Assessment of environmental noise problems in Cluj-Napoca for an appropriate noise management plan.

Curseu, Daniela ; Popa, Monica ; Sirbu, Dana 等

1. INTRODUCTION

Environmental noise is one of the main local environmental problems in Europe and the source of an increasing number of complaints from the public. EU Green Paper Future Noise Policy states that around 20 % of the EU's population suffers from noise levels that health experts consider to be unacceptable, where most people become annoyed, where sleep is disturbed and where adverse health effects are to be feared. (European Comission Directorate, 1996). Many field studies measured the outdoor noise environment in several countries, but subjective evaluations remain sporadic (Rainbault and Dubois, 2005).

During the last decade, in Cluj-Napoca city the auto park substantially increased and the noise pollution problem is of high actuality. The aim of the present study was the evaluations of noise levels and public knowledge regarding the problems resulted from noise pollution, in the view of assessment the needs for further action plans to prevent and reduce noise exposure of the general population from Cluj-Napoca.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

To identify the potentially risky areas, different locations inside of Cluj-Napoca City were selected in areas with different functions. The determination of the noise level was performed daily (except Sunday), during the daytime (14h00), as well as during night time (23h00), using short time measurements (30 minute for each sampling). The measure points were established in intersections, and at the half of distances between bus stations/intersections. During the months of May and June 2008, the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) were measured on A weight scale of decibels dB(A), using the CEL-269 Digital Integrating Impulse Sound Level Meter. The noise indicators used were [L.sub.day] (noise indicator associated with general disconfort) and [L.sub.night] (noise indicator associated with sleep disorders during nights).

A questionnaire survey has been conducted to understand existing public opinions about noise pollution, the problems they experience, and what they feel should be done.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table no. 1 shows the equivalent levels in all determination points and at different oral intervals. The results of the traffic noise measurements revealed that the average Leq in all locations was 70.04 [+ or -] 4.25 dBA during the daytime and 65.14 [+ or -] 4.25 dBA during nighttime, and 72.7% of the measured points exceeded 65 dB(A), the maximum limit imposed by standard regulations (STAS 10009 - 88) or is very close to this. On the other hand, the measurements showed only two locations with equivalent sound levels at or below 50 dB(A), the limit for residential areas during daytime according to the environmental legislation. The noisiest locations were areas of industrial activities or near major roads. The specific feature of our town is that it still has not a ring road, the entire heavy truck traffic being conducted through some internal roads. The traffic breaking up determined by the traffic lights and other signs (zebra crossings, railway crossings etc.) also contributes to the increase of the noise pollution. The lowest values of the noise levels were usually found during the night. Howeve, in locations exposed to heavy and steady traffic as well as in areas with industrial activity, the nocturnal noise levels remained higher than allowable limit. These suggest that the activity in the city don't cease at 23hrs. The results are in accordance with other recent studies developed in Cluj-Napoca (Solea et. al., 2008).

There is not much differences between the noise levels in the weekdays and weekend (Saturday).

In order to gain better understanding of people's feelings about noise pollution, a total of 200 people--100 drivers and 100 students--were intervieved. Even the drivers who are mostly responsible for noise pollution, detect is as a problem. Althought 76% of drivers felt that noise pollution is a big problem, 45% of them affirmed they honk in traffic jams. The students are more vulnerable to disturbance. 86% of them considered noise pollution a big problem; only 1% said it is not a problem (Fig.1). Significantly, among the students interviewed, almost all--97% of both boys and girls--said that their studying is disturbed by honking. The respondents were fairly knowledgeable about the problems that can result from noise pollution. They were asked to list as many problems as they are aware of, without prompting from the interviewers. The respondents themselves personally suffered from many problems caused by noise pollution. The problems they most commonly mentioned as experiencing are shown in Fig. 2. The results indicate that a lot of people attribute increased headache (70%), sleep disturbances (65%) and stress (54%) to the excessive noise levels. Participants also felt that noise pollution is dangerous to heart patients (42%) that noise is associated with problems hearing (32%) and difficulty concentrating (46%). When asked to mention the three main causes of noise pollution, students and drivers gave almost identical responses. The most common cause mentioned was intense traffic streets (from engines, from honking and car alarm systems), industrial platforms, miking for processions, advertising, and election campaigns, and the lack of noise emission control and law application.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE MANAGEMENT

An efficient noise management has to imply implementation of the following measures:

a) Enforce and improve existing laws on noise pollution: the adoption of noise national standards based on European and international standards and directory lines and also on technological, social, economic and political factors. The European Directive 2002/49/EC adopted by the national aquis through Government Decision HG 321/14.04.2005 solicits strategic mapping of noise in communities with more than 250,000. At the present time, Bucharest only has a first issue of a noise map. Cluj-Napoca city is still working on their maps (Mircea et al., 2008).

b) Urban measures: it is appreciated that applying urban measures (finding solutions for traffic deviation--especially heavy traffic--in crowded areas, rehabilitation of the degraded streets lining, introducing speed limits, a better organizing and traffic leading in order to ensure a fluent traffic and to avoid frequent stops, forbidding the very pollutant vehicles etc.), can diminish the noise level with 20 dB(A) (Hertig, 1999).

c) Population education and informing: since noise often results from the citizen's behavior (honk, for example), information and education campaigns will produce good results in the long term. These should be aimed at all types of people, and should correspond to the general aims of the action plans.

In many cases, laws already exist, but people are unaware of them, and the police do not enforce them. By educating the public about existing laws, enacting strong penalties, and informing the police of their responsibility to enforce them, the noise pollution in Cluj-Napoca city could be improved.

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that noise pollution is a serious and neglected issue in Cluj-Napoca. The residents feel that noise pollution is dangerous for their health status and comfort and require development and implementation of measures able to increase the quality and efficiency of the noise management in order to reduce noise pollution in Cluj-Napoca.

This critical situation can be attributed of large weight vehicles which cross Cluj-Napoca due to the lack of some overland routs in this area, as well as because the motor vehicle ownership in has increased substantially over the last decade. The good news for the inhabitants of Cluj-Napoca city is that for the future is estimated improvement of the situation, taking in consideration the construction of the city's ring road as well as finalization of the Transilvania auto-road. We intend to repeat the noise assessment and to comparatively analyze the perception of urban noise after this heavy traffic will be eliminated, when the present construction of the city's ring road will be finished.

6. REFERENCES

Hertig, J.A. (1999). Etudes dlmpact sur Penvironment. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romanndes. ISBN 2-88074-407-5, Lausanne

Mircea, M.; Kovacs, I.; Stoian, I.; Marichescu, A. & Tepes-Bobescu, A. (2008). Strategic mapping of the ambient noise produced by road traffic, accordingly to european regulations. IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics, 2008. AQTR 2008. Volume 3,Issue, pp. 321 - 326, ISBN 978-1-4244-2576-1, 22-25 May 2008, Cluj-Napoca.

Rainbault, M. & Dubois, D. (2005). Urban soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cities, Vol. 22, No. 5, (October 2005) p. 339-350, ISSN: 0264-2751.

Solea, G.; Arghir, M.; Borza D. & Runcan M. (2008). Study of the Surface Traffic inside a Cluj-Napoca Urban Agglomeration, Pproceedings of 7th European conference on noise control (EURONOISE), pp. 1767-1772, ISBN 978-2-9521105-7-0, Paris, Palais des Congres, June 29th-July 4th, 2008, France.

*** (1996)http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/com_96_5 40.pdf--The European Commission Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection Green Paper on "Future Noise Policy", Brussels, 04. 11. 1996 COM (96) 540 fina. Accesed on: 2008-02-03

Tab. 1. The results of the determination of the noise level (dB)

Location [L.sub.day] [L.sub.night]

 average (min.-max) average (min.-max)

Marasti Plaza 76.08 (63.2-78.5) 70.14 (58.2-74.05)
(traffic circle)

21 Decembrie 1989 74.67 (60.2-84.4) 70.07 (54.2-73.4)
Avenue

Crossing point 77.8 (60.2-91.4) 71.1 (58.4-89.4)
Observator st.
with Calea
Turzii (traffic
circle)

Pata st. * 72.4 (58.2-84.6) 66.14 (55.2-70.6)

Fabricii st. 75.9 (60.2-79.5) 70.6 (57.5-75.06)

Manastur District-- 77.1 (59.2-90.7) 70.4 (55.2-74.9)
traffic circle

Mihai Viteazu Plaza 71.5 (60.01-85.3) 66.9 (56.1-75.1)

Pasteur st. * 69.05 (65.2-74.1) 60.4 (41.5-65.05)

Republicii st. * 66.6 (40.2-74.7) 57.13 (40.2-52.5)

Ciresilor st. * 44.94 (38.02-56.6) 42.91 (36.1-54.3)

Central Park--Arany 43.6 (40.1-58.3) 41.1 (39.2-57.1)
Ianos st. *

* residential areas

Fig. 1. Public awareness to the noise
pollution and its effects

 students drivers

big 86 76
average 13 20
no problem 1 4

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 2. The effects of noise pollution

car accidents 10
memory difficulties 30
difficulty concentrating 46
ulcer 12
stress 54
heart problems 42
problems hearing 32
headache 70
insomnia 65

Note: Table made from bar graph.