presenting noise mapping information to the public

of 82

Presenting Noise Mapping Information to the Public

A Position Paper from the European Environment Agency Working Group on

the Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN)

March 2008

A Position Paper of the European Environment Agency Working Group on the Assessment of Exposure to Noise

of 82

1 INTRODUCTION TO AND PURPOSE OF THIS POSITION PAPER 3

2 RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE END 5 2.1 Deadlines 5 2.2 Information to and consultation with the public. 5

3 WORKSHOP ON PRESENTING NOISE MAPPING DATA TO THE PUBLIC HELD ON 5TH OCTOBER 2006 IN LONDON 6

4 IMPORTANT ISSUES ARISING FROM THE WORKSHOP AND WG-AEN’S RESPONSES TO THESE ISSUES 8

4.1 What do we want back from the public? 8 4.2 How should strategic noise mapping be linked to the action planning

process? 8 4.3 What type of information and what level of detail should be provided

to the public? 9 4.4 Overall outcome of the Workshop 10

5 WG-AEN’S TECHNICAL IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE TYPE OF INFORMATION AND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC 10

5.1 General 10 5.2 Presentation of the maps and associated data at local level 11 5.3 Presentation of the maps and associated data at national level 22

6 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FOR MAKING MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 24

7 LINKS WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 24

8 Membership of WG-AEN 25

9 Appendix 1 – The Environmental Noise Directive 26

10 Appendix 2 – The Directive on Public Access to Environmental Information 51

11 Appendix 3 - Workshop on Presenting Noise Mapping Data to the Public 61

Presenting Noise Mapping Information to the Public


of 82

1 INTRODUCTION TO AND PURPOSE OF THIS POSITION PAPER

1.1 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 is commonly known as the Environmental Noise Directive and hereinafter is referred to as the ‘END’. The END, which is reproduced in full in Appendix 1 1 of this Position Paper, requires Member States to undertake strategic noise mapping. It also refers to legislation regarding access to the information from strategic noise maps, since it requires “that the strategic noise maps … are made available and disseminated to the public in accordance with relevant Community legislation … and in conformity with Annex IV … to this Directive” (see Article 9.1 and Annex IV of the END).

1.2 The Aarhus Convention2 has established the right of everyone to receive environmental information held by public authorities (“access to environmental information”). The parties to this important Convention, including all European Union (EU) Member States, are required to make the necessary provisions so that public authorities at national, regional or local level ensure that this right is upheld.

1.3 In line with the Aarhus Convention, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 2003/4/EC, which is reproduced in full in Appendix 2 of this document. This act of adoption repealed Council Directive 90/313/EEC, which is referred to in Article 9.1 of the END, and transposed into EU law the rights established by this Convention.

1.4 Both the END (Article 9) and Directive 2003/4/EC establish two distinct aspects with regard to informing the public; (1) the availability of information upon request, and (2) the active and systematic dissemination of information to the public. It should be noted that this Position Paper focuses on the second of these aspects.

1.5 In respect of this, WG-AEN believes that there are two main purposes for developing effective strategies for the presentation of noise mapping information:

Purpose 1 is to inform the public of the results of strategic noise mapping at local and national level and at the same time explain how this information relates to them.

1 In Appendix 1, the sections of the END which are most relevant to this Position Paper have been

highlighted. 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/index.htm


of 82

Purpose 2 is to start to engage the public in the process of developing action plans since these plans should be based on the results of the strategic noise maps and should in particular apply to the most important areas as established by the maps. The purpose of these action plans is to prevent and reduce environmental noise, where necessary and particularly where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health, and to preserve environmental noise quality where it is good, for example in so-called quiet areas (see Articles 1.1c and 8.1 of the END).

1.6 For the purposes of this Position Paper the public shall mean the general public as defined in Article 3(v) of the END3 and not other interested parties and stakeholder groups e.g. technicians, transport engineers, politicians, planners, estate agents, housing landlords and property developers. However, WG-AEN recognises that the engagement of these interested parties and stakeholder groups may be crucial to the process of the development of effective action plans on noise and that many of these groups may need more detailed and more technical information than that normally provided to the general public.

1.7 This Position Paper contains ideas and suggestions that have been developed by WG-AEN which are intended to provide help, guidance and advice on good practice and associated strategies for presenting noise mapping information to the public at local and national levels for the purposes identified in section 1.5.

1.8 Many of these ideas and suggestions have been developed from presentations that were made and discussions that were held at the “Workshop on Presenting Noise Mapping Data to the Public” that took place in London in October 2006.

1.9 This Position Paper only deals with the presentation of strategic noise mapping and related information at local and national level as required by the END (see Article 9). It does not address the presentation of such information at European level.

1.10 Finally, it is emphasised that this Position Paper does not address the production of strategic noise maps, but merely how strategic noise maps and associated data may be presented and used to engage the public in the early stages of the action planning process.

Disclaimer: This Position Paper is not a Commission paper and is not legally binding. It contains technical ideas and suggestions, developed by a group of experts working on the assessment of exposure to noise, on how to inform the public of the results of strategic noise mapping and hence engage them in the early stages of action planning. It is emphasised that in this respect it is only the text and requirements of the END and of the Directive 2003/4/EC on access to environmental information that are legally binding at Community level.

3 'The public' shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice,

their associations, organisations or groups.

of 82

2 RELEVANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE END

2.1 Deadlines

The END requires that Member States ensure that a first round of strategic noise mapping is completed by 30th June 2007 (see Article 7.1). It also requires that a first round of noise action plans are drawn up by 18th July 2008 and that these address certain priorities and apply in particular to the most important areas as established by strategic noise mapping (see Article 8.1). In addition, Member States shall ensure that the information from strategic noise maps is sent to the commission by 30th December 2007 (see Article 10.2 of the END). There is no deadline in the END for informing the public on the results of strategic noise mapping but this is addressed by the requirements of Directive 2003/4/EC (see Appendix 2, Articles 3 and 7).

2.2 Information to and consultation with the public.

In Recital 12 to the END it is stated that:

“In order to have a wide spread of information to the public, the most appropriate information channels should be selected.”

Also,”ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public” is one of the key objectives of the END (see Article 1(b) of the END).

Elaborating on this, Article 9.1 of the END states that:

“Member States shall ensure that the strategic noise maps they have made, and where appropriate adopted, and the action plans they have drawn up are made available and disseminated to the public in accordance with Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 19901 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, and in conformity with Annexes IV and V to this Directive, including by means of available information technologies”.

In Article 9.2 of the END it is required that:

“This information shall be clear, comprehensible and accessible. A summary setting out the most important points shall be provided.”

In addition to these obligations, Annex IV of the END sets out minimum requirements for strategic noise maps.

The following paragraphs of this Annex are particularly relevant to the presentation of the strategic noise maps to the public.


of 82

- paragraph 3 stipulating that "strategic noise maps for agglomerations shall put a special emphasis on the noise emitted by road traffic, rail traffic, airports, industrial activity sites including ports";

- paragraph 4 setting out that strategic noise mapping shall be used as a "source of information for citizens in accordance with Article 9 of the END";

- paragraph 6 indicating that the citizen must be given additional and more detailed information (additional and more detailed to that sent to the Commission), such as:

“- a graphical presentation,

- maps disclosing the exceeding of a limit value,

- difference maps, in which the existing situation is compared with various possible future situations,

- maps showing the value of a noise indicator at a height other than 4 m where appropriate.”

- paragraph 6 indicating also that “The Member States may lay down rules on the types and format of these maps.”

- paragraph 7 stating that "strategic noise maps for local (…) application must be made for an assessment height of 4 meters and the 5 dB ranges of Lden and Lnight as defined in Annex VI."

3 WORKSHOP ON PRESENTING NOISE MAPPING DATA TO THE PUBLIC HELD ON 5TH OCTOBER 2006 IN LONDON

In October 2006 WG-AEN, with support from the UK Government, convened a workshop on ‘Presenting Noise Mapping Data to the Public’. The purpose was to facilitate a debate on how best to present noise mapping data to the public and other stakeholders in order to inform them and to actively engage them in the start of the process of developing action plans. This workshop, which was held in London, provided an opportunity to share experiences, to learn about presentation techniques and to discuss possible presentation strategies at local and national level. The presentations given by experts from across Europe, and the results of subsequent group discussions, have formed an important basis for this WG-AEN Position Paper. The presentations, which contain examples of good practice in presenting noise mapping data to the public and other stakeholders, are available at the following website:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/events/index.htm.


of 82

The reports on the group discussions that took place at the workshop are provided in Appendix 3 of this Position Paper.


of 82

4 IMPORTANT ISSUES ARISING FROM THE WORKSHOP AND WG-AEN’S RESPONSES TO THESE ISSUES

4.1 What do we want back from the public?

Before deciding what information is presented to the public and how it is to be presented it is necessary to consider what level of engagement is being sought.

In response, WG-AEN believes that when informing the public (see Purpose 1 in section 1.5) their interest must be secured. To achieve this there is a need to raise awareness and understanding of environmental noise exposure and its effects as requested by Article 1 of the END. It may also be appropriate to inform the public about the concepts and potential benefits of quiet areas at this stage and to ensure that the public appreciate that they are not only the receivers of environmental noise but often they are also the producers.

WG-AEN also believes that when engaging the public (see Purpose 2 in section 1.5) they need to be provided with the opportunity to become involved and actively engaged in the process of action planning. To achieve this level of engagement it will be important to show the public that significant reductions in the impact of environmental noise can be achieved, particularly in the longer term. The Commission website on noise4 and the latest CALM II Strategy Paper ‘Research for a Quieter Europe in 2020’ dated September 20075 provide useful information in this respect. When presenting noise mapping information, it may be useful to explain to the public that EU law acknowledges the need for complementary actions by all administrative levels (European Community, Member States and local authorities) to achieve agreement on the noise problems and possible solutions.

4.2 How should strategic noise mapping be linked to the action planning process?

In respect of strategic noise maps, the END firstly requires the mapping results to be made available and disseminated to the public. The public must also be consulted about the proposals for action plans which should be based on the results of strategic noise mapping and include information derived from the strategic noise maps. Annex V states the minimum requirements of the END applicable to the action plans in addition to the other requirements set out for action plans in Articles 1(c), 8 and 9. In summary:

• action plans must be prepared on the basis of strategic noise mapping results;

4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/home.htm 5 http://www.calm-network.com/index_stratpap.htm


of 82

• action plans must be adopted "with a view to preventing and reducing environmental noise where necessary and particularly where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health and to preserving environmental noise quality where it is good".

• action plans must address most important areas as identified by strategic noise maps; and

• action plans must, in addition to other information set out in Annex V, include a summary of the results of the strategic noise mapping, an evaluation of the number of people exposed, an identification of the problems and situations that need to be improved.

In response, WG-AEN emphasises that the results of strategic noise mapping have to be used to engage the public as a main stakeholder in the subsequent action plan development process. In addition, WG-AEN believes that the public need to be informed about the uses and limitations of the results of noise mapping in order to ensure that their levels of expectation for the action planning stage are realistic and can be managed. For example, the public may need to be informed that although the implementation of the noise action plans should, where necessary, reduce their noise exposure a limited availability of funds could mean that this is likely to take time and would take place on a prioritised basis. Also, the public may need to be made aware that in some areas there may be a small increase in noise because of actions taken to reduce noise in other areas. In some locations a new noise source may become apparent simply because noise from other sources has been reduced.

WG-AEN also believes that it may be useful to ’test’ the public’s understanding and acceptance of the noise maps before the development of detailed action plans and, therefore, a mechanism to obtain some feedback from the public may need to be set up. As it may not be practical to carry out such an exercise in every area that is mapped, WG-AEN suggests that such ‘tests’ could be carried out in some pilot areas.

4.3 What type of information and what level of detail should be provided to the public?

Annex IV of the END sets out the minimum requirements for strategic noise mapping. However, many members of the public will have little understanding of noise and the use of decibels. Also, different groups e.g. school children or the elderly, will need different levels and types of information.

In response, WG-AEN believes that the information provided needs to be understandable and relevant to all sectors of the public to encourage engagement and feedback. There is also a need to provide explanatory information with the strategic maps which, in simple terms, explain decibels and Lden and Lnight and what the noise maps show. For example: they show long-


of 82

term averages for the most important sources of environmental noise, mainly from transport and sites of major industrial activities, but they may not include all types of noise, e.g. recreational noise, neighbour noise, some commercial and industrial noise, vehicle horns etc.

In addition, with the publication of the noise maps there may be a need to:

• state that some people are more sensitive to noise than others e.g. different groups may have different sensitivities;

• provide the public with information on how they can contribute to reducing noise e.g. through their general behaviour, their use of transport and their driving style;

• link the noise map results to quality standards e.g. the health effects of noise exposure as published by the World Health Organisation (WHO)6 and the effects of environmental noise in learning environments; and

• identify positive benefits of reducing noise, e.g. reducing noise levels may increase property values.

Finally, it is recommended that those carrying out strategic noise mapping check for the existence of any national rules on the types and formats of maps which are produced for the purpose of informing the public, since laying down of such rules is allowed by the END.

4.4 Overall outcome of the Workshop

As a result of this Workshop, WG-AEN believes that different levels and types of information need to be presented to the public. WG-AEN’s suggestions and ideas for how this may be carried out are provided in the following section.

5 WG-AEN’S TECHNICAL IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE TYPE OF INFORMATION AND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL TO BE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC

5.1 General

The END requires that all members of the public should have access to noise mapping information. However, it is up to member states to decide on the type and level of detail of this mapping information and how to explain the meaning of the information. A key issue is to provide and explain the information as simply as possible at the first point of contact and to provide appropriate summaries. 6 World Health Organisation - Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) and forthcoming guidelines on

night-time noise, see: http://www.euro.who.int/Noise/activities/20040721_1


of 82

WG-AEN suggests that the majority of this information should be provided locally.

WG-AEN also suggests that two levels of information and accompanying explanations may need to be provided at local level. The basic (simplest) level should be the one provided initially to the public (see section 5.2.2) and then more detailed information should be available to those members of the public who wish to view it (see section 5.2.1). However, for those who are responsible for creating these two levels of maps, it may be more helpful to consider the more detailed level first, since this is what will be generated by the END strategic noise mapping process, and then to consider how the more simplified level can best be derived from this for use by the general public.

At national level WG-AEN suggests that it may only be necessary to provide one level of information (see section 5.3)

5.2 Presentation of the maps and associated data at local level

WG-AEN suggests that the term ‘local level’ should refer not only to agglomerations but also smaller administrations that are part of an agglomeration or are outside agglomerations and are affected by major noise sources as defined in Article 3 of the END.

5.2.1 The more detailed local level information

At the more detailed level, coloured maps showing noise contours in 5dB bands should be provided in accordance with Annex IV paragraph 7 of the END. These maps should at least cover the range required by Annex VI of the END, i.e. from <55dB to ≥ 75dB for Lden and < 50dB to ≥ 70dB for Lnight.

For these maps WG-AEN suggests that the standard colour banding as described in ISO 1996-2:1987 7 is used (see Table 1). It should be noted that this standard has been superseded by ISO 1996-2:2007, but this newer standard does not redefine the standard colour banding.

7 ISO 1996:1987 Acoustics -- Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise -- Part 2:

Determination of environmental noise levels.


of 82

Table 1. ISO 1996-2:1987 colour definitions 8.

Noise level (dB) Colour

Below 35 Light green

35 to 40 Green

40 to 45 Dark green

45 to 50 Yellow

50 to 55 Ochre

55 to 60 Orange

60 to 65 Cinnabar

65 to 70 Carmine

70 to 75 Lilac red

75 to 80 Blue

80 to 85 Dark blue

Where maps are made available on a website it may be necessary to place restrictions on the ability to zoom into the maps as this may give a false impression of the degree of accuracy of the maps. The use of the actual (i.e. not interpolated) calculation grid (typically 10 by 10 metre) shown as coloured squares could provide a simple solution to this issue and is more appropriate since interpolations to produce smoother contours are not normally based on acoustic principles (see Figure 1).

WG-AEN suggests that road names and well-known local landmarks (including schools and hospitals) are included on these maps (see Figure 1).

8 For more detailed colour definitions, see ISO 1996:1987 Part 2.

of 82

Figure 1. Pixel map showing road names and landmark (school).

of 82

On industrial noise maps WG-AEN suggests that the names of all industrial sites and premises that have been mapped should be provided.

On transportation noise maps consideration should be given to the provision of data on traffic movements to link noise with these sources. For example, Lnight levels could be linked to the number of noise events such as freight train movements.

At this more detailed stage comprehensive explanations of decibels, Lden, and Lnight, should be provided with the mapping information and the concepts of annoyance, sleep disturbance and health effects could be introduced.

With regard to noise and health effects, in general WG-AEN believes that at present the WHO Guidelines6 are the most appropriate for the assessment of these effects. However, many of the current WHO guidelines relate to noise within buildings, whereas the END maps provide external noise levels. For more information on basic assessment procedures WG-AEN suggests that ISO 1996-1:20039 is a good starting point. This standard also gives guidance on predicting the potential annoyance response of a community to long-term exposure to various types of environmental noise.

WG-AEN suggests that the effect of noise exposure to various levels of Lden and Lnight outside buildings can be explained in general terms (see Table 2). However, WG-AEN emphasises that this is only an example and recognises that Member States and their competent authorities may wish to relate their noise exposure levels to their national noise limits, standards or guidelines or to international guidelines on noise such as those produced by the WHO. It should be noted that the WHO guidelines are currently under review with one of the intentions being to revise the relationship between different bands of external noise to effects such as annoyance and sleep disturbance and the impact on physical health.

9 ISO 1996 – 1:2003 Acoustics -- Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise --

Part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures.


of 82

Table 2.

Lden Lnight Description

50-54dB 40-44dB Noise is likely to be noticeable but generally it will not be considered overly intrusive in urban areas. In rural areas it may be considered intrusive because of higher expectations for quiet 10.

55-59dB 45-49dB Generally the noise is becoming intrusive even in an urban environment.

60-64dB 50-54dB Generally the noise will be regarded as high but not exceptionally so in urban areas.

65-69 dB 55-59dB Generally the noise levels are likely to be regarded as high even in urban areas.

70-74dB 60-64dB Generally the noise will be regarded as highly undesirable.

≥75dB ≥ 65dB As noise increases the adverse effects become even more significant in terms of serious disturbance.

It could be explained that outside agglomerations people’s expectation for relative quiet may mean that the above-mentioned noise level bands could be up to 5 dB lower. It could also be explained that people’s reaction to noise depends on the type of noise source and that this is not reflected in the above type of table.

It should be stated that the maps show long-term outdoor noise levels and that Lden is an indicator of annoyance and that Lnight is an indicator of possible sleep disturbance.

With regard to the identification and protection of existing quiet areas in agglomerations, WG-AEN suggests that combined (consolidated) maps may need to be produced and made available to the public at this more detailed stage. WG-AEN also suggests that these maps should show the 10 These bands of Lden and Lnight noise exposure are not required for reporting purposes as identified in

Annex VI of the END (see also section 5.2.1 of this Position Paper). However, WG-AEN suggests that

it may be helpful to include exposure data from this band when presenting noise mapping data to the

public.


of 82

logarithmically summed combined noise levels, possibly in Lday, from all sources mapped in these agglomerations i.e. road, railway, aircraft and some industrial noise (see Figure 2).

It will also be necessary to provide the numbers of people exposed in 5dB bands for whole agglomerations, and for the lowest administrative areas within individual agglomerations, at least down to 55 Lden and 50 Lnight.

of 82

Figure 2. Combined noise map showing road, railway, aircraft and industrial sources.

of 82

5.2.2 The simplified level of information

At this level, WG-AEN suggests that noise contour maps are provided in four colour bands for whole agglomerations and for smaller administrative areas where appropriate. Tables 3 and 4 provide examples of a colour scheme based on the ISO colour banding 11.

Table 3.

Lden Proposed colour 12

<55 dB Ochre

55-59 dB Orange

60-64 dB Cinnabar

≥65dB Carmine

Table 4.

Lnight Proposed colour 12

<45dB Dark Green

45-49dB Yellow

50-54dB Ochre

≥55dB Orange

Some members of the public may not easily understand geographical maps and therefore, as with the more detailed maps, WG-AEN suggests that road names and well-known local landmarks (for example schools and hospitals) are included in these maps (see Figure 3).

11 WG-AEN recognises that Member States and their competent authorities may prefer to use alternative

colour schemes and may also wish to use a simplified 3-colour ‘traffic light’ approach for providing this

simplified level of information. 12 For more detailed colour definitions, see ISO 1996:1987 Part 2.


of 82

Also, as with the more detailed maps, WG-AEN suggests that on industrial noise maps the names of all industrial premises that have been mapped should be provided (see Figure 4).

It should be stated that the maps show long-term outdoor noise levels and that Lden is an indicator of annoyance and Lnight is an indicator of possible sleep disturbance.

It should be noted that the presentation of noise maps in the manner described above does significantly oversimplify the issues, and that members of the public who are interested in more detailed noise contour maps and accompanying information should be referred to the more detailed level of information (see section 5.2.1).

of 82

Figure 3. Example of simplified pixel map with road names and landmark (school).

of 82

Figure 4. Industrial pixel map.

of 82

5.2.3 Other issues

It is possible that noise exposure data derived from strategic noise maps may have to be presented at building level rather than dwelling unit level, as little or no information on the distribution of people in multiple occupancy buildings may be available in some countries, or areas of countries.

The provision of a web-link to national noise mapping data may be helpful.

5.3 Presentation of the maps and associated data at national level

WG-AEN suggests that at national level more general information should be provided either by central government or by the road, rail, airport or industrial authorities. This could include:

• national statistics e.g. population exposure for the whole country, separately for each noise source; and

• summary statistics for all agglomerations and all major sources outside agglomerations (this information could be provided via links or ‘pop-ups’ on a national map – for an example see Figure 5).

WG-AEN also suggests that it would be helpful to provide the names of each agglomeration, each major road, each railway line and each airport on such maps as shown in Figure 5.

At national level easily understood explanations of decibels, Lden and Lnight should also be provided with the mapping information and the concepts of annoyance, sleep disturbance and health effects could be introduced.

This information should be complementary to, and consistent with, the local information. For consistency purposes it may be appropriate for the Member State to provide standard explanations that the ’local providers’ could put on their websites.

At national level a web-link to the European Commissions ‘EUROPA’ website 13 should be provided so that the public can access information on EU noise policy. Links should also be provided to the more detailed information, which is available at local level.

13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/home.htm

of 82

Figure 5. Map of agglomerations with ’pop up’ window giving statistics.

of 82

6 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FOR MAKING MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC

Having decided what maps and associated data are to be presented to the public and how best to explain this information, it is then necessary to identify the best means of making this information available to the public i.e. a communication strategy.

WG-AEN suggests that:

• the main form of communication of the strategic noise maps and related data should normally be via locally administered websites and a single central government website for national data. However, special consideration should be given to those without Internet access and to the blind and visually impaired, e.g. those with colour blindness.

• a press release is issued as soon as the maps etc. are made available to the public. Further articles should be produced for publication in municipal and national newspapers and bulletins.

• some information should be produced specifically for use in schools (see the city of Almada presentation at the website referred to in Section 3).

• at local level it would be useful to publicise the availability of the noise maps and to obtain feedback on how well the maps and associated data were received and understood. This might be done through forums, road shows, school lessons, the distribution of leaflets and booklets, mail shots and exhibitions in public places.

7 LINKS WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Linking noise maps and associated data to other data should be considered. For example data on air quality, traffic congestion or carbon dioxide emissions.


of 82

8 Membership of WG-AEN

Name Organisation Country

HINTON, John (Chair)

Birmingham City Council UK

Bäckman, Anna European Environment Agency EU

IRMER, Volker Umweltbundesamt Germany

BLOOMFIELD, Alan Greater London Authority UK

BOURBON, Christine Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement

Belgium

COELHO, J Luis Bento Universidade Tècnica de Lisboa - CAPS Portugal

McMANUS, Brian Dublin City Council Ireland

FÜRST, Nathalie CERTU - Lyon France

RASMUSSEN, Søren (co-chair)

COWI Denmark

van den BERG, Martin VROM – Den Haag Netherlands

GERVASIO, Sandro AISICO Italy

HINTZSCHE, Matthias Umweltbundesamt Germany

Secretary:

DHILLON, Parminder Defra UK

Observers:

DELCAMPE, David European Commission DG Environment EU

PAVIOTTI, Marco European Commission DG JRC EU

KEPHALOPOULOS. Stelios European Commission DG JRC EU

A Position Paper of the European Environment Agency’s Working Group on the Assessment of Exposure to Noise

of 82

9 Appendix 1 – The Environmental Noise Directive

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


of 82

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (3),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (4), and in the light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 8 April 2002,

Whereas:

(1) It is part of Community policy to achieve a high level of health and environmental protection, and one of the objectives to be pursued is protection against noise. In the Green Paper on Future Noise Policy, the Commission addressed noise in the environment as one of

1 OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000, p. 251 2 OJ C 116, 20.4.2001, p. 48 3 OJ C 148, 18.5.2001, p. 7. 4 Opinion of the European Parliament of 14

December 2000 (OJ C 232, 17.8.2001, p. 05),

Council Common Position of 7 June 2001(OJ C 297,

23.10.2001, p. 49) and Decision of the European

Parliament of 3 October 2001 (OJ C 87 E, 11.4.2002,

p. 118). Decision of the European Parliament of 15

May 2002 and Decision of the Council of 21 May

2002.

the main environmental problems in Europe.

(2) In its Resolution of 10 June 1997 (5) on the Commission Green Paper, the European Parliament expressed its support for that Green Paper, urged that specific measures and initiatives should be laid down in a Directive on the reduction of environmental noise, and noted the lack of reliable, comparable data regarding the situation of the various noise sources.

(3) A common noise indicator and a common methodology for noise calculation and measurement around airports were identified in the Commission Communication of 1 December 1999 on Air Transport and the Environment. This communication has been taken into account in the provisions of this Directive.

(4) Certain categories of noise emissions from products are already covered by Community legislation, such as Council Directive 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles (6), Council Directive 77/311/EEC of 29 March 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the driver perceived noise level of wheeled

5 OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28. 6 OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 16. Directive as last

amended by Commission Directive 1999/101/EC (OJ

L 334, 28.12.1999, p. 41).


of 82

agricultural or forestry tractors (7), Council Directive 80/51/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the limitation of noise emissions from subsonic aircraft (8) and its complementary directives, Council Directive 92/61/EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (9) and Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors (1010).

(5) This Directive should inter alia provide a basis for developing and completing the existing set of Community measures concerning noise emitted by the major sources, in particular road and rail vehicles and infrastructure, aircraft, outdoor and industrial equipment and mobile machinery, and for developing additional measures, in the short, medium and long term.

(6) Certain categories of noise such as noise created inside means of transport and noise from domestic activities should not be subject to this Directive.

(7) In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, the Treaty objectives 7 OJ L 105, 28.4.1977, p. 1. Directive as last amended

by Directive 97/54/EC (OJ L 277, 10.10.1997, p. 24). 8 OJ L 18, 24.1.1980, p. 26. Directive as last amended

by Directive 83/206/EEC (OJ L 117, 4.5.1983, p. 15). 9 OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 72. Directive as last

amended by Directive 2000/7/EC (OJ L 106,

3.5.2000, p. 1). 10 OJ L 162, 3.7.2000, p. 1.

of achieving a high level of protection of the environment and of health will be better reached by complementing the action of the Member States by a Community action achieving a common understanding of the noise problem. Data about environmental noise levels should therefore be collected, collated or reported in accordance with comparable criteria. This implies the use of harmonized indicators and evaluation methods, as well as criteria for the alignment of noise-mapping. Such criteria and methods can best be established by the Community.

(8) It is also necessary to establish common assessment methods for ‘environmental noise’ and a definition for ‘limit values’, in terms of harmonised indicators for the determination of noise levels. The concrete figures of any limit values are to be determined by the Member States, taking into account, inter alia, the need to apply the principle of prevention in order to preserve quiet areas in agglomerations.

(9) The selected common noise indicators are Lden, to assess annoyance, and Lnight, to assess sleep disturbance. It is also useful to allow Member States to use supplementary indicators in order to monitor or control special noise situations.

(10) Strategic noise mapping should be imposed in certain areas of interest as it can capture the data needed to provide a representation of the noise levels perceived within that area.


of 82

(11) Action plans should address priorities in those areas of interest and should be drawn up by the competent authorities in consultation with the public.

(12) In order to have a wide spread of information to the public, the most appropriate information channels should be selected.

(13) Data collection and the consolidation of suitable Community-wide reports are required as a basis for future Community policy and for further information of the public.

(14) An evaluation of the implementation of this Directive should be carried out regularly by the Commission.

(15) The technical provisions governing the assessment methods should be supplemented and adapted as necessary to technical and scientific progress and to progress in European standardisation.

(16) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (1),

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

1 OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p.23.

Objectives

1. The aim of this Directive shall be to define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritized basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. To that end the following actions shall be implemented progressively:

(a) the determination of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by methods of assessment common to the Member States;

(b) ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public;

(c) adoption of action plans by the Member States, based upon noise-mapping results, with a view to preventing and reducing environmental noise where necessary and particularly where exposure levels can induce harmful effects on human health and to preserving environmental noise quality where it is good.

2. This Directive shall also aim at providing a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise emitted by the major sources, in particular road and rail vehicles and infrastructure, aircraft, outdoor and industrial equipment and mobile machinery. To this end, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council, no later than 18 July 2006, appropriate legislative proposals. Those proposals should take into


of 82

account the results of the report referred to in Article 10(1).

Article 2

Scope

1. This Directive shall apply to environmental noise to which humans are exposed in particular in built-up areas, in public parks or other quiet areas in an agglomeration, in quiet areas in open country, near schools, hospitals and other noise sensitive buildings and areas.

2. This Directive shall not apply to noise that is caused by the exposed person himself, noise from domestic activities, noise created by neighbours, noise at work places or noise inside means of transport or due to military activities in military areas.


of 82

Article 3

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive:

(a) ‘environmental noise’ shall mean unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, including noise emitted by means of transport, road traffic, rail traffic, air traffic, and from sites of industrial activity such as those defined in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1);

(b) ‘harmful effects’ shall mean negative effects on human health;

(c) ‘annoyance’ shall mean the degree of community noise annoyance as determined by means of field surveys;

(d) ‘noise indicator’ shall mean a physical scale for the description of environmental noise, which has a relationship with a harmful effect;

(e) ‘assessment’ shall mean any method used to calculate, predict, estimate or measure the value of a noise indicator or the related harmful effects;

(f) ‘Lden’ (day-evening-night noise indicator) shall mean the noise indicator for overall annoyance, as further defined in Annex I;

(g) ‘Lday’ (day-noise indicator) shall mean the noise indicator for 1 OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

annoyance during the day period, as further defined inAnnex I;

(h) ‘Levening’ (evening-noise indicator) shall mean the noise indicator for annoyance during the evening period, as further defined in Annex I;

(i) ‘Lnight’ (night-time noise indicator) shall mean the noise indicator for sleep disturbance, as further defined in Annex I;

(j) ‘dose-effect relation’ shall mean the relationship between the value of a noise indicator and a harmful effect;

(k) ‘agglomeration’ shall mean part of a territory, delimited by the Member State, having a population in excess of 100 000 persons and a population density such that the Member State considers it to be an urbanised area;

(l) ‘quiet area in an agglomeration’ shall mean an area, delimited by the competent authority, for instance which is not exposed to a value of Lden or of another appropriate noise indicator greater than a certain value set by the Member State, from any noise source;

(m) ‘quiet area in open country’ shall mean an area, delimited by the competent authority, that is undisturbed by noise from traffic, industry or recreational activities;

(n) ‘major road’ shall mean a regional, national or international road, designated by the Member State, which has more than three million vehicle passages a year;


of 82

(o) ‘major railway’ shall mean a railway, designated by the Member State, which has more than 30 000 train passages per year;

(p) ‘major airport’ shall mean a civil airport, designated by the Member State, which has more than 50 000 movements per year (a movement being a take-off or a landing), excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft;

(q) ‘noise mapping’ shall mean the presentation of data on an existing or predicted noise situation in terms of a noise indicator, indicating breaches of any relevant limit value in force, the number of people affected in a certain area, or the number of dwellings exposed to certain values of a noise indicator in a certain area;

(r) ‘strategic noise map’ shall mean a map designed for the global assessment of noise exposure in a given area due to different noise sources or for overall predictions for such an area;

(s) ‘limit value’ shall mean a value of Lden or Lnight, and where appropriate Lday and Levening, as determined by the Member State, the exceeding of which causes competent authorities to consider or enforce mitigation measures; limit values may be different for different types of noise (road-, rail-, air-traffic noise, industrial noise, etc.), different surroundings and different noise sensitiveness of the populations; they may also be different for existing situations and for new situations (where there is a change

in the situation regarding the noise source or the use of the surrounding);

(t) ‘action plans’ shall mean plans designed to manage noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary;

(u) ‘acoustical planning’ shall mean controlling future noise by planned measures, such as land-use planning, systems engineering for traffic, traffic planning, abatement by sound insulation measures and noise control of sources;

(v) ‘the public’ shall mean one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups.

Article 4

Implementation and responsibilities

1. Member States shall designate at the appropriate levels the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing this Directive, including the authorities responsible for:

(a) making and, where relevant, approving noise maps and action plans for agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports;

(b) collecting noise maps and action plans.

2. The Member States shall make the information referred to in paragraph 1 available to the


of 82

Commission and to the public no later than 18 July 2005.

Article 5

Noise indicators and their application

1. Member States shall apply the noise indicators Lden and Lnight as referred to in Annex I for the preparation and revision of strategic noise mapping in accordance with Article 7.

Until the use of common assessment methods for the determination of Lden and Lnight is made obligatory, existing national noise indicators and related data may be used by Member States for this purpose and should be converted into the indicators mentioned above. These data must not be more than three years old.

2. Member States may use supplementary noise indicators for special cases such as those listed in Annex I(3).

3. For acoustical planning and noise zoning, Member States may use other noise indicators than Lden and Lnight.

4. No later than 18 July 2005, Member States shall communicate information to the Commission on any relevant limit values in force within their territories or under preparation, expressed in terms of Lden and Lnight and where appropriate, Lday and Levening, for road-traffic noise, rail-traffic noise, aircraft noise around airports and noise on industrial activity sites,

together with explanations about the implementation of the limit values.

Article 6

Assessmentmet hods

1. The values of Lden and Lnight shall be determined by means of the assessment methods defined in Annex II.

2. Common assessment methods for the determination of Lden and Lnight shall be established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13(2) through a revision of Annex II. Until these methods are adopted, Member States may use assessment methods adapted in accordance with Annex II and based upon the methods laid down in their own legislation. In such case, they must demonstrate that those methods give equivalent results to the results obtained with the methods set out in paragraph 2.2 of Annex II.

3. Harmful effects may be assessed by means of the doseeffect relations referred to in Annex III.

Article 7

Strategic noise mapping

1. Member States shall ensure that no later than 30 June 2007 strategic noise maps showing the situation in the preceding calendar year have been made and, where relevant, approved by the competent authorities, for all agglomerations with more than 250 000 inhabitants and for all major roads which have


of 82

more than six million vehicle passages a year, major railways which have more than 60 000 train passages per year and major airports within their territories.

No later than 30 June 2005, and thereafter every five years, Member States shall inform the Commission of the major roads which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, major railways which have more than 60 000 train passages per year, major airports and the agglomerations with more than 250 000 inhabitants within their territories.

2. Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to ensure that no later than 30 June 2012, and thereafter every five years, strategic noise maps showing the situation in the preceding calendar year have been made and, where relevant, approved by the competent authorities for all agglomerations and for all major roads and major railways within their territories.

No later than 31 December 2008, Member States shall inform the Commission of all the agglomerations and of all the major roads and major railways within their territories.

3. The strategic noise maps shall satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Annex IV.

4. Neighbouring Member States shall cooperate on strategic noise mapping near borders.

5. The strategic noise maps shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary,

at least every five years after the date of their preparation.

Article 8

Action plans

1. Member States shall ensure that no later than 18 July 2008 the competent authorities have drawn up action plans designed to manage, within their territories, noise issues and effects, including noise reduction if necessary for:

(a) places near the major roads which have more than six

million vehicle passages a year, major railways which have more than 60 000 train passages per year and major airports;

(b) agglomerations with more than 250 000 inhabitants. Such plans shall also aim to protect quiet areas against an increase in noise.

The measures within the plans are at the discretion of the competent authorities, but should notably address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States and apply in particular to the most important areas as established by strategic noise mapping.

2. Member States shall ensure that, no later than 18 July 2013, the competent authorities have drawn up action plans notably to address priorities which may be identified by the exceeding of any relevant limit value or by other criteria chosen by the Member States for the


of 82

agglomerations and for the major roads as well as the major railways within their territories.

3. Member States shall inform the Commission of the other relevant criteria referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

4. The action plans shall meet the minimum requirements of Annex V.

5. The action plans shall be reviewed, and revised if necessary, when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation, and at least every five years after the date of their approval.

6. Neighbouring Member States shall cooperate on the action plans for border regions.

7. Member States shall ensure that the public is consulted about proposals for action plan, given early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation and review of the action plans, that the results of that participation are taken into account and that the public is informed on the decisions taken. Reasonable time-frames shall be provided allowing sufficient time for each stage of public participation. If the obligation to carry out a public participation procedure arises simultaneously from this Directive and any other Community legislation, Member States may provide for joint procedures in order to avoid duplication.

Article 9

Information to the public

1. Member States shall ensure that the strategic noise maps they have made, and where appropriate adopted, and the action plans they have drawn up are made available and disseminated to the public in accordance with relevant Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1), and in conformity with Annexes IV and V to this

Directive, including by means of available information technologies.

2. This information shall be clear, comprehensible and accessible. A summary setting out the most important points shall be provided.

Article 10

Collection and publication of data by Member States and the Commission

1. No later than 18 January 2004, the Commission will submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council containing a review of existing Community measures relating to sources of environmental noise.

2. The Member States shall ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI are sent to the Commission within six months of the dates laid down in Articles 7 and 8 respectively.

1 OJ L, 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.


of 82

3. The Commission shall set up a database of information on strategic noise maps in order to facilitate the compilation of the report referred to in Article 11 and other technical and informative work.

4. Every five years the Commission shall publish a summary report of data from strategic noise maps and action plans. The first report shall be submitted by 18 July 2009.

Article 11

Review and reporting

1. No later than 18 July 2009, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive.

2. That report shall in particular assess the need for further Community actions on environmental noise and, if appropriate, propose implementing strategies on aspects such as:

(a) long-term and medium-term goals for the reduction of the number of persons harmfully affected by environmental noise, taking particularly into account the different climates and different cultures;

(b) additional measures for a reduction of the environmental noise emitted by specific sources, in particular outdoor equipment, means and infrastructures of transport and certain categories of industrial activity, building on those measures already implemented or under discussion for adoption;

(c) the protection of quiet areas in open country.

3. The report shall include a review of the acoustic environment quality in the Community based on the data referred to in Article 10 and shall take account of scientific and technical progress and any other relevant information. The reduction of harmful effects and the cost-effectiveness ratio shall be the main criteria for the selection of the strategies and measures proposed.

4. When the Commission has received the first set of strategic noise maps, it shall reconsider:

— the possibility for a 1,5 metre measurement height in Annex I, paragraph 1, in respect of areas having houses of one storey, — the lower limit for the estimated number of people exposed to different bands of Lden and Lnight in Annex VI.

5. The report shall be reviewed every five years or more often if appropriate. It shall contain an assessment of the implementation of this Directive.

6. The report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by proposals for the amendment of this Directive.

Article 12

Adaptation

The Commission shall adapt Annex I, point 3, Annex II and Annex III hereto to technical and scientific progress in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 13(2).


of 82

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Article 13

Committee

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the committee set up by Article 18 of Directive 2000/14/EC.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.

3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.

Article 14

Transposition

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive no later than 18 July 2004. They shall inform the Commission thereof.

When the Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.

The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

2. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the

texts of the provisions of national law that they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.

Article 15

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 16

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Luxembourg, 25 June 2002.

For the European Parliament

The President

P. COX

For the Council

The President

J. MATAS I PALOU


of 82

ANNEX I

NOISE INDICATORS

referred to in Article 5

1. Definition of the day-evening-night level Lden

The day-evening-night level Lden in decibels (dB) is defined by the following formula:

in which:

— L Lday is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987, determined over all the day periods of a year,

— Levening is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987, determined over all the evening periods of a year,

— Lnight is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987, determined over all the night periods of a year;

in which:

— the day is 12 hours, the evening four hours and the night eight hours. The Member States may shorten the evening period by one or two hours and lengthen the day and/or the night period accordingly, provided that this choice is the same for all the sources and that they provide the Commission with information on any systematic difference from the default option,

— the start of the day (and consequently the start of the evening and the start of the night) shall be chosen by the Member State (that choice shall be the same for noise from all sources); the default values are 07.00 to 19.00, 19.00 to 23.00 and 23.00 to 07.00 local time,

— a year is a relevant year as regards the emission of sound and an average year as regards the meteorological circumstances;

and in which:


of 82

— the incident sound is considered, which means that no account is taken of the sound that is reflected at the façade of the dwelling under consideration (as a general rule, this implies a 3 dB correction in case of measurement).

The height of the Lden assessment point depends on the application:

— in the case of computation for the purpose of strategic noise mapping in relation to noise exposure in and near buildings, the assessment points must be 4,0 ± 0,2 m (3,8 to 4,2 m) above the ground and at the most exposed façade; for this purpose, the most exposed façade will be the external wall facing onto and nearest to the specific noise source; for other purposes other choices may be made,

— in the case of measurement for the purpose of strategic noise mapping in relation to noise exposure in and near buildings, other heights may be chosen, but they must never be less than 1,5 m above the ground, and results should be corrected in accordance with an equivalent height of 4 m,

— for other purposes such as acoustical planning and noise zoning other heights may be chosen, but they must never be less than 1,5 m above the ground, for example for:

— rural areas with one-storey houses,

— the design of local measures meant to reduce the noise impact on specific dwellings,

— the detailed noise mapping of a limited area, showing the noise exposure of individual dwellings.

2. Definition of the night-time noise indicator

The night-time noise indicator Lnight is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2: 1987, determined over all the night periods of a year; in which:

— the night is eight hours as defined in paragraph 1,

— a year is a relevant year as regards the emission of sound and an average year as regards the meteorological circumstances, as defined in paragraph 1,

— the incident sound is considered, as laid down in paragraph 1,

— the assessment point is the same as for Lden.

3. Supplementary noise indicators


of 82

In some cases, in addition to Lden and Lnight, and where appropriate Lday and Levening, it may be advantageous to use special noise indicators and related limit values. Some examples are given below:

— the noise source under consideration operates only for a small proportion of the time (for example, less than 20 % of the time over the total of the day periods in a year, the total of the evening periods in a year, or the total of the night periods in a year),

— the average number of noise events in one or more of the periods is very low (for example, less than one noise event an hour; a noise event could be defined as a noise that lasts less than five minutes; examples are the noise from a passing train or a passing aircraft),

— the low-frequency content of the noise is strong,

— LAmax, or SEL (sound exposure level) for night period protection in the case of noise peaks,

— extra protection at the weekend or a specific part of the year,

— extra protection of the day period,

— extra protection of the evening period,

— a combination of noises from different sources,

— quiet areas in open country,

— the noise contains strong tonal components,

— the noise has an impulsive character.


of 82

ANNEX II

ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR THE NOISE INDICATORS


1. Introduction

The values of Lden and Lnight can be determined either by computation or by measurement (at the assessment position). For predictions only computation is applicable.

Provisional computation and measurement methods are set out in paragraphs 2 and 3.

2. Interim computation methods for Lden and Lnight

2.1. Adaptation of existing national computation methods

If a Member State has national methods for the determination of long-term indicators those methods may be applied, provided that they are adapted to the definitions of the indicators set out in Annex I. For most national methods this implies the introduction of the evening as a separate period and the introduction of the average over a year. Some existing methods will also have to be adapted as regards the exclusion of the façade reflection, the incorporation of the night and/or the assessment position.

The establishment of the average over a year requires special attention. Variations in emission and transmission can contribute to fluctuations over a year.

2.2. Recommended interim computation methods

For Member States that have no national computation methods or Member States that wish to change computation method, the following methods are recommended:

For INDUSTRIAL NOISE: ISO 9613-2: ‘Acoustics — Abatement of sound propagation outdoors, Part 2: General method of calculation’.

Suitable noise-emission data (input data) for this method can be obtained from measurements carried out in accordance with one of the following methods:

— ISO 8297: 1994 ‘Acoustics — Determination of sound power levels of multi source industrial plants for evaluation of sound pressure levels in the environment — Engineering method’,


of 82

— EN ISO 3744: 1995 ‘Acoustics — Determination of sound power levels of noise using sound pressure — Engineering method in an essentially free field over a reflecting plane’,

— EN ISO 3746: 1995 ‘Acoustics — Determination of sound power levels of noise sources using an enveloping measurement surface over a reflecting plane’.

For AIRCRAFT NOISE: ECAC.CEAC Doc. 29 ‘Report on Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports’, 1997. Of the different approaches to the modelling of flight paths, the segmentation technique referred to in section 7.5 of ECAC.CEAC Doc. 29 will be used.

For ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE: The French national computation method ‘NMPB-Routes-96 (SETRA-CERTU-LCPCCSTB)’, referred to in ‘Arrêté du 5 mai 1995 relatif au bruit des infrastructures routières, Journal Officiel du 10 mai 1995, Article 6’ and in the French standard ‘XPS 31-133’. For input data concerning emission, these documents refer to the ‘Guide du bruit des transports terrestres, fascicule prévision des niveaux sonores, CETUR 1980’.

For RAILWAY NOISE: The Netherlands national computation method published in ‘Reken- en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerslawaai ’96, Ministerie Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 20 November 1996’. Those methods must be adapted to the definitions of Lden and Lnight. No later than 1 July 2003 the Commission will publish guidelines in accordance with Article 13(2) on the revised methods and provide emission data for aircraft noise, road traffic noise and railway noise on the basis of existing data.

3. Interim measurement methods for Lden and Lnight

If a Member State wishes to use its own official measurement method, that method shall be adapted in accordance with the definitions of the indicators set out in Annex I and in accordance with the principles governing long-term average measurements stated in ISO 1996-2: 1987 and ISO 1996-1: 1982.

If a Member State has no measurement method or if it prefers to apply another method, a method may be defined on the basis of the definition of the indicator and the principles stated in ISO 1996-2: 1987 and ISO 1996-1: 1982.

Measurement data in front of a façade or another reflecting element must be corrected to exclude the reflected contribution of this façade or element (as a general rule, this implies a 3 dB correction in case of measurement).


of 82

ANNEX III

ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR HARMFUL EFFECTS

referred to in Article 6(3)

Dose-effect relations should be used to assess the effect of noise on populations. The dose-effect relations introduced by future revisions of this Annex in accordance with Article 13(2) will concern in particular:

— the relation between annoyance and Lden for road, rail and air traffic noise, and for industrial noise,

— the relation between sleep disturbance and Lnight for road, rail and air traffic noise, and for industrial noise.

If necessary, specific dose-effect relations could be presented for:

— dwellings with special insulation against noise as defined in Annex VI,

— dwellings with a quiet façade as defined in Annex VI,

— different climates/different cultures,

— vulnerable groups of the population,

— tonal industrial noise,

— impulsive industrial noise and other special cases.


of 82

ANNEX IV

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR STRATEGIC NOISE MAPPING


1. A strategic noise map is the presentation of data on one of the following aspects:

— an existing, a previous or a predicted noise situation in terms of a noise indicator,

— the exceeding of a limit value,

— the estimated number of dwellings, schools and hospitals in a certain area that are exposed to specific values of a noise indicator,

— the estimated number of people located in an area exposed to noise.

2. Strategic noise maps may be presented to the public as:

— graphical plots,

— numerical data in tables,

— numerical data in electronic form.

3. Strategic noise maps for agglomerations shall put a special emphasis on the noise emitted by:

— road traffic,

— rail traffic,

— airports,

— industrial activity sites, including ports.

4. Strategic noise mapping will be used for the following purposes:

— the provision of the data to be sent to the Commission in accordance with Article 10(2) and Annex VI,

— a source of information for citizens in accordance with Article 9,

— a basis for action plans in accordance with Article 8.


of 82

Each of those applications requires a different type of strategic noise map.

5. Minimum requirements for the strategic noise maps concerning the data to be sent to the Commission are set out in paragraphs 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of Annex VI.

6. For the purposes of informing the citizen in accordance with Article 9 and the development of action plans in accordance with Article 8, additional and more detailed information must be given, such as:

— a graphical presentation,

— maps disclosing the exceeding of a limit value,

— difference maps, in which the existing situation is compared with various possible future situations,

— maps showing the value of a noise indicator at a height other than 4 m where appropriate.

The Member States may lay down rules on the types and formats of these noise maps.

7. Strategic noise maps for local or national application must be made for an assessment height of 4 m and the 5 dB ranges of Lden and Lnight as defined in Annex VI.

8. For agglomerations separate strategic noise maps must be made for road-traffic noise, rail-traffic noise, aircraft noise and industrial noise. Maps for other sources may be added.

9. The Commission may develop guidelines providing further guidance on noise maps, noise mapping and mapping softwares in accordance with Article 13(2).


of 82

ANNEX V

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTION PLANS


1. An action plan must at least include the following elements:

— a description of the agglomeration, the major roads, the major railways or major airports and other noise sources taken into account,

— the authority responsible,

— the legal context,

— any limit values in place in accordance with Article 5,

— a summary of the results of the noise mapping,

— an evaluation of the estimated number of people exposed to noise, identification of problems and situations that

need to be improved,

— a record of the public consultations organised in accordance with Article 8(7),

— any noise-reduction measures already in force and any projects in preparation,

— actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the next five years, including any measures to preserve

quiet areas,

— long-term strategy,

— financial information (if available): budgets, cost-effectiveness assessment, cost-benefit assessment,

— provisions envisaged for evaluating the implementation and the results of the action plan.

2. The actions which the competent authorities intend to take in the fields within their competence may for example include:

— traffic planning,


of 82

— land-use planning,

— technical measures at noise sources,

— selection of quieter sources,

— reduction of sound transmission,

— regulatory or economic measures or incentives.

3. Each action plan should contain estimates in terms of the reduction of the number of people affected (annoyed, sleep disturbed, or other).

4. The Commission may develop guidelines providing further guidance on the action plans in accordance with Article 13(2).


of 82

ANNEX VI

DATA TO BE SENT TO THE COMMISSION


The data to be sent to the Commission are as follows:

1. For agglomerations

1.1. A concise description of the agglomeration: location, size, number of inhabitants.

1.2. The responsible authority.

1.3. Noise-control programmes that have been carried out in the past and noise-measures in place.

1.4. The computation or measurement methods that have been used.

1.5. The estimated number of people (in hundreds) living in dwellings that are exposed to each of the following bands of values of Lden in dB 4 m above the ground on the most exposed façade: 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, > 75, separately for noise from road, rail and air traffic, and from industrial sources. The figures must be rounded to the nearest hundred (e.g. 5 200 = between 5 150 and 5 249; 100 = between 50 and 149; 0 = less than 50). In addition it should be stated, where appropriate and where such information is available, how many persons in the above categories live in dwellings that have:

— special insulation against the noise in question, meaning special insulation of a building against one or more types of environmental noise, combined with such ventilation or air conditioning facilities that high values of insulation against environmental noise can be maintained,

— a quiet façade, meaning the façade of a dwelling at which the value of Lden four metres above the ground and two metres in front of the façade, for the noise emitted from a specific source, is more than 20 dB lower than at the façade having the highest value of Lden. An indication should also be given on how major roads, major railways and major airports as defined in Article 3 contribute to the above.

1.6. The estimated total number of people (in hundreds) living in dwellings that are exposed to each of the following bands of values of Lnight in dB 4 m above the ground on the most exposed façade: 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, > 70, separately for road, rail and air traffic and for industrial sources. These data may also be assessed for value band 45-49 before the date laid down in Article 11(1).


of 82

In addition it should be stated, where appropriate and where such information is available, how many persons in the above categories live in dwellings that have:

— special insulation against the noise in question, as defined in paragraph 1.5,

— a quiet façade, as defined in paragraph 1.5.

It must also be indicated how major roads, major railways and major airports contribute to the above.

1.7. In case of graphical presentation, strategic maps must at least show the 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB contours.

1.8. A summary of the action plan covering all the important aspects referred to in Annex V, not exceeding ten pages in length.

2. For major roads, major railways and major airports

2.1. A general description of the roads, railways or airports: location, size, and data on the traffic.

2.2. A characterisation of their surroundings: agglomerations, villages, countryside or otherwise, information on land use, other major noise sources.

2.3. Noise-control programmes that have been carried out in the past and noise-measures in place.

2.4. The computation or measurement methods that have been used.

2.5. The estimated total number of people (in hundreds) living outside agglomerations in dwellings that are exposed to each of the following bands of values of Lden in dB 4 m above the ground and on the most exposed façade:




2.6. The estimated total number of people (in hundreds) living outside agglomerations in dwellings that are exposed to each of the following bands of values of Lnight in dB 4 m above the ground and on the most exposed façade: 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, > 70. These data may also be assessed for value band 45-49 before the date laid down in Article 11(1).


of 82




2.7. The total area (in km2) exposed to values of Lden higher than 55, 65 and 75 dB respectively. The estimated total number of dwellings (in hundreds) and the estimated total number of people (in hundreds) living in each of these areas must also be given. Those figures must include agglomerations.

The 55 and 65 dB contours must also be shown on one or more maps that give information on the location of villages, towns and agglomerations within those contours.

2.8. A summary of the action plan covering all the important aspects referred to in Annex V, not exceeding ten pages in length.

3. Guidelines

The Commission may develop guidelines to provide further guidance on the above provision of information, in accordance with Article 13(2).


of 82

10 Appendix 2 – The Directive on Public Access to Environmental Information

Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January

2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive

90/313/EEC

Official Journal L 041 , 14/02/2003 P. 0026 - 0032

Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 28 January 2003

on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive

90/313/EEC

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, HAVE

ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular

Article 175(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(3),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(4) in the

light of the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee on 8 November 2002,

Whereas:

(1) Increased public access to environmental information and the dissemination of such

information contribute to a greater awareness of environmental matters, a free exchange

of views, more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making

and, eventually, to a better environment.

(2) Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information

on the environment(5) initiated a process of change in the manner in which public

authorities approach the issue of openness and transparency, establishing measures for

the exercise of the right of public access to environmental information which should be

developed and continued. This Directive expands the existing access granted under

Directive 90/313/EEC.

(3) Article 8 of that Directive requires Member States to report to the Commission on the

experience gained, in the light of which the Commission is required to make a report to

the European Parliament and to the Council together with any proposal for revision of

the Directive which it may consider appropriate.

(4) The report produced under Article 8 of that Directive identifies concrete problems

encountered in the practical application of the Directive.

(5) On 25 June 1998 the European Community signed the UN/ECE Convention on Access

to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in

Environmental Matters (“the Aarhus Convention”). Provisions of Community law must be

consistent with that Convention with a view to its conclusion by the European

Community.


of 82

(6) It is appropriate in the interest of increased transparency to replace Directive

90/313/EEC rather than to amend it, so as to provide interested parties with a single,

clear and coherent legislative text.

(7) Disparities between the laws in force in the Member States concerning access to

environmental information held by public authorities can create inequality within the

Community as regards access to such information or as regards conditions of

competition.

(8) It is necessary to ensure that any natural and legal person has a right of access to

environmental information held by or for public authorities without his having to state an

interest.

(9) It is also necessary that public authorities make available and disseminate

environmental information to the general public to the widest extent possible, in

particular by using information and communication technologies. The future

development of these technologies should be taken into account in the reporting on, and

reviewing of, this Directive.

(10) The definition of environmental information should be clarified so as to encompass

information in any form on the state of the environment, on factors, measures or

activities affecting or likely to affect the environment or designed to protect it, on cost-

benefit and economic analyses used within the framework of such measures or activities

and also information on the state of human health and safety, including the

contamination of the food chain, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built

structures in as much as they are, or may be, affected by any of those matters.

(11) To take account of the principle in Article 6 of the Treaty, that environmental

protection requirements should be integrated into the definition and implementation of

Community policies and activities, the definition of public authorities should be expanded

so as to encompass government or other public administration at national, regional or

local level whether or not they have specific responsibilities for the environment. The

definition should likewise be expanded to include other persons or bodies performing

public administrative functions in relation to the environment under national law, as well

as other persons or bodies acting under their control and having public responsibilities or

functions in relation to the environment.

(12) Environmental information which is physically held by other bodies on behalf of

public authorities should also fall within the scope of this Directive.

(13) Environmental information should be made available to applicants as soon as

possible and within a reasonable time and having regard to any timescale specified by

the applicant.

(14) Public authorities should make environmental information available in the form or

format requested by an applicant unless it is already publicly available in another form or

format or it is reasonable to make it available in another form or format. In addition,

public authorities should be required to make all reasonable efforts to maintain the

environmental information held by or for them in forms or formats that are readily

reproducible and accessible by electronic means.

(15) Member States should determine the practical arrangements under which such

information is effectively made available. These arrangements shall guarantee that the

information is effectively and easily accessible and progressively becomes available to

the public through public telecommunications networks, including publicly accessible lists


of 82

of public authorities and registers or lists of environmental information held by or for

public authorities.

(16) The right to information means that the disclosure of information should be the

general rule and that public authorities should be permitted to refuse a request for

environmental information in specific and clearly defined cases. Grounds for refusal

should be interpreted in a restrictive way, whereby the public interest served by

disclosure should be weighed against the interest served by the refusal. The reasons for

a refusal should be provided to the applicant within the time limit laid down in this

Directive.

(17) Public authorities should make environmental information available in part where it

is possible to separate out any information falling within the scope of the exceptions

from the rest of the information requested.

(18) Public authorities should be able to make a charge for supplying environmental

information but such a charge should be reasonable. This implies that, as a general rule,

charges may not exceed actual costs of producing the material in question. Instances

where advance payment will be required should be limited. In particular cases, where

public authorities make available environmental information on a commercial basis, and

where this is necessary in order to guarantee the continuation of collecting and

publishing such information, a market-based charge is considered to be reasonable; an

advance payment may be required. A schedule of charges should be published and made

available to applicants together with information on the circumstances in which a charge

may be levied or waived.

(19) Applicants should be able to seek an administrative or judicial review of the acts or

omissions of a public authority in relation to a request.

(20) Public authorities should seek to guarantee that when environmental information is

compiled by them or on their behalf, the information is comprehensible, accurate and

comparable. As this is an important factor in assessing the quality of the information

supplied the method used in compiling the information should also be disclosed upon

request.

(21) In order to increase public awareness in environmental matters and to improve

environmental protection, public authorities should, as appropriate, make available and

disseminate information on the environment which is relevant to their functions, in

particular by means of computer telecommunication and/or electronic technology, where

available.

(22) This Directive should be evaluated every four years, after its entry into force, in the

light of experience and after submission of the relevant reports by the Member States,

and be subject to revision on that basis. The Commission should submit an evaluation

report to the European Parliament and the Council.

(23) Since the objectives of the proposed Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the

Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community

may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article

5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that

Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those

objectives.

(24) The provisions of this Directive shall not affect the right of a Member State to

maintain or introduce measures providing for broader access to information than

required by this Directive,


of 82

Article 1

Objectives

The objectives of this Directive are:

(a) to guarantee the right of access to environmental information held by or for public

authorities and to set out the basic terms and conditions of, and practical arrangements

for, its exercise; and

(b) to ensure that, as a matter of course, environmental information is progressively

made available and disseminated to the public in order to achieve the widest possible

systematic availability and dissemination to the public of environmental information. To

this end the use, in particular, of computer telecommunication and/or electronic

technology, where available, shall be promoted.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive:

1. “Environmental information” shall mean any information in written, visual, aural,

electronic or any other material form on:

(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water,

soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas,

biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the

interaction among these elements;

(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive

waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely

to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);

(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans,

programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the

elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed

to protect those elements;

(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;

(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the

framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c) ; and

(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain,

where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as

they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to

in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c).

2. “Public authority” shall mean:

(a) government or other public administration, including public advisory bodies, at

national, regional or local level;

(b) any natural or legal person performing public administrative functions under national

law, including specific duties, activities or services in relation to the environment; and

(c) any natural or legal person having public responsibilities or functions, or providing

public services, relating to the environment under the control of a body or person falling

within (a) or (b).

Member States may provide that this definition shall not include bodies or institutions

when acting in a judicial or legislative capacity. If their constitutional provisions at the

date of adoption of this Directive make no provision for a review procedure within the


of 82

meaning of Article 6, Member States may exclude those bodies or institutions from that

definition.

3. “Information held by a public authority” shall mean environmental information in its

possession which has been produced or received by that authority.

4. “Information held for a public authority” shall mean environmental information which

is physically held by a natural or legal person on behalf of a public authority.

5. “Applicant” shall mean any natural or legal person requesting environmental

information.

6. “Public” shall mean one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with

national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups.

Article 3

Access to environmental information upon request

1. Member States shall ensure that public authorities are required, in accordance with

the provisions of this Directive, to make available environmental information held by or

for them to any applicant at his request and without his having to state an interest.

2. Subject to Article 4 and having regard to any timescale specified by the applicant,

environmental information shall be made available to an applicant:

(a) as soon as possible or, at the latest, within one month after the receipt by the public

authority referred to in paragraph 1 of the applicant’s request; or

(b) within two months after the receipt of the request by the public authority if the

volume and the complexity of the information is such that the one-month period referred

to in (a) cannot be complied with. In such cases, the applicant shall be informed as soon

as possible, and in any case before the end of that one-month period, of any such

extension and of the reasons for it.

3. If a request is formulated in too general a manner, the public authority shall as soon

as possible, and at the latest within the timeframe laid down in paragraph 2(a), ask the

applicant to specify the request and shall assist the applicant in doing so, e.g. by

providing information on the use of the public registers referred to in paragraph 5(c).

The public authorities may, where they deem it appropriate, refuse the request under

Article 4(1)(c).

4. Where an applicant requests a public authority to make environmental information

available in a specific form or format (including in the form of copies), the public

authority shall make it so available unless:

(a) it is already publicly available in another form or format, in particular under Article 7,

which is easily accessible by applicants; or

(b) it is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form or

format, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form or

format.

For the purposes of this paragraph, public authorities shall make all reasonable efforts to

maintain environmental information held by or for them in forms or formats that are

readily reproducible and accessible by computer telecommunications or by other

electronic means.

The reasons for a refusal to make information available, in full or in part, in the form or

format requested shall be provided to the applicant within the time limit referred to in

paragraph 2(a).

5. For the purposes of this Article, Member States shall ensure that:

(a) officials are required to support the public in seeking access to information;


of 82

(b) lists of public authorities are publicly accessible; and

(c) the practical arrangements are defined for ensuring that the right of access to

environmental information can be effectively exercised, such as:

• the designation of information officers;

• the establishment and maintenance of facilities for the examination of the

information required,

• registers or lists of the environmental information held by public authorities or

information points, with clear indications of where such information can be found.

Member States shall ensure that public authorities inform the public adequately of the

rights they enjoy as a result of this Directive and to an appropriate extent provide

information, guidance and advice to this end.

Article 4

Exceptions

1. Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused

if:

(a) the information requested is not held by or for the public authority to which the

request is addressed. In such a case, where that public authority is aware that the

information is held by or for another public authority, it shall, as soon as possible,

transfer the request to that other authority and inform the applicant accordingly or

inform the applicant of the public authority to which it believes it is possible to apply for

the information requested;

(b) the request is manifestly unreasonable;

(c) the request is formulated in too general a manner, taking into account Article 3(3);

(d) the request concerns material in the course of completion or unfinished documents

or data;

(e) the request concerns internal communications, taking into account the public interest

served by disclosure.

Where a request is refused on the basis that it concerns material in the course of

completion, the public authority shall state the name of the authority preparing the

material and the estimated time needed for completion.

2. Member States may provide for a request for environmental information to be refused

if disclosure of the information would adversely affect:

(a) the confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities, where such confidentiality

is provided for by law;

(b) international relations, public security or national defence;

(c) the course of justice, the ability of any person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a

public authority to conduct an enquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature;

(d) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality

is provided for by national or Community law to protect a legitimate economic interest,

including the public interest in maintaining statistical confidentiality and tax secrecy;

(e) intellectual property rights;

(f) the confidentiality of personal data and/or files relating to a natural person where that

person has not consented to the disclosure of the information to the public, where such

confidentiality is provided for by national or Community law;

(g) the interests or protection of any person who supplied the information requested on

a voluntary basis without being under, or capable of being put under, a legal obligation

to do so, unless that person has consented to the release of the information concerned;


of 82

(h) the protection of the environment to which such information relates, such as the

location of rare species.

The grounds for refusal mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be interpreted in a

restrictive way, taking into account for the particular case the public interest served by

disclosure. In every particular case, the public interest served by disclosure shall be

weighed against the interest served by the refusal. Member States may not, by virtue of

paragraph 2(a), (d), (f), (g) and (h), provide for a request to be refused where the

request relates to information on emissions into the environment.

Within this framework, and for the purposes of the application of subparagraph (f),

Member States shall ensure that the requirements of Directive 95/46/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with

regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data are

complied with(6).

3. Where a Member State provides for exceptions, it may draw up a publicly accessible

list of criteria on the basis of which the authority concerned may decide how to handle

requests.

4. Environmental information held by or for public authorities which has been requested

by an applicant shall be made available in part where it is possible to separate out any

information falling within the scope of paragraphs 1(d) and (e) or 2 from the rest of the

information requested.

5. A refusal to make available all or part of the information requested shall be notified to

the applicant in writing or electronically, if the request was in writing or if the applicant

so requests, within the time limits referred to in Article 3(2)(a) or, as the case may be,

(b). The notification shall state the reasons for the refusal and include information on the

review procedure provided for in accordance with Article 6.

Article 5

Charges

1. Access to any public registers or lists established and maintained as mentioned in

Article 3(5) and examination in situ of the information requested shall be free of charge.

2. Public authorities may make a charge for supplying any environmental information but

such charge shall not exceed a reasonable amount.

3. Where charges are made, public authorities shall publish and make available to

applicants a schedule of such charges as well as information on the circumstances in

which a charge may be levied or waived.

Article 6

Access to justice

1. Member States shall ensure that any applicant who considers that his request for

information has been ignored, wrongfully refused (whether in full or in part),

inadequately answered or otherwise not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of

Articles 3, 4 or 5, has access to a procedure in which the acts or omissions of the public

authority concerned can be reconsidered by that or another public authority or reviewed

administratively by an independent and impartial body established by law. Any such

procedure shall be expeditious and either free of charge or inexpensive.

2. In addition to the review procedure referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall

ensure that an applicant has access to a review procedure before a court of law or

another independent and impartial body established by law, in which the acts or

omissions of the public authority concerned can be reviewed and whose decisions may


of 82

become final. Member States may furthermore provide that third parties incriminated by

the disclosure of information may also have access to legal recourse.

3. Final decisions under paragraph 2 shall be binding on the public authority holding the

information. Reasons shall be stated in writing, at least where access to information is

refused under this Article.

Article 7

Dissemination of environmental information

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that public authorities

organise the environmental information which is relevant to their functions and which is

held by or for them, with a view to its active and systematic dissemination to the public,

in particular by means of computer telecommunication and/or electronic technology,

where available.

The information made available by means of computer telecommunication and/or

electronic technology need not include information collected before the entry into force

of this Directive unless it is already available in electronic form.

Member States shall ensure that environmental information progressively becomes

available in electronic databases which are easily accessible to the public through public

telecommunication networks.

2. The information to be made available and disseminated shall be updated as

appropriate and shall include at least:

(a) texts of international treaties, conventions or agreements, and of Community,

national, regional or local legislation, on the environment or relating to it;

(b) policies, plans and programmes relating to the environment;

(c) progress reports on the implementation of the items referred to in (a) and (b) when

prepared or held in electronic form by public authorities;

(d) the reports on the state of the environment referred to in paragraph 3;

(e) data or summaries of data derived from the monitoring of activities affecting, or likely

to affect, the environment;

(f) authorisations with a significant impact on the environment and environmental

agreements or a reference to the place where such information can be requested or

found in the framework of Article 3;

(g) environmental impact studies and risk assessments concerning the environmental

elements referred to in Article 2(1)(a) or a reference to the place where the information

can be requested or found in the framework of Article 3.

3. Without prejudice to any specific reporting obligations laid down by Community

legislation, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that national,

and, where appropriate, regional or local reports on the state of the environment are

published at regular intervals not exceeding four years; such reports shall include

information on the quality of, and pressures on, the environment.

4. Without prejudice to any specific obligation laid down by Community legislation,

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, in the event of an

imminent threat to human health or the environment, whether caused by human

activities or due to natural causes, all information held by or for public authorities which

could enable the public likely to be affected to take measures to prevent or mitigate

harm arising from the threat is disseminated, immediately and without delay.

5. The exceptions in Article 4(1) and (2) may apply in relation to the duties imposed by

this Article.


of 82

6. Member States may satisfy the requirements of this Article by creating links to

Internet sites where the information can be found.

Article 8

Quality of environmental information

1. Member States shall, so far as is within their power, ensure that any information that

is compiled by them or on their behalf is up to date, accurate and comparable.

2. Upon request, public authorities shall reply to requests for information pursuant to

Article 2(1)b, reporting to the applicant on the place where information, if available, can

be found on the measurement procedures, including methods of analysis, sampling, and

pre-treatment of samples, used in compiling the information, or referring to a

standardised procedure used.

Article 9

Review procedure

1. Not later than 14 February 2009, Member States shall report on the experience gained

in the application of this Directive.

They shall communicate the report to the Commission not later than 14 August 2009.

No later than 14 February 2004, the Commission shall forward to the Member States a

guidance document setting out clearly the manner in which it wishes the Member States

to report.

2. In the light of experience and taking into account developments in computer

telecommunication and/or electronic technology, the Commission shall make a report to

the European Parliament and to the Council together with any proposal for revision,

which it may consider appropriate.

Article 10

Implementation

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions

necessary to comply with this Directive by 14 February 2005. They shall forthwith inform

the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this

Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official

publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member

States.

Article 11

Repeal

Directive 90/313/EEC is hereby repealed with effect from 14 February 2005.

References to the repealed Directive shall be construed as referring to this Directive and

shall be read in accordance with the correlation table in the Annex.

Article 12

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of

the European Union.

Article 13

Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2003.

For the European Parliament

The President


of 82

P. Cox

For the Council

The President

G. Papandreou

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000, p. 156 and OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001, p. 289.

(2) OJ C 116, 20.4.2001, p. 43.

(3) OJ C 148, 18.5.2001, p. 9.

(4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 14 March 2001 (OJ C 343, 5.12.2001, p. 165),

Council Common Position of 28 January 2002 (OJ C 113 E, 14.5.2002, p. 1) and Decision

of the European Parliament of 30 May 2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

Decision of the Council of 16 December 2002 and decision the European Parliament of

18 December 2002.

(5) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

(6) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.


of 82

11 Appendix 3 - Workshop on Presenting Noise Mapping Data to the Public

5th October 2006

Reports of Group Discussions

Group 1

Facilitators: Justin Adcock (Hoare Lea) / Tim Clarke (Bristol City Council)

What are the likely problems in communicating the END mapping to the public?

The public is a very broad audience comprising many different categories from individuals to communities and industry. Each element of the public has differing technical appreciation and information requirements.

Who is our target audience?

Several members of the team noted the ambiguity in the definition of “public” needed to be better defined/understood. Various suggestions on the target audience included:

Local Authorities

Industry Groups

Communities, at a group and individual level

Some team members suggested noise action groups however others suggested caution in this respect based on concerns of impartiality.

What is the purpose?

Provide an objective reference to guide any future strategic policy that either directly or indirectly impacts upon environmental noise. It was considered that the type of strategic noise policy informed by these maps would be directed at level reduction in noisy areas, as well as protection of existing quiet areas.


of 82

In terms of the public, various comments were made in relation to purpose. Generally, considered that the noise maps should promote reasoned and balanced awareness of environmental noise as a contributing factor to amenity and life quality.

Raising political awareness of the process was not considered to be the purpose of the exercise. Already established by the END.

What type of reaction do we want/expect?

In terms of Local Authorities:

Consistent approach to factoring the noise maps into strategic planning. This does however establish a need for local authorities to be provided with information on how they can go about this.

In terms of public reaction:

An awareness of the process involved and the reasons for it.

Reasonable awareness and expectations about noise levels and how they could be improved.

Some members stated that it was preferential not to generate more complaints about noise, but considered it was a potentially unavoidable consequence of the process. Others seemed less convinced that public action about noise was not a positive outcome.

A better informed public that is better equipped to understand and participate in local authority decision making.

What sort of information do we need to provide and how?

Some members felt information should be as simple as possible to promote acceptance and understanding for non-technical parties. Others expressed reservations about simple information, noting that simple information may create misconceptions about a fundamentally complex issue. Varied public audience creates the requirement for information of varying technical sophistication.

The team expressed reservations about the use of auralisations to inform the public. Generally considered reasonable within controlled environments where supplementary contextual information can be provided. Web based auralisations were considered to be of questionable merit.


of 82

Important to carefully explain noise descriptors, particularly the Lden which will indicate higher numerical values than may have been indicated by former noise maps (for the same input conditions).

Important for contextual information to be provided in order that environmental noise is considered in a reasoned way amidst other amenity, life quality, and health considerations.

Important for the information to convey the concept that noise is a consequence of modern life and, as with other environmental issues, is a form of pollution which we all contribute to.

On a presentation level, the quality and legibility of detail within the model was considered very important. For example, clear scales and street naming to enable efficient public access to any specific locations of interest.

Important for information about what a future noise strategy may entail. Very problematic to advise that an area is affected by high noise levels but not be able to provide any comment on the likelihood, nature, extent of possible noise reductions.

Information about the importance of real world noise variability – failure to recognise this (or indeed misguidedly dismiss as “uncertainty”) may totally undermine any assessment of the benefit associated with a change in noise level.

Proposals for a communication strategy at national, regional or local level?

Limited feedback on this item. Local Authorities would be the key regional communicators, but some team members felt this should be entirely managed by central government. Others expressed the role of NGO’s and action group’s, but again, others expressed caution about the impartiality of such groups..

Key selling point for noise information is to identify relevant synergies with other environmental and social issues such as air quality, traffic congestion, carbon emissions (see alternative low noise/carbon technologies for public transport).

Miscellaneous

Important considerations:

Targets based solely on number of exposed people likely to be too simplistic when considering opposing drivers for brown field development


of 82

Demographics, particularly urbanisation of populations in general, but differing (potentially opposing) trends for differing age groups. Important considering that age groupings may also link to noise sensitivity.


of 82

Group 2

There follows the note produced following the seminar and, at the end, some additional points fed back by group members when consulted about the note.

During the discussion the following issues emerged:

As regards the strategic noise maps, the Directive only requires the public to be informed. Consultation is not required; that is only necessary at the Action Plan stage. (There might be a need for feedback, however, to ‘test’ the public’s understanding and acceptance of the maps.)

Are strategic noise maps adequate for the purpose envisaged in later stages of the process – local Action Planning? There are three disadvantages to a ‘high level’ strategic map which might make it unsuitable for the overall process while still fulfilling the terms of the Directive:

i) A high level/strategic map might be thought adequate for strategic action planning e.g. reviewing the effects of changes in fleet mix, speed, or road/rail type. However, any predicted effects must remain consistent when ‘zoomed’ to the local level. There is a risk that if the strategic map is not sufficiently detailed, local details of topography, screening, or a noise source that is not significant at the strategic level but is an important influence locally, could lead to different results between strategic and local action plans.

ii) For local action planning, maps must be more detailed than is envisaged for strategic noise maps. In particular, they need to include more of the local sources, which means in practice all the roads.

iii) Making the maps more detailed in this way has a further benefit. Maps that do not show all the local roads are not well understood by the public since they cannot be related to noise as experienced in their neighbourhoods. Consequently, their confidence in the maps will be lower than for a map in which all the roads are included as sources. A more detailed map would be more readily understood and accepted by the public.

WHAT ARE THE LIKELY PROBLEMS IN COMMUNICATING THE END MAPPING TO THE PUBLIC?

• Who will do the communicating?

• Who are the public?

• Are there different sub groups within the public?

• How much information do we communicate?

Supplementary discussion notes.


of 82

• In the UK for the communicator could be different for different sources eg Secretary of State for some, Network Rail etc for others. If the Competent Authority is an agency such as Network Rail, How do we influence how and what they communicate?

This situation will vary between Member States.

• Is noise a health risk or not? If not, what level of resourcing is appropriate when communicating information – particularly with uninterested sections of the public (se also next section)?

• Note that maps could enable ‘hot spots’ to be identified, but there are unlikely to be sufficient resources to implement action planning for all of them in the short term. This will lead to unpopularity for the Competent Authorities.

WHO IS OUR TARGET AUDIENCE? (WHAT PART OF THE PUBLIC DO WE INTEND TO ENGAGE?)

• Other professionals (able to easily understand concepts);

• General public (Will our approach for the general public work for politicians as well?);

• Politicians (We must ensure buy in.);

• Lobby groups could be used as our link to the public.


• Should we only target those who are interested in noise?

• Should we spend money on communicating to those who are not interested (see also above)?

• Will politicians be more likely to engage with the issue of noise directly as a result of their own experience and interest, or will it be mainly in response to public concern or pressure?

• Lobby groups might focus on a particular issue but not be balanced in considering all issue. In such case, resources expended in responding to a lobby group’s concerns must be proportionate to ensure that all issues of concern to the public are addressed.


of 82

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

• To promote understanding;

• To encourage acceptance;

• To portray reality.


• As a first step we need to inform the public but the second step will require us to educate the public.

WHAT TYPE OF REACTION DO WE WANT / EXPECT?

• We hope to achieve understanding and acceptance.

WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE AND HOW?

• Statutory requirement to inform public of strategic noise maps, but how useful will this be?


Level of Detail

• For other professionals, experts, acousticians – need more specialised, very detailed information. High quality (ie detailed) strategic maps should be available. They should be capable of being interrogated in order to determine effect/benefit of various possible actions ie simulate effect of different flows etc.

• For general public and politicians – need more general information. However the public will want to know about the noise near their house. Perhaps we could provide information in layers – the further down the layers go the more detailed the information.

• In order for the public to relate to and accept the maps they will need full details so a balance of information must be struck.

•

Three colours for banding


of 82

• Discussed using maps with three colours – red, yellow, green. However, if there are only three colours then small improvements will not be enough to move an area into another colour band and the map will not reflect the improvement. It might also fail to distinguish between different locations near a resident’s house, that the resident can aurally distinguish, therby undermining confidence in and understanding of the maps (see also below).

• If banding is used will it vary between member states, within member states, at a local level? Hyde Park could be classed as green in London because it is relatively quiet compared to the rest of London. However, somewhere outside London that has a similar noise level to Hyde Park could be considered noisy and been in the red band.

• If people are only interested in noise levels local to their house – the banding could be varied between MS’s or neighbourhoods. However, if people use the information when moving to a new area or new MS – consistency would be necessary.

• If banding is used the problem will be the first band of houses closest to the noise source.

Detail of maps and Acceptance by the public

• For the public the maps need to be local as noise is a local issue. However, the strategic maps don’t include all roads and therefore there is a lack of local information. The maps for the public need to reflect the reality of what the public are experiencing. This will require additional information, over and above the requirements of END.

It is important if strategic maps and local maps are to be produced that they do not contradict each other.

• If we use emotive language like ‘health risk’ and the government do not take any action in relation to noisy areas will the public be unduly worried?

Use of maps for Action Planning

• There is a requirement to consult in relation to the Action Plans as well. The maps will identify where action is required but not what action is required. The action plans only need to consider the worst cases and the public must be made aware of this limitation. We must have detailed


of 82

maps if we are to determine the worst cases. The public will have to be told how we have chosen the areas to take action in.

• In reality, how would the public contribute to the action plan for railway noise? Strategic maps could be sufficient for railway noise.

• The public would be better placed to comment on road noise by making traffic management suggestions. However, public will not be in a position to comment on low noise road surfaces. By engaging the public at an early stage we can raise interest and obtain local data to supplement mapping information. In smaller communities people will know the noise sources and this will make it easier to take action.

• In Finland the local authorities make the maps and devise the action plans and this system has worked well.

• Could noise-mapping results affect property values, have tax implications?

• What about the requirement to preserve ‘quiet areas’? What is a ‘quiet area’? It is all relative. If noise is a real health risk then all identified ‘hot spots’ must be tackled. If noise is not such a serious issue then it is a different problem requiring different mechanisms.

PROPOSALS FOR A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY AT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, LOCAL LEVEL.

• Our group did not have an opportunity to discuss a communication strategy during the workshop.


of 82

Group 3

Volker Irmer

Catarine Freitas

Jean Marc Abramowitch

Jorge Jakobsen

Nicola Britton

Steve Crawshaw

Irina Filippova

Katja Pliquett

Kris van Neer

Rick Jones (facilitator)

Anna Backman (support)

What are the likely problems in communicating the END mapping to the public?

An initial reaction within the Group was “are the public likely to be interested anyway?” It was agreed that the challenge was to engage the public in order to create that interest. Conversely, there is the danger that expectations will be raised to an unrealistically high level so that the public expect significant improvements. A “plan” does not necessarily result in immediate “action”! Local Authorities might see an opportunity to obtain action-plan funding from central government for ambitious projects, leading to potential local vs national conflict if funds are not forthcoming. National and local authorities might attempt to be helpful by providing a large amount of detailed and technical information, which could easily be counterproductive as it could lead to the public being confused or losing interest. Communication by national government could be out of touch with local attitudes and issues, and therefore potentially considered irrelevant by the public.

Who is the target audience? (what part of the public do we intend to engage?)

Individual citizens and households are the ultimate target, but there are various routes by which they can be reached, and also a range of bodies who represent, or who claim to represent, the public. Therefore, as well as individuals, Local Authorities, NGOs, Lobby Groups and Pressure Groups all need to be targeted with appropriate information and material. The Group considered whether national politicians, especially those not directly involved in END implementation, should also be targeted, but the majority view was that little could be achieved via this path, as those politicians that should be engaged would already be engaged.

What is the purpose (for us)?

The main purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the process is explained to the public, enabling them to appreciate that the END is an initiative aimed at


of 82

understanding environmental noise exposure and, in time, improving the situation for those exposed to undesirable levels. The purpose should also be to make the public in general understand that they are not only receivers of noise, but also producers, with the aim of encouraging changes in behaviour. Finally, an understanding of the process and its aims should lead to a higher level of trust from the public, and a greater credibility for the exercise.

What type of reaction do we want/expect?

The desired reaction is an acceptance that the process is for the benefit, and participation, of all, and therefore not something that has been imposed bureaucratically by the EC or the National Government. Ideally this will lead to changed behaviour (eg reduced use of motor vehicles, or more careful use, especially at night). We would also want the awareness amongst the public to lead to pressure on politicians, on industry, and on transport operators etc to improve the noise environment via Member State legislation and noise-reducing technology as appropriate. However, we might also expect negative reactions if people do feel that the process has been imposed, is unrealistic, does not address local issues and concerns, will not lead to any improvements in people’s lives, or just another piece of EC legislation with fine aspirations but no ability to deliver. If any of these concerns do eventually prove to be justified, then further negative reactions can be expected. Other factors that might lead to negative response and lack of credibility are the fact that not all noise sources are included, or have an influence, when annual average Lden and Lnight are being considered, and that consolidated maps showing the overall noise environment will not necessarily be produced (as the END doesn’t require them).


The key information that should be provided should be educational, before any maps, tables, action plans are presented. This education should be at an appropriate level, not highly technical and detailed, but sufficient for people to understand the concept of decibels, A-weighting, what is the typical dB range found in day-to-day life (without suggesting any “acceptable” or “unacceptable” values, which might lead to areas and properties being blighted), Lden and Lnight, annual averaging, dose-response. Obviously the maps and tables of population exposed etc will be provided as required under the END, but it might be worth enhancing these with additional features (such as 3D fly-through if the information is web-based) so that curious members of the public will be more likely to explore the information and engage in the process. Auralisation was discussed by the Group and the consensus was that it does not have a lot of relevance in supporting the mapping process because one event, such as a car pass-by, bears little relation to an annual average Lden or Lnight. However, auralisation was considered to have more potential in relation to Action


of 82

Planning, as it is possible to demonstrate the effect of such control measures as low noise road surfaces, low rail head roughness via grinding, noise barriers etc in a way that will tend to be reflected in the reductions that might be achieved both for individual events and for annual average Lden and Lnight levels.

Proposals for a communication strategy at national, regional or local level

The Group were very concerned that a national strategy should only provide an overall framework of information for the public, because of national government’s distance from local communities and issues. The proposal that emerged was therefore that the bulk of the information, and its interpretation and associated support, should be provided at a Local Authority level, because it is only at a local level that the relevant issues are truly understood and where the relevant NGOs, interest groups, vulnerable groups and sensitive locations and buildings are known and able to be engaged appropriately. As some Member States already have communication networks and processes in place for other issues (eg air quality or flood risk) that experience should be drawn on, and the existing technology and techniques possibly utilised.

RRK Jones, 6 October 2006


of 82

Group 4

Prepared by

Simon Shilton and Max Dixon

Group Participants Soren Rasmussen Christian Popp Jeroen Borst Jacques Lambert William Egan Anna Mahoney Parminder Dhillon Juris Pakalns Stephen Turner Introduction

The group discussion began reasonably quietly but did proceed into quite an interesting discussion regarding most of the issues we were asked to consider. The approach taken was to try to encourage a frank debate and interchange of ideas, rather than to try and produce a consensus decision regarding each issue, and overall we think this was reasonably successful. Below we will attempt to summarise the general discussion within the group and highlight some of the key ideas brought out which we hope will be of use in your work going forward. It is probably fair to say that the discussion was informed by the morning’s presentations, rather than focused on any particular issued raised by them, whilst it was also illuminated by the previous experience of a number of group members in the work with previous public dissemination and consultation exercises.

Who is our target audience?

The requirement of the END to disseminate the results to the public was emphasised, along with concern that steps must be taken to try to minimise the effect, reported from the Norderstedt experience during the morning session, of the public stakeholder groups having a disproportionate level of well educated retired members. The Public was agreed to be a multifaceted body, with many elements, cultures, levels of education, ages and groupings to be considered. This lead onto the next point as it effectively helps identify the end users.


of 82


The diversity of the end users identified leads onto a conclusion that many of the end users will require a different point of entry into the process if each is to be successfully engaged. It was discussed that differing media types, language (tone as well as type), technical content and physical access points would all be required for the process to succeed as desired.

This was illustrated by the variety of media and formats presented during the morning from Italy and Portugal, ranging from kindergarten level through to quite detailed technical documentation across a number of media formats e.g. internet, posters, leaflets, booklets, postcards etc.

There was much discussion regarding the role of the decibel within the information to be presented, with the majority of the group members having practical experience trying to move away from an over reliance upon it, and urging other approaches to be formulated and promoted. Our conclusion was that the decibel probably does have a role to play, but it is almost certainly too high a point of entry into the process. Other means should be developed, which along with supporting information which link together to provide a path which would enable an interested participant to reach an understanding of the meaning of decibels should they have a desire.

There was also some concern about the possibility of the noise results being presented out of context and outside the control of noise experts, however with services such as UpMyStreet and Envirosearch specialising in pulling together multiple location related public datasets, and various forms of public right of access to environmental information, that is considered inevitable, which may actually mean that producing the bare minimum is not an option, as the information may well take on a life of its own. In light of this it is probably important to provide background and context to the noise mapping process, and some guidance on what the results do, and possibly do not, actually indicate.

There was also some discussion regarding the place of combined, or consolidated, maps. Here a consensus was not reached, with concern over them having no meaning being raised, being countered by the fact that they are already widely presented, and often align with the public expectations of what would be delivered i.e. they do not hear roads, railways and aircraft in isolation in many situations, rather a combination. This lead onto a brief discussion as to whether combined annoyance maps would actually have more technical meaning, and may therefore have some relevance. There was also brief discussion of how to deal with public concerns which might be masked by energy-averaging, e.g. people might be more interested to know the number of aircraft or rail freight movements during the quietest period of the night than the Lnight for the whole 8 hour period. Finally combined maps may have a role to play in helping to identify quiet areas.


of 82

What is the purpose?

The purpose of the communication process was discussed and generally considered an opportunity for the technical professionals and responsible authorities to demonstrate to the public that somebody is doing something about longer term noise issues associated within environmental noise – thus it would be best to present mapping as part of the action planning process. It is considered important to provide information on why this is being done, including the potential health effects, to illustrate that a lower noise climate can have secondary benefits. Also to demonstrate that there is a European wide process in place, and it aims to help prevent impact creep, and hopefully ensure that the future noise climate is no worse than today, and hopefully better.

The second purpose should be to provide information on the hierarchy of responsibility, i.e. Individuals; or Local, National or EU Government Level; regarding the various potential actions which could be carried out to help reduce long term environmental noise issues. This helps to provide an outlet

The third purpose should be to empower the individual to do something about their own contribution to the noise environment should they wish to i.e. car choice, tyre choice (when tyre labelling is fully implemented), mode of transport etc

What reaction do we want/expect? and what are the likely problems in communicating the END mapping to the public?

These two issues tended to lead into each other and cross over, which lead to the following general points being raised and discussed:

o The results are likely to be considered accurate, and the uncertainties associated with them will be difficult to convey (not dissimilar to flood risk mapping for example)

o It will raise an expectation that noise levels will decrease in the future, and that actions will be carried out

o Difficulty in reaching many sectors of society

o Difficulty in making the information relevant

o Many issues regarding technical complexity and the use of the decibel

o Explaining the complexity of the responsibility structure considered an issue – i.e. differing roles of EU; National, Regional and Local Government; National Road and Rail Authorities and Airport operators within both the mapping and action planning processes – it is not obvious who did/does what, and who should do what in the future


of 82

o Some previous experience suggested that there will be either complete indifference, or concern that the process does not deal with their issues – typically event driven aspects such as barking dogs, car stereos, neighbours, late night taxis, motorbikes, unusual freight train movements, etc.

o The information supplied needs to provide, or link readily to, solutions, not just a description of the problems. Problems presented without solutions tend to result in either undue stress, or total disengagement. Public information needs to include a number of small steps which could be adopted by almost anybody if they wish to contribute to reducing the problems e.g. walk/cycle, or choose a quieter car or tyre (when the information is available), take the bus/train instead of driving, etc. Many issues do end up linked to other environmental campaigns, so could efforts be combined?

In addition to this are some thoughts arising from observing the discussion.

It was unavoidable to feel that acoustics and noise mapping professionals may have a good understanding of what the maps, results and noise levels mean in technical terms, but they have little direct experience in communicating the results across to a non-technical audience. Market researchers, sociologists and others, as represented at the meeting, could provide some form of bridge between experts and the target groups within the public, which will be required for the information process to be successful, although cost could be an issue, and community activists should still be able to access decision makers and their technical advisers.

It is arguably very important for the technical specialists to challenge their own expectations about the process as we are possibly technically disconnected from the public in a similar way to which politicians are often accused of being politically disconnected. As an example of the challenge, try to recollect the last time you attempted to explain noise mapping and the END to an acquaintance who knows nothing about it, whilst retaining their attention?

Elements towards a presentation strategy

Due to lack of time during the workshop, this section is based on issues drawn out of discussion by the authors, rather than necessarily representing a group consensus.

• Noise mapping data should be presented to the public as the first stage in the noise action planning process. For example, popular leaflets containing noise maps could include questions about noise problems,


of 82

and any positive local soundscape features (e.g. wildlife sites, markets).

• Communication should consider equalities issues, e.g. avoiding over-reliance on the internet, or methods liable to reinforce social exclusion, e.g. seeking to avoid bias in favour of articulate, wealthier, longer-established or older groups. Consider special communication methods for specific population groups, e.g. children through schools. Consider disability access, e.g. colour-blind. Consider innovative popular communication methods, e.g. noise management charette, or soundscape planning day, including soundwalks, decision games, e.g. democs, http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/democs.aspx).

• Provide special information on noise maps targeted at stakeholder groups additional to the general public, e.g. estate agents with leaflets to give to people moving house, large social and private housing landlords, town planners, urban designers and architects, highway engineers, designers and managers of parks, nature conservation sites and other open spaces. When providing information to house-movers, it is particularly important not to just provide END noise contours, but flight path data (i.e. where planes actually go, cf Sydney experience, see http://www.dotars.gov.au).

• Provide background information on the limited scope of END, and ‘who does what’ locally, including in terms of other noise problems people may have (e.g. what to do if you have a noisy neighbour). Ideally, outline existing action on noise (including what is integrated in, or a by-product of, other programmes), and review other noise management measures, including how noise complaints are handled, at the same time as noise action planning under END.

• Explain noise maps in simple ‘noisy>>>quiet’ terms, while still providing access to decibel data. Explain basic facts about the nature of noise and human response. If using standardised annoyance curve-based data, include strong caveats on the range of individual variation in propensity to report annoyance.

• For noise sources, which typically consist of events (e.g. aircraft, trains), rather than near-continuous noise (e.g. road traffic), include data on numbers of movements (e.g. flight path movement charts, with average daily movements, and range of movements, or typical range of night


of 82

freight trains).

• Include information on the sorts of actions that can be taken by public authorities (including both network-wide measures, like quieter surfaces, and examples of local combined measures), and by individuals (e.g. using quieter transport modes).

• For governmental decision-makers, include cost-benefit information, using value of noise data, so that it is clear where spending on noise reduction could avoid costs or increase values. This will be most important in those administrations where local property tax is based on local values which can be affected by noise, but cost-benefit information would be useful for all public authorities.

• Consider using appropriate partners to help improve social communication between noise specialists and public, e.g. market researchers, sociologists, environmental and community non-governmental organisations (latter may assist with small grant, while it should be clearly understood this does not compromise their independent stance).

• Use established local channels of political and non-governmental communication, e.g. local municipalities, and environmental non-governmental civic forums, such as established for LA21.

• Break down an agglomeration noise map into maps of local municipality areas, or other areas that have community identity to which the public can relate, and make these available in paper leaflets/booklets in local libraries and town halls. Ensure people can read street names, and identify key local features (e.g. schools and public open spaces).

• Consider monitoring, e.g. periodic sample public attitude polling, to gauge both changes in attitudes to noise, and public awareness of mapping, possibly combined with monitoring of other noise services (e.g. how complaints are dealt with).

• Consider discussing the noise maps within the context of the existing noise management and control process available within the district/country e.g. within England this could include a basic walk through of the areas of applicability and use of existing powers such as:


of 82

Land Compensation Act, Noise Insulation Regs, PPS24, Noise Act, FPNs, BS4142, BS5228, MPS11, Quiet Areas, statutory nuisance, etc – which would help to demonstrate that the END process is a compliment to a range of other initiatives and processes.

• It is suggested that national government helps to develop a publicity campaign which alert the national media to the public liaison, whilst in turn it also engages with the regional or local authorities to support them with the more direct and “hands on” aspects of the public liaison and action planning.


of 82

Group 5

Members: Andrew Colthurst, Henk Wolfert, Brian McManus, Bruno Vincent, Sara-Braga Dioniso, Nigel Jones, Matthas Hintzsche, Louise Shaw, Alexandra Mause, Arja Even, Uscila Valdas

Q. Who is our target audience? (what part of the public do we intend to engage?)

General Public: Specific Receptor Related Groups, including any Directive source

• Hospitals

• Schools

• School children

Politicians:

• Body politic

• Particular portfolio holders

Executive:

• Action planning body/authority

• Education

• Land use

Technical Specialists:

• Internal public sector

• External consultants

• Data resellers

Data Providers:

• Highway authorities

• Railway authorities


of 82

• Airport/aviation authorities

Special Interest Groups:

• Young people

• Pressure Groups

Problems: All groups may have different expectations as to what strategic mapping means.

1. Different educational standards 2. Different age groups 3. Variation in health status. 4. Different cultures and language (migrants)

Q. What is the purpose? (for us)

• To provide information to all of the groups identified.

• To generate feedback from the public.

• To raise public awareness about noise.

• To meet regulatory obligations, both END and ÅRHUS convention (Freedom of Information)

Q. What type of Reaction do we want/expect?

• Measured reaction, i.e. not to raise unrealistic expectations.

• Better understanding of the different sources and the issues particular to each.

• Develop clarity of understanding/perception in public.

• Critical and constructive feedback from technical specialists.

• Commitment from local, regional and central administration.

Q. What sort of information do we need to provide and how?

• Format output for the variety of specific target audiences.

• Maps possibly need to be constant to avoid confusion. Supporting information may be targeted.


of 82

• There is an issue regarding the resolution – i.e. these are strategic maps but expectations may be for finer detail, e.g. street/house.

• Maybe focus on strategic element by 3 colour banding and then drill down in the ‘red’ areas (hotspots).

• The broad approach of the 3 colour banding risks disappointing public expectations.

• Need to explain limitations of action available to Local Authorities. – i.e. where responsibility lies for particular aspects.

Q. Proposals for a communication strategy at National, Regional or Local level

• KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!

• Aims, Objectives and Targets to be established clearly at the outset

• Determine purpose at outset: To raise expectations or To keep them low.

• Maps should look simple

• Uniformity/consistency of communication across the nation(s?)

• Maps need to be supported by other means of communication, e.g. by presenting in a empathetic way.

• Raise awareness

• Social network communities very important particularly for Local Authorities.

presenting noise mapping information to the public

Documents