Noise
in Europe
A briefing from the NGO
community
There is increasing concern about noise
pollution in Europe[1]. People frequently complain about noise
annoyance, and most EU citizens live in areas which have disturbing levels of
noise. Controlling this form of
pollution has now become a priority, as science makes progress in establishing
how much harm noise causes. The
European Commission’s recently adopted Directive on noise[2] is a first step in containing the
problem. What follows is a briefing
designed to give an insight into the issues.
- Defining
noise and its sources
- Impacts of
noise
- Why is
action necessary? – scale of the problem
- Measuring
noise
- Guidelines
for noise levels
- Why
EU-wide noise standards are needed
- Comments
on the proposed Directive
- Annexes
Noise can be
defined as unwanted sounds[3].
They are characterised by their intensity (expressed in decibel, dB) and their
frequency (expressed in Hertz, Hz). Noise is mainly caused by traffic (road,
rail, aircraft), industry and leisure activities.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
What
are the impacts of noise?[4]
The specific
effects of noise on individual human health are difficult to establish, mainly
because individuals’ sensitivity to noise is highly variable. However, recent studies show that noise is a
major source of stress, with physiological reactions including accelerated
heart rhythm, increased amounts of hormones produced and dilation of the pupils[5].
Noise also increases the stress already present from difficult social, familial
or professional relationships as well as the health problems and can intensify
the development of mental disorder.
Other general
impacts of noise include:
- Hearing impairment (though damage
only occurs at very high noise levels – around 85 dB (A) – so this is not
the most important effect);
- Intelligibility of speech
- Physiological effects, such as
tiredness (from muscle contraction) and hypertension (from contraction of
blood vessels);
- Sleep disturbance[6];
- Performance in cognitive tasks
(from lack of concentration and precision in actions);
- Decrease of children’s ability to
comprehend, concentrate and assimilate.
Young children in the process of acquiring language and reading
skills are particularly at risk;
- Mental health problems.
Noise from
numerous sources will typically have some combination of effects; such as
interfering with speech in the day and disturbing sleep at night. It is important to note that the effects of
noise are often more severe on vulnerable subgroups; such as the elderly, young
children, blind people and people in hospitals or rehabilitating at home.
To these
general effects must be added more specific ones. The duration of a noise
event, and its tone, can also influence perceived annoyance. For example, an aircraft’s tone is perceived
as threatening (it integrates notions of fear) and is therefore typically more
annoying than the same level (intensity and frequency) of train noise. Some
types of tone are even considered relaxing (wave noise, bird song) and
therefore cannot be treated as noise.
Another
specificity to take into account is what is called the emergence of a noise
(the size of fluctuation from the background noise level[7]).
This characteristic is very important when considering night-time noise[8],
as emergence is one of the most important causes of sleep disruption. This is in turn responsible for a series of
severe health effects, which were acknowledged by the European Commission as
long ago as its green paper on future noise policy[9].
More
colloquially, any European citizen can tell of the effects of noise on her/his
quality of life.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Why is action on noise necessary? – the scale of the problem
Europe is
drowning in noise. More than half of the
Union’s citizens are exposed to an unacceptable level of transport noise. The WHO reports that more than 30% of
European Union citizens are exposed to levels of noise which disturb sleep; and
5-15% of all citizens suffer serious noise-induced sleep disturbance[10].
Critically,
the scale of the problem is growing together with Europe’s roads and
airports. With a 3 dB increase in
noise equivalent to a doubling in the total intensity of noise, this problem
requires immediate action. The WHO
says that[11]:
In contrast to many other environmental problems, noise pollution continues to grow and it is accompanied by an increasing number of complaints from people exposed to the noise. The growth in noise pollution is unsustainable because it involves direct, as well as cumulative, adverse health effects. It also adversely affects future generations, and has socio-cultural, aesthetic and economic effects.
In other
words, we cannot ignore the problem of noise pollution, and the threat to human
health it represents. And with this
pollution increasing across Europe, the need to act now to protect Europe’s
citizens is very great.
Given the
considerable impacts of noise on human health, it is important to set limits on
noise emission. Humans have always
legislated on noise: even ancient Romans had rules on noise from wagon wheels.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Measuring noise
In order to
set limits, we need to determine the noise level. This is not simple since, as
has been mentioned, noise is a partly subjective experience. But at least two things can be measured:
intensity and frequency. The human ear is able to distinguish a large amount of
noise intensity (from 1 dB to 125 dB, which is the start of the pain threshold)
and that is partly why a logarithmic scale is used. An increase of 3 dB means the total intensity of noise has
doubled.
We also are
able to perceive a wide range of frequencies: about 15 to 20 000 Hz (a
dog-whistle has a frequency higher than 20 000 Hz). In fact we can say that
noise is a “disordered” mixture of sound characterised by variable intensity
and frequency.
The
interaction between these two characteristics also has a major influence on how
a noise is perceived (two sound of the same intensity are perceived
differently, according to their frequency). To take this particularity into
account we use the dB (A) or “corrected decibel” measurement. The more annoying
frequencies are given more weight. The dB (A) is now the most commonly used
unit and is the basis for all the other indicators. The problem is that the dB
(A) only serves for ‘snap-shot’ measurements.
To evaluate
annoyance over a certain period of time we therefore use indicators of total
energy received, expressed in dB (A); for instance the L(A)eq measure for
daytime noise and the Lden (day, evening and night) for noise over a 24 hour
period.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Which indicators for which type of noise?
The indicators used to assess noise should be representative of the real annoyance perceived and easily usable to set threshold. For example to assess aviation noise, other indicators (relating to the emergence and peak levels) should complement the well-known and commonly used Lden indices (which measures the total energy received over a 24 hour period). Additionally the nature of the tone should be taken into account (as it already is in many countries, where annoyance thresholds for rail noise are 5 dB (A) higher than for other sources).
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Guidelines
for noise levels
The exact limit values for noise levels will differ according to source. The general principle should, however, be that the relative risk to human health from noise should be no more than other hazards which the European Community controls and has already legislated on; for example, the same level of risk accepted in the daughter Directive[12] for ambient air pollution limits of SO2, NOx, particulate matter and lead.
The case of aviation noise is set out here as an example. For specific guidelines on all forms of environmental noise, see the WHO guidelines on Community noise.
When establishing a limit on aircraft noise, two limits – both an overall limit (expressed in Lden) and a night time limit – should be considered. The Commission’s proposed noise Directive adopts these indicators.
According to the WHO guidelines for community noise, the total energy received during the night (expressed in Laeq,8h) should not exceed 30 dB (A) indoors if sleep disturbances are to be avoided. If we assume, following the WHO guidelines, that the difference between outside and inside noise (windows open) is 15 dB (A), then the limit should be set at 45 dB (A).
Using the same assumptions the number of events with a peak level (Lmax) exceeding 60 dB (A) should be limited.
The WHO insists on preserving quiet areas, and the Commission Directive also stresses this need. One way to achieve this could be by setting limits to emergence levels. So for the overall limit the upper threshold should be 55 dB (A)[13]. This is an upper limit because the fact that aircraft noise is perceived as more annoying is not taken into account (a penalty of 5 dB could be set) and because these are general limits that could be lowered to protect the more sensitive persons (elderly, children, etc). Moreover using an average of energy received is not sufficient to assess aircraft noise, for the reasons mentioned above.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Why EU-wide noise standards are
needed
There are two
main reasons why noise standards need to be set at a European level: to protect
the health of EU citizens and to support the effective working of the common
market.
Competition
Regions and countries,
even within the European Union, typically see themselves in competition with
each other. In addition, short-term
interests very often define a region’s political actions. This has led interest groups to play regions
and even countries off against each other in order to ensure for themselves the
best possible operating conditions.
This is particularly noticeable in the case of airports.
The European
Community is responsible for taking steps to ensure that such pressures do not
result in lack of protection for the European citizen and voter.
This is an
especially cogent fact in the case of noise, where the costs are typically
borne by society rather than by those who are responsible for causing the
pollution. The residents living closest
to the source of noise pollution are of course the most affected; but the whole
society pays the human health costs (see above).
In the medium-
to long-term it is economically, and politically, worse to accept noise
problems than it may initially appear.
The fact that
the authorities in Strasbourg refused to allow the company, DHL to set up
increased air operations at Strasbourg airport shows that it had recognised
this fact. They saw that the short-term
gains from increased employment in the area would be more than offset by the
costs (see below). This is unusual in
Europe.
The case of
TNT[14]
is a good example of why actions need to be taken at a European level. TNT used to be based at Cologne
airport. When the authorities refused
permission to TNT to expand its activities, the firm looked for another
European base. Many airports competed to offer TNT the most favourable possible
conditions. Monetary and legislative incentives were offered quickly, and
without impact studies. The decision had to be taken as quickly as possible so
as to not lose the supposed golden opportunity. This led to a series of
short-term considerations and decisions being taken, without consideration of
citizen’s health and well-being. TNT moved to Liege airport. It was immediately evident that the noise
costs were very high; but within the last two years it has become clear that
the health costs from noise pollution are far heavier for Liege than the
economic gains.
It is clear
that European-level legislation is the best way to implement standards which
will protect the European citizen while not providing a competitive advantage
for particular regions in the European Community. In other words, European standards are the best way of ensuring a
level playing field when there is the potential for inter- or intra-national
competition based on environment and health standards to protect citizens.
Sufficient protection of citizens’ health
Protection of
the health and well-being of members of the public against harmful effects of
environmental pollution is a shared responsibility between the Community and
the Member States[15]. Some aspects can best be covered at the EU
level, others at national and local level.
Given the lack
of effective action – based partly on the inter-regional and -national
competition mentioned above – taken to date by governments and local
authorities to protect their citizens from this pollution, the Community needs
to provide Europe-wide standards.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Comments
on the proposed Directive
While the
Commission’s proposal for a
framework Directive on noise is a good initiative, it is far too weak to
adequately protect Europe’s citizens from the major environmental and public
health threat which noise poses.
Although earlier drafts were stronger, the final version fails to
provide real protection for Europe’s citizens.
This is very strange, because the Community used an excellent model when legislating over a comparable issue: air quality. If we use the same evaluation and risk analysis methods as a basis, it is clear that the risk of major health problems induced by noise is far more visible and numerically observable than for many other pollutants. The Directive should therefore be altered to include more concrete measures. It should also require the Commission to produce a series of source-specific daughter-directives within two years of adoption of the framework Directive.
The daughter-directive on Ozone calls for alert
thresholds for vulnerable groups within society, which are of course more
stringent than the general thresholds.
As large groups of society are especially vulnerable to the effects of
noise, a noise framework Directive should also include alert thresholds for
vulnerable groups. These should be
contained within the concept of sensitive zones (see below).
Some of the main
concerns with the proposed Directive as it currently stands are:
· The absence of limits for noise sources. Earlier drafts of the Directive contained such limit values, which were based on sound research concerning ‘annoyance’ and guidance from the World Health Organisation.
· Neighbourhood noise and noise from work-places were included in earlier drafts, but have since been removed. They should be included within the Directive’s scope due to their major contribution and impact.
· The Directive only calls for action plans for fairly highly populated agglomerations. Yet the public may be suffering from noise in areas outside such agglomerations. The concept of ‘sensitive zones’ should therefore be introduced. Such zones would include all residential areas and should be protected by limit values. This concept is already being introduced into some Member State legislation. Noise maps and action plans should be prepared if there is good reason to believe that the area’s population suffers from unacceptable noise disturbance.
· The definition for noise sources will exclude (for example) many small but noisy airports. Research has shown aircraft noise to be more annoying than other transport noise. Airport use is also prone to strong seasonal variations, especially where charter operations are commonplace, and this should be taken into account. The same can be said of road and rail noise.
Parliamentarians
now have a window of opportunity to provide minimum limit values or guiding
indicators, and to broaden the scope of the Directive so that all people
suffering from noise are included. This
would be in line with the WHO community noise guidelines and would go a long
way towards protecting Europe’s increasingly vocal citizens from the noise they
are complaining so bitterly about.
Back to the top ; Back to contents
Annex 1: Good and bad practice in Europe
A European example worth following
The regional authorities in Strasbourg refused the courier company, DHL, access to Strasbourg airport. This followed a comprehensive report from Vallet and Muzet, which showed how severe the costs of repairing the damage caused by noise would be. In other words the authorities were unable to grant the company access in the face of the evidence: the cost to human health of the additional aviation traffic would outweigh the direct benefits from increased employment that the company would bring it.
Worst practice on noise policy in Europe
The award for
worst practice on noise policy in Europe is shared by many national and local
authorities. Of particular interest as
regards aviation are the examples of Heathrow and Schiphol airports.
Heathrow
The situation
is so bad at Heathrow that a group of citizens living near the airport took
their case to the European Court of Human Rights in April 2000. The Court accepted the case and asked the UK
government to justify its decision to allow night flights at Heathrow airport.
Presently a
total of 16 flights are allowed between 4h00 and 6h00, and flights are
unrestricted after 6h00. The case
centres around article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which
states that people have the right to enjoy their homes. As English law defines “night” as
23h30-7h00, the group believes allowing flights before 7h00 is an abuse of
human rights. Since April, the Court
has asked the UK government for additional information, and is expected to
release its ruling in the near future.
Schiphol
A number of
national and about 50 local groups (represented by a local umbrella
organisation) in the Netherlands have taken the government to court repeatedly
over the last three years about noise levels around Schiphol airport. There are three different noise issues.
They have
twice brought a case to court over the environmental
license granted to Schiphol. The government
must award an airport with an environmental license for it to operate
legally. Schiphol should be governed by
a planning document which was created for Schiphol, and which is a planning
instrument with a legal status. The
court has twice decided that the environmental license which the government has
awarded Schiphol is invalid, as it does not correspond with the planning
document. To date, the airport still
operates without a legal license and the transport ministry needs to submit a
new license to the courts for approval.
Each year
Schiphol airport must come up with an operating
plan for the following year. Three
times there has been a legal battle over this annual operating plan, which
Schiphol airport had submitted and which the transport ministry had
approved. In each case the citizens’
groups argued the operating plan violated the noise standards set out in the
legally-based planning instrument for the airport. In each case the court rejected the case on the grounds that the
annual plan does not have a legal status and can therefore not be evaluated
using the court system.
Additionally,
the groups have gone to court a number of times over specific violations of noise limits. These cases have been mostly
unsuccessful, although there have some small successes, notably when Schiphol
was forced to close a runway at night for a one-month period.
It is
interesting to note that the number of complaints about noise from Schiphol
airport is growing significantly over time, and the complaints are coming from
an area of about 5000km2 – which comprises significant parts of 2
provinces in the Netherlands.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
Emergence is defined as
the difference between two dynamics of noise.
This means the difference between the normal or background noise dynamic
and the one in which the source of noise is analysed.
In the case of aviation this means analysing normal fluctuations from the average background noise, without aircraft noise (not every noise fluctuation at an airport is due to aircraft noise, but can also be caused by normal everyday activities); and doing the same with aircraft noise included. The difference between the two is the emergence and is entirely attributable to aviation noise.
One
possible way to measure the dynamic of a noise consists of calculating L5 - L95
where L5 (or L95) is the noise threshold crossed for 5% (or 95%) of the period
analysed. L5 approximates the average value of the peak levels and L95 is
equivalent to the value of the background noise. Doing that for two periods of
the same duration, one with and one without aircraft flights, enables one to
estimate the emergence of the aircraft noise[16].
Annoyance (feeling of
being annoyed) is a subjective notion, especially in the case of noise. People
differently perceive noise differently, depending on many factors (age, health,
mental state and even the time at which the noise occurs); and are therefore
differently annoyed by noise. The term,
“annoyance” only includes the conscious effects of noise.
Calculating
or measuring?
Noise levels can be measured or computed. Calculating indicators such as
Lden or Lnight is usually cheaper and easier than measuring them. Computation
is also the only method that can be used for prediction purposes. The problem
is that Member State computation methods do not currently meet the requirements
for modern harmonised methods recommended in the Directive[17].
Member States will thus have to adapt their existing national methods (by
including EU noise definition and indicators), or adopt an existing method
recommended by the Commission.
Back
to the top ; Back to contents
This briefing
note was compiled by the following NGOs
Address:
Bd de Waterloo 34 B-1000
Brussels, Belgium Contact:
Stephanos Anastasiadis (ph: +32-2-502 9909, e-mail info@t-e.nu)
The
European Federation for Transport and Environment, T&E
Address:
Bd de Waterloo 34 B-1000
Brussels, Belgium Contact: Sarah Keay-Bright (ph: +32-2-289 1300, e-mail: cleanair@eeb.org)
European
Environmental Bureau, EEB
Address:
Le Château CH-1374
Corcelles-sur-Chavornay, Switzerland Contact:
Dr Gaudenz Silberschmidt (ph: +41-24-441 5650, e-mail:
gaudenz.silberschmidt@student.unisg.ch)
The
International Society of Doctors for the Environment, ISDE
Address:
Rue de Pascale 33 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium Contact:
Génon Jensen (ph: +32-2-233 3886, e-mail: genon@epha.org)
The
European Public Health Alliance, EPHA