Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Evaluation of noise pollution in urban traffic hubs—Noise maps

and measurements
Paulo Eduardo Kirrian Fiedler, Paulo Henrique Trombetta Zannin ⁎
Laboratory of Environmental and Industrial Acoustics and Acoustic Comfort, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil

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

Article history: A study was made of some of the main traffic hubs in a Latin American metropolis, in order to determine the pres-
Received 13 August 2014 ence or absence of noise by means of noise measurements and acoustic mapping. To characterize noise in the
Accepted 30 September 2014 evaluated road stretches, 232 measurements were taken at different points. The Predictor software package
Available online 21 October 2014
was used for the noise mapping calculations. Noise sensitive areas, e.g., hospitals, were identified in the evaluated
road stretches. Noise maps were calculated for two hospitals, showing the current levels of noise that reach their
Keywords:
Noise pollution
facades. Hypothetical scenarios were simulated by making changes in the composition of traffic and total number
Noise mapping of vehicles, and an assessment was made of the potential influence of these modifications in reducing the noise
Traffic hubs levels reaching the facades of the buildings in question. The simulations indicated that a 50% reduction in total
Traffic flow traffic flow, or a 50% reduction in heavy vehicle traffic flow, would reduce the noise levels by about 3 dB(A).
Road traffic noise © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Materials and method

Noise in cities is a global problem which has been studied extensive-
ly around the world [1–14]. Today, urban noise is considered a public
health problem [15–19].
Currently, the city of Curitiba (in southern Brazil) has a population of
over 1.8 million [20], making it one of Brazil's and Latin America's
largest metropolises. According to the National Traffic Department,
the city has a vehicle fleet of 1,314,000, which is equivalent to a ratio
of 0.73 vehicle/inhabitant.
This study examined the environmental impact of noise generated
by road traffic in a large city in Latin America, based on in situ measure-
ments of sound pressure levels and sound mapping.
The object of this study is the main urban traffic hubs in the city of
Curitiba. Along these road stretches, we sought to identify so-called
“noise sensitive areas” such as hospitals, and based on acoustic maps,
identify the noise levels that reach these buildings. Through acoustic
maps, a reference scenario was evaluated that represents the current
state of urban noise in these traffic hubs. Three distinct hypothetical sce-
narios were also simulated to evaluate the noise that reaches the afore-
mentioned sensitive areas.
Lastly, a comparison was made of the reference scenario and the hy-
pothetical scenarios, and the effectiveness of simulated noise control
measures in the hypothetical scenarios was evaluated.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: paulo.zannin@pesquisador.cnpq.br, paulo.zannin@gmail.com
(P.H.T. Zannin).
2.1. Study location
The setting of this study is the city of Curitiba, whose Structural Road
System is ternary, comprising: a central bus lane flanked on each side by
a lane for ordinary vehicle traffic. Curitiba's main Structural Sectors
(traffic hubs) are: South, East and West (see Fig. 1).
The purpose of this study is to evaluate environmental noise on
stretches of road in the city's main traffic hubs, based on in situ measure-
ments and the calculation of acoustic maps. Because the hubs are quite
extensive, stretches of road varying from 2.4 to 3.5 km were chosen,
which are depicted in Fig. 2.
Stretch 1, which is approximately 2700 m long and is part of
the Structural Sector South, comprises four neighborhoods. This is an es-
sentially commercial area containing banks, schools, offices, a museum,
shopping malls and a bus terminal, so daily traffic in this region is very
intense.
Stretch 2 is approximately 2400 m in length and covers three neigh-
borhoods. It is a prime area of the city with a large concentration of res-
idential buildings, as well as stores, schools, a shopping mall and a bus
terminal.
Stretch 3 is about 2700 m long and encompasses three neighbor-
hoods. Pedestrian and vehicle traffic of both residents and non-
residents who work in this central region of Curitiba is intense.
Stretch 4 is approximately 3500 m long and covers 4 neighbor-
hoods. This stretch is a predominantly residential, but it also serves
as an important transport corridor linking the city center to outlying
neighborhoods.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.014
0195-9255/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9
Fig. 1. Major road traffic hubs in the city of Curitiba: Structural Sector West, Structural Sector East, and Structural Sector South (adapted from [21]).
2.2. Noise measurements
The noise along the stretches was characterized based on 232
measurements taken at different locations. On average, 60 points
were evaluated along each stretch. The measurements were taken
on virtually every street, both along the hubs and the streets perpen-
dicular to them, to ensure that the acoustic maps would be as repre-
sentative as possible of the noise levels in the areas of this study.
Fig. 3 shows the location of the measuring points on Stretch 1.
The noise measurements were taken as recommended by the
Brazilian standard for noise assessment in communities [22] and also
following the recommendations of Parts 1 and 2 of the ISO 1996 stan-
dard [23,24]. The equipment and software program used in the noise
analysis were: 1) sound analyzers (B&K 2238 and B&K 2250), and
2) Predictor 8.11 software for acoustic map calculations. All the noise
measurements were taken in good weather (without rain or strong
wind). The measurements were taken in the daytime (07:01 to
19:00), between April and August 2012, with simultaneous traffic
counts at different times on week days.
2.3. Noise mapping
Acoustic maps are very useful tools for diagnosing and evaluating
urban noise levels [13,14,25–30]. Noise maps of a given area are cal-
culated based on a number of geometrical, physical, traffic and
acoustic parameters. Georeferenced cartographic data, such as to-
pography (contour lines at 5-meter intervals), the street layout and
orthophoto maps of the region were obtained from a database called
Curitiba Digital—Edition 2006/CD, from the Curitiba Institute for
Urban Research and Planning, and were imported into the Predictor
software.
The vehicle counting was done manually and simultaneously with
the measurements of equivalent sound levels, Leq, and each measure-
ment was taken for 10 min, as recommended in the current literature
[12–14,34].
To determine the average speed of vehicles on the streets and roads
under analysis, we considered the maximum speed allowed, which
ranges from 50 to 60 km on the main roads and 30 to 40 km on second-
ary roads and streets.
 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9
Fig. 2. Road stretches evaluated in Curitiba's main traffic hubs—Stretch 1, Stretch 2, Stretch 3 and Stretch 4 (adapted from [21]).
2.4. Calibration of the acoustic maps
This calibration involves checking if the noise levels generated by the
calculation model are consistent with noise levels measured in the field.
This comparison is made by adding receivers to the model, at the points
where measurements were taken. The larger the area, the more re-
ceivers should be placed in it. The maps were calibrated with the mea-
sures, and the difference between the measured and simulated Leq
should be lower than the 4.6 dB(A) recommended by the EU Working
Group on the Assessment of Environmental Noise (WG-AEN) [31].
2.5. Noise mapping calculations
The calculations to obtain acoustic maps require the demarcation of an
area of calculation. After this step, the Predictor software generates a grid
noise map whose distance between points on the grid is defined by the
user. Grids of 15 × 15 m or 20 × 20 m generate acceptable approxima-
tions, with the advantage of greater processing speed, but may sacrifice
some of the details of results in more densely populated areas. Thus, the
grid size adopted here was 10 × 10 m. For maps of noise sensitive areas
such as hospitals, the grid resolution was 2 × 2 m. The height of the grid
was 4 m, as recommended by the Environmental Noise Directive [32].
3. Results and discussion
The model was calibrated by checking if the sound levels generated
by the model were consistent with those measured in the field. This
comparison was made by adding receivers to the model, at the points
where the measurements were taken. The maps were calibrated with
the measurements, and the difference between the measured and sim-
ulated Leq was lower than the 4.6 dB(A) recommended by the WG-AEN
(2002) [31]. Table 1 describes the difference between the simulated Leq
and the Leq measured at some of the 232 measuring points.
3
Figs. 4 to 7 show the noise level measured at each measuring point.
The line cutting across the graph at 65 dB(A) represents the limit
allowed by Curitiba Municipal Law No. 10.62533 on permissible day-
time noise levels in urban environments in the city's Structural Trans-
port Sectors. The line across the graph at 55 dB(A) indicates the legal
limit for daytime noise in the noise sensitive areas such as hospitals
and schools.
In Figs. 4–7, the upper line at 65 dB(A) shows the legal noise limit
permitted at the measuring points located in the Structural Sectors
and represented by the blue bars. The lower line at 55 dB(A) indicates
the legal noise limit at the points measured in the noise sensitive
areas, which are represented by gray bars.
The results obtained for each of the four analyzed stretches indicate
sound pressure levels exceeding the legal limits. Among the measure-
ments taken at the 232 points, only 45 showed noise levels of up to
65 dB(A), which is the limit established by Curitiba Municipal Law
10625 [33] for the city's Structural Sectors. The situation in the noise
sensitive areas is even more critical, since only 4 points showed noise
levels reaching the limit of 55 dB(A).
Of the 232 measured points, 171 showed noise levels exceeding
65 dB(A), which is the upper limit allowed for the evaluated areas
[33]. Maschke [6] stated that 65 dB(A) is the sound level limit for
noise exposure of an urban population, which underlines the serious-
ness of the acoustic situation in the segments of the urban traffic hubs
evaluated here.
Fig. 8 shows the noise maps of the traffic hubs evaluated in this
study. Noise maps are important tools for managing urban noise, be-
cause they provide a broad overview of the problem of noise pollution.
The traffic hubs evaluated here contain many noise sensitive areas
such as those surrounding schools, universities, hospitals and outpatient
clinics. Some of these institutions were therefore selected for a more de-
tailed evaluation based on acoustic maps of the noise levels reaching the
facades of these buildings. Two hospitals were selected in the noise sen-
sitive areas: a) Hospital 1 in Stretch 1, and b) Hospital 2, in Stretch 3 (see
Fig. 2). The sound levels that reach the facades of hospitals were
4 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9

Fig. 3. Location of the measuring points in Stretch 1.

analyzed from noise maps representing a reference scenario, i.e., the hypothetical measures aimed at reducing the aforementioned noise
current noise levels that reach these buildings. After calculating the ref- levels reaching the hospital facades. These hypothetical situations are
erence noise maps, additional noise maps were calculated presenting identified as Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and are described below.
Scenario 1 simulates a hypothetical situation in which the current
Table 1 total number of vehicles circulating in the traffic hubs is reduced by
Measured and simulated equivalent noise levels—Leq dB(A). 50%. The other parameters (average speed, type of pavement, etc.)
Measuring point Measured Simulated Difference between measured were kept identical to the reference scenario.
Leq Leq and simulated Leq—dB(A) Scenario 2 simulates a 50% reduction in the total number of heavy
6 70.6 72.0 −1.4
vehicles, specifically of trucks that circulate in the urban traffic hubs.
10 71.7 74.0 −2.3 Scenario 3 simulates a 56% increase in total vehicle traffic over the
14 69.9 71.5 −1.6 next 10 years. Data published by the statistics division of the National
19 72.1 75.3 −3.2 Traffic Department indicates a 56% increase in the number of vehicles
23 75.2 76.5 −1.3
circulating in Curitiba over the last five years. This information led us
27 74.7 77.4 −2.7
31 71.7 70.8 0.9 to assume a similar growth in the number of vehicles, albeit over a lon-
34 73.6 77.8 −4.2 ger time interval, i.e., a growth of 56% in ten years.
38 76.3 75.6 0.7 Figs. 9 and 10, respectively, show the results of the reference scenar-
42 65.8 68.8 −3.0 io and simulated Scenario 1 involving a 50% reduction in total vehicle
50 73.1 77.6 −4.5
55 59.2 60.6 −1.4
traffic in the areas surrounding the two hospitals.
56 69.1 71.8 −2.7 The results of the simulations show a decrease of about 3 dB(A) at
57 65.9 69.5 −3.6 the facades of the two hospitals after the implementation of the 50% re-
60 72.8 74.0 −1.2 duction in the total vehicle flow. However, this does not solve the
 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9 5

Structural Sectors (SS)

Noise sensitive areas

Fig. 4. Equivalent sound pressure levels, Leq, measured in Stretch 1.

Structural Sectors (SS)

Noise sensitive areas

Fig. 5. Equivalent sound pressure levels, Leq, measured in Stretch 2.

Structural Sectors (SS)

Noise sensitive areas

Fig. 6. Equivalent sound pressure levels, Leq, measured in Stretch 3.

6 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9

Structural Sectors (SS)

Noise sensitive areas

Fig. 7. Equivalent sound pressure levels, Leq, measured in Stretch 4.

problem of noise pollution in the areas in question, since the noise levels
reaching the hospitals' facades remain higher than those permitted by
Curitiba legislation, which is a Leq of 55 dB(A) [33].
Figs. 11 and 12, respectively, show the results of the reference sce-
nario and simulated Scenario 2 involving a 50% reduction in heavy vehi-
cle traffic in the areas surrounding the two hospitals.
Again, although the results of the simulations show a decrease of
about 3 dB(A) at the facades of the two hospitals, this reduction does
not solve the problem of noise pollution surrounding the hospitals,
since the noise levels reaching the their facades are still higher than
those allowed by Curitiba legislation, which is a Leq of 55 dB(A) [33].
Figs. 13 and 14, respectively, show the results of the reference sce-
nario and simulated Scenario 3 involving an increase of 56% in total ve-
hicle traffic.
The results of these simulations indicate an increase in noise
levels in the order of 3 dB(A) at the facades of the two hospitals.

Fig. 8. Noise maps of the urban traffic hubs (structural transport sectors) of Curitiba.
 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9 7

Fig. 9. Noise mapping of the façade of Hospital 1: Left: Reference scenario; Right: Scenario 1.

Fig. 10. Noise mapping of the façade of Hospital 2: Top: Reference scenario; Bottom: Sce- Fig. 12. Noise mapping of the façade of Hospital 2: Top: Reference scenario; Bottom: Sce-
nario 1. nario 2.

This increase further aggravates the problem of noise pollution 4. Conclusions

that already exists in these noise sensitive areas in question.
This makes it even more difficult to control the noise immissions,
making it practically impossible to achieve the legal limit of L eq
55 dB(A)[33]. As can be seen in the noise maps, the noise levels
reaching some of the facades exceed the legal limit by about
20 dB(A).
The results of the measurements and simulations in the stretches of
the urban traffic hubs evaluated here indicate that their acoustic situa-
tion is critical, since it is characterized by noise pollution. This noise pol-
lution has a negative impact, particularly considering that high noise
levels affect noise sensitive areas such as hospitals, among others.

Fig. 11. Noise mapping of the façade of Hospital 1: Left: Reference scenario; Right: Scenario 2.
8 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9
Fig. 13. Noise mapping of the façade of Hospital 1: Left: Reference scenario; Right: Scenario 3.
Two hundred and thirty-two points were measured, and 171 of
these points showed noise levels exceeding 65 dB(A). Maschke [6] sug-
gests that 65 dB(A) is the sound level limit for noise exposure of a pop-
ulation in an urban environment, which demonstrates the gravity of the
acoustic situation of the traffic hubs evaluated here. All the scenarios
simulated to reduce the noise levels revealed that the measures adopted
were insufficient to reach the limit of Leq = 55 dB(A) for noise sensitive
areas such as hospitals.
The simulations indicated that a 50% reduction in the total vehicle
flow, or a 50% reduction in heavy vehicle flow, would provide a reduc-
tion of about 3 dB(A) in noise levels. This reduction in sound levels is
consistent with that reported by other authors, such as Richard35 in
the September 2013 issue of the Zeitschrift für Lärmbekämpfung, the of-
ficial journal of the Acoustical Society of Germany. According to Richard,
“The range of reduction of noise levels in response to individual mea-
sures is from 1 to 3 dB(A)” [35].
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Brazilian Government,
through the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development—CNPq (CNPq grant: 302738/2010-0), and the German
Government, through the German Academic Exchange Service—
DAAD, for their financial support, which enabled the purchase of the
equipment and software used in this study.
Fig. 14. Noise mapping of the façade of Hospital 2: Top: Reference scenario; Bottom: Sce-
nario 3.
References
Schultz TJ. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 1978];64(2):
377–405.
Saadu AA, Onyeonwu RO, Ayorinde EO, Ogisi FO. Community attitudinal noise survey and
analysis of eight Nigerian cities. Appl Acoust 1996];49(1):49–69.
Belojecic G, Jakovljecic B, Aleksic O. Subjective reactions to traffic noise with regard to
some personality traits. Environ Int 1997];23:221–6.
Lam WHK, Tam ML. Reliability analysis of traffic noise estimates in Hong Kong. Transp Res
D 1998];3(4):239–48.
Arana M, Garcia A. A social survey on the effects of environmental noise on the residents
of Pamplona, Spain. Appl Acoust 1998];53(4):245–53.
Maschke C. Preventive medical limits for chronic traffic noise exposure. Acustica 1999];
85(1999):444–8.
Zannin PHT, Diniz FB, Calixto A, Barbosa W. Environmental noise pollution in residential
areas of the city of Curitiba. Acustica 2001];87:625–8.
Zannin PHT, Diniz FB, Calixto A, Barbosa W. Environmental noise pollution in the city of
Curitiba, Brazil. Appl Acoust 2002];63:351–8.
Morillas JMB, Gómez RVG, Escobar VG, Sierra JAM, Vidal CT, Bueno LA, et al. Presentación
de una encuesta para la realización de estudios sociales sobre el impacto del ruido
urbano (Presentation of a survey for social studies on the impact of urban noise).
Rev Acust 2002];33:27–31. [in Spanish].
Zannin PHT, Szeremetta B. Avaliação da poluição sonora no parque Jardim Botânico de
Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil (Evaluation of noise pollution in the Botanical Gardens of
Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil). Cad Saude Publica 2003];19(2):683–6. [in Portuguese].
Paz EC, Ferreira AMC, Zannin PHT. Comparative study of the perception of urban noise
(Estudo comparativo da percepção do ruído urbano). Rev Saude Publica (J Public
Health) 2005];39(3):467–72. [in Portuguese].
Zannin PHT, Sant´Ana DQ. Noise mapping at different stages of a freeway redevelopment
project—a case study in Brazil. Appl Acoust 2011];72(8):479–86.
Guedes ICM, Bertoli SR, Zannin PHT. Influence of urban shapes on environmental noise: a
case study in Aracaju Brazil. Sci Total Environ 2011];412:66–76.
Zannin PHT, Engel MS, Fiedler PEK, Bunn F. Characterization of environmental noise
based on noise measurements, noise mapping and interviews: a case study at a uni-
versity campus in Brazil. Cities 2013];31:317–27.
World Health Organization—WHO. Guidelines for Community NoiseIn: Berglund Birgitta,
Lindvall Thomas, Schwela Dietrich H, editors. ; 1999]. p. 161.
Babisch W. The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise Health
2002];4:1–11.
Babisch W, Beule B, Schust M, Kersten N, Ising H. Traffic noise and risk of myocardial in-
farction. Epidemiology 2005];16(1):33–40.
Schwela D, Kephalopoulos S, Prasher D. Confounding or aggravating factors in noise-
induced health effects: air pollutants and other stressors. Noise Health 2005];7:41–50.
World Health Organization—WHO, Regional Office for Europe. Environmental noise;
2011]. p. 326.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística—IBGE. População de Curitiba (Population of
Curitiba). Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE; 2012] [Available at:
bhttp://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/topwindow.htm?1N. Accessed in Nov 2012 (in
Portuguese)].
Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba. Plano Municipal de Mobilidade Urbana e Transporte
Integrado de Curitiba—Anexo II: Diagnóstico sistema viário, de circulação e de
trânsito, 2008 (Curitiba Municipal Administration. Municipal Plan for Urban Mobility
and Integrated Transport in Curitiba—Appendix II: Diagnosis of the road, circulation
and traffic system, 2008). ; 2008] [in Portuguese].
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT). NBR 10151: Acústica—Avaliação do Ruído
em Áreas Habitadas, Visando o Conforto da Comunidade (NBR 10151: Acoustics—Noise
Assessment in Inhabited Areas, Aiming at Community Wellbeing). ABNT—Brazilian
Technical Standards Association; 2000] [Rio de Janeiro, (in Portuguese)].
International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics—Description, Measurement and
Assessment of Environmental Noise: ISO 1996-1. Basic Quantities and Assessment
Procedures: Part 1; 2003] [Switzerland].
International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics—Description and Measurement
of Environmental Noise: ISO 1996-2. Acquisition of Data Pertinent to Land Use: Part
2; 1998] [Switzerland].
 P.E.K. Fiedler, P.H.T. Zannin / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 1–9
Cho DS, Kim JH, Choi TM, Kim BH, Manvell D. Highway traffic noise prediction using
method fully compliant with ISO 9613: comparison with measurements. Appl Acoust
2004];65(9):883–92.
Cho DS, Mun S. Development of a highway traffic noise prediction model that considers
various road surface types. Appl Acoust 2008];69(11):1120–8.
Lee SW, Chang SI, Park YM. Utilizing noise mapping for environmental impact assessment
in a downtown redevelopment area of Seoul, Korea. Appl Acoust 2008];69(8):
704–14.
Calixto A, Pulcides C, Zannin PHT. Evaluation of transportation noise in urbanized areas—a
case study. Arch Acoust 2008];33(2):151–64.
Manvell D, Banda EH. Good practice in the use of noise mapping software. Appl Acoust
2011];72:527–33.
Fiedler PEK, Bunn F, Zannin PHT. Pre-environmental study for the implementation of a
new road system—a case study in Curitiba, Brazil. DAGA 2012—Darmstadt; 2012].
9
European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN):
“Good Practice Guide for Strategic Noise Mapping and the Production of Associated
Data on Noise Exposure”—version 2; 2006]. p. 1–129 [13th January].
European Union Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the Assessment and Management of
Environmental Noise. Off J Eur Communities 2002];189.
Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba - Lei No. 10.625, de 19 de fevereiro de 2002: Dispõe sobre
ruídos urbanos, proteção do bem estar e do sossego público (Curitiba Municipal Ad-
ministration. Law No. 10625 of 19 Feb 2002: establishes guidelines for urban noise,
protection of public peace and welfare). ; 2002] [Curitiba (in Portuguese)].
Romeu J, Genescà M, Pàmines T, Jiménez S. Street categorization for the estimation of day
levels using short-term measurements. Appl Acoust 2011];72:569–77.
Richard J. Hinweise zur Aufstellung von Lärmakionsplänen ausβerhalb von
Ballungsräumen. Lärmbekämpgung (Advice to draw up noise action plans in
nonagglomerations) 2013];5:186–91. [in German].