microsoft word - towards soud agenda web viewplease do refer properly; with title, author and...

Towards sound agenda setting

Towards sound agenda setting Research project for the Working Group Noise of Eurocities, DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond (Greater Rotterdam Area), Dutch Ministery

of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) May 2009 W. Witteveen, A.F.M.M. Souren

Environmental Protection Agency Parallelweg 1

P.O. Box 843

3100 AV Schiedam

The Netherlands

T +31 10 - 246 80 00

F +31 10 - 246 82 83

E [email protected]

I www.dcmr.nl

Please do refer properly; with title, author and dates, whenever you make us of text of findings of the report. Drs. (MSc.) Wouter Witteveen, Archipelhof 74, 6524 LE Nijmegen Dr. Astrid F.M.M. Souren, Institute ISIS, Radbout Universiteit Nijmegen, P.O.Box 9010, 9600 GL Nijmegen

Towards soud agenda setting Blad 3 van 31

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Working Group Noise of Eurocities project and to DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond (Greater Rotterdam Area) and the Dutch department for the Environment (Ministerie van VROM) for facilitating this research and for their financial support for the main author of this report. We thank Radboud University Nijmegen for time made available for the second author. Special thanks go to Mr. Henk Wolfert of the DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond (Greater Rotterdam Area) and also the chairman of the Working Group Noise, who has put a great deal of effort into arranging funding for this project and who has also been a great supporter and advisor throughout. Further thanks go to Ms.Miriam Weber, head of the noise department at DCMR, for comments on previous versions and showing the ropes. The report would not have had the empirical substance without the contribution of all who have found time in their busy schedules to contribute to this research in the form of an interview. Many of you have provided us with additional information and feedback.


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Summary 7

1 Introduction 8

1.1 Exploring the issue 8 1.2 Technical difficulty not the main issue 9 1.3 Priority of noise; high or low? 10

2 Factors for a low priority 11

2.1 Lack of willingness to tackle noise 11 2.1.1 More “visual” issues are perceived as more urgent 11 2.1.2 Lack of trust in the scientific evidence for a link between noise and health problems 12 2.1.3 Noise is often labelled as subjective 14 2.1.4 Conflict with other (economic) interests 15

2.2 The effectiveness of measures against noise 16 2.2.1 Technical measures have been countered 16 2.2.2 Technical measures not aiming at the source 16 2.2.3 Lack of clarity on a suitable unit for the effects of noise 17 2.2.4 Lack of a clear limit value 17

3 Agenda setting 19

3.1 Problem definition and different agenda’s 19 3.2 The public agenda 20

3.2.1 Lack of pressure groups 21 3.3 The media agenda 21 3.4 The policy agenda 21

3.4.1 European policy agenda 22 3.4.2 The national agenda 22 3.4.3 Local policy agenda 23 3.4.4 Noise maps and action plans, a missed opportunity? 23

3.5 How the agenda’s seem to influence each other 24 3.6 The issue attention cycle 24

3.6.1 Policy and the issue attention cycle 25 4 Suggestions 26

4.1 Making connections 26 4.1.1 Connection between noise annoyance and health 27 4.1.2 Connection between noise and other environmental issues 27 4.1.3 Connection with the media 28 4.1.4 Connection between the public and policy 28 4.1.5 Connection between the different levels of policy 28

4.2 Current measures 29 4.2.1 Visibility of measures 29 4.2.2 Opportunities within the END 29

5 References 31

Towards soud agenda setting blad 5 van 31

Summary

A series of interviews with experts from the field of noise was conducted to gain insight into the position of noise on the policy agenda. This analysis has led to suggestions on how to improve this position. The conclusions and suggestions made in this report are (to a certain extent) also applicable to other environmental issues. Although noise has gained some momentum on the European policy agenda over the last decade, several experts have voiced the concern that the effects of environmental noise on public health are such that noise should have a higher position on the agenda. Factors explaining this low priority can be grouped into two categories. Firstly, there seems to be a lack of willingness among policy makers / politicians to tackle noise. This is caused by the existence of other topics that are perceived as more urgent, a lack of belief in the scientific evidence for a link between noise and health problems, and the subjective aspect of noise annoyance. The second category of factors for a low priority for noise is: doubt on the effectiveness of available measures. Technical measures that effectively reduce the level of noise are often ineffective in decreasing noise annoyance. Furthermore, the achieved reduction of noise produced by an individual source has often been countered by an increase in the number of individual sources. Other factors in this category are: the lack of a clear unit to express the effects of noise in, and the lack of an EU legal limit value. . When considering the priority of noise with policy, it is also important to consider the position of noise on the public (and the media) agenda. These different agenda’s and their different definitions of the noise problem influence each other. Due to the “invisible nature” of the consequences of noise on health, these consequences are equally hard to imagine for the public as they are for policy. The annoyance aspect however is something that people experience every day and is therefore the public’s number one noise issue. Due to the local nature of noise, the local policy level is often considered by the public as well as by national and European policy to be responsible for solving these problems. However, local policy does not always have the necessary expertise, means and position to deal with noise problems. To raise the profile of noise, we suggest that noise should develop from a ‘stand alone issue’ towards an integral part of environmental concerns. That requires connections between noise and related environmental issues with related effects: health effects and annoyance. We also suggest that connections between the different levels of policy (local, national and European), stakeholders in policy, media and the public are further developed on noise related issues. Current measures and the European Environmental Noise Directive provide ample opportunities to do so. These connections could be the means for increased attention for noise. Once these connections are established, resources can be joined leading to the design of measures that are more effective and have a broader general acceptance. Our work has shown that the technical complexity of noise is not a crucial factor explaining the low priority of noise; many environmental issues that are high on the agenda are equally complex.

1 Introduction

At the spring meeting 2007 of the Working Group Noise (WGN) of Eurocities in Birmingham the concern was voiced that noise does not have the priority it deserves on the (policy) agenda.


This concern was based on the observation that while noise, especially long lasting noise, can have an impact on the public’s quality of life, a large number of the available solutions to the problem remain unused. The WGN felt that the major factor for the low priority on the agenda is a lack of understanding among policy makers and / or politicians of the difficult technical information in reports on noise. As we will see in this report, these views do not represent the entire truth. In fact, it seems that a lack of understanding of technical information is not a major factor at all. It is also debatable whether the priority for noise is indeed as low as suggested, although it is obvious that noise does not receive the same attention and resources that a problem such as air pollution receives. The research described in this report therefore set out to:

• identify the factors that lead to a lower attention for noise • formulate suggestions to deal with these factors

1.1 Exploring the issue

The most important part of this research consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews with various experts. To get a clear overview of the various aspects of noise, its place on the (policy) agenda, and the various actors involved, the range of noise experts was made as wide as possible. For example, to assess the priority of noise on the policy agenda, experts from local, national and European policy as well as representatives of organisations that lobby at these respective levels of policy have been interviewed. Also, in order to get a clear understanding of the current status of the evidence on the various effects of noise, a number of scientists ranging from the fields of environmental health, environmental socio-economics, acoustics and transport safety were interviewed. The respondents are (in alphabetical order): Eddie Alders - FME CWM, Dutch organisation for entrepreneurs in the technological industrial sector Eva Banos - environment policy officer of Eurocities Guus Berkhout - professor of Innovation Management at the Technical University Delft, former head of the Commission of Experts on Aircraft Noise (Schiphol Airport) Hans Blokland - MEP for the IND / DEM Group, vice president of the European Parliament’s environment commission Steve Crawshaw* - Bristol City Council, involved in Bristol’s noise mapping for the SILENCE project Marco Dingemans - coordinator of the communications department at DCMR Environmental Protection Agency Rijnmond (Greater Rotterdam Area) Martin Fitzpatrick* - principal environmental health officer for Dublin City Council Evert Hassink - traffic campaign, especially air traffic, for Milieudefensie (Dutch environmental NGO) John Hinton* - Birmingham City Council / Environmental Protection UK Jan Jabben - researcher at the noise department of the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Lars Jarup - professor Environmental Medicine and Public Health at Imperial College London, involved in the HYENA project Irene van Kamp - researcher public health and environment issues at the Netherland’s National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Melanie Kloth - head of the Environment and Health thematic pillar of Polis (network of European cities and regions which promotes, supports and advocates innovation in local transport) Jan Kuiper - president of the Dutch Noise Disturbance Foundation (Nederlandse Stichting Geluidshinder) Jacques Lambert - researcher for the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research (INRETS)


Nina Renshaw - noise policy officer for the European Federation for Transport and Environment Alexander de Roo - senior environmental advisor for the Dutch Province of Gelderland, former MEP for the European Greens Wolfgang Schneider - European Commission, DG Enterprise, Automotive Carlo Schoonebeek - head of the noise department of the Dutch Province of Noord-Holland Kjell Spang - board member of the Swedish research project Soundscape Support to Health Gisela Vindevogel / Jeroen Lavrijsen - Environment, Nature and Energy Department of the Flemish Community Dik Welkers - policy coordinator for the Dutch Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) Fred Woudenberg - head of the environment cluster for the Municipal Health Services Amsterdam (GGD Amsterdam) (*) Respondents that are or have been involved with the Working Group Noise of Eurocities. To be able to understand the issue of noise and it’s priority, the information gathered from the interviews was interpreted by using concepts about agenda setting, problem framing, attention, and policy processes. These also allowed us to compare noise with other environmental problems such as air quality and climate change that are generally thought to have a higher priority on the policy agenda. Furthermore, these concepts can help to identify why the issue receives relatively little policy, public and media attention and hence, what can be done to improve the situation. These analyses and comparisons will reveal the main difficulties in dealing with environmental noise and provide the basis for suggestions for raising the profile of noise. This research has focussed on the position of noise. Our suggestions are formulated specifically for the case of noise, but apply more widely to environmental problems that, like noise, are believed to have a significant impact on health and the environment but suffer from limited public and political attention.

1.2 Technical difficulty not the main issue

It is acknowledged by all respondents, regardless of their background within the field of noise, that the priority of noise on the policy agenda is not high compared to other environmental issues such as air quality and climate change. The original hypothesis, as formulated by the WGN, was that noise will gain a higher priority when policy makers and politicians have a better understanding of the technical information in reports on noise. This hypothesis was based on the assumption that everybody with a full understanding of noise would agree that it should get more attention. If this were true, it would mean that noise would automatically gain a higher priority with more understanding of the subject. However, early on in the interview process it became clear that the lower priority of noise is not primarily due to the technical difficulty of noise. The technical aspects of noise are generally quite well understood by policy makers (on at least the national and European level) or at least by the experts that advise them. This does not discard that noise can be difficult to explain to a lay person. The most prominent difficulty in understanding noise is the decibel scale. This is a logarithmic scale in contrast to the linear scale that most people without prior knowledge would probably assume. This means that 20 dB is not, as one might think, twice as much noise as 10 dB. Furthermore, the new European measure for environmental noise Lden is not a simple average of the noise levels over a year but an average that gives extra weight to noise in the evening and night. Despite these difficulties, the respondents were virtually unanimous in stating that although noise can technically be a difficult subject, other topics such as climate change and air quality are not much easier to understand for a lay person. In other words, the technical complexity is probably not the main problem here. It might well be that other factors are more important.


Alders: You have to be able to understand sound pressure, logarithms and so on. But other subjects such as soil are also quite difficult. Jarup: When you hear 10 micrograms per cubic metre of nitrogen dioxide, to me that seems equally difficult to understand. But I see your point about the logarithmic scale. That might be a bit confusing to people. Van Kamp: Air pollution is just as difficult. And action groups around Schiphol airport do cite from reports. Even they seem to understand it including the nuances.

1.3 Priority of noise; high or low?

Another assumption made by the WGN is that noise has a low priority with policy makers. Of course priority is a relative concept. A certain level of attention for a subject might indicate high or at least sufficient priority to someone, while the same level of attention might seem insufficient to someone else. The respondents in this research all agreed that noise has a low priority. Taking into account that the respondents represent a wide range of respondents from the field of noise, it can be concluded that a low priority is widely perceived among those with a daily occupation in the field of noise. When asked why noise should have a higher priority two main reasons were mentioned. Firstly, several scientific reports have indicated that noise can have major impacts on public health. Secondly, a number of measures that are available to deal with noise remain scarcely used. These include measures like silent road surfaces and silent tyres. Noise is certainly not a new topic that has never been on the policy agenda. In the continuation of this report the most important regulations on noise will be discussed some more. For now it is important to note that in many of the older Member States of the European Union there are already extensive regulations that aim to control the noise situation. What is remarkable is that many of these regulations, of which the Dutch Noise Act [1] from 1979 is a good example, already date several decades back. Welkers: Here, noise is already an issue since 1979. Air quality only really became an issue after Brussels established a number of standards. With air quality we have to catch up with noise. That happens in a short period of time which means that there is a lot to do. Just as with noise a number of logical restrictions will follow to ensure that some borders can’t be crossed. With noise people have gotten used to that. That’s why noise does not get much political attention anymore. However, stating that noise is off the political agenda would not be correct. In fact, it could be argued that at the European level, noise has even gained momentum over the last few years. Although the European Union has also been involved in noise regulations for quite some time, (the oldest directive on noise, Directive 70/157/EEC [2] which is concerned with the sound levels of motor vehicles, dates back to 1970), the onset for a more general approach to European noise abatement was given in 1996 with the European Commission’s Green Paper on Future Noise Policy 1996 [3] which led to the drafting of directive 2002/49/EC [4] also known as the Environmental Noise Directive (END). This is the first EU document with the aim of reducing environmental noise in general. All earlier EU and most earlier national regulations are aimed at setting limits for specific sources of noise. In practice, this means that every independent noise source is regulated separately. The END contains a number of obligations, mainly for the local level, which will be discussed later on. For now, it suffices to state that the END has created some momentum for the issue of noise over the last few years. Nevertheless, if the majority of the respondents in this research is anything to go by, the upcoming first evaluation of the END (probably 2010) will probably reveal that the results, (especially the low interest in the obligatory public participation process) have been somewhat unsatisfactory. The underlying factors that have caused this are largely the same as the factors that cause a low priority for noise on the policy agenda. These factors will be discussed in Chapter 2.


2 Factors for a low priority

After conducting and analysing a number of interviews, the original hypothesis about technical complexity as the main cause, was reformulated and the focus of this research shifted towards an inventory of the factors responsible for a lower priority of noise (and less satisfactory results from the END). This inventory might lead to an understanding why the technical complexity of noise is probably not the crucial factor to address if one wants to raise the profile of noise. The main factors mentioned by the respondents can be divided into two groups:

• Lack of willingness among policy makers / politicians to tackle noise (annoyance) - More “visual” issues are perceived as more urgent - Lack of trust in the scientific evidence for a link between noise and health problems - Noise is often labelled as subjective - Conflict with other (economic) interests

• Doubt among policy makers / politicians on the effectiveness of measures against noise (annoyance) - Technical measures have often been countered by factors such as increased traffic - Lack of clarity on a suitable unit for the effects of noise - Lack of an accepted limit value (in the END)

In the following paragraphs these factors, their implications and underlying causes will be discussed. This will also reveal some of the characteristics that set noise apart from other environmental issues such as air quality and climate change. Subsequently it will be discussed what the implication of these factors is on processes such as problem framing and agenda setting at a number of different agenda’s such as the policy, media and the public agenda. Finally, from the insights gained, suggestions will be formulated for a more successful promotion of noise.

2.1 Lack of willingness to tackle noise

The main reason mentioned by the respondents for noise having a lower priority on the policy agenda is that there are other issues that are perceived as more urgent to tackle. These issues include for example air pollution which has a higher position on the agenda than noise because of the perception that refraining from tackling it might lead to very negative and often irreversible consequences for public health. This perception seems to be missing in the case of noise. Banos: Noise is of course a problem but whenever you have for example a flood, that’s more urgent to tackle than noise because it is something that is really happening and has huge consequences. De Roo: Considering all issues, climate change is number one with the Dutch, air quality is around 18th place and somewhere further down is noise.

2.1.1 More “visual” issues are perceived as more urgent


In the interviews, several respondents point out to the “invisible” character of noise. In the literary sense noise can not be seen but can only be heard. At best, the noise source can be seen. Also, the majority of effects and consequences that are attributed to noise can’t be seen or are at least not recognised by non-experts as being caused by noise. According to respondents, the “invisible nature” of noise makes it very hard to imagine the consequences that it can have. In a figurative sense noise can hardly compete with an issue such as air pollution which provokes strong images of smoking chimneys or exhaust fumes from traffic, leading to a number of health problems. Thus, without necessarily having seen the consequences of air pollution themselves, people can very well imagine them.

2.1.2 Lack of trust in the scientific evidence for a link between noise and health problems

Perhaps the first health effect that springs to mind when thinking of noise is loss of hearing. This is a direct effect that is scientifically undisputed. The “direct” nature of hearing loss means that it is relatively easy to investigate and that the effect is easily imagined by experts as well as the public. In spite of this, many people choose to ignore this effect by for example visiting a concert. In that case, people can choose if they want to subject themselves to high levels of noise. Risk of hearing loss can easily be avoided in daily life and these types of noise most often don’t bring about negative feelings such as annoyance. People who enjoy these types of noise will probably just call them “sound”. Therefore, whenever the word noise is used in the rest of this report, environmental noise will be meant. In contrast, the majority of people that are affected by environmental noise can’t escape from it. However, hearing loss due to environmental noise is highly unlikely. The levels of environmental noise are simply not high enough. However, a number of scientific reports associate environmental noise with other health effects. In contrast to the direct effects of noise at concerts, these effects are primarily indirect and long term. This means that the effects of environmental noise only become clear after long periods of exposure. Such long term effects are for example: cardiovascular diseases [5], hypertension [6] and sleep disturbance [7]. Environmental noise is also said to interfere with daily performance [8] and the learning ability of children [9]. A number of these effects will partly be caused by stress resulting from annoyance (which will be discussed extensively later on). However, the EU-funded HYENA project (with involvement of respondent Jarup) illustrated that there are also health effects that are not directly linked to noise annoyance. The project’s goal was to assess the impacts of cardiovascular health of noise generated by aircraft and road traffic. This study [10] concluded that blood pressure levels as well as heart rate increases with increasing loudness during sleep, independently of the noise source. For example, for every 5 dB increase in aircraft noise at its loudest point, there was an increase of 0.66 mmHg in systolic blood pressure. So, even during sleep, noise has an impact. Other reports have been less certain about the link between noise and health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) report “1999 Guidelines for Community Noise” [11] concluded that the available evidence suggested a weak association between long-term noise exposure above 67-70 dB(A) and hypertension. Babisch [12] concluded in 2000:


The available literature provides no epidemiological evidence of a relationship between noise exposure and mean blood pressure readings in adults. However, noise related increases in blood pressure are consistently seen in children. As far as hypertension as a clinical outcome is concerned, there is little evidence that exposure to high traffic noise levels is associated with an increased risk. Although, according to the 2007 WHO document “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe” [13], the evidence has improved since Babisch’ review in 2000, there is still some doubt about the scientific underpinning of effects. It states: There is sufficient evidence that night noise is related to self-reported sleep disturbance, use of pharmaceuticals, self-reported health problems and insomnia-like symptoms. These effects can lead to a considerable burden of disease in the population. For other effects (hypertension, myocardial infarctions, depression and others), limited evidence was found: although the studies were few or not conclusive, a biologically plausible pathway could be constructed from the evidence. In other words, it is very plausible that noise leads to all kinds of health problems, but sound scientific proof and consensus have not yet been obtained. One of the reasons is that studies are few. This certainly seems to be the case when compared to a topic such as air pollution. Jarup: There has been an abundant number of studies on air pollution and road traffic. But very few on noise. If you then consider that these two exposures are very much occurring together, that was a bit strange to us. Lambert: In France there are very few research teams researching the effects of noise. I remember last year, the French Ministry of the Environment launched a call for tender and one topic within that call was the effect of noise. No research teams provided a proposal. As stated by Jarup, there are much more reports available into the health effects of a topic such as air pollution. The majority of sources that produce noise, also produce problems such as air pollution. The majority of health affects attributed to air pollution, in analogy to noise, become evident in the long term. In fact, Jarup expects that air pollution and noise might lead to similar health problems, and a combined exposure to air pollution and noise might aggravate these problems. Unfortunately, no conclusive evidence on this link is available at the moment. However, the possible existence of such a combined effect makes it difficult to determine the individual impact of noise on health. An important difference between noise and air pollution is that the effects of air pollution on health are generally more accepted than the health effects of noise. Therefore, non-experts (and even some of the experts) are more likely to attribute health effects to air pollution, even when they are (partly) caused by noise. Due to the abovementioned problems, efforts in trying to raise the profile of the problem of environmental noise have to this moment been largely unsuccessful. The majority of respondents believes that when the health effects are firmly established, they can no longer be ignored by policy. Unfortunately, the evidence currently seems to be weak due to apparent disagreement between scientists. Even some respondents expressed a certain amount of scepticism. Fitzpatrick: Probably the state of the research in terms of dealing with health effects of noise, it’s not as far advanced as other areas of pollution control. It’s only the last couple of years that some major health effects are starting to gain credibility. Jarup on the HYENA project: The main findings were that we found a clear relationship between noise levels during the night and the prevalence of hypertension. And a similar relationship between road traffic and hypertension. Kloth: Compared to other issues like air quality the link between health and noise is not that clear. If you look in detail it is also not that clear for air quality because the impact of emissions


is much more complex than it seems. But everybody can see: “The air is dirty and this will have an impact on me.” Politicians but also society are very aware of that problem. Lavrijsen: I think qualitatively the link is quite strong but it is hard to quantify. You can easily say that there is an effect but there is much less consensus on the extend to which this effect will show. When compared to climate change, this was also a subject where about ten years ago there was no apparent consensus among scientists. For climate change a large breakthrough was a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [14] which was backed by a large number of scientists from all over the world. It can be argued whether or not there was true consensus on all aspects of climate change or whether some aspects on which there was no consensus were not mentioned, at least for the outside world there seems to be consensus. De Roo: When there is consensus among scientists, politics has to act. That is the big success of the IPCC. A number of respondents have high hopes that an upcoming report of the WHO on the health effects of noise in urban areas could have similar significance for noise. This optimism is based on preliminary results that were shown at a number of conferences. Unfortunately, because this report is not yet officially available, nothing more can be said about the expected results. Jarup: I think you will find, when you look at the WHO evaluation, the consensus there will be that there is a clear association between noise exposure and cardiovascular effects. Whether the conclusions from this report are indeed strong enough to create an apparent consensus among scientists and to gain a higher position for noise on the policy agenda remains to be seen. Whatever the outcome will be, the release of this report will be an interesting moment in the history of noise abatement

2.1.3 Noise is often labelled as subjective

The aspect of noise that is most difficult to visualise and seems to be the least accepted aspect of scientific evidence is the long term effect on health. Noise does have a number of short term effects that are much easier to visualise and understand, for example the annoyance that a large number of people experience with neighbour noise or traffic noise. Therefore, the focus in discussions and research on noise has for a large part been on this annoyance aspect. This seems to be positive as well as negative at the same time. On the one hand, citizens are well aware of the annoying properties of noise. This leads to a certain pressure on local authorities to amend existing adverse noise situations and consider noise in future plans. On the other hand this also poses a problem for policy. Noise annoyance itself, and the effect of certain measures on the level of noise annoyance, are hard to measure. Technical measures that lead to a reduction in the level of sound do not always necessarily lead to a reduction in annoyance. This is due to the fact that noise annoyance is not dependent on acoustical variables but instead on non-acoustical variables such as the time of day of noise occurrence, the frequency of noise occurrence (single events such as a passing noisy moped are often perceived as highly annoying) and the person’s relation to the source (noisy music that is perceived as beautiful is less annoying than music that is disliked). Noise annoyance is not directly dictated by the actual sound level but instead by an emotional reaction. According to a large number of respondents this enables policy makers to label noise as a “subjective” problem. Guski and Felscher-Suhr [15] define noise annoyance as follows: A psychological concept which describes a relation between an acoustic situation and a person who is forced by noise to do things he / she does not want to do, who cognitively and emotionally evaluates this situation and feels partly helpless.


Even the definition of the word noise in the Cambridge Dictionary is linked with annoyance: Noise is sound, especially when it is unwanted, unpleasant or loud. Common types of noise are for example traffic noise, aircraft noise, construction noise and neighbour noise. Annoyance is the first aspect that comes to mind when asking a member of the public about their associations with noise. In fact, as became apparent from a survey by Guski and Felscher-Suhr, it is also the main aspect of noise that comes to mind among experts. The top five of expert’s associations with noise were: annoyance, disturbance, anger, restrictions of welfare, and stress. Similar conclusions were made by Fields [16] in a review of 136 separate surveys into noise annoyance: Noise annoyance is not affected to an important extend by ambient noise levels. It was also not affected by the time residents are at home or any of the nine demographic variables (age, social status, income, education, home ownership, type of dwelling, length of residence, or receipt of benefits from the noise source). Instead noise annoyance is related to the five attitudes: fear of danger from the noise source, noise prevention beliefs, general noise sensitivity, beliefs about the importance of the noise source, and annoyance with non-noise impacts of the noise source. From the above mentioned reports it can be concluded that noise annoyance is associated with emotional reactions such as the feeling of being disturbed in daily activities, the belief that nothing can or will be done against the noise source, and a general aversion against the noise source (for example an increased irritation of the noise produced by cars as one of more perceived negative aspects such as air pollution or unsafe traffic situations because of speeding). As noted earlier, it might be difficult for policy to determine what an effective measure against noise annoyance is. This might lead to a degree of inactivity. It is probable that this in turn will amplify the feeling of helplessness perceived by people affected by noise.

2.1.4 Conflict with other (economic) interests

Due to the difficulties mentioned in the previous paragraphs and because not everybody is effected equally by noise, it is not surprising that some authorities choose to pursue other, often economic interests. These might conflict with a healthy noise situation. This is especially the case when it is unclear if taking expensive measures against noise will have much effect. Spang: What do you get political points for? One thing is to be able to say in a city like Stockholm, we have managed to build 20.000 new flats this year. Or if you say, we have managed to build 10.000 that all have access to quiet sides. A certain number of new dwellings has to be build. Some measures that reduce the noise levels drastically, such as closing of a road, reducing the number of planes at an airport, or halting a building project, are not always acceptable to (local) authorities because they conflict with other interests that might be perceived as economically important. In such a case, benefits to the majority get priority over the disadvantages of the few.


2.2 The effectiveness of measures against noise

As has already been discussed in section 2.1 it is generally unclear which measures are effective against noise annoyance. On top of this, as we will see in this section, technical measures also have not always been successful in reducing the total level of environmental noise. In contrast to the original hypotheses that stated that policy has difficulty with understanding the technical information on noise, the main problem for policy seems to be that it is unclear which technical measure against noise is most effective.

2.2.1 Technical measures have been countered

An obvious approach to tackling the noise problem is to reduce noise levels at the source. However, due to changes in test conditions it is debatable whether or not this has effectively led to quieter cars, trains and planes. What is however clear is that advances that have been made at the source have for a significant part been countered by factors such as the increase in traffic volumes. It is likely that traffic volumes will continue to increase in the years to come. Furthermore, people often do not perceive their surroundings as more acoustically pleasant than ten years ago, even when the noise level has in fact gone down (which is caused by the subjective perception of noise discussed earlier). To summarize, the effectiveness of reducing noise at the source on the actual total environmental sound level as well as on the perception of the total sound level has its limitations. This is reinforced by the supposed technical limits of making the source quieter. Some car and tyre manufacturers have for example stated that the limits for reducing noise produced by a vehicle without compromising safety are almost reached. They claim that other measures such as silent road surfaces should now get priority. Whatever the case, the automobile manufacturing lobby seems to be doing quite well in stating their case with the European Commission and other legislative authorities. Schneider of the European Commission stated his regret for the lack of consumer organisations and environmental NGO’s in Commission meetings. Schneider suspected that this passiveness might be the result of the incorrect perception that the wellbeing of industry is the European Commission’s top priority. On top of these problems is the fact that these noise reducing measures are not consistently advertised. This means for example that people will not actively consider buying quiet tyres when buying a new car. Factors such as cost, size and performance (other than noise) of the car will be more important factors. Ultimately, when noise is not a major factor in deciding which car to buy, it will not be a major factor for manufacturers. Therefore, manufacturers will keep lobbying


institutions such as the European Commission to refrain from tightening the regulations any further.

2.2.2 Technical measures not aiming at the source

Also available are technical measures that focus on the propagation of noise such as noise barriers. Another possibility are measures that focus on the point of application of noise such as sound insulation of houses. The problem with noise barriers is that they are generally quite expensive to construct and maintain. And noise barriers often provoke negative connotations themselves, mostly because there are perceived as an obtrusive element in the landscape or as hot spots for visual pollution such as graffiti. The problem with sound insulation according to Van Kamp is that the effectiveness of these measures has never been sufficiently researched. Nevertheless, sound insulation seems to be the most effective measure against noise annoyance because the measure itself does not provoke any direct negative associations (apart from some temporary annoyance when the insulation is applied) and is a more “visible measure” than measures taken at the source. 2.2.3 Lack of clarity on a suitable unit for the effects of noise

As we have seen earlier it is very hard to determine which measures are effective against noise annoyance. A public questionnaire might shed some light on the number of people annoyed by noise in a certain area and on general increases or reductions in this number. However, it is very hard to determine the effect of a single measure on noise annoyance because of the fact that noise annoyance is not dependent on the actual sound level. Therefore, decibels are not a suitable unit for the expression of these effects. Another unit that is frequently used is the DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Year) which indicates the number of healthy life years that are lost due to (in this case) noise. This unit will only be effective when it is generally accepted that noise can lead to the loss of healthy life years. This relies on a belief in the link between noise and health problems which, as has been discussed earlier, is not generally accepted. Therefore, the DALY is also not a unit that will convince everyone of the effects of noise. Furthermore, a number of respondents have stated their believe in presenting noise to policy and politics as a matter of cost. However, it is unclear how this cost should be determined. Several ways of “monetarising noise” are conceivable such as expressing it in terms of extra costs for the health services or expressing it in terms of the decrease in house prices in a noisy area. At the moment there is no standardised method to calculate the cost of noise (although this also applies to a topic such as air pollution). The problem with this is that a certain calculation of the costs can be easily discarded by policy when the method of calculation is not supported. And the lack of a standard subsequently makes it hard to effectively determine the cost-benefit relations of certain measures. This difficulty is not specific for noise. The same problem applies to a topic such as air pollution. However, discarding monetary calculations on air pollution is considered as less acceptable because of the widespread acceptance of it’s effects and consequences.

2.2.4 Lack of a clear limit value

One of the major issues that was mentioned by respondents was the lack of a clear (legal as well as scientifically based) limit value on noise. Indeed, this is what distinguishes the European Environmental Noise Directive from other European environmental directives. European directives on air quality specify the maximum allowed concentrations of certain substances in the air; the Water Framework Directive [17] specifies the maximum allowed concentrations of substances in all surface waters. On many occasions specifying a limit value has triggered a number of policy measures to comply with these limits. It is easy to imagine that due to these reasons the respondents might feel disappointed about the lack of a limit value in the European Noise Directive and might welcome the inclusion of


such a limit later on. However, this is generally not the case. Below some of the reactions of respondents on the prospect of including a limit: Hinton: My personal opinion is that at this stage it’s right not to have a limit value. What the Commission needs to do and I think they have left themselves this prerogative, is that when they hear about all the action plans that the Member States have produced and if they believe that those action plans aren’t ambitious enough, they ought to think about setting some limits. Fitzpatrick: Limits won’t work at some European regions for a whole range of reasons. Schoonebeek: I do believe that a limit value will be difficult to determine that suits us as well as for example Spain and Italy. Or it will mean that we have to do nothing and they will. One of the main reasons for not wanting a limit value seems to be the fear that the limit value will not be strict enough for the Member States that have more developed noise regulations. Some of the Member States that have only recently joined the European Union do not have well established frameworks for dealing with noise which would mean that a strict European limit value would not be enforceable for these members states. This means that a European limit value for noise would undoubtedly be a compromise that might seem weak to some and could mean that in some Member States the situation is already well within the limits. There is a fear among the respondents that this could lead to complacency with the authorities in some Member States while “a lot can still be achieved below the limit.” Another reason is the before mentioned lack of scientific clarity on the link between noise and health problems, making it unclear what the limit value should be. In spite if these difficulties, a minority of respondents would welcome a limit value. Crawshaw: I don’t really understand how you can have European legislation to protect public health without some kind of threshold value. You could have room for local interpretation like we do for air quality in our local strategy. Hassink: The best situation would be a limit value with a high credibility determined by national government or the EU. Then noise will seem to be a real problem. That is the strange thing with air quality, if a concentration is below 40 microgrammes per cubic meter, it is still not healthy, but it helps perception wise. Hassink’s (from the Dutch environmental NGO Milieudefensie) further message is that limits on other environmental issues such as air pollution are not necessarily stricter or based on a more solid scientific foundation. In fact, a too strict limit value (that some of the newer Member States can’t maintain) might even be a worse situation also leading to inaction because it is unclear how to reach noise levels below the limit. A limit value would at least oblige authorities to do something about the most extreme noise situations. Member States would still be free to have their own stricter limit value. In the current situation (which will be discussed in more detail later on) cities of more than 250.000 citizens are responsible for identifying areas with undesirable noise levels and setting limits to improve these specific situations.


3 Agenda setting

To summarize, the priority for environmental noise is not that high as some might have liked because of the “invisible nature” of noise and because of the lack of a set of integral measures against noise annoyance. In this section a number of general mechanisms of agenda setting such as problem definition, different types of agenda’s, and the issue attention cycle will be presented to assess the influence of these factors. These approaches are helpful in understanding that the attention for an issue can fluctuate over time, and that attention can differ between agenda’s. For instance, an issue can be high on an international agenda, and be low on the national agenda. As we are mainly concerned here with the policy agenda, it is useful to keep in mind that issues can get on an agenda through an open policy window. Policy windows can open because of some dramatic event that brings full attention to an issue. However, as we will see, such a dramatic event is not very likely in the case of noise because of it’s invisible character and delayed effects. However, policy windows can also be opened by establishing connections between issues that have a higher position on the agenda.

3.1 Problem definition and different agenda’s

One of the most important factors in agenda setting is the definition of a problem. After all, issues that are not perceived by the public, policy or media to be problematic, will not appear high on the respective agenda. Kingdon [18] states: There is a difference between a condition and a problem. Conditions become defined as problems when we come to believe that we should do something about them. The essence of Kingdon’s statement is that a sense of urgency to act is needed. In order for an issue to receive attention and appear on the agenda, it has to be perceived by the audience as problematic. If this is not the case, there isn’t really a problem, and hence, solutions will hardly be developed, implemented or considered. The problem definition is crucial to the priority of an issue. Different actors can define an issue differently. These definitions subsequently influence each other. Dearing and Rogers [19] identify three main components of the agenda setting process: the public agenda, the media agenda, and the policy agenda. These agenda’s influence each other as is depicted in the figure below postulated by McQuail and Windahl [20]. Fout! Objecten kunnen niet worden gemaakt door veldcodes te bewerken. Figure 1: Conceptual model of agenda setting by McQuail & Windahl (1993)

As can be seen from this figure the public agenda is influenced by the media agenda which in turn influences the policy agenda. The policy agenda influences the media agenda which means that the circle of influence is complete. It has to be noted that according to this model direct influence between the agenda’s only works in one direction. This would suggest that direct influence of the public agenda on the media agenda, and of the policy agenda on the public agenda is impossible. In reality it is much more likely that the influence between the three types of agenda’s works in both directions. What remains valid is that if an issue has a high priority on one of the agenda’s, it is likely to gain a higher position on the other agenda’s as well. This also means that the definition of the noise problem on one of the agenda’s influences the others. Therefore, to gain an understanding of the way these agenda’s influence each other considering the topic of noise, it is important to take a closer look at the priority of noise on these agenda’s and the problem definitions that are coupled with this. But before any conclusions can be made on the position of noise on the various agenda’s and the various problem definitions, it has to be noted that differences exist between the various Member States of the EU. Especially in the newer Member States, noise has not yet really been an issue on the local level as well as on the national level. In contrast, a Member State such as The Netherlands is seen by many as a frontrunner in dealing with noise (although


some Dutch respondents would disagree). Unfortunately, the overall majority of respondents in this research comes from the “older” Member States (especially from The Netherlands). Therefore, the conclusions in this paragraph and in the rest of this report mainly apply to the Member States that already have some experience in dealing with noise and have some noise regulations in place.

3.2 The public agenda

Dearing and Rodgers [19] define the public agenda as: The problems perceived as most important by the community. Public agenda setting concentrates on the ordering of one issue in relation to other issues, or the order of a set of issues on the public agenda. The priority of an issue on the public agenda is usually measured by an opinion survey containing a Most Important Problem (MIP) question. An example of such a question could be: “What is the most important problem facing this country today?” The responses to such a question give an indication of the relative position of an issue on the public agenda. An example of such an MIP question on noise which gives us an indication of the position of noise on the public agenda is provided by Eurobarometer 295 “Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment” [21]. In this survey the respondents were asked to select, out of fifteen environmental problems, the five that worry them the most. The top five consisted of climate change (57 %), water pollution (42 %), air pollution (40 %), man made disasters (39 %) and natural disasters (32 %). Noise came in last place with 8 % of the respondents mentioning it as one of their top five concerns. So this survey would suggest that the priority of noise on the public agenda is quite low. However, things are not that black and white. Surveys that ask a question similar to: “What do you consider important problems that affect you personally?”, often generate quite different results. Sometimes noise is even in the top three of concerns [22]. This personal concern with noise is also illustrated by the large amount of complaints that municipal authorities receive on noise which is not that smaller or even bigger than the number of complaints on other environmental issues. The major difference between the questions used in these different types of surveys is the reference level used. Eurobarometer 295 presented the respondents with a number of environmental issues that affect society as a whole, but don’t necessarily affect people at a personal level. For the public, the effects of noise are difficult to imagine and visualise. Climate change is a visible threat to society whereas noise is not. Surveys such as conducted by Lambert ask people about their top concerns on a personal level. On this reference level people can very well imagine the consequences of noise which mainly consists of annoyance. It can therefore be concluded that the public predominantly defines noise as a personal problem which is most often annoyance, rather than a problem for society which would most likely be a public health problem. This means that people will probably only be interested in noise when it affects them personally. This also makes noise a local problem. 3.2.1 Lack of pressure groups

Pressure groups and NGO’s are organised around public interests and concerns. With environmental problems people seldom complain to their authorities individually but form groups that represent a large number of citizens with the same concern. People can for example join an environmental NGO. Because these groups claim to work for the public interest and are reliant on public donations, these groups can be seen as a part of the public movement and the public agenda. Just as the public itself, environmental NGO’s do not seem to perceive noise as a top priority. Pressure groups that are very active in the field of noise are almost always local initiatives that campaign against a specific local source of noise, often an airport or a road. Major


environmental NGO’s seem to focus on topics such as climate change and air pollution (often concerning the same major airports and roads). A large number of respondents have expressed their disappointment at the apparent absence of these groups in the noise debate. De Roo: None of the existing environmental NGO’s has made noise a top priority. There are only some local groups campaigning on a very specific problem. It can safely be stated that people working for environmental NGO’s are at least aware of the negative consequences that noise can have. In spite of this, these NGO’s often don’t have noise as one of their top priorities. As Hassink of the Dutch environmental NGO Milieudefensie states: Hassink: On the basis of the air quality regulations it is easier to book results and stop the construction of roads than on the basis of the noise regulations. It’s not that we don’t see noise as a problem but the lobbying for noise barriers can also be done by a group of residents. That’s more complicated with air quality. Due to limited resources environmental NGO’s focus on problems such as climate change and air pollution, on the one hand because regulations on these topics are further advanced and therefore give NGO’s more to work with, on the other hand because the people that donate money expect them to work on the problems that they are most concerned about. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the priority of the public for noise on a societal level is not that high.

3.3 The media agenda

According to Dearing and Rodgers, the media agenda which is usually analysed by simply counting the number of news stories on an issue, has a large influence on the public agenda. Climate change has often been in the media over the last several years, supported by for example reports from the IPCC and Al Gore’s climate change movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. A measurement of the position of noise on the media agenda has not been conducted as a part of this research nor does there seem to be literature available on this subject. This means that, except from what the respondents have stated on this subject, no founded statement on the priority of noise on the media agenda and the media’s problem definition of noise can be done. The respondents stated unanimously that noise is rarely in the media, certainly when compared to issues such as air pollution and climate change.

3.4 The policy agenda

The third type of agenda identified by Dearing and Rodgers is the policy agenda. Research on policy agenda setting studies how policy actions surrounding an issue function as a response to both the public agenda and the media agenda. Kingdon defines the policy agenda as the list of issues or problems to which government officials or those who make policy decisions (including the voting public), pay serious attention. From these definitions it becomes clear that the public has an important role in the setting of the policy agenda (also indicated by the direct link between the public agenda and the policy agenda in Figure 1) The priority of an issue on the policy agenda is measured by the number of policy actions such as the introduction of laws and directives, the amount of budget that is available to tackle an issue and by the time spent debating the issue. In the case of noise and many other issue there are differences in the priority of the issue depending on the level of government considered. In the case of noise we will distinguish between the European policy agenda, the national policy agenda, and the local policy agenda.


3.4.1 European policy agenda

When considering policy agenda’s it can be argued that at the moment the priority for noise is highest on the European level. In fact, the European level has been the primary catalyst of developments in noise abatement since 1996. Although the European Union has already been involved in setting noise limits for specific sources for quite some time, the onset for a more general approach to European noise abatement was given with the European Commission’s Green Paper on Future Noise Policy 1996. This document stated that action was needed because: Environmental noise, caused by traffic, industrial and recreational activities is one of the main local environmental problems in Europe and the source of an increasing number of complaints from the public. Generally however action to reduce environmental noise has had a lower priority than that taken to address other environmental problems such as air and water pollution. This citation makes two things clear. Firstly that the European Commission acknowledges that the priority to tackle noise has not been high. Secondly, the Commission defines noise as a local environmental problem. This local component also plays a large role in the subsequent directive 2002/49/EC also known as the Environmental Noise Directive (END). The END could be seen as a push from the European level to get things going on a local level. A number of respondents have acknowledged that this directive has already been successful in creating interest for noise on a local level. This is primarily due to a number of obligations that this directive has introduced. Noise maps which are designed to highlight unfavourable noise situations for large infrastructures and agglomerations of 250.000 inhabitants or more, and subsequently action plans that detail the measures to be taken to amend these situations, have to be produced. These noise maps and action plans have to be communicated actively to the public which should also have a say in the measures proposed in the action plans. Cities should also produce their own noise limit value which is not legally binding on a national or European level.

3.4.2 The national agenda

On a national level, noise also seems to be defined as a local problem. Some respondents have criticized authorities on a national level for its passiveness in spite of the fact that the national level seems to be better equipped to deal with noise than the local level. The latter often does not have the experts and resources needed to tackle noise effectively. Furthermore, a large number of existing national regulations such as the Dutch Noise Act from 1979, date back some decades. Although the basis of this act remains the same, over the years many changes have been made to adapt it to new situations. This means that at the (Dutch) national level noise is predominantly a problem of “maintenance”. The national level is occupied with keeping noise situations within the (compartmented) limits mentioned in national policy documents and legal regulations. This means that when compared to the European and local level relatively little seems to be happening at the national level. Again this passiveness seems to originate from the fact that the link between health problems and noise is not yet fully accepted and it is unclear what measures are effective in tackling the annoyance aspect of noise. 3.4.3 Local policy agenda

As has been mentioned above, at the European and national level, noise is perceived as a local problem, that should be treated at that level. The local level is perhaps the level that has traditionally been seen as the level that is best suited to handle noise. It is this level of government that has the most knowledge of specific noise situations within its own city limits. After all, noise normally only impacts a restricted area of about several hundred meters. This is in contrast to other environmental issues such as air pollution. For example, air pollution


produced in the Rhein-Ruhr area also affects other parts of Germany and even other European countries such as The Netherlands. This means that, in contrast to noise, the need for national and even international regulations is much more evident for air pollution than is the case for noise. The majority of respondents working for local authorities do not dismiss that the local level has a large role to play in dealing with environmental noise. Evidently, the influence that local authorities have on noise reduction at the source (especially moving sources such as cars and planes) is limited. Local authorities can however play a role in “protecting” it’s citizens from noise sources by reducing noise at the points of propagation and application. However, the respondents feel that local authorities are often not equipped well enough to do this effectively. National authorities often do have the necessary expertise but (apart from producing the noise maps and action plans for large infrastructures), in the context of the END, primarily function as collectors of the various local data sets. The national authorities subsequently only report this data to the European Commission by the national authorities. The “local” respondents would like to see more involvement and assistance from the national authorities with tackling local noise problems and complying with the obligations stated in the END. This would also help to integrate the noise aspect into other “local obligations” such as providing the public with mobility and sufficient housing. At first glance these might seem to clash with providing the public with a good noise situation.

3.4.4 Noise maps and action plans, a missed opportunity?

The END has obliged local authorities to consider noise more actively. After all, the noise maps and action plans have to be communicated actively to the public. Although the official deadline for the noise maps was the 30th of June 2007, many cities have not published their action plans yet due to various reasons. Therefore it is still too early too conclude Europe-wide what the results will be. Although some respondents expressed high hopes for the interest in the noise maps, in the cities that have already completed their noise maps and action plans, the public interest has been somewhat low. Many respondents perceive The Netherlands as a front runner within the EU when it comes to tackling noise. This might mean that the public in The Netherlands already knows more than average about noise, and that the noise maps do not present them with a lot of new information. For members of the public in the other Member States the noise maps and action plans might be more informative and might lead to more reactions. However, the prospects don’t look that promising. This is very unfortunate because the noise maps and action plans seem to be a perfect opportunity to educate the people about noise and thus gain more interest. So far the promotion of these noise maps and action plans has been somewhat minimal. Some cities or agglomerations have only published advertisements in local newspapers or made announcements on their own websites. Schoonebeek: We have sent a letter to all municipalities in Noord-Holland. And we have placed advertisements in all local newspapers that informed people that the maps are there and how they can be viewed. That is what we have done. This method presumes that people who are affected by noise will easily find their way to this information. Now, it seems that people simply don’t know about the existence of the noise maps and action plans except for a small group that predominantly consists of experts. The majority of people that are affected by noise are not experts. 3.5 How the agenda’s seem to influence each other

Now that the different agenda’s have been discussed, it is useful to refer back to Figure 1 in paragraph 3.1 which depicts the way in which the media agenda, the public agenda and the policy agenda influence each other. As has been discussed, the fact that the public is not very concerned and aware about the health effects of noise but very much aware of the annoyance


aspect means that policy will also primarily focus on this aspect. The fact that annoyance is predominantly seen as a local problem, and that citizens seem to loose interest after their specific noise problem is solved, means that noise will primarily be seen as a problem that has to be solved by local authorities. This in turn means that these noise problems will primarily feature in the local media. In order to ensure priority for noise on a higher level of policy or priority for noise as a health problem, according to figure 1, real world indicators of the importance of an issue are needed. Indicators for the health aspect of noise could for example be more convincing scientific results.

3.6 The issue attention cycle

Another agenda setting concept that places the public agenda at the centre of attention is the issue attention cycle. This is an established theory that was postulated by Downs [23] in 1972. According to this theory the process of agenda setting consists of the five following stages: (1) The pre-problem stage

- This prevails when some highly social condition exists but has not yet captured much public attention, even though some experts or interest groups may already be alarmed by it. Usually objective conditions regarding the problem are far worse during the preproblem stage than they are by the time the public becomes interested in it.

(2) The stage of alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm - As a result of some dramatic series of events or for other reasons, the public suddenly

becomes aware of and alarmed about the evils of a particular problem. This alarmed discovery is in-variably accompanied by euphoric enthusiasm about society’s ability to “solve this problem” or “do something effective” within a relatively short time.

(3) The stage of realising the cost of significant progress - The third stage consists of a gradually spreading realization that the cost of "solving"

the problem is very high indeed. Really doing so would not only take a great deal of money but would also require major sacrifices by large groups in the population.

(4) The stage of gradual decline of public interest - As more and more people realize how difficult, and how costly to themselves, a

solution to the problem would be, three reactions set in. Some people just get discouraged. Others feel positively threatened by thinking about the problem; so they suppress such thoughts. Still others become bored by the issue. Most people experience some combination of these feelings.

(5) The post-problem stage - In the final stage, an issue that has been replaced at the centre of public concern

moves into a prolonged limbo - a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.

The issue attention cycle describes in detail the stages an issue can find itself in, going from rather low interest to an increase in interest and eventually again to a decline in interest. One of the steps in this cycle is a sudden awareness among the public that something needs to be done. This is often triggered by a chain of dramatic events. For example, such a dramatic event in the case of nuclear energy was the accident at Chernobyl. For noise, it is hard to imagine what such a dramatic event could be. It certainly has not yet occurred in the past. As has been discussed, the public is at the moment not very aware of the health effects of noise, in contrast to the annoyance aspect of noise. With annoyance, it is quite clear to the affected individual that something needs to be done. This means that annoyance is primarily defined as an individual problem. Defining noise as a public problem is often done in terms of health effects instead of annoyance. In terms of health aspects noise still remains in the preproblem stage while in terms of annoyance it has at least progressed to the fourth stage. On the individual level people are getting discouraged (as described in the fourth stage) because they feel not much is done to improve their situation. As mentioned earlier, this does not necessarily mean that the authorities are not trying anything; this often means that the authorities only have


measures available (or are only willing to take measures) that to some extent reduce the total sound level. A small reduction of the sound level might not have a big impact on noise annoyance. On the public level people are not yet convinced that noise is a problem, primarily because of a lack of acceptance and belief in the suggested health effects. Issues such as climate change (triggering dramatic images such as for examples floods) and air pollution (with generally accepted health effects) are seen as problems that concern the public as a whole. This has helped these issues to enter the issue attention cycle and become public problems. It seems that a public problem gets more attention than an individual problem such as noise.

3.6.1 Policy and the issue attention cycle

Although the issue attention cycle seems to be postulated to primarily describe the public agenda, after all it focuses on the concepts of public attention and public awareness, it seems to also be applicable to the different policy agenda’s. When assessing measures against noise, it is not always easy to determine if individual annoyance or public health was the most important factor in the decision process. After all, one can assume that policy makers and politicians are more often than the public in contact with noise experts that might stress the health aspect of noise. However, due to the lack of acceptance of the link between noise and health problems, it is likely that the annoyance aspect is the most important factor in the majority of policy decisions, especially on the local level which deals more directly with individual citizens than the national and European level. What is certain is that noise as a whole has progressed to various degrees on the issue attention cycle depending on the level of policy. What is certain is that noise as a whole has progressed to various degrees on the issue attention cycle depending on the level of policy. Noise on a local level of policy has at least advanced to stage three of the cycle, the realisation that major sacrifices are necessary which local policy is not always willing to make (see paragraph 2.1.4). The national situation varies considerably between the different Member States of the EU. For example, in the majority of the new Member States noise has not yet really been an issue. Where it has been, national policy has predominantly tried to solve noise as a technical problem with technical solutions such as silent vehicles, silent tyres, sound barriers, and so on. As mentioned earlier, the basis of national regulations has not changed much over the last few decades. It seems that, driven by the increasing number of complaints from citizens, national policy set out some decades ago to solve these, but realised that with the technical solutions available it was only moderately successful. This resulted in a decline of interest (and partly passing the problem on to local policy) and finally as described in the last stage of the issue attention cycle: a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest. This recurrences most often happen when the construction or expansion of infrastructure of national importance might lead to a worsening of the noise situation. On the European level noise currently seems to be in stage 2 of the issue attention cycle: the stage of alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm. There is enthusiasm about solving the noise problems through noise maps and action plans. It would be helpful if the European level could stay in this stage for a while longer. Disappointing results will probably lead to the European level progressing further down the cycle and eventually lead to lesser interest on the European level. To avoid this from happening, the current momentum (primarily on the local level) created by the END must be maintained and where possible increased. Regulations are needed that are (more) practical for local policy. Also needed is a more active national level that assists the local level with expertise where needed.

4 Suggestions

Now that the unique characteristics of noise, the problems that accompany it, and the relations between the different actors and levels of policy have been discussed, suggestions to raise the profile of noise can be formulated. What we would like to identify as crucial is to increase the awareness of the interconnectedness of agenda’s and issues. For noise to get higher on the


agenda, it must be connected to other issues. This requires what could be called a ‘paradigm shift’ from noise as a unique ‘stand alone issue’, towards noise as part of a cluster of environment and health related problems. We are confident that such a strategy is needed to ensure the position of noise (like other comparable low profile environmental problems) on the agenda and thereby address the concerns raised by the WGN as mentioned at the beginning of this report. . In the first section of this final chapter we point out what such paradigm shift would comprise of. In the second section we identify two clues (current measures and END) that could already serve as springboards for establishing the connections identified. Before going further into the details of how to establish such a paradigm shift, we summarize the conclusions so far.

• The respondents mentioned two main factors for a low priority for noise: a lack of willingness to tackle noise, and doubt on the effectiveness of available measures.

• The lack of willingness to tackle noise is predominantly caused by the “invisible nature” of noise itself, the “subjective nature” of noise annoyance, and the lack of acceptance of the “objective” link between noise and health problems.

• Doubt on the effectiveness of measures against noise (annoyance) is primarily caused by a lack of an integral set of accepted measures against noise, lack of an accepted unit to express noise annoyance in, and the lack of a (legal) limit value for noise.

• The public defines noise primarily as a individual problem of annoyance. Noise as a public problem of health is less accepted. Issues that are successful on the policy agenda such as climate change and air pollution are primarily seen as public problems.

• Noise is primarily defined as a local responsibility. However, the local level does not always possess the required expertise to tackle noise successfully.

• The European Environmental Noise Directive (END) has been important in raising the momentum for noise by creating the obligation to produce noise maps and action plans for large agglomerations and infrastructures. In general the national level does not feel very much obliged to perform a large role in complying with the END, leaving the majority of the responsibilities with the local level.

• In contrast to most other European environmental directives, the END does not contain a limit value. Furthermore, the obligatory public discussions about the noise maps and action plans have so far not led to much interest.

• The issue attention cycle describes the stages an issue goes through from low interest to an increase in interest and eventually back to lower interest. Noise has to various degrees progressed through this cycle depending on the level of policy considered. At the national level noise seems to have progressed to stage four: a decline of interest after the realisation (in stage three) that solving the problem is quite difficult. Noise at a local level seems to be at stage three. Noise at the European level is at stage two: the stage of alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm.

4.1 Making connections

Overall it can be concluded that although noise has a relatively low position on the agenda, related issues like health and air pollution have a higher position on the agenda. Therefore we suggest that a profitable strategy might be to work towards the connection of noise and health, and noise and other environmental issues such as air pollution. In addition, connections between the different types of agenda’s (media, public and policy) could be improved or established as well as strengthening the connections between the different levels of policy (local, national and European). In the ideal situation, once the connections mentioned in this section have been established, a three-dimensional way of thinking about noise is established. The first dimension comprises of


the different stakeholders in the field of noise such as research institutes, environmental NGO’s, agencies in acoustics, and organisations such as the Working Group Noise of Eurocities. The second dimension is that of the other environmental issues (possibly comprising some stakeholders that are also present in the first dimension). The third dimension consists of the various levels of policy. We are confident that such three-dimensional way of thinking might lead to a paradigm shift from the current situation of, noise as a separate, stand alone issue, towards environmental concerns like “quality of life” and “sustainable transport”.

4.1.1 Connection between noise annoyance and health

As discussed earlier, noise annoyance has been more extensively studied than the health effects of noise. The results of research into the health effects of noise are not yet generally accepted by policy as well as the public. On the one hand, there is a lack of apparent consensus among scientists about the magnitude of the health effects. On the other hand the lack of visibility of noise makes it hard to imagine that noise can cause such adverse health effects. For this reason scientific reports making claims such as: “thousands of people die per year because of environmental noise”, might not make that much of an impact. Such a claim might even backfire. It will only become effective in combination with an increased general acceptance of the health effects of noise. Gaining this acceptance is likely to be a long process consisting of the conduction of more scientific research among others. New research should not only focus on the health effects. More research that, at the same time, investigates the effects of noise on both noise annoyance as well as health could be useful. Noise annoyance might even be a factor in the health effects attributed to noise Furthermore, the annoyance aspect of noise is much more accepted. Policy makers can very well imagine that several thousands of people per year are annoyed by noise. What policy makers and the public can also imagine is that there is a link between annoyance and health problems when considering less than life-threatening diseases. It is for example easy to imagine that annoyance leads to stress and stress subsequently leads to health problems. Surprisingly, there is not much research available that makes the connection between annoyance and health. Expert groups such as the Working Group Noise of Eurocities should actively get in touch with scientists to express the need for research on this connection.

4.1.2 Connection between noise and other environmental issues

Policy windows need to be created; they are not ‘out there waiting to be found’. Also, policy windows are essential to get issues on the agenda. Therefore, identifying possibilities for open policy windows is a worthwhile strategy. This means that when a decision or a report on noise is due, it is important that stakeholders in the field are ready to at least state their opinion. When done effectively this could (temporarily) lead to an increased priority for an issue. Upcoming opportunities to create a policy window for noise are the public discussions on the noise maps and action plans (where these have not already taken place), the upcoming evaluation of the END, and the upcoming WHO-report on the link between noise and health problems. Furthermore, policy windows for noise can also be created when reports are being released, or during the decision making process on other environmental issues. As discussed earlier, it is not unlikely that people that are affected by noise are also affected by other environmental issues such as air pollution. And it is possible that health effects and annoyance caused by noise will be aggravated by air pollution and vice versa. Measures that have a positive effect on air pollution might also have a positive effect on the noise situation (for example traffic calming and the introduction of electric vehicles). Try to forge coalitions with these other issues, especially with those that already have a high position on the policy agenda. This can be achieved by getting in touch and extending networks with experts on these issues. An interesting and potentially useful connection to be actively considered by Eurocities is to connect with experts on ‘quality of life’ issues.


Ideally in such case noise would benefit and get equal attention in such a coalition. The approach of assessing environmental problems in a combined fashion is often termed “quality of life”. A drawback is that quality of life research, especially into the position of noise in this concept, is still in its early stages. This makes it important to make sure that noise will not become the least important part of the sum of quality of life. Wherever the “quality of life combination” is not possible or not yet accepted, looser connections with other topics should be sought. For example, when a decision is to be made by policy on measures against air pollution, the impact of the different policy options on the level of noise can be made clear to them. This might result in a favourable decision for noise as well as more acceptance for the “quality of life” concept. After all, a decision can be made that helps to improve the situation of two environmental problems at once.

4.1.3 Connection with the media

As can be seen in Figure 1, the media agenda, the public agenda and policy agenda influence each other. To present things a simplified manner: the media influences what the people talk about, the public raises alarm about an issue which prompts policy to place it on the agenda which in turn gets media attention. One way to raise public interest could be to use the media. Too often experts and scientists communicate their results only to their colleagues, perhaps because of the idea that the media will not be interested anyway or will not correctly represent their findings. However, the debate about air pollution in The Netherlands really got going after publication of a map of the poor air quality situation in The Netherlands and Flanders. It can be argued that this is a dramatic event such as needed in the second stage of the issue attention cycle which for noise is hard to imagine, but the fact remains that the media was used effectively to gain attention. Noise experts could use the media to get more attention for the noise maps and action plans (which would probably be easier if the noise maps and action plans show that the situation in a certain area is unacceptable). Some respondents stated that the media might not be interested in noise because the priority for noise is not that high. This might be true for mass media such as television and national newspapers. If getting attention in the media proves difficult, it could be a good idea to try to publish an article in more specialist or even local media. The local media might in fact be quite interested in local noise situations.

4.1.4 Connection between the public and policy

Surveys have suggested that noise annoyance is often in the top three of public concerns related to the personal environment. However, in the agglomerations where the public discussions on the action plans have already taken place, turnout was negligible. These two facts seem to contradict each other. Obviously there is a loose connection between the public and policy. The majority of respondents have stated that this is due to the public simply not being aware of the existence of the action plans. It seems that advertising the action plans in a local newspaper and on the website of the local authority is not enough. A more extensive communication is needed, for example by sending the citizens a letter about the noise maps by mail. The noise maps provide an excellent opportunity to create an extensive two-way communication between the public and policy, provided that the public can have “real” influence on the process.

4.1.5 Connection between the different levels of policy

The END has established a connection between the European agenda and the local agenda. According to the majority of respondents working for local authorities, the national level which would be a logical intermediate between these two largely remains passive. It is important to get national policy more involved. The national level should not take over the work of the local level which has unfortunately be done in the United Kingdom where central government is


producing all the noise maps and action plans. The local level is best suited to assess the local situation. The “national activities” could comprise of providing expertise for the production of the noise maps and action plans, and of assistance in communicating these successfully to the public. It should be made clear to the national level that upholding existing regulations have not been very successful in reducing the total level of noise as well as noise annoyance.

4.2 Current measures

Establishing a paradigm shift is essentially a long term process. However, there is a good starting position. Existing noise measures prove to be more or less successful every day. And the END is already a driving force behind noise abatement in the European Union. That is to say that these two practices can be used as a springboard to broaden up and establish connections while at the same time improving noise abatement.

4.2.1 Visibility of measures

An important hurdle for current measures is visibility. As discussed earlier, a factor in noise annoyance is the feeling of helplessness. Measures need to be visible in order to show people that something is done to improve their situation. According to the majority of the respondents, measures to reduce noise at the source have not been very successful in reducing noise annoyance because these measures are to a certain extend “invisible”. A good example are silent tyres. Firstly, according to the majority of the respondents, the public is generally unaware of the existence of products such as silent tyres, possibly because these products are not widely available or advertised. The public has to explicitly ask for silent tyres in order to obtain them. Secondly, people are not aware that a vehicle passing by has silent tyres fitted to it. This will therefore not reduce the annoyance caused by yet another vehicle passing by and producing noise. Measures against the propagation of noise such as sound barriers are much more visible. However, the problem with sound barriers is that it often causes other forms of annoyance, for example because of a decline in visual amenity. On top of that, measures against the propagation of noise are often quite expensive. Measures aimed at reducing noise at the application point such as insulation of homes, are mainly visible during the process of installation. Furthermore, it directly improves a personal noise situation, probably making it the public’s preferred type of measure. Surprisingly not much research has been done into the different effects of measures at the source, propagation, or point of application on the level of noise annoyance. This type of research would be most welcome. However, an example of a seemingly effective measure that focuses on the point of application is the noise classification system for houses that was introduced in the Nordic countries. Due to this system, people can make a conscious decision for a home that suits their acoustical needs. Even though the classification system is not yet compulsory in the countries that have introduced them, it has encouraged constructors to take the noise situation into account. A good noise classification is good publicity for the building company. Similar schemes can be introduced for noise sources such as cars and airplanes. An important factor in the noise classification for houses could be the access to a quiet side which can for example be at the back of the house. This is also a measure that focuses on the application point of noise. A quiet side manages to provide the public with a place of relatively low sound level and makes the noise sources “invisible”.

4.2.2 Opportunities within the END

Although the END has created some momentum for noise, it could be clearer on certain issues such as the distribution of tasks between the different levels of policy. It seems, as we have


seen earlier, that the definition of a more active role of the national level (without taking away too many responsibilities of the local level) could be helpful. Something that could further increase the activeness of national policy is the implementation of a European limit value for noise. For reasons mentioned earlier the current version of the END does not contain such a value. In spite of the acknowledgement by the majority of the respondents that limit values helped to create political interest in topics such as air pollution, a limit value for noise was not generally supported because of the risk that, in order to avoid making it impossible for the newer Member States to comply to this limit, it would not be very ambitious. Nevertheless, the limit values for air pollution are also not as strict as everyone would have liked. But these values have at least created interest with policy, the media and the public. Furthermore, they have created a legal framework that is easy to understand for everyone involved and have also provided environmental NGO’s with an effective campaigning tool; their case will be stronger if a situation exceeds an official limit value. A limit value for noise would also mean that local and national authorities would have to identify and amend adverse noise situations. Furthermore, it is likely that the media will report on a limit value, possibly also creating more public interest (which, after the adoption of the END, has scarcely happened). However, if for some a limit value for noise remains unacceptable for the abovementioned reason, a system of targets could be considered. This would essentially mean a gradual introduction of a more ambitious limit value. The first target could be easily met by all Member States. Complying with later targets would require some effort but would give each Member State time to take the necessary measures to comply.


5 References

[1] Wet van 16 februari 1979, houdende regels inzake het voorkomen of beperken van geluidhinder

[2] Council Directive 70/157/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles

[3] The Green Paper on Future Noise Policy (COM(96) 540), European Commission, Brussels 1996

[4] 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

[5] sing H., Babisch W., Kruppa B., (1999). Noise-induced endocrine effects and cardiovascular risk. Noise and Health. 1999; 1 (4): 37-48

[6] Rosenlund M., Berglind N., Pershagen G., Jarup L., Bluhm G., (2001). Increased prevalence of hypertension in a population exposed to aircraft noise. Occup Environ Med 2001;58:769-773

[7] Persson Waye K., (2004). Effects of low frequency noise on sleep. Noise and Health. 2004 Apr-Jun; 6 (23): 87-91

[8] Persson Waye K. , Bengtsson J., Kjellberg A., Benton S., (2004). Low frequency noise “pollution” interferes with performance. Noise and Health 2001; 4 (13): 33-49

[9] Stansfeld S.A., Berglund B., Clark C., Lopez-Barrio I., Fischer P., Öhrstrom F., Haines M.M., Head J., Hygge S., Van Kamp I., Berry B.F., (2005). Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet 2005; 365: 1942-49 [10] Jarup L., Dudley ML., Babisch W., (2005), Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA): Study Design and Noise Exposure Assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113 Number 11 November 2005

[11] Berglund B., Lindvall T., Schwela D.H., (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health Organisation 1999

[12] Babisch W., (2000). Traffic Noise and Cardiovascular Disease: Epidemiological Review and Synthesis. Noise and Health 2000: 8, 9-32

[13] Bonnefoy et al. (2007). Night Noise Guidelines (NNGL) for Europe. Final implementation report. World Health Organization 2007

[14] Climate Change 2007. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [15] Guski R., Felscher-Suhr U., Schuemer R., (1999). The Concept of Noise Anoyance: How

International Experts see it. Journal of Sound and Vibration (1999) 223(4), 513-527 [16] Fields J.M., (1993). Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in

residential areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93 (5), May 1993 [17] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a

framework for the Community action in the field of water policy [18] Kingdon J.W., (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Longman Higher

Education [19] Dearing J.W., Rogers E.M., (1996). Agenda setting. (London: Sage) [20] McQuail, D., & Windahl S. (1993). Communication models for the study of mass

communication. London / New York: Longman. [21] Eurobarometer 295 Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment, European

Commission March 2008 [22] Lambert J., Philipps-Bertin C., Perception and attitudes to transportation noise in France:

a national survey. ICBEN 2008, The 9th Congress of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise, Mashantucket (USA), July 21 – 25, 2008.

[23] Downs A. (1972). Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. The Public Interest Volume 28 (Summer 1972), pp 38-50


microsoft word - towards soud agenda web viewplease do refer properly; with title, author and...

Documents