Low noise pavements (LNPs) are a market driven trend to mitigate the high road traffic noise exposure levels. Their improvement towards acoustic efficiency and durability over time is a challenge since these factors can conflict with road primary functions, such as safety. LNPs are not always the most cost-effective solution in health effects prevention. Whilst Green Public Procurement (GPP) highlighted the importance of reducing rolling noise emissions by introducing new regulations for new-layed LNPs, the fixed minimum requirements are not exhaustive. Generally, limits are set following the Close ProXimity method, which is only source oriented. This method does not consider real traffic flows and it is not aimed at evaluating citizens' disturbance. This work presents strategy tools that could assist policymakers in choosing LNPs, when truly effective, over other mitigations. The approach includes a variety of indicators that would allow for comparing different facets of noise assessment. The proposed methodology does not require additional efforts from stakeholders because the measurements required for the estimation of the indicators must already be carried out for both verification of legal limits and GPP. The strategy tools are a decisional tree to support the evaluation of the applicability of a LNP before its approval, and an evaluation flowchart applicable after its laying to evaluate its efficiency. Finally, a first LNP labeling approach, based on the same set of indicators, is proposed. As a case study, these tools are applied to measurements performed before and after the laying of twelve LNPs part of the LIFE NEREiDE project.

Decision trees and labeling of low noise pavements as support for noise action plans

Elena Ascari
Primo
;
Luca Fredianelli
;
Federica Rampino;Gaetano Licitra
2023

Abstract

Low noise pavements (LNPs) are a market driven trend to mitigate the high road traffic noise exposure levels. Their improvement towards acoustic efficiency and durability over time is a challenge since these factors can conflict with road primary functions, such as safety. LNPs are not always the most cost-effective solution in health effects prevention. Whilst Green Public Procurement (GPP) highlighted the importance of reducing rolling noise emissions by introducing new regulations for new-layed LNPs, the fixed minimum requirements are not exhaustive. Generally, limits are set following the Close ProXimity method, which is only source oriented. This method does not consider real traffic flows and it is not aimed at evaluating citizens' disturbance. This work presents strategy tools that could assist policymakers in choosing LNPs, when truly effective, over other mitigations. The approach includes a variety of indicators that would allow for comparing different facets of noise assessment. The proposed methodology does not require additional efforts from stakeholders because the measurements required for the estimation of the indicators must already be carried out for both verification of legal limits and GPP. The strategy tools are a decisional tree to support the evaluation of the applicability of a LNP before its approval, and an evaluation flowchart applicable after its laying to evaluate its efficiency. Finally, a first LNP labeling approach, based on the same set of indicators, is proposed. As a case study, these tools are applied to measurements performed before and after the laying of twelve LNPs part of the LIFE NEREiDE project.
2023
Istituto per i Processi Chimico-Fisici - IPCF - Sede Secondaria Pisa
Road traffic noise
Road surface labeling
Decision tree
Environmental noise policy
Noise mitigation
Action plan
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0269749123014896-main_decisiontree.pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.85 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.85 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/463481
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 19
social impact