Cities 31 (2013) 317–327

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Characterization of environmental noise based on noise measurements, noise

mapping and interviews: A case study at a university campus in Brazil
Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin ⇑, Margret Sibylle Engel, Paulo Eduardo Kirrian Fiedler, Fernando Bunn
Laboratory of Environmental and Industrial Acoustics and Acoustic Comfort, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this research was to characterize the environmental noise on the campus of the Polytech-
Received 9 April 2012 nic Center of the Federal University of Paraná, Brazil. This research was divided into two parts: (1) Objec-
Received in revised form 23 August 2012 tive – in situ measurements of the equivalent continuous sound pressure level LAeq followed by noise
Accepted 30 September 2012
mapping of the whole campus area, using B&K Predictor 7810 software; (2) Subjective – involving the
Available online 11 November 2012
preparation and application of a questionnaire to a sample of 389 people from the campus population
to gather information about their reactions to noise. The LAeq data were compared with the noise immis-
Keywords:
sion limits for outdoor environments in educational areas recommended by WHO – LAeq = 55 dB(A). The
Traffic noise
Noise pollution
results indicated that 89.65% of the 58 evaluated points exceeded the 55 dB(A) limit. Concentration dif-
Sound perception ficulties and irritation were the most cited effects in all educational sectors evaluated. Together, these
Environmental noise two effects were cited by 61% of the interviewed people in the Biological Science Sector, 81% in the Exact
University campus Science Sector, 69% in the Earth Science Sector and 74% in the Technological Sector. Further, there were
Noise mapping strong positive correlations between measured noise levels and reports of annoyance from noise levels
perceived by the interviewed campus population.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction and speaking difficulties, limitations in reading comprehension

Noise pollution today is one of the main forms of urban envi-
ronmental pollution and is responsible for negative impacts that
are harmful to the environment and the quality of life of the pop-
ulation (WHO, 2003).
The increase in noise pollution is related, among other factors,
to urban population growth and the resulting increase in the
number of noise sources, such as civil construction activities
and increasing numbers of vehicles in circulation (Mohammadi,
2009). In noise perception surveys carried out by Zannin, Calixto,
Diniz, Ferreira, and Schuhli (2002), most of the interviewees sta-
ted that the types of noise that were the most irksome came
from vehicle traffic, civil construction, nightclubs, sirens and
fireworks.
In the learning context, noise affects the behavior and under-
standing of students, and very noisy places are unfavorable for
learning and make teaching exhaustive (Hagen, Huber, & Kahlert,
2002). High sound levels not only affect the verbal quality of com-
munication but also contribute to serious problems in the intellec-
tual development of students, such as impaired learning, writing
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +55 41 3361 3433.
E-mail addresses: paulo.zannin@pesquisador.cnpq.br, paulo.zannin@gmail.com
(P.H.T. Zannin).
and development of vocabulary (Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela,
1990).
Studies in several countries have broached the problem of
environmental noise in urban and or educational areas (Astolfi
& Pellerey, 2008; Calixto, Diniz, & Zannin, 2003; da Paz, Ferreira
& Zannin, 2005; da Paz & Zannin, 2010; Dockrell & Shield,
2004; Golmohammadi, Ghorbani, Mahjub, & Deneshmehr, 2010;
Goswami, 2011; Hétu, Truchon-Gagnon, & Bilodeau, 1990; Kennedy,
Hodgson, Edgett, Lamb, & Rempel, 2006; Otutu, 2011; Pheng,
Yean, Lye, Ismail, & Kassim, 2006; Thakur, 2006; Zannin &
Marcon, 2007; Zannin & Zwirtes, 2009). However, these studies
did not use noise mapping as a tool to diagnose the situation of
environmental noise. Noise mapping is an important tool for sup-
plying relevant information for global and local action plans
(Guedes, Bertoli, & Zannin, 2011; Klæboe, Engelien, & Steinnes,
2006; WG-AEN, 2006). This tool has been used to assess environ-
mental noise in Brazilian cities such as Rio de Janeiro Aracaju and
Curitiba (Guedes et al., 2011; Pinto & Mardones, 2009; Zannin &
Sant’Ana, 2011).
This paper describes the characterization of noise pollution on a
university campus by means of sound level measurements, noise
mapping and interviews. The largest concentration of teaching
staff of this university works in the area under study, thus justify-
ing the concern with their psychophysiological wellbeing with
regard to noise.

0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.09.008
318 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327

Table 1 and a subjective part, which consisted of assessing the sound per-
Distribution of the population of the Polytechnic Center by category. ception of the population that frequents the university campus.
Category Sectors
Biological Exact Earth Technology Total Objective part
sciences sciences sciences Noise measurements. Fifty-eight points on the campus were se-
Undergraduates 1247 2427 751 3769 8194 lected as indicated in Fig. 1. Acoustic descriptors such as A-
Postgraduates 1320 692 555 956 3563 weighted equivalent sound pressure levels (Leq) were used and
Teaching staff 235 210 90 223 758 were expressed in dB (Hansen, 2005; Schultz, 1972). The noise
Administrative 320 269 135 284 1008 measurements were compared with the limit recommended by
staff
WHO for educational areas – Leq = 55 dB(A) (Singal, 2005).
Total population 13,523 The measurements of the equivalent sound pressure levels were
taken according to the Brazilian NBR 10151 standard for evaluation
Materials and methods of urban noise (ABNT – NBR 10151, 2000; Calixto, Pulsides, & Zan-
nin, 2008; da Paz & Zannin, 2010). The Brazilian standard does not
Study area specify a minimum period of time for measurements, but recom-
mends that the measuring time should suffice to describe the
The study was carried out on the campus of the Polytechnic sound events under investigation. The following devices and soft-
Center of the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) in Curitiba. This ware programs were used for the noise measurements: B&K
campus covers an area of 617,128 m2 and has 103 buildings. In 2238, B&K 2250 and B&K 2260 sound level meters, B&K 4231
2009, the campus of the Polytechnic Center had a population of sound level calibrator, B&K 7815 Noise Explorer software and
13,523, comprising the teaching staff of the undergraduate and B&K 7810 Predictor software, version 8.1, for noise mapping (Brüel
postgraduate courses, the student body, and the administrative & Kjaer, 2005). The measurements were taken from Monday
staff of its four main sectors (Table 1), namely: Biological Sciences, through Friday. The noise measurements were taken between
Exact Sciences, Technology and Earth Sciences (PCU/PRA, 2009). 1:30 and 5:00 p.m.
Measurement time in each one of the 58 measurement points
inside the campus was of 3 min. In order to verify whether this
Methodology time was sufficient for the proposed evaluation of the noise inside
the campus, the guidance of Romeu et al. (2011) in the paper –
The characterization of environmental noise inside the campus Street categorization for the estimation of day levels using short-term
was subdivided into two distinct parts: an objective part, which in- measurements – was followed. In this publication, the authors
volved sound pressure level measurements and noise mapping; recommend that for 15 min-long measurements, a fluctuation of

Fig. 1. Map pinpointing the location of the 58 noise measurement points in the study area.
 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327 319

Table 2
Comparison of measured noise levels in some of the measurement sites inside the campus, measured during 3 or 15 min, or 1 h (T = measurement time).

Measurement site T = 3 min T = 15 min Difference T=1h Difference

Leq dB(A) Leq dB(A) T3–T15 min dB(A) Leq dB(A) T–T1 h dB(A)
01 64.9 63.8 1.1
03 65.4 63.2 2.2
04 65.4 67 1.6
07 60.4 61 0.6 61.8 1.4
11 61.5 63.7 2.2
17 57.6 57.5 0.1
18 52.7 51.6 1.1 51.9 0.8
21 56.7 56.2 0.5
23 57.3 55.7 1.6
24 56 55.7 0.3 55.4 0.6
26 53.3 52 1.3 51.1 2.2
27 59.6 60.6 1.0
29 58.6 59.5 0.9 58.5 0.1
35 56.7 57.3 0.6 57.8 1.1
40 57 58 1.0 57 0.0
42 66.5 67.6 1.1 67.3 0.8
51 59.7 61.2 1.5 60.6 0.9
53 67 68.2 1.2

Table 3
Comparison of measured noise levels and simulated noise levels.

Measured point Measured Leq dB(A) Simulated Leq dB(A) Difference between measured  simulated
01 64.9 65.6 0.7
03 65.4 67.0 1.6
07 60.4 62.1 1.7
10 57.9 56.6 +1.3
12 60.3 59.4 +0.9
27 59.6 59.8 0.2
30 58.4 56.6 +1.8
32 53.8 53.5 +0.3
34 56.5 59.1 2.6
35 56.7 60.3 3.6
37 61.5 64.9 3.4
38 60.2 59.8 +0.4
40 57.0 61.0 4.0
41 56.2 60.4 4.2
42 66.5 65.9 +0.6
51 59.7 59.6 +0.1
52 56.0 59.8 3.8
53 67.0 64.1 +2.9
57 70.7 72.4 1.7
58 74.4 76.7 2.3

+/ 2 dB in the measured levels is plainly acceptable. Thus, noise
levels were also measured in 18 randomly-selected points (out of
the 58 measurement sites) during 15 min, and, in addition, in 9
of those 18 measurement sites also for 1 h (data in Table 2). A
paired Student’s t-test was performed in order to compare the
noise levels measured in the 18 points for 3 and 15 min: levels
were not different (P = 0.522). Again, comparing levels measured
in the same 9 points for 3 min and 1 h, no difference was revealed
(Student’s t-test, P = 0.888). In both comparisons, data passed the
normality test of Shapiro Wilk. Thus, to save time and equipment,
and assure constant meteorological conditions during measure-
ments, 3-min measurement time was the procedure adopted here.
Other studies about noise mapping found in the literature adopted
measuring times of 1–15 min (Allen et al., 2009; Alves Filho, Lenzi,
& Zannin, 2004; Cho, Kim, & Manvell, 2007; Diniz & Zannin, 2004;
Doygun & Gurun, 2008; Pinto & Mardones, 2009; Randrianoelina &
Salomons, 2008; Ryan et al., 2009; Szeremeta & Zannin, 2009;
Zannin, Ferreira, & Szeremeta, 2006; Zannin & Sant’Ana, 2011).
There are also studies such as that of Guedes et al. (2011), who
state that a time of 30 s sufficed to describe the noise events that
required observation in their study.
Noise mapping. Measured noise levels were subjected to noise map-
ping (Fig. 4), involving the four educational sectors evaluated inside
the campus, as shown in Table 1. The noise mapping was performed
using version 8.1 of the B&K Predictor 7810 software (ISO 9613-1,
1993; ISO 9613-2, 1996) and the parameters employed in the calcu-
lations were: 5 m  5 m grids, and a grid height of 4 m. A grid height
of 4 m is recommended by the Environmental Noise Directive –
2002/49/EC (END, 2002). According to the Environmental Noise
Directive, when performing noise mapping, the following must be
observed: ‘‘in the case of computation for the purpose of strategic noise
mapping in relation to noise exposure in and near buildings, the assess-
ment points must be 4.0 ± 0.2 m (3.8–4.2 m) above the ground and at
the most exposed façade; for this purpose, the most exposed façade will
be the external wall facing onto and nearest to the specific noise source;
for other purposes other choices may be made’’.
The model is calibrated through the insertion of a receptor point
in the site where each noise measurement was performed. Mea-
sured and simulated levels must be compared for a same height;
in this specific case, 1.2 m. The model was calibrated using as ref-
erence the recommendations of the European Commission Work-
ing Group – Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN, 2006),
for which the expected uncertainty is 4.6 dB(A) (Licitra & Memoli,
2008), when measured and simulated values are compared. Table 3
compares the measured noise levels against those calculated by
the Predictor 8.1 software, indicating that the evaluated points sat-
isfied the established limits.
320
Fig. 2. Noise measurement guidelines of the Brazilian ABNT – NBR 10151 standard.
The vehicle flow (vehicles/h) was divided according to light
vehicle type (1033.3, passenger cars and motorcycles) and heavy
vehicle type (200, trucks and buses), those being average values.
The average speed considered was 40 km/h, the paving type was
considered good quality asphalt, and the height of the buildings
was 7 m. The Predictor software uses a period of 1 h to count the
vehicle flow. Therefore, we corrected the measured vehicle flow
simultaneously with the sound level measurements for a period
of 1 h. The criterion used for the creation of the noise maps was
the equivalent sound level, Leq.
Normative aspects. The noise measurements were taken according
to criteria established by the Brazilian ABNT (2000) standard,
which regulates ‘‘Noise assessment in populated areas to ensure the
comfort of the community’’. The ABNT – NBR 10151 standard estab-
lishes guidelines to be followed during measurements, as indicated
in Fig. 2.
Measurement sites
Fig. 3. Equivalent sound pressure level of the 58 points measured on the campus of the Polytechnic Center.
P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327
Subjective part
The subjective part of this research required the preparation of
a questionnaire about noise perception, which was applied to the
four main concentrations of people in the study area, i.e., the Bio-
logical Sciences, Exact Sciences, Earth Sciences and Technology sec-
tors. This required a survey of the population to be studied,
definition of the sampling error and calculation of the size of the
sample. The population was surveyed based on data supplied by
the campus administrative office and the Dean of students office
(PCU/PRA, 2009).
Before calculating the necessary sample size, the sampling error
was defined. In the present study, the tolerable sampling error was
set at 5%. Based on the universe of 13,523 people (Table 1) and on
the pre-established sampling error, the necessary size of the sam-
ple was determined to be 389 people (Barbetta, 2002). Sound per-
ception was studied using the intentional sampling technique. The
researcher intentionally selects groups of people whose opinions
WHO limit
Measured Leq dB (A)
 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327
Fig. 4. Noise mapping of the campus and the four educational sectors evaluated – Biological Sciences, Exact Sciences, Earth Sciences and Technology.
he wishes to hear (Barbetta, 2002). The questions in the question-
naire are aimed at obtaining demographic and behavioral data, and
information about sound perception on campus. After the ques-
tionnaires were filled out, the results were tabulated.
Confronting subjective with objective data
Spearman correlations have been fit between objective (noise
level measurements) and subjective (questions of the interview
about noise perception) data, in order to confront these two types
of data (Fig. 15). The frequency of specific diagnostic answers to
the subjective questions (see Figs. 12–14) posed in the question-
naires applied inside each of the four buildings have been corre-
lated to the noise levels measured in sites next to these buildings
or around them. Pie graphs with the questionnaire results have
been placed on the maps next to the buildings where the inter-
views were conducted. Noise levels measured next to the buildings
have also been indicated on the maps.
Results and discussion
Objective part
The results of the objective measurements were compared with
the limit recommended by WHO for urban educational areas, i.e.,
areas encompassing schools and universities (Singal, 2005):
Leq = 55 dB(A). The noise levels measurements (Fig. 3) indicated
that 52 (89.65%) of the 58 measured points exceeded the WHO lim-
it of Leq = 55 dB(A). The remaining 6 points (11.35%) lie within the
range of sound levels up to Leq = 55 dB(A).
321
Fig. 4 shows the noise mapping of the university campus, iden-
tifying the four educational sectors evaluated – Biological Sciences,
Exact Sciences, Earth Sciences and Technology.
Fig. 4 shows that the road that connects the two entrances to
the campus displays dominant noise levels above 70 dB(A), thus
being the main noise source inside the campus. Next to this road,
dominant noise levels are between 65 and 70 dB(A). The main road
of the campus allows for the circulation of light vehicles, utility
vehicles and buses, generating intense vehicle traffic. Many class-
rooms are located adjacent to this main road on the campus. An
analysis of the noise maps in Fig. 4 indicates that the classrooms
of the Technology Sector, Earth Sciences, Exact Sciences, are the
ones most impacted by the high sound pressure levels that reach
their façades, which exceed 70 dB(A). The lateral façades of the
Earth Sciences, Exact Sciences, Technology Sector buildings receive
noise levels of 60–65 dB(A) and of 65–70. These data indicate that
the classroom buildings shown in Fig. 4, which are located along or
in proximity to the main access road to the campus, are subjected
to sound pressure levels far exceeding the limit established by
WHO for educational areas, LAeq = 55 dB (Singal, 2005). On the
other hand, the Biological Sciences Sector is located far from the
main access road to the campus, thus not being affected by the
noise generated along this road. In this sector, dominant noise lev-
els measured around the building are between 55 and 60 dB(A).
Subjective part
Analysis of the questionnaires has shown that the population of
the Polytechnic Center campus comprises 49% women and 51%
men. This male predominance is explained by the fields of study
322 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327
Fig. 5. Responses to the question: ‘‘Are you annoyed by the noise generated on the
university campus?’’.
Fig. 6. Responses to the question: ‘‘What is the degree of intensity of noise
perceived on the university campus?’’.
Fig. 7. Responses to the question: ‘‘Have you perceived an increase in noise
pollution on campus?’’.
concentrated on this campus, most of which are areas of Engineer-
ing that have historically attracted predominantly men.
Most of the interviewees (90%) belong to the 16–27-year-old
age group. Among these, 66% are 16–21 years old, representing
undergraduate students, while 24% are 22–27 years old, corre-
Fig. 8. Responses to the question: ‘‘Which source of noise is the most irksome on
campus?’’.
Fig. 9. Responses to the question: ‘‘What noise-related physical or psychological
symptoms do you feel most frequently?’’.
sponding to postgraduate students. The remaining 10% of the sam-
ple are distributed homogeneously in the age range of 28–51 years
and correspond to administrative staff and faculty. To confirm this
information, one of the interview questions referred to the length
of time that the interviewee had been attending classes or working
in the study area: 97% of the interviewees answered between 1 and
7 years. Among them, 30% stated less than 1 year, 51% between 1
and 3 years and 16% between 4 and 7 years.
The interviewees were asked if they were bothered by the noise
generated on the campus. The responses obtained were that 52%
were not bothered while 47% were annoyed by the noise generated
in the study area (Fig. 5). The noise levels were characterized,
according to the interviewee’s sound perception, as tolerable
intensity (49%), intense (16%), low intensity (20%) and perceptible
(10%) (Fig. 6).
Upon being questioned about their perception of the increase in
the noise level in the study area, 39% stated they perceived some
increase, 60% stated they did not perceive an increase, and 1% ab-
stained from responding, as indicated in Fig. 7. The sources of noise
that caused the greatest annoyance on campus (Fig. 8), according
to the interviewees, were vehicle traffic (27%), civil construction
(25%), breaks between classes – people talking (25%), and lawn
mowing (12%).
When questioned about physical or psychological symptoms
caused by noise (Fig. 9), the interviewees responded as follows:
43% have difficulty in concentrating, 25% feel annoyed, 12% get
headaches, and 13% feel nothing.
 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327 323

Fig. 10. Responses for each Sector, to the question: ‘‘Which source of noise is the most irksome on campus?’’.

Fig. 11. Responses for each Sector, to the question: ‘‘What noise-related physical or psychological symptoms do you fell most frequently?’’.
324 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327

Fig. 12. Responses for each Sector, to the question: ‘‘Are you annoyed by the noise generated on the university campus?’’.

Fig. 13. Responses for each Sector, to the question: ‘‘What is the degree of noise level perceived on the university campus?’’.
 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327 325

Fig. 14. Responses for each Sector, to the question: ‘‘Have you perceived an increase in noise pollution on campus?’’.

Analysis of subjective data by educational sector and match between in university environments is that of people talking during coffee
objective and subjective data breaks between classes.
Fig. 11 shows the reactions to noise on campus reported by the
The most cited noise sources are displayed in Fig. 10. It can be interviewed people. Concentration difficulties and irritation were
noted that vehicle traffic is the most often cited noise source. An- the most cited effects in all Sectors. Together, these two effects
other noise source frequently cited and which is rather common comprise 61% of the responses in the Biological Sciences Sector;

70
Percentage of Positive Responses to Noise Levels

60 0.86
P<0.01

50
0.86
P<0.01
40

30
0.81
P<0.01
20

10

0
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76

Biological Sci Exact Sci

Technol
Earth Sci
Measured Noise Levels (dBA)

Fig. 15. Range of noise levels measured around each educational sector (X axis) and percentage of positive responses to questions posed and shown in Fig. 12 (Yes, s), Fig. 13
(intense or very intense, r), and Fig. 14 (Yes, h). Spearman correlation coefficients between range of noise levels and the indicated responses to each one of these three
questions and respective P values are written next to symbols.
326 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327
Table 4
Measurement sites close to the campus sectors and respective range of noise levels measured closest to the locations where the interviews were conducted.
Sector Sites nearest to each campus sector
Biological sciences 27–35, 54
Technology 37, 38, 44, 47, 48
Exact sciences 42, 56, 57
Earth sciences 56, 58
69% in the Earth Science Sector; 74% in the Technological Sector
and 81% in the Exact Science Sector. Symptoms such as concentra-
tion problems, irritation and headaches tend to lead to low produc-
tivity in academic environments and are important indicators of
quality of life in urban settings (Berglund & Lindvall, 1995; Hagen
et al., 2002; WHO, 2003).
As can be seen in Fig. 12, the sector with the highest percentage
of reports of annoyance caused by noise on campus is the Sector of
Earth Sciences, followed by the sectors of Exact Sciences and Tech-
nology. The Sector of Biological Sciences is the less noisy sector,
according to the noise mapping of Fig. 4 and 73% of the interviewed
people inside this sector say they are not annoyed by the environ-
mental noise inside the campus.
Fig. 13 shows that in the Biological Sciences Sector none of the
interviewees claimed the noise levels to be – very intense – and
only 7% reported it as – intense. These data fit the results displayed
in Fig. 12, which report that 73% of the interviewed people inside
this sector say they are not annoyed by the campus noise. On the
other hand, in the other sectors, gathering the interviewed people
who considered the noise levels – very intense or intense – we reach
16% in the Technology Sector, 25% in the Earth Sciences Sector, and
27.7% in the Exact Sciences Sector.
Fig. 14 presents the responses by the interviewed people on
their perception about the increase in noise pollution inside the
campus. In the Earth Sciences, 46% of the interviewees perceived
growing noise levels inside the campus. In the Sector of Exact Sci-
ences, they were 44%; in the Sector of Technology 37%, and in the
Sector of Biological Sciences, only 31% of the interviewees indi-
cated increase in noise inside the campus.
Table 4 identifies the sites that are nearest to each sector, and
the noise level ranges measured in those sites closest to the loca-
tions where the interviews were conducted.
Fig. 15 depicts the correlation between objective data - range of
noise levels indicated in Table 4 above – on the horizontal axis, and
the percentage of positive responses to the survey questions illus-
trated in Figs. 12–14 above, on the Y axis. The circle represents the
percentage of people that responded ‘‘yes’’ to the question: ‘‘Are
you annoyed by the noise generated on the university campus?
(Fig. 12)’’; the triangle refers to people that responded ‘‘intense or
very intense’’ to the question: ‘‘What is the degree of noise level per-
ceived on the university campus? (Fig. 13)’’; and finally the square
refers to people that responded ‘‘yes’’ to the question ‘‘Have you
perceived an increase in noise pollution on campus? (Fig. 14)’’. Those
responses are plotted across the range of noise levels measured
around each one of the educational sectors of the campus. For all
three correlations, positive and significant (P < 0.01) coefficients
were obtained, indicating that higher noise levels are perceived
and detected by the population that uses those sectors of the cam-
pus. Thus, there is a good fit between objective and subjective data
in the present study.
Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that both noise
measurements and sound perception surveys, alone or in associa-
tion, can be helpful in understanding the complex problem of noise
pollution in urban and educational areas, and thus improve the
ability of city administration in dealing with this type of pollution
(Berglund & Lindvall, 1995; Schulte-Fortkamp, 2010; WHO, 2003;
Zannin, Calixto, Diniz, & Ferreira, 2003).
Range of measured noise levels Leq (dBA)
53.8–61.8
60.2–64.3
66.3–70.7
66.3–74.4
Conclusions
This work characterized the environmental noise on a univer-
sity campus through noise measurements, noise mapping and
interviews.
Significant and positive Spearman correlations between objec-
tive and subjective data have revealed that both approaches, espe-
cially together, are useful in the characterization of environmental
noise pollution. Further, in urban administration and planning,
noise mapping is a very useful tool for generating information
about environmental impacts, enabling the visualization of noise
pollution in the urban landscape. This tool also allows for the sim-
ulation of new scenarios, both real and fictitious: increased or de-
creased vehicle flows, faster or slower traffic speed, changes in
vehicle composition (passenger cars, utility vans, motorcycles,
trucks), and construction of new buildings (schools, shopping cen-
ters, supermarkets, homes, and commercial buildings, etc.).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e
Desenvolvimento (CNPq – Brazil’s National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development), the Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst (DAAD – German Academic Exchange Service)
and the Fundação Araucária (State of Paraná Research Foundation)
for financing the equipment and software programs used in this
research. The authors are also indebted to Mrs. Felipe do Valle,
Fernanda Ferraz, Jonathan Frost and Guido Irineu Engel for their
technical support rendered during this research. The authors
would like to thank Professor Dr. Carolina Arruda Freire from the
Biological Sciences Sector, who gave valuable suggestions and
contributed significantly to the discussion and revision of this
paper. The authors would also like to express their appreciation
to the anonymous reviewers, whose painstaking and comprehen-
sive analysis of this paper greatly contributed to improve its
presentation and discussion of the results.
References
ABNT – NBR 10151 (2000). Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas – NBR-10.151:
Avaliação do Ruído em Áreas Habitadas visando o Conforto da Comunidade. Rio de
Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Allen, R. W., Davies, H., Cohen, M. A., Mallach, G., Kaufman, J. D., & Adar, S. D. (2009).
The spatial relationship between traffic generated air pollution and noise in 2
US cities. Environmental Research, 109, 334–342.
Alves Filho, J. M., Lenzi, A., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2004). Effects of traffic composition on
road noise: A case study. Transportation Research Part D – Transport and
Environment, 9(1), 75–80.
Astolfi, A., & Pellerey, F. (2008). Subjective and objective assessment of acoustical
and overall environmental quality in secondary school classrooms. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 123(1), 163–173.
Barbetta, A. P. (2002). Estatística Aplicada às Ciências Sociais. 5th ed., UFSC,
Florianópolis (in Portuguese).
Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H. (Eds.). (1990). Guidelines of community
noise. Stokholm University, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
Berglund, B., & Lindvall, T. (1995). Community noise. Stockholm, Sweden: Center for
Sensory Research.
Brüel & Kjaer (2005). Technical documentation: predictor type 7810 – user manual
version 5.0. Brüel &Kjaer Sound & Vibration Measurement A/S., Nærum,
Denmark.
Calixto, A., Diniz, F. B., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2003). The statistical modeling of road
traffic noise in a urban setting. Cities, 20(1), 23–29.
 P.H.T. Zannin et al. / Cities 31 (2013) 317–327
Calixto, A., Pulsides, C., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2008). Evaluation of transportation noise
in urbanized areas. Archives of Acoustics, 33(2), 151–164.
Cho, D. S., Kim, J. H., & Manvell, D. (2007). Noise mapping using measured noise and
GPS data. Applied Acoustics, 68, 1054–1061.
da Paz, E. C., Ferreira, A. M. C., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2005). Comparative study of the
perception of urban noise (Estudo comparativo da percepção do ruído urbano).
Revista de Saúde Pública (Journal of Public Health), 39(3), 467–472.
da Paz, E. C., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2010). Urban daytime traffic noise prediction models.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 163, 515–529.
Diniz, F. B., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2004). Noise impact by electrical energy substations in
the city of Curitiba, Brazil. Science of the Total Environment, 328, 23–31.
Dockrell, J. E., & Shield, B. M. (2004). Children’s perceptions of their acoustic
environment at school and at home. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
115(6), 2964–2973.
Doygun, H., & Gurun, D. K. (2008). Analyzing and mapping spatial and temporal
dynamics of urban traffic noise pollution: A case study in Kahramanmaras,
Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 142, 65–72.
END (2002). Environmental noise directive – European Parliament, Council.
Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of
environmental noise.
Golmohammadi, R., Ghorbani, F., Mahjub, H., & Deneshmehr, Z. (2010). Study of
school noise in the capital city of Tehran–Iran. Iran Journal of Environmental
Health, Science and Engineering, 7(4), 365–370.
Goswami, S. (2011). A study on traffic noise of two campuses of University,
Balasore, India. Journal of Environmental Biology, 32, 105–109.
Guedes, I. C. M., Bertoli, S. R., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2011). Influence of urban shapes on
environmental noise: A case study in Aracajú, Brazil. Science of the Total
Environment, 412–413, 66–76.
Hagen, M., Huber, L., & Kahlert, J. (2002). Acoustic school Sasing. In Proceedings of the
international forum Acusticum (Vol. 1). Sevilha, CD-ROM, Sevilha.
Hansen, C. (2005). Noise control: From concept to application. New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Hétu, R., Truchon-Gagnon, C., & Bilodeau, A. (1990). Problems of noise in school
settings: A review of literature and the results of an exploratory study. Journal of
Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, 14(3), 31–39.
ISO 9613-1 (1993). International organization for standardization – ISO 9613-1.
Acoustics. Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 1:
Calculation of sound by the atmosphere. Switzerland.
ISO 9613-2 (1996). International organization for standardization – ISO 9613-2.
Acoustics. Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General
method of calculation. Switzerland.
Kennedy, M., Hodgson, M., Edgett, D., Lamb, N., & Rempel, R. (2006). Subjective
assessment of listening environments in university classrooms: Perceptions of
students. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 299–309.
Klæboe, R., Engelien, E., & Steinnes, M. (2006). Context sensitive noise impact
mapping. Applied Acoustics, 67, 620–642.
Licitra, G., & Memoli, G. (2008). Limits and advantages of good practice guide to noise
mapping. Forum Acusticum – Paris (on CD).
Mohammadi, G. (2009). An investigation of community respond to urban traffic
noise. Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 2, 137–142.
Otutu, O. J. (2011). Investigation of environmental noise within Campus 2, Desta
State University, Abraka, Nigeria. Int J. Res. & Ver., 6(2), 223–229.
327
PCU/PRA (2009). Universidade Federal do Paraná: Relatório de Atividades
2009. Pró-Reitoria de Planejamento, Orçamento e Finanças, Curitiba (in
Portuguese).
Pheng, H. S., Yean, T. S., Lye, K. H., Ismail, A. I. M., & Kassim, S. (2006). Modeling noise
levels in USM penang campus. In Proceedings 2nd IMT-GT regional conference on
mathematics, statistics & applications. University Sains Malaysia, Penang.
Pinto, F. A. C., & Mardones, M. D. M. (2009). Noise mapping in densely populated
neighborhoods – Example of Copacabana Rio de Janeiro – Brazil. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 155, 309–318.
Randrianoelina, A., & Salomons, E. (2008). Traffic noise in shielded urban areas:
Comparison of experimental data with model results. Forum Acusticum – Paris (on
CD).
Romeu, J., Genescà, M., Pàmines, T., & Jiménez, S. (2011). Street categorization for
the estimation of day levels using short-term measurements. Applied Acoustics,
72, 569–577.
Ryan, W. A., Davis, H., Cohen, M. A., Mallach, G., Kaufman, J. D., & Adar, S. D. (2009).
The spatial relationship between traffic-generated air pollution and noise in 2
US cities. Environmental Research, 109, 334–342.
Schulte-Fortkamp, B. (2010). The tuning of noise pollution with respect to the
expertise of people’s minds. In Proceedings of the Internoise Lisbon, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Schultz, T. J. (1972). Community noise rating (2nd ed.). New York: Elsevier Applied
Science.
Singal, S. P. (2005). Noise pollution and control strategy. New Delhi, India: Alpha
Science International Ltd..
Szeremeta, B., & Zannin, P. H. T. (2009). Analysis and evaluation of soundscapes in
public parks through interviews and measurement of noise. Science of the Total
Environment, 407, 6143–6149.
Thakur, G. S. (2006). A study of noise around an educational institutional area.
Journal of Environmental Science & Engineering, 48, 35–38.
WG-AEN (2006). European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to
Noise. Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of
associated data on noise exposure.
WHO (2003). World Health Organization. Résumé D’orientation Des Directives De
I’oms Relatives Au Bruit Dans I’environmental.
Zannin, P. H. T., Calixto, A., Diniz, F. B., & Ferreira, J. A. (2003). A survey of urban
annoyance in a large Brazilian city. The importance of subjective analysis in
conjunction with a objective analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
23(2), 245–255.
Zannin, P. H. T., Calixto, A., Diniz, F. B., Ferreira, J. A., & Schuhli, R. B. (2002).
Incômodo causado pelo ruído urbano à população de Curitiba, PR. Revista Saúde
Pública (Journal of Public Health), 36, 521–524 (in Portuguese).
Zannin, P. H. T., Ferreira, A. M. C., & Szeremeta, B. (2006). Evaluation of noise
pollution in urban parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 118,
423–433.
Zannin, P. H. T., & Marcon, C. R. (2007). Objective and subjective evaluation of the
acoustic comfort in classrooms. Applied Ergonomics, 38, 675–680.
Zannin, P. H. T., & Sant’Ana, D. Q. (2011). Noise mapping at different stages of a
freeway redevelopment project – A case study in Brazil. Applied Acoustics, 72,
479–486.
Zannin, P. H., & Zwirtes, D. P. (2009). Evaluation of the acoustic performance of
classrooms in public schools. Applied Acoustics, 70, 626–635.