to assess these,
not including countries that use these only as non-binding thresholds for the END action plans. Of all
countries with limits, traffic noise limits (road, rail and/or aircraft) exist in 80% of the cases, industry noise
limits in 75% of the cases, and slightly more than 50% of the countries have limits for wind turbine noise(see Figure 3). Limit values mostly apply to both new situations (i.e. new dwellings, installations or
infrastructure) and existing situations. However, some countries have higher noise limits for existing
situations, and 20% of countries have no noise limits for existing situations at all.
A few countries report limits that are not source specific, but defined more generally for a specific receiverarea type, applying to the cumulated noise or dominant source. Only limits applying to the dominant source
are included in the analysis and do not fall under category ‘none’ in Figure 3.

3574

Figure 3 – Occurrence of limit values for different sources, for new situations, existing situations or both.
3.2 Noise indicators
The WHO defines their recommended intervention levels in terms of long -term noise indicators
L den and Lnight. Current noise limits defined in European countries are, in all countries and for almost
all sources, defined as long-term noise indicators as well. Several countries report additional limits
for short-term noise events, such as Germany, where aircraft noise may not exceed a certain peak level
more than 6 times during the night.
As shown in Figure 4, there is a minority of countries that uses L den to define a limit for the averagenoise levels over the entire 24-hour period, or a combination of L den and Lnight. Most countries haveseparate noise limits for the day and night period (L day and Lnight ). Separate Levening limits also exist,
and a few countries specifically assess the morning hour between 06 :00 and 07:00. Other indicators
are rare but do exist, for example: Leq24h (SE), Letm (NL: maximum of Lday, Levening + 5 dB andL night + 10 dB) and LVA (IT: specific indicator based on 3-week average day/night levels). In BE(Flanders), a generic dB-value is defined as an industry noise limit, but the correspo nding statisticalindicator used to assess it (e.g. Leq, L 50 , L 95 ) is determined per situation.

Figure 4 – Indicators used as limits for different noise sources
3.3

The dB-values

Limit values and WHO recommendations
From the country fact sheets, comparable limit values have been gathered that are within the scopeand definitions described in section 2. Figure 5 shows the daytime/L den limit values and the L night limit
values as a cumulative distribution: the vertical axis shows the countries that report a limit value
higher than or equal to the dB-value on the horizontal axis, as a percentage of all countries that havea limit value for that noise source. The dashed vertical lines show the intervention as recommended

3575

by the WHO. Countries that have no noise limits for that noise source and period are not included in
the graph. Values selected for these graphs apply to new situations (new infrastructure/installations
and/or new dwellings).
The range of limit values is wide. For road and rail traffic, there is range of 18 and 20 dB between
the highest and lowest values used as daytime noise limits. For aircraft, the range is smaller (10 dB).
For industry noise, there is a higher range (31 dB), but the upper half of that range is covered by only
20% of the countries. For wind turbines, the range is 20 dB. For nighttime noise, L night limit values
are typically lower, but the ranges are similar to those found for daytime/average limits, for nearly all
sources.
Noise limits are relatively high compared to the WHO recommended noise levels for road, rail,
aircraft and wind turbine (daytime) noise. For road and rail traffic, 10% of the countries have limits
at or below the WHO values. For aircraft noise, there is not a single country with limits at or below
the recommended value. For wind turbines, 6 out of 14 countries have daytime limit values below orat the WHO-level (45 dB). This indicates that there are currently many countries in which noise levels
above the WHO-recommended values are allowed. There may very well be noise mitigating actions
below the limits, but there definitely are many situations in which there is no obligation to bring downnoise levels to a value below the WHO-recommended levels.

Figure 5 – Cumulative distribution of limits: % of countries with a limit value higher than or equal to thevalue on the x-axis. Countries without limits for that source have not been counted. Left: daytime/averagenoise (Lday or Lden), right: nighttime noise (Lnight), for traffic sources (top) and industrial sources (bottom).
Differences between noise sources
As figure 5 shows, the cumulative distributions of limit values are quite close together for the threetraffic noise sources (road, rail and aircraft). Figure 7 shows a histogram of the difference, within thesame country, between rail and road noise limits (top graph) and between aircraft and road noise limits(bottom graph). Approximately 70% of the countries with limits for road and rail use equal limit
values for both sources. Nearly 25% applies a ‘rail bonus’, i.e. a higher noise limit for rail noise thanfor road noise. This was in line with earlier dose-response relations (3), that showed a lower
percentage of people highly annoyed or sleep disturbed by rail noise than by road noise, at the same
L den /L night levels. However, the recently updated dose-response curves underpinning the WHO
guidelines, as shown in figure 6, do not support such a rail bonus. In fact, the recent relations show aslightly higher occurrence of annoyance and sleep disturbance for rail than for road traffic noise.
Figure 6 also shows that people are much more annoyed and sleep disturbed by aircraft noise thanfor road and rail noise. Yet, only 25% of the countries apply lower noise limits for aircraft than forroad noise, and 35% of countries actually have aircraft limits above the road limits.

3576

Figure 6 – WHO 2018 dose-effect relations for annoyance and sleep disturbance; left: %HA vs. noise level,
for road, rail and aircraft, right: %HSD vs. noise level, for road, rail and aircraft

Figure 7 – Difference between limits for rail and road (top) and between aircraft and road (bottom)

3.4 Consequences
Countries were asked for consequences of exceeding the limit values, that range from:x prohibition: a full stop of the (planned) noise producing activity;
x active noise measures, e.g. silent road or track measures, noise barriers or source reduction measures;x passive noise measures, e.g. facade insulation or buying out house owners;
x financial sanctions: fines for the installation owner, or financial compensation of exposed people.
And then there may also be further, non-legally binding actions, such as drawing an action plan,
monitoring the noise immissions and/or informing the public.
As figure 8 shows, exceeding the limit often leads to a prohibition of operations or construction ofindustrial installations or wind turbines, but is uncommon for traffic noise sources. The considerationof active noise measures is required in a majority of countries for all sources, often followed by the
obligation to take passive noise measures when active measures are not possible or not cost-effective.
Financial sanctions are more common for aircraft and industrial sources than for road and rail traffic.

3577

Figure 8 – Occurrence of various consequences as a result of exceeding the limit, for each noise source
3.5 Basis of limit values
About 1/3rd of the respondents indicate that the dB-values are based on the previous WHOguidelines or the then-used Miedema dose-response curves, often aimed at some level of annoyance(9 to 15%). Another 1/3rd of countries reports a specific national policy-making process to establish
their limit values, incorporating national impact studies based on health impacts, cost/benefit data
and/or public/stakeholder consultation. About 25% of the respondents did not a nswer the question
about the rationale behind the limit values. The basis for the limit values is not always known or well documented.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Research questions
What types of limit values exist?
This study aims to provide an overview of the current status of noise legislation in Europe. From
the fact sheets, received from nearly 30 European countries, we conclude that there is a high level ofnoise legislation in Europe that includes assessment of noise immission levels. 90% of the countries
responding to our questionnaire report that limit values for environmental noise exist. Of all countries
with noise limits, traffic noise limits (road, rail and/or aircraft) exist in 80% of the cases, 75% have
limits for industry noise, and 50% have limits for wind turbines. Limit values are most often assessedusing Lday and L night , sometimes in combination with L evening . Less common is the use of the L den,sometimes combined with a separate L night limit, as suggested by the WHO.
What values and quantities are used?
Limit values used in European countries are generally higher than the intervention levels
recommended by the WHO. For road and rail, 80 to 90% of the noise limits are higher, and for aircraft
noise all countries with limits use values higher than the WHO recommendation. For wind turbines,
this is about 60%. The values of the noise limits vary widely, with ranges of a pproximately 20 dB forroad, rail, aircraft and wind turbine noise, and over 30 dB for industry noise.
The dose-response relations presented by the WHO show that the health impact of aircraft noise isstronger than for road or rail noise. In general, this dissimilarity is not reflected in European noise
limits, as 75% of countries allow equal or higher levels of aircraft noise than road noise. For r ail noise,
25% of the countries have a 5 dB higher rail noise limit than for road noise. Such a 5 dB ‘rail bonus’
is not justified by the new 2018 WHO guidelines.
What is the scope of these values and what are the legal consequences?
Even if limit values exist, they may not apply everywhere and always. In 20% of the countries,
noise limits exist only for new situations (new dwellings, new infrastructure or new installations), andnot for existing situations. The value of the noise limit for existing situations may be higher than for3578

new situations: in 40% of the countries, road and rail noise limits are higher (usually +5 dB) for
existing situations. For aircraft and industry noise, this is 20%. For wind turbines, such a difference
was not reported.
The impact of a noise limit is determined not only by the dB-value, but to a large extent by theconsequences attached to exceeding the limit, as well. A full prohibition of activities or planned
constructions is common (75 to 80%) for industry and wind turbines, but uncommon (20%) for traffic
noise sources (road, rail and aircraft). A legal obligation to consider the application of active noise
measures (e.g. source measures, noise barriers) is common for all sources, often followed by the
obligation to take passive noise measures (e.g. facade insulation) if active noise measures are notpossible or not cost-effective. Financial sanctions are also a regular instrument (30 to 70%).
4.2 Recommendations
National and local authorities in European countries may be currently considering to update theirnoise legislation based on the new WHO guidelines. From the results in this report, the following
recommendations are given for the implementation of these guidelines:
x When considering new or different values for noise limits, authorities should regard the legislative
system as a whole, regarding also the enforcement and legal consequences. Specifically for existing
situations, a trigger to assess the noise levels against the limit should exist.
x The legislation should be clear about the objective of any limit or target value: either as a minimum
value above which actions should be considered, or as a maximum value that should not be exceeded.
x Following the WHO-recommendations, limit values for road and rail traffic should be similar andlimit values for aircraft noise should be considerably lower than for road and rail traffic. This
recommendation is purely from a health perspective, however, and other considerations may apply.
4.3 Discussion
The findings in this report are based on data provided by national experts from 29 European
countries and, therefore, covers the majority of European noise legislation. The information provided
by respondents varies from concise to quite extensive, but generally provides good and complete
answers to the questions asked. Nevertheless, the details of national noise legislation are undoubtedly
more complex and refined than the summarized descriptions given. Moreover, some level of detailmight have been lost in the process of analyzing the data.
It should be noted that noise limits do not directly reflect the real noise levels generally present in
a particular country, nor do they relate to the number of people exposed to harmful noise levels.
Conclusions about the actual health situation in any country, or in Europe as a whole, should not be
drawn from this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was commissioned by the EPA Network’s Interest Group on Noise Abatement (IGNA).
The authors are grateful to the IGNA members and chairs for their support and interest. Many thanks
also go to the members EIONET NRC noise group who took the time and effort to provide theexcellent information, and to the EEA for their assistance in distributing and collecting the fact sheets.
A full report on this study will be made available on the EPA Network website.

REFERENCES
1. Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Regions, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2018.
2. Evaluation of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise,
Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services, report for European Commission DG ENV, July 2016.
3. Miedema H.M., Oudshoorn C.G. Annoyance from transportation noise: relationships with exposure
metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intercals, Environmental Health Perspecties, 109(4), April 2001,
p.409-416. P.M.

3579