Prioritizing Process in Action Plans: a Review of Approaches

Purpose of the Review The paper is focused on the prioritization process in noise action plans. The available indicators (noise scores) and methodologies for defining hotspots are analysed and discussed. Indicators and methodologies are classified in order to highlight their suitability for different specific aims. Recent Findings The revised annex II of the European Directive 2002/49/EC fixed population exposure and modelling issues leading to different approaches in the prioritization process. Unfortunately, the indicators for rating areas are not commonly defined and a validated procedure is still not recognized at EU level. Furthermore, the importance of considering annoyance in the mitigation process arose, and this paper summarizes the pros and cons of their use for the purpose of prioritization process. A recent attempt to combine annoyance evaluations with limits compliance in noise score for the priority definition is presented. Summary The paper classifies various priority indicators basing on their inclusion of compliance limits compliance, annoyance or both. Then, the methods for merging index values at dwelling for hotspot identification are classified according to their approaches, particularly between those using geometrical approaches, or needing reference administrative areas. The paper highlights the suitability of each method to specific sources, contexts and aims of the prioritization process. Merging methods resulted necessary whenever the epidemiological study is not the aim of the calculation; indeed, the mitigation measures could be planned for delimited and prioritized areas and not directly derived from building noise scores.