Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Study Area
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Engineering
Mechanical Engineering

The distribution and importance of Quiet Areas in the EU

Profile image of Nefta-Eleftheria VotsiNefta-Eleftheria Votsi

2017, Applied Acoustics

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APACOUST.2017.06.007
visibility

…

description

8 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The delineation of Quiet Areas (QAs) forms nowadays a national obligation of EU countries. Nevertheless the variable applications of QAs among Member-States have highlighted the need for an international common approach for the preservation of Quietness. The objective of this paper is to identify and thus protect QAs of EU. Our methodological design consisted of the implementation of a coarse scale distance-based methodology regarding the identification of QAs among different countries, environmental and altitudinal zones with a view to investigating the spatial pattern of QAs as well as their spatial relation to other protected areas. QAs cover 56.09% of EU territory with most of the sites comprising an area larger than 100 km 2 indicating that Quietness provides a valuable ecosystem service for human well-being. Central Europe demonstrates lower percentages of Quietness whereas Mediterranean and Scandinavian areas contain higher percentages of Quietness. Also our findings regarding the spatial overlap of QAs with Natura 2000 network suggest that QAs actually indicate sites of environmental quality, and could thus be incorporated into environmental policy initiatives.

Related papers

Project : a new methodology to select , analyze and manage Quiet Urban Areas defined by the European Directive 2002
Sergio Luzzi

2016

Concerning quiet areas, the definition provided by the Environmental Noise Directive (END) is intended to preserve the acoustic environment in those areas where it is considered good, according to general indicators and limits. However, the END is not clear enough to allow appropriate assessment and management in urban environments. The aim of QUADMAP project was to deliver a method and guidelines for the identification, delineation, characterization, improvement and management of Quiet Urban Areas (QUAs) as defined by the END. The Project also wanted to help clarify the definition of a QUA, its meaning and its added value for cities in terms of health, safety and lowering stress levels. In this article, after an introduction of the current European scenario on QUAs, the main aspects of the methodology introduced for the selection, analysis and management of QUAs are described. Eventually, the major results achieved by the Project, in terms of the guideline onQUAs, the implemented i...

View PDFchevron_right
Key sustainability issues and the spatial classification of sensitive regions in Europe
Marguerite Camilleri, Saviour Formosa

… Impact Assessment of …, 2008

Cross-cutting environmental, social and economic changes may have harsh impacts on sensitive regions. To address sustainability issues by governmental policy measures properly, the geographical delineation of sensitive 472 Oliver Dilly et al.

View PDFchevron_right
Spatial indicators for nature conservation from European to local scale
Kalle Remm

Ecological Indicators, 2005

... Otepää Landscape Reserve in Estonia. The selection and applicability of structural indicators for local site management is demonstrated within the case example of the Wenger Moor in Austria. Refinement of soil data, which ...

View PDFchevron_right
Characterisation of the natural environment: quantitative indicators across Europe
Christopher Gidlow

International journal of health geographics, 2017

The World Health Organization recognises the importance of natural environments for human health. Evidence for natural environment-health associations comes largely from single countries or regions, with varied approaches to measuring natural environment exposure. We present a standardised approach to measuring neighbourhood natural environment exposure in cities in different regions of Europe. The Positive Health Effects of the Natural Outdoor environment in TYPical populations of different regions in Europe (PHENOTYPE) study aimed to explore the mechanisms linking natural environment exposure and health in four European cities (Barcelona, Spain; Doetinchem, the Netherlands; Kaunas, Lithuania; and Stoke-on-Trent, UK). Common GIS protocols were used to develop a hierarchy of natural environment measures, from simple measures (e.g., NDVI, Urban Atlas) using Europe-wide data sources, to detailed measures derived from local data that were specific to mechanisms thought to underpin natu...

View PDFchevron_right
Diversity of spatial organisation in Europe based on land cover and land use
Elzbieta Bielecka

2008

Information about land cover and land use is recognized by decision-makers as crucial for spatial analysis at different territorial levels. Within the European Commission Services, as well as different European organisations, there is a growing need to use spatial analysis for integrated environmental assessment, mainly assessing impact of policy against regional development, planning, and agriculture. In all cases a key reference data is complete, reliable, and up to date land cover and land use data. That is why in the middle 80s of the 19th century the European Commission implemented CORINE 34 EL ̄BIETA BIELECKA Program. The main goal of that program was to establish an information system on the state of the European environment. Since then, information on land cover and land use in Europe was updated twice, in the years 2000 and 2006. As the diversity of land cover and land use reflects differentiation in spatial organisation, this data is of utmost importance for monitoring spa...

View PDFchevron_right
A Multidimensional Typology of Open Spaces in Europe
Alexander Wandl

2019

To improve the ecosystem service provided by open spaces in dispersed urban areas is a key challenge for sustainable spatial development in Europe. The typology presented in this article illustrates the different potentials that open spaces in territories-in-between have across 10 cases in Europe. Unlike other typologies, neither function nor form is used for the classification, but the potential interaction of open spaces with social, technical and ecological networks. Therefore, the typology informs regional spatial planning and design about the potential ecosystem services in networked urban regions. Thereby the importance of territories-in-between, which are often neglected by mainstream spatial planning and design, for sustainable development is highlighted.

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluating European Conservation Areas and Proposal of New Zones of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. Application to Spanish Territories
Antonio García-Abril, Javier Velázquez

Sustainability, 2019

The European Union (EU) ensures the conservation of biodiversity through the Natura 2000 Network, which establishes the classification and selection of protected areas at European level. Unfortunately, member countries cannot make the best zoning decisions for biodiversity conservation because there are no clear and uniform parameters to designate Natura 2000 sites. Due to this, it is convenient to evaluate the importance of the criteria for biodiversity conservation through a general assessment, which could establish relevant criteria that can be analysed through geostatistical methods combined in multicriteria analysis. This paper aims to consider biodiversity importance values taking into account land use, so that it is possible to develop a zoning proposal which verifies or corrects the suitability of the designated areas for the Natura 2000 Network in Castilla y León, Andalucía and Madrid (Spain). The choice of these regions allows us to compare areas with a high variability of population density, making possible to compare the potential protected areas with respect to the population living in each area. This assessment has been performed using basic and easily adaptable criteria of biodiversity conservation, so it could be applied in other European territories. In this way, clear and uniform parameters for zoning will be used, being possible to detect the best protected areas. One of the most important purposes of the Natura 2000 Network is to increase connectivity between territories; our work proposes new areas that could be linked to currently protected territories, to favour the achievement of this purpose of the Natura 2000 Network.

View PDFchevron_right
Greenbelts - planning instruments and landscape structure - a European perspective
Joanna Adamczyk

2016

View PDFchevron_right

References (64)

  1. Alvarsson JJ, Wiens S, Nilsson ME. Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010;7:1036-46.
  2. Australia SW. Managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work. Code of practice. Australia: Safe Work Australia; 2011. p. 46.
  3. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 2010;25(3):180-9.
  4. Brambilla G, Maffei L. Responses to noise in urban parks and in rural quiet areas. Acta Acust United Acust 2006;92(6):881-6.
  5. Butchart SH, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strien A, Scharlemann JP, Almond RE, et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 2010;328 (5982):1164-8.
  6. CEC. CORINE land cover. Technical guide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1994.
  7. Clark WW. Noise exposure from leisure activities: a review. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;90:175-81.
  8. Clark D, Petersen B. Isua Iron Ore Project Annex 5 of the EIA noise assessment. London Mining; 2012.
  9. City of Williams, California. Noise Chapter 6, 2010 General Plan; 2012.
  10. De Coensel B, Botteldooren D. The quiet rural soundscape and how to characterize it. Acta Acust United Acust 2006;92:887-97.
  11. Cvetkovic ´D, Prašc ˇevic ´M. Strategic directions in implementation of environmental noise directive in international and national legislation. Facta Universit-Ser: Phys, Chem Technol 2006;4(1):21-34.
  12. DEFRA. Research into quiet areas. Recommendations for identifi- cation. London, U.K.: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; 2006. p. 1-27.
  13. DEFRA. The economic value of quiet areas, 2011. Final report prepared by URS/ Scott Wilson. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs..
  14. EEA. Good practice guide on quiet areas. Technical report No 4/2014. European Environmental Agency; 2014.
  15. EEA. Quiet Areas in Europe. The environment unaffected by noise pollution. Technical report No 14/2016. European Environmental Agenc; 2016.
  16. Etmetzoglou, I.Acoustic Ecology at schools: the forest as a source and composer of environmental sounds. 1st National Multidisciplinary Art & Environmental Education Conference, Athens (in Greek); 2009.
  17. EU. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Luxembourg, European Union: Publications Office of the European Union; 2011.
  18. Everest FA, Pohlmann KC. The master handbook of acoustics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fahrig L. (1997). Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl Manage 2001:603-10.
  19. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use. science 2005;309(5734):570-4.
  20. Gaston KL, Jackson SF, Nagy A, Cantu-Salazar L, Johnson M. Protected areas in Europe principle and practice. Ann New York Acad Sci 2008;1134:97-119.
  21. Hatch LT, Fristrup KM. No barrier at the boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for noise management in protected natural areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2009;395:223-44.
  22. Jackson, S., Fuller, D., Dunsfold, H., Mowbray, R., Hext, S., MacFarlane, R. & Haggett, C. Tranquility Mapping: Developing a robust methodology for planning support. Report to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. In Centre for Environmental & Spatial Analysis. Northumbria University, Bluespace Environments and the University of Newcastle upon on Tyne; 2008.
  23. Jiménez S., Romeu J., Pàmies T. & Majó M. Agglomeration noise strategic maps in Catalonia. Lisbon, Portugal. InterNoise2010, Noise and Sustainability; 2010.
  24. Ibisch PL, Hoffmann MT, Kreft S, et al. A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status. Science 2016;354(6318):1423-7.
  25. Kallimanis AS, Touloumis K, Tzanopoulos J, Mazaris AD, Apostolopoulou E, Stefanidou S, et al. Vegetation coverage change in the EU: patterns inside and outside Natura 2000 protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 2015;24(3):579-91.
  26. Van Kamp I., Davies H. Environmental noise and mental health: Five year review and future directions. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem; 2008.
  27. Klaeboe R. Are adverse impacts of neighbourhood noisy areas the flip side of quiet area benefits? Appl Acoust 2007;68(5):557-75.
  28. King EA, Murphy E, Rice HJ. Implementation of the EU environmental noise directive: Lessons from the first phase of strategic noise mapping and action planning in Ireland. J Environ Manage 2011;92:756-64.
  29. Kotzen B, English C. Environmental noise barriers: a guide to their acoustic and visual design. CRC Press; 2009.
  30. Krylov V.V. Noise and vibration from high-speed trains. Thomas Telford; 2001.
  31. Licitra G, Chiari C, Ascari E, Palazzuoli D. Quiet area definition in the implementation of European directive 2002/49/EC. NZ Acoust 2011;24(2).
  32. Luzzi S., Natale R. Soundscape e Temporal Design nella progettazione partecipata delle aree quiete urbane. Atti del 38 Convegno Nazionale AIA; 2011.
  33. Mace BL, Bell PA, Loomis RJ. Visibility and natural quiet in national parks and wilderness areas: psychological considerations. Environ Behav 2004;36 (1):5-31.
  34. Maffei L, Iachini T, Masullo M, Aletta F, Sorrentino F, Senese VP, et al. The effects of vision-related aspects on noise perception of wind turbines in quiet areas. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10(5):1681-97.
  35. Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Mücher CA, Watkins JW. A climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 2005;14:549-63.
  36. Merchan CI, Diaz-Balteiro L, Soliño M. Noise pollution in national parks: soundscape and economic valuation. Landsc Urban Plann 2014;123:1-9.
  37. Miedema HM. Annoyance caused by environmental noise: elements for evidence-based noise policies. J Soc Issue 2007;63(1):41-57.
  38. Miller PH. Children's and adults' integration of information about noise and interest levels in their judgements about learning. J Exp Child Psychol 1982;33:536-46.
  39. Miller NP. US national parks and management of park soundscapes: a review. Appl Acoust 2008;69:77-92.
  40. Mulongoy, K.J. & Chape, S. Protected areas and biodiversity. An Overview of Key Issues. Convention of Biological Diversity Secretariat and United Nations Environmental Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Montreal, Canada and Cambridge, UK; 2004.
  41. Nilsson M., Botteldooren D., De Coensel B. Acoustic indicators of soundscape quality and noise annoyance in outdoor urban areas. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress on Acoustics; 2007.
  42. Ntalos GA, Papadopoulos AN. Noise emission levels in Greek wood and furniture processing industry. J Inst Wood Sci 2006;17:99-130.
  43. Paladin G, Serva M, Vulpiani A. Complexity in dynamical systems with noise. Phys Rev Lett 1995;74(1):66.
  44. Pritchett JF, Caldwell RS, Chesser RK, Sartin JL. Effect of jet aircraft noise upon in vitro adrenocortical responseto ACTH in feral Mus musculus. Life Sci 1976;18:391-6.
  45. Reed SE, Merenlender AM. Effects of management of domestic dogs and recreation on carnivores in protected areas in northern California. Conserv Biol 2011;25(3):504-13.
  46. De Roo G. Environmental planning in the Netherlands: too good to be true. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2003.
  47. Rowcroft P. Is quiet the new loud? Developing a framework for valuing quiet areas. Mexico: International Association for Impact Assessment; 2011.
  48. S ßchiopu N, Bardac DI. Noise and its effects. Acta Med Transilvan 2012;17:256-7.
  49. Sharma O, Mohanan V, Singh M. Noise emission levels in coal industry. Appl Acoust 1998;54:1-7.
  50. Shepherd D, Welch D, Dirks KN, McBride D. Do quiet areas afford greater health-related quality of life than noisy areas? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10:1284-303.
  51. Sims KRE. Conservation and development: evidence from Thai protected areas. J Environ Econ Manage 2010;60(2):94-114.
  52. Stevens, M. Quietening open spaces towards sustainable soundscapes for the city of London. Report to the Environmental Protection UK; 2010.
  53. Stoyanov I. The protected territories in Bulgaria-characteristic and statute. Forstwissenschaftliche Beiträge 2000;23:21.
  54. Tsiafouli MA, Apostolopoulou E, Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Drakou EG, Pantis JD. Human activities in Natura 2000 sites: a highly diversified conservation network. Environ Manage 2013;51(5):1025-33.
  55. Underwood JG. Combining landscape-level conservation planning and biodiversity offset programs: a case study. Environ Manage 2011;47:121-9.
  56. van den Berg, M. Quiet places in Amsterdam. Proceedings of Internoise; 2008.
  57. Vernon, J., Ganzleben, C., Salado, R., Belin, A., Polinder, H., Zarogiannis, P. & Candell, M. Final Report on Task 1 Review of the Implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC on Environmental Noise. Milieu Ltd for DG Environment under Service contract No070307/2008/510980/SER/C3, Brussels; 2010.
  58. Vlami V, Kokkoris IP, Zogaris S, Cartalis C, Kehayias G, Dimopoulos P. Cultural landscapes and attributes of ''culturalness" in protected areas: an exploratory assessment in Greece. Sci Total Environ 2017;595:229-43.
  59. Votsi NEP, Drakou EG, Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Pantis JD. Distance-based assessment of open country Quiet Areas in Greece. Landsc Urban Plann 2012;104:279-88.
  60. Votsi NEP, Kallimanis AS, Mazaris AD, Pantis JD. Integrating environmental policies towards a network of protected and quiet areas. Environ Conserv 2014;41:321-9.
  61. Votsi, N.E.P. & Kallimanis, A.S. An integrated environmental index to manage noise and light pollution in urban areas [in Greek]. Final Report. IKY FELLOWSHIPS OF EXCELLENCE FOR POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN GREECE - SIEMENS PROGRAM; 2017.
  62. Waugh, D., Durucam, S., Korre, A., Hetherington, O. & O'Reilly, B. Environmental quality objectives, noise in quiet areas (2000-MS-14-M1). In Synthesis Report, prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency, by SWS environmental services, SWS group, 2013, pp. 32.
  63. Wolde TT. The EU noise policy and the related research needs. Acta Acust United Acust 2003;89:735-42.
  64. Yu L, Kang J. Modeling subjective evaluation of soundscape quality in urban open spaces: an artificial neural network approach. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126 (3):1163-74.

Related papers

Distance-based assessment of open country Quiet Areas in Greece
Mannuel Saddan Nevarez

The need to preserve natural quietness, as a resourceful land protection strategy, has increased with the need to implement the EU's Environmental Noise Directive (END, 2002/49/EC) at a national level. We implemented distance-based criteria with view to defining potential Quiet Areas (QAs) in open country of Greece.

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment of Quiet Areas in Europe
Jaume Fons-Esteve

Proceedings of the ICA congress, 2019

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

View PDFchevron_right
Effectiveness of Natura 2000 areas for environmental protection in 21 European countries
Marta Kubacka

Regional Environmental Change, 2019

To assess the dynamics of changes in CORINE Land Cover classes in areas of the Natura 2000 ecological network, three landscape metrics were examined. Traditional pixel-based classification, with majority rules aggregation based on the example of the CORINE Land Cover dataset, was applied. To identify the possible differences in the considered metrics, according to the year as well as to the country, statistical analysis between the linear mixed model and the variance model with repeated measurements was performed. The results of both tests are very similar. In the 1990-2012 period, the share of CORINE Land Cover class "Artificial areas" in all tested areas increased by 21.1% (the highest growth ratios were recorded in Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and in Spain). On the other hand, such countries as Slovakia, Romania, Germany, Lithuania and Estonia are characterised by the loss of artificial areas. At the same time, the share of "Forest and semi-natural areas" as well as "Water bodies" increased slightly. Negative trends that took place in the periods 1990-2000 and 2000-2006 were effectively stopped in the subsequent period, 2006-2012. Overall, for all the analysed countries, a minimal loss in environmental and landscape diversity was observed. Our results may be used as a basis for drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of environmental and landscape management systems in various countries. They might also constitute the starting point for detailed analysis of the management process.

View PDFchevron_right
Integrating environmental policies towards a network of protected and quiet areas
Nefta Votsi
View PDFchevron_right
Design of the Pan-European Ecological Network: a national level attempt
Ülo Mander

Ecological Networks and Greenways, 2004

The main objective of this paper is to present a national level attempt at designing the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) that is based on Estonian data from a one square kilometre grid. We propose an ecological network design comprising of three principal layers: (1) general topographical features like coastlines, the water network, major roads, and place names for locating the depicted network, (2) habitatbased field of suitability for the ecological network, calculated from network values of landscape features using a predefined algorithm, (3) ecological network as an administrative decision. The second layer serves as a tool supporting decision making while the third layer consists of traditional components of an ecological network, like core areas, corridors, buffer zones, and nature development/restoration areas. The CORINE land cover map, which was adjusted and supplemented using the soil and landscape data, served as the base for PEEN habitat classification. All habitats, linear structures and designated areas were ranked according to their expert-assessed values (from 0 to 10) based on their naturalness, rarity, and potential influence on biodiversity and landscapes. These values served as a basis for calculating the suitability (ranging from-3.65 to +3.75 in our study area) of each square kilometre for the ecological network. Ranking the suitability allows one to distinguish between the core areas, buffer zones and nature development areas. Suitability values were calculated including the influence of designated areas and without it. The natural suitability was calculated without the designated areas. The most common suitability for the ecological network in Estonia was found to be between 1.0 and 1.5. As a rule, the ecological network suitability of protected areas is higher than that of non-protected areas. The mean natural suitability value of square kilometres which contain more than 80% protected territory is 1.34, and the mean natural suitability of those square kilometres which do not include protected areas, is 0.819. The relative amount of protected areas per square kilometre decreases if the natural suitability for the ecological network decreases. Nearly a half (47.4%) of ecologically highly valuable areas in Estonia are under nature protection. On the other hand, it means that more than a half are not protected. We found a great similarity between the suitability map for the ecological network (both with and without including the designated areas) and the expert-made map of the ecological (green) network presented in the work on "Vision for Estonia 2010".

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Geography
  • Architecture
  • Environmental Resource Management
  • Classical Physics
  • Applied Acoustics

    • Cited by

    Hot spots of ecoacoustics in Greece and the issue of background noise
    Yiannis G . Matsinos

    Journal of Ecoacoustics

    Biodiversity monitoring and assessment across a variety of gradients, could be achieved with the aid of the ecoacoustics discipline. Acoustic monitoring approaches can provide results regarding the species richness of birds, bats, frogs and insects including cicadas (Cicadoidea) and katydids (Tettigoniidae) with results similar to the ones provided by classical ecological methods (e.g. visual point count methods). The risk of extinction of several species has led to the creation of the Natura 2000 Network in the European Union’s territory. Greece provides a number of 202 Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) and 241 Sites of Community Importance (SCI), 239 of which are considered as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). The specific areas provide both, an opportunity for ecoacoustics practice and an opportunity for ecoacoustic research. Even though the specific field of ecology has proven to be a valuable biodiversity assessment tool, areas that provide a variety of ecoacoustic events are...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved