[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Short-Medium-Term Solar Irradiance Forecasting with a CEEMDAN-CNN-ATT-LSTM Hybrid Model Using Meteorological Data
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization Study of Drainage Network Systems Based on the SWMM for the Wujin District, Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province, China
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/app15031277
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mapping Noise from Motorised Transport in the Context of Infrastructure Management

by
Piotr Jaskowski
1,*,
Marcin Koniak
1,
Jonas Matijošius
2 and
Artūras Kilikevičius
2
1
Faculty of Transport, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warszawa, Poland
2
Mechanical Science Institute, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10105 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(3), 1277; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031277
Submission received: 11 December 2024 / Revised: 22 January 2025 / Accepted: 24 January 2025 / Published: 26 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Acoustics and Vibrations)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Noise emission map showing noise expressed by L<sub>den.</sub></p> "> Figure 2
<p>Noise emission map showing noise expressed by L<sub>den.</sub></p> "> Figure 3
<p>Noise emission map showing noise expressed by L<sub>den.</sub></p> "> Figure 4
<p>Emission map showing noise expressed as L<sub>Aeq.</sub></p> "> Figure 5
<p>Emission map showing noise expressed as L<sub>Aeq.</sub></p> "> Figure 6
<p>Emission map showing noise expressed as L<sub>Aeq.</sub></p> "> Figure 7
<p>Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in L<sub>den</sub> and L<sub>Aeq</sub> indicators.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in L<sub>den</sub> and L<sub>Aeq</sub> indicators.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in L<sub>den</sub> and L<sub>Aeq</sub> indicators.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in L<sub>den</sub> are exceeded.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in L<sub>den</sub> are exceeded.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in L<sub>den</sub> are exceeded.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Noise pollution presents significant challenges for urban infrastructure management, highlighting the need for practical assessment tools such as noise maps. These maps enable the visualization and geo-referencing of noise levels, identifying areas requiring immediate intervention and long-term strategic responses. Road sections with traffic exceeding 3 million vehicles per year were selected for measurement. The findings are presented in detail, revealing that the Long-term Day-Night Average Noise Level (Lden) exceeds acceptable limits, affecting approximately 1.899 km2 and impacting around 1200 residents within the exceedance zone. Similarly, the equivalent noise level (LAeq) surpasses acceptable thresholds over an area of 1.220 km2, affecting an additional 700 residents. Notably, there were no exceedances of the key noise impact indicators, including high annoyance (HA), high sleep disturbance (HSD), and ischemic heart disease (IHD). Changes in traffic organisation were implemented to address areas that exceed the applicable noise standards, including a ban on trucks and the introduction of local speed limits. The measures have successfully mitigated the noise problem in Grodzisk County (Poland). Further anti-noise initiatives are planned, including planting vegetation along the roadways.

1. Introduction

Studies indicate that approximately 40% of Europeans are exposed to daytime noise levels exceeding the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s recommended threshold of 55 dB [1,2]. The European Environment Agency reports that road noise affects around 125 million people, making it a significant social and environmental issue [3,4]. Noise is estimated to contribute to the loss of approximately 1.6 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) annually in Europe alone [5,6]. The ongoing urbanisation and increasing demand for transport services, coupled with the rise in the number of motor vehicles, significantly impact the magnitude of the adverse effects of noise on both people and the environment [7]. According to the Polish Central Statistical Office, road transport accounts for over 80% of all freight transport in Poland [8], exacerbating the problem of noise emissions. Car transport is a primary contributor to urban noise pollution, responsible for approximately 80% of the overall noise levels in many cities [9,10]. Numerous research papers have examined the relationship between traffic congestion and noise levels, highlighting the co-occurrence of public health issues as a result of increased noise exposure based on the models developed [3,8,11,12]. The primary organ affected by excessive noise impact is hearing; however, indirect effects, such as heightened stress levels and diminished quality of life, associated with increased dB values have also been noted [13,14].
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has established guidelines indicating that noise levels exceeding 55 dB can lead to significant annoyance and health disorders. In contrast, levels above 70 dB can result in permanent hearing loss and increased mortality from cardiovascular causes [15]. Studies also indicate that noise exposure can trigger physiological stress responses, manifesting as elevated blood pressure, heart disease, and other cardiovascular conditions [16,17]. A meta-analysis by Babish highlights that road noise is a risk factor for coronary heart disease and may also influence an increased risk of stroke [18]. Similarly, research has shown that people living near heavily trafficked roads experience more sleep disturbances and various health issues. Estimates suggest that the indirect impact of road noise contributes to approximately 2000 premature deaths per year in Japan alone [19]. The effect of noise on sleep disturbance is associated with a potential increased risk of cognitive impairment and mental health issues, for example, increasing the risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) [16], attention deficit disorder (HA) [20], sleep disturbances (HSD) [21,22], and depression [23,24]. The relationship between noise exposure and annoyance is also significant: studies demonstrate that even at similar decibel levels, different types of noise (e.g., road vs. aeroplane) can induce varying degrees of annoyance and health impacts [25,26]. This suggests that noise characteristics, including frequency and duration, are crucial in determining health effects [25]. Researchers indicate that prolonged exposure to high noise levels can lead to increased irritability, anxiety, and depression [13,27].
In addition to direct health impacts, noise from motorised transport has broader implications for urban planning and community well-being. Metropolitan areas with high traffic noise often experience reduced physical activity among residents, as noise discomfort can discourage outdoor activities [28,29]. This decline in physical activity can contribute to various health problems, including obesity and related chronic diseases [30,31]. Furthermore, green spaces have been shown to mitigate some of the adverse effects of noise pollution by promoting physical activity and enhancing mental well-being [32].
The accumulation of noise pollution in urban areas can diminish the quality of life, disrupt local ecosystems [33,34], and contribute to biodiversity loss [35,36]. Animals exposed to high anthropogenic noise levels may alter their behaviour, leading to habitat fragmentation and decreased reproductive success [35,36]. Noise pollution can modify animal behaviour, resulting in broader ecological impacts [9]. As urban areas continue developing, effective noise management strategies are becoming increasingly critical.
Effective noise mapping and mitigation strategies are essential for identifying high-exposure areas and implementing measures to reduce noise pollution, thereby protecting public health and improving environmental quality [37,38,39]. This article presents an example of conducting road noise impact measurements by developing maps that indicate the area exposed to negative impacts [40,41].
The study aimed to verify noise levels for areas near major roads in Grodzisk County. The selected study sections are characterised by an average annual vehicle traffic of more than 3 million trips/year, giving rise to the hypothesis of a problem of harmful effects resulting from transit traffic. According to data from the Polish Central Statistical Office, car transport in the context of freight transport accounted for 81.7% of all freight transport carried out in Poland, which increases the risk of exceeding acceptable noise standards. This article was produced in cooperation with the County Road Administration, for which post-measurements were carried out and conclusions drawn. An important issue is the inclusion and use of noise maps in road management by road managers as a tool to make decisions and changes to the road environment that will compensate for possible exceedances of noise standards.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Related Studies and Guidelines

Urban development requires effective noise management strategies [42,43,44]. While the implementation of noise regulations is a key element of a comprehensive noise management approach [3,14], there is currently insufficient control [45].
The simplest solution applied to multi-lane roads is the introduction of noise barriers [46,47], while for single-lane roads, applying the indicated solution is economically and visually unfeasible. Therefore, research and application of road noise-mitigation pavements are essential [48,49]. Transport development is also related to using quieter engines and implementing tyres that reduce noise emissions from motor vehicles [14,50]. The electrification of transport is also an essential aspect of combating noise emissions [51,52,53], as electric motors operate much quieter than traditional internal combustion engines [14,50].
An interesting conclusion of the study is that traffic control should be considered to reduce road noise emissions. Traffic reduction measures like priority for public transport, development of cycling infrastructure [54], the concept of the 15-minute city, and promotion of walking [52,55] are crucial. Educating residents about the health impacts of noise and encouraging community involvement in local planning decisions can foster a collective approach to noise reduction [54]. In addition, policies that promote public transport and non-motorised modes can help shift social norms towards quieter, more sustainable transport options [14,54]. Awareness campaigns can also educate communities about the health impacts of noise pollution and encourage them to engage in noise reduction initiatives [56].
Measuring and mapping road transport noise is essential for establishing areas of harmful exposure and is key to verifying noise standards [7,57]. One of the primary methods for mapping road noise involves using statistical models that correlate noise levels with various urban parameters, such as traffic volume, road geometry, and environmental conditions. For example, Hanigan et al. [58] used a statistical approach to generate high-resolution health risk maps related to road noise. In contrast, Adza et al. [59] employed Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques to investigate the combined effects of road noise and air quality according to the UK Road Noise Calculation Method (CRTN). This research highlights the importance of integrating statistical analysis with spatial data to improve the accuracy of noise mapping. Suyunov emphasises the necessity of using noise data to update noise maps and produce mapping work that reflects the changing urban landscape [60]. The systematic collection of noise data is essential for accurately representing noise exposure in urban environments based on actual measurement data [61,62].
By the regulations in force, the assessment was carried out for one-hour indicators. The basis of the evaluation is the Regulation of the Minister of Environment of 14 June 2007 on permissible noise levels in the environment and the requirements contained therein [63].
According to the Environmental Protection Law, the basis for categorising areas subject to noise protection is the provisions of local spatial development plans. Article 114 (1) of the Act states that when drawing up a local spatial development plan, when differentiating between areas with different functions or development principles, it shall be indicated which of them belong to the particular types of areas referred to in Article 113 (2) para. 1 (i.e., the areas specified in the Decree of 14 June 2007 [63]). The applicable values of permissible sound levels in the environment are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

2.2. Methods and Data Used to Perform Acoustic Calculations

The measurements and development of the noise map were conducted according to the requirements of the Minister of Climate and Environment Regulation of 1 July 2021 on the detailed scope of data included in strategic noise maps, as well as the manner of their presentation and the form of their transmission [65]. For the calculations, CadnaA software was used (developer: DataKustik GmbH (Gilching, Germany), Version 2021) [66], which incorporates the CNOSSOS-EU methodology [67], as mandated by the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament [68].
The reference methodology for measuring road noise levels emitted into the environment is established in the Decree of the Minister of the Environment dated 16 June 2011. This decree specifies the requirements for conducting measurements of the levels of substances or energy in the environment by the manager of roads, railway lines, tramway lines, airports, and ports [69]. The method of determining the long-term Lden indicator is detailed in the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment dated 10 November 2010 on determining the value of the Lden noise indicator [70]. According to this regulation, the Lden noise indicator is calculated using the following formula:
L den = 10 · log [   12 24 · 10 0.1 L D + 4 24 · 10 0.1 ( L W + 5 ) + 8 24 · 10 0.1 ( L N + 10 ) ]
where
  • LD—long-term average A sound level expressed in dB, determined during all daytime periods of the year, including the time of day (understood as the interval from 06:00 to 18:00 h);
  • LW—long-term average sound level A expressed in dB, determined over all the evening periods of a year, including the daytime (defined as the interval from 18:00 to 22:00);
  • LN—long-term average sound level A expressed in dB, determined during all the night periods of the year (understood as the time interval from 22:00 to 06:00).
Description of the methodology used to calculate the number of dwellings in residential buildings and the population attributed to residential buildings.
A key aspect of strategic noise mapping is analysing potential exposure to noise among inhabitants and its associated harmful effects. According to point 2.8 of Annex II of Directive 2002/49/EC, the analysis involves calculating noise emissions at the façades of residential buildings [68]. Subsequently, based on estimating the number of dwellings in a given area, we can approximate the number of inhabitants exposed to noise. For this purpose, we utilised data published by the Central Statistical Office [71] for the municipality where the measurements were carried out.

2.3. Testing Ground

Central to noise mapping is the accurate characterisation of the area being assessed. It is essential to identify potential noise sources and their impact on the designated regulatory regions. In the adopted methodology, communication routes (roads) are treated as linear noise sources within the computational model, the generated noise level of which depends on many factors, such as the following:
  • Geometrical parameters of the noise source (road): type and technical condition of the road surface, cross-section of the road (width of the carriageway, number of lanes, width of the separation lane), location of the road about the ground level (on an embankment, in a trench, at ground level), and location of engineering structures limiting noise emissions (acoustic screens);
  • Traffic parameters: traffic volume and structure (number of light and heavy vehicles), average traffic speed, type of traffic (smooth, interrupted, accelerated, and decelerating);
  • Independent parameters: topography and land cover between the noise source and the receptor point, and meteorological conditions;
  • Meteorological conditions (configured in CadnaA): temperature, air humidity, wind speed, and direction.
Basic information about the testbed under consideration is presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
The following assumptions were made for the measurements:
  • Traffic intensity: The traffic volume values on the individual road sections included in the scope of this study were estimated based on the traffic volume measurements carried out on the separate segments of the analysed roads. The 24-h average traffic volumes used in the calculations, categorised into daily and annual numbers of vehicles, are shown in the table below.
  • Traffic speed: For these calculations, the average speed of vehicle traffic was assumed to be equal to the maximum permissible speed of vehicles at a given time of day. The permissible traffic speeds were determined according to the list of vertical signs provided by the Contracting Authority.
  • Type and condition of the road surface: The type and condition of the pavement in the calculation model were adopted by the actual condition observed during site visits conducted for noise level field measurements.
  • Landforms and screening objects: For this study, a Numerical Terrain Model (NMT) layer and a Topographic Database (BDOT) were obtained from the resources of the Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography (GUGiK) [72]. The data received enabled the appropriate modelling of the nullification of individual road sections in relation to neighbouring areas, the landform in the immediate vicinity, and objects of a reflective and screening nature.

2.4. Description of the Calculation Model Calibration Methodology

For the verification and calibration of the computational model, measurements were carried out using the sampling method by point G (a height of 4.0 m ± 0.1 m) of the reference methodology, recording the value of the equivalent continuous A-weighted Sound Pressure Level at representative noise emission intervals. The number of measurements in each representative measurement interval taken of not less than three and with a duration of at least 10 min depended on the gap between the extreme results of these measurements. If the difference between the results of the individual measurements is greater than 7 dB, the duration of a single measurement is increased to a minimum of 15 min. The value of the acoustic background level was determined as far as possible when the source noise was not emitted, and if this was not possible, using the L95 index.
Calibration of the computational model was carried out concerning the results of noise measurements and vehicle traffic recorded during the study. The calibration process sought to minimise the error resulting from the difference between the measured sound level value and the value derived from the calculation model. During the calibration process, corrections were made to parameters determined with the most significant uncertainty, e.g., parameters relating to the type of road surface and ground absorption coefficient, G.
The calibration started once all complete data had been entered into the computer model, including the following:
  • Complete geometry of the individual road sections,
  • Traffic volume and vehicle speeds observed during the noise measurements,
  • Type of pavement—based on visual inspection,
  • Geometry of shielding, attenuating and reflecting objects,
  • Elevation model of the area.
Irrespective of the measured sound level, either a single measurement result, Lzm, or a set of n values is available for comparison with the calculation results. In the second case, the average value used in the calibration procedure is determined from Formula (2):
L zm = 10 · log [   1 n ∑ i = 1 n 10 L zm , i 10 ]
Validation is a process designed to address the degree of agreement between model predictions and the actual value. Specifically, validation refers to the methodology used to evaluate the accuracy of the calculation method, where accuracy is measured by the error (the difference) between the calculated and measured sound levels. The outcome of the validation procedure is the determination of a so-called calibration correction for the computational model (a value-added or subtracted to the result of the calculation or the emission level of the noise source, depending on the software used), introduced to increase its accuracy. If the calibration correction falls within the acceptable range (meets the established criteria), then the model and its predictions can be considered valid. The minimum value of the calibration correction is determined in a procedure referred to as calibration or adjustment of the acoustic model parameters to obtain the best agreement with the measurement result. Table 5 compares the measured results with the results obtained by calculation.
Based on the calculations performed, it is concluded that the prerequisite for calibration has been met.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Results of the Strategic Noise Map Development

Description and location of areas where permissible noise levels expressed by the Lden indicator are exceeded.
The permissible value of the Lden indicator = 50 dB applies to development areas:
  • Protective zone ‘A’ of the spa,
  • Hospital areas outside the city.
The permissible Lden = 64 dB applies to the following development areas:
  • Areas of single-family residential development,
  • Areas of buildings connected with permanent or temporary residence of children and young people,
  • Areas of social housing,
  • Urban hospital areas.
The limit value of Lden = 68 dB applies to the following areas:
  • Areas of multi-family residential development and collective residence,
  • Areas of farm buildings,
  • Recreation and leisure areas,
  • Residential and service areas.
Here, we offer the description and location of areas where permissible noise levels expressed by the LAeq indicator are exceeded.
The permissible value of the indicator LAeq = 45 dB applies to the following development areas:
  • Protective zone ‘A’ of the spa,
  • Areas of hospitals outside the city.
The permissible value of indicator LAeq = 59 dB applies to the following development areas:
  • Areas of single-family housing development,
  • Areas of buildings connected with permanent or long-term residence of children and young people,
  • Areas of social housing,
  • Urban hospital areas,
  • Areas of multi-family residential development and collective residence,
  • Areas of farm buildings,
  • Recreation and leisure areas,
  • Residential and service areas.

3.2. Population Figures Exposed to Noise

The following subsections summarise statistics regarding the estimated number of dwellings, residents, facilities for the permanent or temporary residence of children and young people, hospitals, and social care homes exposed to road noise expressed by Lden and LAeq indicators.
The data concerning the number of residents and dwellings exposed to noise expressed by Lden and LAeq indicators follow the guidelines outlined in Appendix No. 2 of the Regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment of 1 July 2021. This regulation details the scope of data included in strategic noise maps, as well as their presentation and transmission formats [65]. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 100, i.e., according to the explanations in Annex VI of the Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on standard methods of noise assessment, ‘the numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred’ (i.e., 5200 = between 5150 and 5249; 100 = between 50 and 149; 0 = less than 50).
Statistics on the occurrence of acceptable noise levels are shown in Table 6 and Table 7.
Based on the data obtained, values were calculated for indicators to assess the harmful effects of environmental noise:
  • Significant annoyance (HA, from high annoyance),
  • High sleep disturbance (HSD),
  • Ischaemic heart disease (IHD).
The results of the analyses are presented in Table 8.

3.3. Strategic Noise Map for County Roads

Noise maps have been produced for all road routes, as indicated in Table 3. Three sections are presented below for visualisation (using CadnaA software [71]):
Noise maps are valuable tools for assessing the scale of the noise problem for infrastructure managers [73,74,75]. The visualisation of noise levels on a map, together with the geo-referencing of data, makes it possible to identify sites which require intervention or which will require a response in the long term. The issue of noise pollution in the context of building approvals should be integrated into the local spatial development plan. According to the measurements taken, noise impact according to Lden was found on 1.899 km2. This translates into an impact on approximately 1200 residents living in the exceedance zone of the indicated indicator. In contrast, for the LAeq metric, the exceedance occurs over an area of 1.220 km2, impacting around 700 residents. It is important to note, that none of the key indicators was referenced for the study area, i.e., LAeq: significant annoyance (HA, from high annoyance), high sleep disturbance (HSD), and ischaemic heart disease (IHD).
One of the most common strategies for reducing traffic noise is the installation of noise barriers [76,77,78]. However, this approach is often ineffective due to challenging urban conditions and limited space for their installation [79]. Minor noise exceedances can be mitigated by incorporating greenery along the road lane [80,81,82]. The main elements in the fight against traffic noise in cities are the use of noise protection measures consisting of proper traffic organisation [83,84] or the introduction of new solutions, such as noise-reducing pavements [48].
Noise maps are an important tool for road managers in the process of road operation. The analysis of noise maps allows for unambiguous indication of locations where the noise value is exceeded and taking appropriate action. In the process of road operation and management, this makes it possible to plan intervention works and investments taking into account the current or future needs of the road.
As part of the results, the infrastructure manager has decided to reduce noise levels by applying speed limits and increasing enforcement of existing speed limits [15,85]. For the short section of road with the highest exceedances, it was decided to ban heavy goods vehicle traffic [86,87]. In the next stages, it is planned to plant greenery in the road lane. Applying the indicated solutions has made it possible to reduce noise levels and eliminate the problem for the surveyed road sections. The assumed effect of the introduced and planned works is the complete elimination of exceeded noise standards.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.J., M.K., J.M. and A.K.; methodology, P.J. and M.K.; software, P.J. and M.K.; validation, J.M. and A.K.; formal analysis, P.J., M.K., J.M. and A.K.; investigation, P.J., M.K., J.M. and A.K.; resources, P.J., M.K., J.M. and A.K.; data curation, P.J. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, P.J., M.K., J.M. and A.K.; writing—review and editing, P.J., M.K., J.M. and A.K.; visualisation, P.J. and M.K.; supervision, P.J.; project administration, P.J. and M.K.; funding acquisition, P.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. European Environment Agency. Environmental Noise in Europe, 2020; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, A.L.; Kamp, I.V. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review of Transport Noise Interventions and Their Impacts on Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ugnenko, E.; Gavrish, V.; Viselga, G.; Garbinčius, G.; Turla, V.; Nagurnas, S. Experimental Study of Carriageway Operational Condition Influence on Acoustic Roadside Area Pollution. Transport 2019, 34, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Abdur-Rouf, K. Measuring, Mapping, and Evaluating Daytime Traffic Noise Levels at Urban Road Intersections in Doha, Qatar. Future Transp. 2022, 2, 625–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bocher, E.; Guillaume, G.; Picaut, J.; Petit, G.; Fortin, N. NoiseModelling: An Open Source GIS Based Tool to Produce Environmental Noise Maps. Isprs Int. J. Geo Inf. 2019, 8, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Smith, R.B.; Fecht, D.; Gulliver, J.; Beevers, S.; Dajnak, D.; Blangiardo, M.; Ghosh, R.; Hansell, A.; Kelly, F.J.; Anderson, H.; et al. Impact of London’s Road Traffic Air and Noise Pollution on Birth Weight: Retrospective Population Based Cohort Study. BMJ 2017, 359, j5299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yadav, H.L.; Yadav, J. Traffic Noise and Its Risks on Human Health in India: A Systematic Review From 1990 to 2022. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2023, 29, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jacyna, M.; Wasiak, M.; Lewczuk, K.; Karoń, G. Noise and Environmental Pollution from Transport: Decisive Problems in Developing Ecologically Efficient Transport Systems. J. Vibroeng. 2017, 19, 5639–5655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leipus, L.; Butkus, D.; Januševičius, T. Research on Motor Transport Produced Noise on Gravel and Asphalt Roads. Balt. J. Road Bridge Eng. 2010, 5, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Paulauskas, L.; Klimas, R. Modeling of the Spread of Motor Transport Noise in O Šiauliai City. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2011, 19, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jakovljevic, B.; Paunovic, K.; Belojevic, G. Road-Traffic Noise and Factors Influencing Noise Annoyance in an Urban Population. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 552–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Camusso, C.; Pronello, C. A Study of Relationships between Traffic Noise and Annoyance for Different Urban Site Typologies. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2016, 44, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khan, D.; Burdzik, R. A Review on Different Regulation for the Measurement of Transport Noise and Vibration. J. Meas. Eng. 2023, 11, 196–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sippel, I.; Magdin, K.; Evtyukov, S. Study of Traffic Noise Exposure on Street and Road Networks in a Megapolis. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 431, 08005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vilniškis, T.; Naimušin, A.; Januševičius, T. Investigation and Modeling of Transport Noise Dependence on Traffic Seed and Impact on Population Annoyance. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2022, 30, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pyko, A.; Roswall, N.; Ögren, M.; Oudin, A.; Rosengren, A.; Eriksson, C.; Segersson, D.; Rizzuto, D.; Andersson, E.; Aasvang, G.M.; et al. Long-Term Exposure to Transportation Noise and Ischemic Heart Disease: A Pooled Analysis of Nine Scandinavian Cohorts. Environ. Health Perspect. 2023, 131, 17003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sørensen, M.; Andersen, Z.J.; Nordsborg, R.B.; Jensen, S.S.; Lillelund, K.G.; Beelen, R.; Schmidt, E.B.; Tjønneland, A.; Overvad, K.; Raaschou-Nielsen, O. Road Traffic Noise and Incident Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Babisch, W. Updated Exposure-Response Relationship between Road Traffic Noise and Coronary Heart Diseases: A Meta-Analysis. Noise Health 2014, 16, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Tagusari, J.; Matsui, T. Estimation of Health Risk Posed by Road Traffic Noise in Japan Based on the Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. Nippon. Eiseigaku Zasshi 2021, 76, 19014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Weyde, K.V.F.; Krog, N.H.; Oftedal, B.; Magnus, P.; Øverland, S.; Stansfeld, S.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; Vrijheid, M.; Castro, M.D.; Aasvang, G.M. Road Traffic Noise and Children’s Inattention. Environ. Health 2017, 16, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schubert, M.; Romero Starke, K.; Gerlach, J.; Reusche, M.; Kaboth, P.; Schmidt, W.; Friedemann, D.; Hegewald, J.; Zeeb, H.; Zülke, A.; et al. Traffic-Related High Sleep Disturbance in the LIFE-Adult Cohort Study: A Comparison to the WHO Exposure-Response-Curves. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Perron, S.; Plante, C.; Ragettli, M.S.; Kaiser, D.J.; Goudreau, S.; Smargiassi, A. Sleep Disturbance from Road Traffic, Railways, Airplanes and From Total Environmental Noise Levels in Montreal. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hegewald, J.; Schubert, M.; Freiberg, A.; Starke, K.R.; Augustin, F.; Riedel-Heller, S.G.; Zeeb, H.; Seidler, A. Traffic Noise and Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Orban, E.; McDonald, K.; Sutcliffe, R.; Hoffmann, B.; Fuks, K.B.; Dragano, N.; Viehmann, A.; Erbel, R.; Jöckel, K.-H.; Pundt, N.; et al. Residential Road Traffic Noise and High Depressive Symptoms after Five Years of Follow-up: Results from the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sung, J.H.; Lee, J.; Park, S.J.; Sim, C.S. Relationship of Transportation Noise and Annoyance for Two Metropolitan Cities in Korea: Population Based Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0169035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Méline, J.; Van Hulst, A.; Thomas, F.; Karusisi, N.; Chaix, B. Transportation Noise and Annoyance Related to Road Traffic in the French RECORD Study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2013, 12, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Guski, R.; Schreckenberg, D.; Schuemer, R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Annoyance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Foraster, M.; Künzli, N.; Aguilera, I.; Rivera, M.; Agis, D.; Vila, J.; Bouso, L.; Deltell, A.; Marrugat, J.; Ramos, R.; et al. High Blood Pressure and Long-Term Exposure to Indoor Noise and Air Pollution from Road Traffic. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 1193–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Foraster, M.; Eze, I.C.; Schaffner, E.; Vienneau, D.; Héritier, H.; Endes, S.; Rudzik, F.; Thiesse, L.; Pieren, R.; Schindler, C.; et al. Exposure to Road, Railway, and Aircraft Noise and Arterial Stiffness in the SAPALDIA Study: Annual Average Noise Levels and Temporal Noise Characteristics. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 097004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zare Sakhvidi, M.J.; Zare Sakhvidi, F.; Mehrparvar, A.H.; Foraster, M.; Dadvand, P. Association between Noise Exposure and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Foraster, M.; Eze, I.C.; Vienneau, D.; Brink, M.; Cajochen, C.; Caviezel, S.; Héritier, H.; Schaffner, E.; Schindler, C.; Wanner, M.; et al. Long-Term Transportation Noise Annoyance Is Associated with Subsequent Lower Levels of Physical Activity. Environ. Int. 2016, 91, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kondo, M.; Fluehr, J.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C. Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sahu, A.K.; Nayak, S.K.; Mohanty, C.R.; Pradhan, P.K. Traffic noise and its impact on wellness of the residents in sambalpur city–A critical analysis. Arch. Acoust. 2021, 46, 353–363. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wrótny, M.; Bohatkiewicz, J. Impact of Railway Noise on People Based on Strategic Acoustic Maps. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Konstantopoulos, K.; Moustakas, A.; Vogiatzakis, I.N. A Spatially Explicit Impact Assessment of Road Characteristics, Road-Induced Fragmentation and Noise on Birds Species in Cyprus. Biodiversity 2020, 21, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ortiz-Urbina, E.; Diaz-Balteiro, L.; Iglesias-Merchan, C. Influence of Anthropogenic Noise for Predicting Cinereous Vulture Nest Distribution. Sustainability 2020, 12, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Meller, G.; De Lourenço, W.M.; De Melo, V.S.G.; De Campos Grigoletti, G. Use of Noise Prediction Models for Road Noise Mapping in Locations That Do Not Have a Standardized Model: A Short Systematic Review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Arana, M.; San Martin, R.; Salinas, J.C. People Exposed to Traffic Noise in European Agglomerations from Noise Maps. A Critical Review. Noise Mapp. 2014, 1, 000010247820140005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. King, E.A.; Murphy, E. Environmental Noise—‘Forgotten’ or ‘Ignored’ Pollutant? Appl. Acoust. 2016, 112, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tagusari, J. H-RISK with NoiseModelling: A QGIS Plugin to Predictenvironmental Noise and Estimate Health Risks. J. Open Source Softw. 2024, 9, 6023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Selamat, F.E.; Tagusari, J.; Matsui, T. Mapping of Transportation Noise-Induced Health Risks as an Alternative Tool for Risk Communication with Local Residents. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 178, 107987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bragdon, C.R. Noise Control in Urban Planning. J. Urban Plan. Dev. Div. 1973, 99, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Morillas, J.M.B.; Gozalo, G.R.; González, D.M.; Moraga, P.A.; Vílchez-Gómez, R. Noise Pollution and Urban Planning. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2018, 4, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Naish, D. A Method of Developing Regional Road Traffic Noise Management Strategies. Appl. Acoust. 2010, 71, 640–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Perna, M.; Padois, T.; Trudeau, C.; Bild, E.; Laplace, J.; Dupont, T.; Guastavino, C. Comparison of Road Noise Policies across Australia, Europe, and North America. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 19, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lezhneva, E.; Vakulenko, K.; Galkin, A. Assessment of Traffic Noise Pollution Due to Urban Residential Road Transport. Rom. J. Transp. Infrastruct. 2019, 8, 34–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Butkus, D.; Januševičius, T. Investigation of the Variation of Noise Spectrum behind Noise Barriers Made of Different Materials. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Environmental Engineering 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–24 May 2014; Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Press: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lai, F.I.; Huang, Z.; Guo, F. Noise Reduction Characteristics of Macroporous Asphalt Pavement Based on a Weighted Sound Pressure Level Sensor. Materials 2021, 14, 4356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Freitas, E.; Lamas, J.; Silva, C.; Soares, F.; Mouta, S.; Santos, J. Tyre/Road Noise Annoyance Assessment Through Virtual Sounds. In Advances in Noise Analysis, Mitigation and Control; Ahmed, N., Ed.; InTech: Nappanee, IN, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-953-51-2674-4. [Google Scholar]
  50. Miškinytė, A.; Dėdelė, A. Evaluation and Analysis of Traffic Noise Level in Kaunas City. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Environmental Engineering 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–24 May 2014; Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Press: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Koniak, M.; Jaskowski, P.; Tomczuk, K. Review of Economic, Technical and Environmental Aspects of Electric Vehicles. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Briggs, D.; Mason, K.; Borman, B. Rapid Assessment of Environmental Health Impacts for Policy Support: The Example of Road Transport in New Zealand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 13, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zhang, X.; Kuehnelt, H.; Roeck, W.D. Traffic Noise Prediction Applying Multivariate Bi-Directional Recurrent Neural Network. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gössling, S.; Humpe, A.; Litman, T.; Metzler, D. Effects of Perceived Traffic Risks, Noise, and Exhaust Smells on Bicyclist Behaviour: An Economic Evaluation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Clark, S.; Alli, A.S.; Nathvani, R.; Hughes, A.; Ezzati, M.; Bräuer, M.; Toledano, M.B.; Baumgartner, J.; Bennett, J.E.; Nimo, J.; et al. Space-Time Characterization of Community Noise and Sound Sources in Accra, Ghana. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 11113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumar, V.; Ahirwar, A.V.; Prasad, A.D. A Review on Noise Pollution Monitoring, Mapping, Modelling, and Health Impacts. J. Environ. Inform. Lett. 2023, 10, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ongel, A. Inclusion of Noise in Environmental Assessment of Road Transportation. Environ. Model. Assess. 2016, 21, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hanigan, I.; Chaston, T.B.; Hinze, B.; Dennekamp, M.; Jalaludin, B.; Kinfu, Y.; Morgan, G.G. A Statistical Downscaling Approach for Generating High Spatial Resolution Health Risk Maps: A Case Study of Road Noise and Ischemic Heart Disease Mortality in Melbourne, Australia. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2019, 18, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Adza, W.K.; Hursthouse, A.; Miller, J.; Boakye, D. Exploring the Combined Association Between Road Traffic Noise and Air Quality Using QGIS. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 17057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Suyunov, A. Innovative Solutions in Creating Noise Maps in Cities. E3s Web Conf. 2023, 463, 02007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lakawa, I. Noise Mapping Due to Motor Vehicle Activities in the By-Pass Ring Road Area of the City of Kendari. Przegląd Nauk. Inż. Kształt. Śr. 2023, 32, 392–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ghaffarpasand, O. Traffic Noise Assessment Using Intelligent Acoustic Sensors (Traffic Ear) and Vehicle Telematics Data. Sensors 2023, 23, 6964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Decree of Minister of Environment of 14 June 2007 on Permissible Levels of Noise in the Environment, Journal of Laws, No 120, Item 826; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): New Delhi, India, 2007.
  64. Decree of the Minister for the Environment of 1 October 2012 Amending the Ordinance on Permissible Levels of Noise in the Environment, (Journal of Laws 2012 No. 0, Item 1109); Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): New Delhi, India, 2012.
  65. Regulation of the Minister of Climate and Environment of 1 July 2021 on the Detailed Scope of Data Included in Strategic Noise Maps, the Manner of Their Presentation and the Form of Their Transmission (Journal of Laws of 2021, Item 1325); Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): New Delhi, India, 2021.
  66. DataKustik. Available online: https://www.datakustik.com/products/cadnaa/cadnaa (accessed on 22 January 2025).
  67. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. ICHP. Common Noise Assessment Methods in Europe (CNOSSOS-EU): To Be Used by the EU Member States for Strategic Noise Mapping Following Adoption as Specified in the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  68. 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—Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): New Delhi, India, 2002.
  69. Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 16 June 2011 on the Requirements for the Measurement of the Levels of Substances or Energy in the Environment by the Manager of a Road, Railway Line, Tramway Line, Airport or Port (Journal of Laws of 2011, No. 140, Item 824, as Amended); Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): New Delhi, India, 2011.
  70. Decree of Minister of Environment of 10 November 2010 on the Establishment of the Noise Indicator LDWN, Journal of Laws, No 215, Item 1414; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC): New Delhi, India, 2010.
  71. Statistics Poland. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/ (accessed on 22 January 2025).
  72. Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography (GUGiK). Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/gugik-en (accessed on 22 January 2025).
  73. Alam, P.; Mazhar, M.A.; Ahmad, K.; Aslam, Z.; Afsar, S.S.; Husain, A. Comparative Assessment of Road Traffic Noise Through 2D Noise Mapping: A Case Study of an Urban Area. Front. Sustain. 2022, 3, 1069445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Akhtar, N.; Ahmad, K.; Alam, P. Noise Monitoring and Mapping for Some Pre-Selected Locations of New Delhi, India. Fluct. Noise Lett. 2016, 15, 1650019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zytoon, M.A. Opportunities for Environmental Noise Mapping in Saudi Arabia: A Case of Traffic Noise Annoyance in an Urban Area in Jeddah City. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fredianelli, L.; Pizzo, A.D.; Licitra, G. Recent Developments in Sonic Crystals as Barriers for Road Traffic Noise Mitigation. Environments 2019, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lee, H.M.; Luo, W.; Xie, J.; Lee, H.P. Traffic Noise Reduction Strategy in a Large City and an Analysis of Its Effect. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Monazzam, M.R.; Bellah Fard, S.M. A Study on the Effect of Different Median Barrier Shapes in Presence of Single or Parallel Noise Screens. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 383-390, 5432–5437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bar-Sinai, K.L.; Shaked, T.; Fettahoglu, E.S.; Krimm, J.; Boucsein, W. Embedding Acoustic Analysis in Landscape Architecture Design Processes: A Case Study of Munich Airport. Buildings 2023, 13, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Samara, T.; Tsitsoni, T. The Effects of Vegetation on Reducing Traffic Noise from a City Ring Road. Noise Control Eng. J. 2011, 59, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sultan, T. Investigation of Tree Characteristics for Traffic Noise Abatement. Environ. Prot. Eng. 2024, 50, 43–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Renterghem, T.V. Exploiting Supporting Poles to Increase Road Traffic Noise Shielding of Tree Belts. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2016, 102, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. King, E.A.; Murphy, E.; Rice, H.J. Evaluating the Impact on Noise Levels of a Ban on Private Cars in Dublin City Centre, Ireland. Transp. Res. Part Transp. Environ. 2011, 16, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zefreh, M.M.; Török, Á. Theoretical Comparison of the Effects of Different Traffic Conditions on Urban Road Traffic Noise. J. Adv. Transp. 2018, 2018, 7949574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Borst, J.; Lohman, W.; Eisses, A.R.; Miedema, H.S. Decision Support System for Action Planning in the Framework of the European Noise Directive. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123, 3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mironyuk, O. Assessment of the Noise Level on Arterial Streets Depending on Traffic Flow Indicators. Transp. Technol. 2021, 2021, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yuan, M.; Wu, Z.; Wang, H.; Chen, J. Impact Evaluation of Different Network Planning Concepts on Traffic Noise. Noise Vib. Worldw. 2023, 54, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 01277 g001
Figure 1. Noise emission map showing noise expressed by Lden.
Figure 1. Noise emission map showing noise expressed by Lden.
Applsci 15 01277 g001
Applsci 15 01277 g002
Figure 2. Noise emission map showing noise expressed by Lden.
Figure 2. Noise emission map showing noise expressed by Lden.
Applsci 15 01277 g002
Applsci 15 01277 g003
Figure 3. Noise emission map showing noise expressed by Lden.
Figure 3. Noise emission map showing noise expressed by Lden.
Applsci 15 01277 g003
Applsci 15 01277 g004
Figure 4. Emission map showing noise expressed as LAeq.
Figure 4. Emission map showing noise expressed as LAeq.
Applsci 15 01277 g004
Applsci 15 01277 g005
Figure 5. Emission map showing noise expressed as LAeq.
Figure 5. Emission map showing noise expressed as LAeq.
Applsci 15 01277 g005
Applsci 15 01277 g006
Figure 6. Emission map showing noise expressed as LAeq.
Figure 6. Emission map showing noise expressed as LAeq.
Applsci 15 01277 g006
Applsci 15 01277 g007
Figure 7. Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in Lden and LAeq indicators.
Figure 7. Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in Lden and LAeq indicators.
Applsci 15 01277 g007
Applsci 15 01277 g008
Figure 8. Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in Lden and LAeq indicators.
Figure 8. Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in Lden and LAeq indicators.
Applsci 15 01277 g008
Applsci 15 01277 g009
Figure 9. Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in Lden and LAeq indicators.
Figure 9. Map of acoustically protected areas with permissible noise levels expressed in Lden and LAeq indicators.
Applsci 15 01277 g009
Applsci 15 01277 g010
Figure 10. Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in Lden are exceeded.
Figure 10. Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in Lden are exceeded.
Applsci 15 01277 g010
Applsci 15 01277 g011
Figure 11. Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in Lden are exceeded.
Figure 11. Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in Lden are exceeded.
Applsci 15 01277 g011
Applsci 15 01277 g012
Figure 12. Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in Lden are exceeded.
Figure 12. Map of noise-prone areas in which the permissible noise levels expressed in Lden are exceeded.
Applsci 15 01277 g012
Table 1. Permissible levels of environmental noise caused by specific groups of noise sources, excluding noise caused by aircraft take-offs, landings and overflights, and power lines expressed in terms of LAeq and LAeq [64].
Table 1. Permissible levels of environmental noise caused by specific groups of noise sources, excluding noise caused by aircraft take-offs, landings and overflights, and power lines expressed in terms of LAeq and LAeq [64].
No.Type of TerrainThe Permissible Noise Level in (dB)
Roads or Railway LinesOther Facilities
and Noise-Generating Activities
LAeq Time Reference Interval Equal to 16 hLAeq 8 h Post-Elevation Time IntervalLAeq Reference Time Interval Equal to the 8 Least Favourable Hours of the Day ConsecutivelyLAeq Time Reference Interval Equal to 1 Least Favourable Hour of the Night
1(a) Spa protection zone ‘A’
(b) Hospital areas outside the city		50454540
2(a) Areas of single-family residential development
(b) Areas of buildings connected with permanent or long-term residence of children and young people
(c) Social housing areas
(d) Hospital areas in cities		61565040
3(a) Areas of multi-family residential development and collective housing
(b) Areas of homestead development
(c) Recreation and leisure areas
(d) Residential and service areas		65565545
4Areas in the inner city zone of cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants68605545
Table 2. Permissible environmental noise levels caused by specific groups of noise sources, excluding noise caused by aircraft take-offs, landings and overflights, and power lines, expressed in terms of Lden and LAeq [64].
Table 2. Permissible environmental noise levels caused by specific groups of noise sources, excluding noise caused by aircraft take-offs, landings and overflights, and power lines, expressed in terms of Lden and LAeq [64].
No.Type of TerrainThe Permissible Noise Level in [dB]
Roads or Railway LinesOther Facilities
and Noise-Generating Activities
Lden Reference Time Interval Equal to All Days of the YearLAeq Reference Time Interval Equal to All Times of the NightLden Reference Time Interval Equal to All Days of the YearLAeq Reference Time Interval Equal to All Times of the Night
1(a) Spa protection zone ‘A’
(b) Hospital areas outside the city		50454540
2(a) Areas of single-family residential development
(b) Areas of buildings connected with permanent or long-term residence of children and young people
(c) Social housing areas
(d) Hospital areas in cities		64595040
3(a) Areas of multi-family residential development and collective housing
(b) Areas of homestead development
(c) Recreation and leisure areas
(d) Residential and service areas		68595545
4Areas in the inner city zone of cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants70655545
Table 3. Geographical coordinates of the analysed sections.
Table 3. Geographical coordinates of the analysed sections.
Road NumberStreet NameVehicles/YearLength (m)GPS Coordinates
in the 1992 System
Start of Road
Section X/Y		End of Road Section X/Y
1503Grodzisk Mazowiecki—Siestrzeń Ojrzanów3,901,1208060472,176.28/
611,955.16		467,138.46/617,626.89
1505Grodzisk Mazowiecki—Józefina4,113,9152870472,031.80/
611,317.31		469,229.06/611,540.84
1511Milanówek—Falęcin—Kotowice5,114,380620474,633.94/
613,882.26		474,284.26/614,061.16
1526Grodzisk Mazowiecki—Milanówek3,935,7951200472,789.29/
611,620.36		473,320.31/612,598.64
Table 4. Characteristics of the central county roads (width of road lane).
Table 4. Characteristics of the central county roads (width of road lane).
RoadRoad ClassWidth of Right-of-Way (m)Surface Width (m)Width of Roadway (m)Number of RoadwaysNumber of LanesType of Surface
Droga 1503W: Grodzisk Maz.—Siestrzeń—
Ojrzanów, ul. Nadarzyńska		Main road (G)up to 25 6–7 8–9 12 (1 in each direction)Bituminous mass
Droga 1505W: Grodzisk Maz.—JózefinaCollective
(Z)		206.5–7.5 8–9 12 (1 in each direction)Bituminous mass
Droga 1526W: Grodzisk Mazowiecki ul. 3-go Maja, Milanówek ul. DębowaCollective
(Z)		206.7–7.2 8–9 12 (1 in each direction)Bituminous mass
Droga 1511W: Milanówek—Falęcin—Kotowice, ul. Kazimierzowska, ul. Nowowiejska, ul. Piłsudskiego, ul. Dębowa, ul. Smoleńskiego, ul. Kościelna, ul. KościuszkiCollective
(Z)		205.9–6.2 6.5–7.5 12 (1 in each direction)Bituminous mass
Table 5. Summary of results of calibration of the computational model.
Table 5. Summary of results of calibration of the computational model.
StreetMeasured Value (dB)Calculated Value (dB)Difference (dB)
LAeq DLAeq NLAeq DLAeq NLAeq DLAeq N
ul. Nadarzyńska67.261.466.960.90.30.5
3 Maja67.461.166.260.31.20.8
ul. Smoleńskiego65.160.264.859.60.30.6
Table 6. Statistics on the occurrence of exceedances of noise limits for county roads.
Table 6. Statistics on the occurrence of exceedances of noise limits for county roads.
Grodzisk CountyLdenLAeq
1–5
dB		5.1–10
dB		10.1–15
dB		>15
dB		1–5
dB		5.1–10
dB		10.1–15
dB		>15
dB
Area (km2)0.1140.0120.0000.0000.0220.0000.0000.000
Number of residential units00000000
Number of residents00000000
Facilities for the permanent or temporary stay of children and young persons00000000
Healthcare facilities00000000
Social welfare facilities00000000
Table 7. Noise-exposure statistics for county roads.
Table 7. Noise-exposure statistics for county roads.
Grodzisk CountyLdenLAeq
55–59 dB60–64 dB65–69 dB70–74 dB75–79 dB+80 dB50–54 dB55–59 dB60–64 dB65–69 dB70–74 dB+75 dB
Area (km2)0.8360.5270.3670.1690.0000.0000.5720.4100.2300.0080.0000.000
Number of residential units37230123200025231211000
Number of residents6005001000005002000000
Facilities for the permanent or temporary stay of children and young persons134000000000
Healthcare facilities000000000000
Social welfare facilities000000000000
Table 8. Analysis of the number of residents affected by the harmful effects of noise.
Table 8. Analysis of the number of residents affected by the harmful effects of noise.
CountyThe Number of People Affected by the Harmful Effects of Noise, as Expressed by the Indicator
HAHSDIHD
Grodzisk000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jaskowski, P.; Koniak, M.; Matijošius, J.; Kilikevičius, A. Mapping Noise from Motorised Transport in the Context of Infrastructure Management. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031277

AMA Style

Jaskowski P, Koniak M, Matijošius J, Kilikevičius A. Mapping Noise from Motorised Transport in the Context of Infrastructure Management. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(3):1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031277

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jaskowski, Piotr, Marcin Koniak, Jonas Matijošius, and Artūras Kilikevičius. 2025. "Mapping Noise from Motorised Transport in the Context of Infrastructure Management" Applied Sciences 15, no. 3: 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031277

APA Style

Jaskowski, P., Koniak, M., Matijošius, J., & Kilikevičius, A. (2025). Mapping Noise from Motorised Transport in the Context of Infrastructure Management. Applied Sciences, 15(3), 1277. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031277

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop