applied
sciences
Article
Traffic Noise Reduction Strategy in a Large City and an Analysis
of Its Effect
Hsiao Mun Lee 1 , Wensheng Luo 1 , Jinlong Xie 1, *
Citation: Lee, H.M.; Luo, W.; Xie, J.;
Lee, H.P. Traffic Noise Reduction
Strategy in a Large City and an
Analysis of Its Effect. Appl. Sci. 2022,
12, 6027. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12126027
Academic Editors: Giovanni Zambon,
Roberto Benocci and Hector
Eduardo Roman
Received: 5 May 2022
Accepted: 11 June 2022
Published: 14 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12126027
and Heow Pueh Lee 2
1 School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Guangzhou University, 230 Wai Huan Xi Road,
Guangzhou 510006, China; hmlee@gzhu.edu.cn (H.M.L.); luowensheng1002@sina.cn (W.L.)
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1,
Singapore 117575, Singapore; mpeleehp@nus.edu.sg
* Correspondence: jlxie@gzhu.edu.cn
Abstract: A noise reduction strategy was proposed for Panyu District of Guangzhou City based on
its traffic noise map, which considered both road and railway traffic noise. Commercial software
was applied to compute the noise maps with and without noise barriers based on the field traffic
flow measurements. Noise compliance maps were further developed to assess the effects of noise
barriers on the quality of the sound environment. The change in populations exposed to unhealthy
traffic noise with noise barriers was calculated, and the group noise indicators Gdn and Gnight , which
indicate the populations of highly annoyed and sleep-disturbed people, were evaluated. The results
showed that the traffic noise level was significantly decreased after the implementation of noise
barriers. It was predicted that with the strategy of applying suitable noise barriers, the overall areas
under heavy noise pollution could be reduced by 24.5 and 24.3 km2 during daytime and nighttime,
respectively. Meanwhile, the total areas that could meet the regulated standard for noise levels were
increased by 97.4, and 66.9 km2 , corresponding to compliance rate increments of 18.38% and 12.62%,
respectively, in daytime and nighttime. The results further revealed that the installation of noise
barriers could significantly reduce the population of highly annoyed people, while the reduction of
the population experiencing sleep disturbances was insignificant.
Keywords: traffic noise map; noise barrier; noise limit; compliance rate
1. Introduction
Due to the wide sources of noises, such as traffic, neighborhood noise, and aircraft
noise, exposure to noise has been the most frequent complaint of populations living in
large cities all over the world [1]. For instance, although the EU has used noise maps
and action plans since 2002, a recent European Environmental Noise Directive report [2]
highlighted that noise pollution will continue to be a major health problem in Europe.
This was reaffirmed by Titu et al. [3], who found that the noise pollution in Pitesti city,
Romania even increased rather than decreased since the initialization of noise maps and
action plans. The negative effects of environmental noise on people’s health, such as sleep
disorders, learning impairment, diastolic blood pressure and hypertension, stroke, and
annoyance, have been widely reported, and numerous efforts have been made to assess the
impacts of different noise sources and mitigation strategies against the negative influences
of environmental noise [4].
In Europe, road traffic is perceived as the most critical noise source, as 82 million
Europeans were reported to be suffering under long-term day–evening–night (Lden ) traffic
noise levels of at least 55 dBA [5]. When people encounter traffic noise, the most widespread
subjective response is “annoyance”, which could lead to chronic diseases. WHO Europe [6]
has ranked “annoyance” to be the second major health effect of noise, just after sleep
disorders or disturbances. Muzet, A. [7] reviewed the research regarding environmental
noise over a 30-year period and found that continuous high-level noise exposure can lead
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 2 of 21

to populations having strongly detrimental emotions, such as those of hostility, anger,

and helplessness. Babisch et al. [8] investigated the effect of road traffic noise on the
incidence of myocardial infraction. The results showed that the odds ratio of men being
exposed to noise levels beyond 70 dBA during daytime was 1.3, as compared to those
exposed to noise levels of less than 60 dBA. It was discovered that chronic exposure to high
levels of traffic noise could lead to a high risk for cardiovascular disease. Dratva et al. [9]
investigated the effects of railway and road traffic noise on the blood pressure of an exposed
population. It was revealed that transportation noise may exert severe health effects on
vulnerable populations, such as adults with hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular
disease. Petri et al. [10] also found that exposure to traffic, airport, and recreational noise
also led to an increase in diastolic blood pressure and hypertension problems. Among the
various sources of noise, railway noise was reported to have the most significant impact
on diastolic blood pressure. In order to explore the relationship between annoyance and
traffic noise levels, research was carried out to correlate annoyance indexes and noise
levels. Miedema and Oudshoorn [11] developed a model that correlated the annoyance
scale and noise exposure level. The day–night level (DNL) and day–evening–night level
(DENL) were used as the noise descriptors. The results showed that the developed model
could fit the experimental data with high confidence intervals. In an effort to evaluate
annoyance due to overall railway noise and vibration, Licitra et al. [12] further considered
the effects of “unconventional railway noise” sources, such as braking, squeals, whistles,
screeching, etc. They found that railway noise’s impact on the disturbance of people was
generally underestimated and that the existence of unconventional railway noise increased
annoyance during both the daytime and the nighttime. Traditional noise maps that were
developed based on ordinary transits were usually biased toward the epidemiological
studies of railways, and it has been suggested that the accuracy of noise maps can be
improved by considering unconventional noise sources.
In addition, environmental noise also has a significant impact on humans’ cogni-
tive and learning abilities, particularly for vulnerable groups, such as infants and young
children. Rossi et al. [13] experimentally investigated the effects of low-frequency noise
on human cognitive performance among 25 participants, including male and female vol-
unteers of the ages of 19–29. The results showed that under noisy conditions, people’s
stress was obviously enhanced, and their response time was decreased in comparison to
that under silent conditions. Erickson et al. [14] reviewed the overall consequences of
background noise on the health, perception, cognition, and learning of infants and children.
They found that background noise can particularly lead to disadvantageous effects on
infants’ and young children’s recognition and learning from speech. Zacarias et al. [15]
investigated the noise levels of the neonatal helmets applied in respiratory support for
preterm infants. The noise levels of the respiratory system were found to exceed the recom-
mendations by reputable organizations, and filters with higher flow resistance were the
cause of the higher noise levels created in the neonatal helmets. Hence, for the goodness
of the preterm infants’ health, the sound performance of respiratory systems should be
carefully considered during the design of products. Minichilli et al. [16] investigated the
annoyance index with respect to environmental noise in students in secondary schools in
Italy by using questionnaires. The acoustic environment in the classroom was found to
have significant influences on students’ speech listening and comprehension, and, hence, it
negatively affected their educational performance.
Aside from public health, the existence of traffic noise also exerts a significant impact
on house prices. Wilhelmsson [17] developed an empirical analysis of traffic noise with
respect to the value of single-family properties. The hedonic price method was applied
by assuming that the negative externalities could be translated into property values. The
results indicated that the effects of traffic noise on property values were negative. They
found that the depreciation of the values of single-family houses due to noise pollution
could be as high as 30%. Theebe [18] found that, in the Netherlands, the noise level could
be translated into property prices when it exceeded 65 dBA, and the maximum discount
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 3 of 21

of the property prices could be up to 12% because of noise. However, the properties in
places where the noise levels were less than 40 dB could be sold with a premium of up
to 6.5%. Cohen and Coughlin [19] applied spatial hedonic models to analyze the impact
of airport noise on the house prices near the Atlanta airport. They found that the house
prices in areas where the day–night noise level disrupted normal activities (70–75 dBA)
were 20.8% lower than those in areas where the day–night noise level did not disrupt the
normal activities of people. Anderson et al. [20] investigated the effects of road traffic noise
and railway noise on the property prices in Sweden. A hedonic regression analysis implied
the strong negative impact of traffic noise on the property prices. The impact of road traffic
noise was more significant due to the fact that people were more disturbed by road traffic
noise than that of railways. Mense and Kholodilin [21] further investigated the reaction
of property prices to an airport expansion according to the planned flight paths. They
found that the property listing prices of the areas impacted by the flight paths were greatly
influenced after the flight paths were published. The average loss of value of the affected
properties was as much as 9.6% when the slant distance between the affected areas and
the flight paths was within 3 km. Moreover, the flight altitude also showed a noticeable
influence on the property prices. Swoboda et al. [22] used the hedonic method to find the
correlations between house prices and traffic noise in St. Paul, Minnesota, United States.
They commented that the impact of traffic noise on house prices was obvious, and a precise
estimation of the impact of traffic noise could be helpful for the cost of efficient mitigation
projects. Similar research was conducted by Trojanek et al. [23]. They investigated the
impact of aircraft noise on property prices from a database that included the transaction
prices for 1328 apartments and 438 single-family houses from 2010 to 2015 in Poznan,
Poland. They also found that the property prices were negatively related to the aircraft
noise level. The depreciations of the index value due to noise were 0.87% and 0.57% for
single-family houses and apartments, respectively.
In order to assess the levels of noise emitted in an urban area, noise mapping is
widely accepted as one of the most meaningful and popular approaches in the research
community [24–28]. A precise noise mapping can provide the detailed spatial noise level
distribution of a certain area with multiple noise sources and temporal intervals. With
these advantages, noise mapping can be applied as the first step toward the calculation
of populations exposed to the noise levels in a specific area; then, some applicable noise
mitigation strategies, such as noise barriers, vegetation, and landscaping, can be proposed
to reduce the impact of noise. Over recent years, numerous efforts were made to de-
velop traffic noise maps through numerical modeling based on traffic flow parameters
and a geographic information system (GIS) [25]. Zhao et al. [29] proposed a method for
three-dimensional (3D) road traffic noise mapping with unstructured surface meshes of
buildings and roads. This method enabled 3D noise mapping with realistic buildings, road
models, and traffic information. Bostanci [30] compared the accuracy of the noise maps
created via the radial basis function (RBF), ordinary kriging (OK), and inverse distance
weighting (IDW) methods. The RBF method was found to be the most accurate among
the tested methods. Paschalidou [31] produced a noise map of selected sections of the
Egnatia motorway together with an extended traffic noise measurement campaign, and the
population under noise exposure was then calculated according to the noise map. A large
population was found to live under relatively high noise levels, indicating the necessity of
traffic noise monitoring in residential areas. Sonaviya and Tandel [32] assessed the noise
pollution conditions in Surat city, India through noise mapping by using two inbuilt noise
propagation models of SoundPLAN. Similarly, Alam et al. [33] constructed noise maps
near the main roads that passed through densely populated residential areas in North India
using the SoundPLAN and MapInfo Professional software, and a comparison between
the 2D and 3D models was reported and analyzed. Wosniacki and Zannin [34] evaluated
the railway noise in a municipality of Brazil based on noise measurements and strategic
noise mapping (SNM). The results showed that one-quarter of the population in the study
area was exposed to noise that exceeded the level of the limit recommended by the World
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 4 of 21

Health Organization (WHO). Strategies for managing exposure to rail noise, including
noise barriers, were proposed according to their analysis.
As mentioned before, it has been acknowledged that there are still large populations
living in unhealthy sound environments in urban areas all over the world. The impact
of noise has not only undermined the health of individuals, but has also lead to the
depreciation of values of the affected private properties. Therefore, it is essential to take
traffic noise issues into account in urban planning, particularly for urban renewal plans
in old cities, which usually have high densities in terms of population and residential
buildings. To achieve this, noise mapping can serve as a useful tool for evaluating different
noise mitigation strategies or for proposing optimized soundscape designs to reduce the
impact of noises emitted by major sources [25]. Nowadays, noise barriers are globally
applied in residential areas lying adjacent to major roads, such as highways or expressways,
to reduce the traffic noise emissions [35]. However, there are few studies using strategic
noise mapping to characterize the performance of noise barriers implemented in the areas
in megacities of developing countries that suffer from noise. Hence, in the present study,
a noise map of Panyu District, which is one of the central parts of Guangzhou, China,
was first constructed using a commercial numerical platform based on field traffic flow
measurements and GIS. Then, noise barriers were suggested and applied along the traffic
arteries in the areas exposed to high traffic noise levels in the numerical model. The qualities
of the sound environment before and after the implementation of noise barriers were finally
compared, and the effects of the noise barriers were discussed. The motivation of this
study is to provide scientific references for the consideration of sound environment quality
in the urban and urban renewal plans of Guangzhou, which has a history of more than
28 centuries and a total population of about 18.8 million. According to its 14th Five Year
Plan (2021–2025), Guangzhou will be undergoing a mega urban renewal plan, which is
expected to have large infrastructural projects, such as the construction of new expressways
and high-speed railways and the widening of the main roads in its core areas, in the coming
years. The future traffic noise nuisance will potentially be a big issue if it is not well
considered before the start of these infrastructural projects.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Noise Pollution in Panyu District of Guangzhou City
The noise pollution in Panyu District was firstly analyzed based on the noise map
that was obtained from earlier work [36] (see Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A). The
constructed noise map was computed using a noise model integrated into commercial
software on the basis of field traffic flow measurements. The numerical model was firstly
calibrated and verified with field noise measurements before being implemented in the
city-scale simulations. In order to evaluate the noise pollution conditions in Panyu District,
the total land area was divided into four classes of acoustic environment functional areas
(see Figure A4 in Appendix A) according to the Environmental Protection Bureau of
Guangzhou. The coverage and noise limit of each class of functional area are defined in
Table A1 in Appendix A. For example, medical service areas were categorized as class 1
(noise limits of 55 and 45 dBA for daytime and nighttime, respectively) due to the necessity
of a quiet environment for patients. However, for warehouse and industry areas, which
are not sensitive to noise levels, these functional areas were categorized as class 3, which
can bear high noise limits. According to the developed noise map, the daytime and
nighttime over-limit value maps of Panyu District were redrawn, as shown in Figures 1
and 2, respectively. In the present study, the over-limit value is defined as the traffic noise
level (see Figures A1 and A2) minus the defined noise limit (see Table A1) in a specific area
(see Figure A4).
 under
under high
high over-limit
over-limit values
values (>9.1
(>9.1 dBA),
dBA), andand the
the over-limit
over-limit values
values onon both
both sides
sides of
of the
the
main
main roads with high traffic flows ranged from 6.1 to 9.0 dBA. By comparing Figures 11
roads with high traffic flows ranged from 6.1 to 9.0 dBA. By comparing Figures
and
and 2,
2, it
it can
can be
be found
found that
that the
the over-limit
over-limit values
values during
during the
the nighttime
nighttime were
were much
much higher
higher
than
than those during the daytime. Among all four classes, the class 4 functional area
those during the daytime. Among all four classes, the class 4 functional area had
had the
the
highest
highest over-limit
over-limit value
value (>9.1
(>9.1 dBA)
dBA) inin the
the nighttime.
nighttime. InIn addition,
addition, the
the traffic
traffic noise
noise levels
levels of
of
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 5 of 21
about 266 km 2 of class 2 functional areas exceeded the noise limit during the nighttime,
about 266 km2 of class 2 functional areas exceeded the noise limit during the nighttime,
and
and most
most of of these
these areas
areas are
are residential
residential areas
areas with
with over-limit
over-limit values
values greater
greater than
than 6.1
6.1 dBA.
dBA.

Figure1.1.Daytime
Daytime over-limitvalue
value mapininPanyu
Panyu DistrictofofGuangzhou
Guangzhou City.
Figure 1. Daytimeover-limit
Figure over-limit valuemap
map in PanyuDistrict
District of GuangzhouCity.
City.

Figure 2. Nighttime over-limit value map in Panyu District of Guangzhou City.

It can be seen in Figure 1 that, during the daytime, the areas with traffic noise levels
exceeding the noise limit in Panyu District were mainly concentrated on the sides of traffic
arteries. In particular, the areas along the expressways, highways, and railways suffered
under high over-limit values (>9.1 dBA), and the over-limit values on both sides of the main
roads with high traffic flows ranged from 6.1 to 9.0 dBA. By comparing Figures 1 and 2, it
can be found that the over-limit values during the nighttime were much higher than those
during the daytime. Among all four classes, the class 4 functional area had the highest
over-limit value (>9.1 dBA) in the nighttime. In addition, the traffic noise levels of about
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 6 of 21

266 km2 of class 2 functional areas exceeded the noise limit during the nighttime, and most
of these areas are residential areas with over-limit values greater than 6.1 dBA.

2.2. Noise Reduction Scheme

Based on the pollution degrees obtained from Figures 1 and 2, a numerical simulation
was conducted to investigate the effects of noise barriers along the traffic arteries in order
to protect the residential areas, cultural educational areas, and medical service areas on
both sides of the traffic arteries from the interference from high levels of traffic noise. The
following aspects were considered in the simulations:
1. Firstly, noise barriers were built along all expressways and highways.
2. Secondly, noise barriers were built in some sections of the arterial roads, where these
sections referred to areas with high traffic noise levels and dense dwelling units, as
shown in Figures 1, 2 and A5 in Appendix A.

2.3. Sound Absorption Material

As the noise over-limit values obtained in Section 2.1 were quite large, the concept
of a high-performance absorptive barrier is proposed in the present study. Absorptive
noise barriers are usually developed with the installation of sound absorption materials
on the structures of normal noise barriers [35]. According to the “Standard requirement of
acoustic design and measurement for noise barrier” (HJ/T90-2004) [37], the noise reduction
coefficient of a sound absorption material for a noise barrier should be greater than 0.5. In
the present study, four materials, namely, rock wool, slag wool, polyurethane foam, and
superfine glass wool (5 mm thickness), were selected for comparison based on their good
sound absorption performance with respect to what was provided in the “Optimization
study of road noise barriers” [38]. As shown in Table 1, the noise reduction coefficients
(NRCs) of rock wool, slag wool, and superfine glass wool are almost the same, while
polyurethane foam has the smallest noise reduction coefficient. As the price of rock wool is
much cheaper than that of the other wool materials, rock wool was selected as the sound
absorption material for the noise barrier modeled in the present study, with an NRC of 0.75.

Table 1. Sound absorption coefficients and noise reduction coefficients of different sound absorption
materials [38].

Frequency (Hz) Rock Wool Slag Wool Polyurethane Foam Superfine Glass Wool
250 0.32 0.39 0.31 0.35
315 0.46 0.52 0.32 0.60
400 0.74 0.71 0.46 0.80
500 0.82 0.78 0.63 0.88
630 0.87 0.85 0.75 0.86
800 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.85
1000 0.93 0.91 0.96 0.86
1250 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.65
1600 0.92 0.90 0.87 0.88
2000 0.94 0.92 0.70 0.91
NRC 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.75

2.4. Geometry of the Noise Barrier

A literature review on the geometry of noise barriers is shown in Table 2. It was found
that, in recent years, L-shaped has been the most common geometry to be used for road
noise barriers, while curved cantilever and straight-edge noise barriers were also used by a
small number of researchers. To investigate the effectiveness of different noise barriers, five
types of noise barriers (see Figure 3) were modeled on both sides of the roads in a small
area (0.785 km2 ) of Guangzhou University in Panyu District. The simulation was repeated
six times (included the case without a noise barrier), and only the geometry of the noise
barrier was changed during each simulation. Figure 4 shows the noise maps of the small
 the noise barrier was changed during each simulation. Figure 4 shows the noise maps of
the small area with and without L-shaped noise barrier during daytime and nighttime. It
can be seen that the noise level of this area was significantly reduced after the construction
ofSci.the
Appl. 2022,L-shaped
12, 6027 noise barrier in both daytime and nighttime. 7 of 21

Table 2. Literature review of the geometry of noise barriers.

area with and without L-shaped noise barrier during daytime and nighttime. It can be
seen that the noise level of this area was significantly reduced after the construction of the
Literatures
L-shaped noise barrier in both daytime and nighttime.
Geometry
eduction effect of expressway noise barrier and study on its applicability” [39] L-shape
Table 2. Literature review of the geometry of noise barriers.
rier for expressway near urban area” [40] L-shape
oise barrier design on traffic noise in residential Literaturesroad” [41] CurvedGeometry
cantilever
“Analysis on noise reduction effect of expressway noise barrier and
uence of expressway traffic noise on the acoustic environment of residential study on its applicability” [39] L-shape
“Design of noise barrier for expressway near urban area” [40] L-shape
L-shape
“Effect analysis of noise barrier design on traffic noise in residential road” [41] Curved cantilever
teristics“Analysis
of noise of the influence of expressway traffic noise on the acoustic environment of residential area” [42]
barriers with different structures” [43]
“Study on the characteristics of noise barriers with different structures” [43]
L-shape
L-shape
L-shape
of noise“Study
fromonmain road
influence on from
of noise campus and
main road ondesign
campus andofdesign
noiseofbarrier” [44]
noise barrier” [44] Straight
Straightedge
edge

Figure 3. Geometries of different

Figure noise of
3. Geometries barriers. (a) L-shape
different noise (left);
barriers. (a) L-shape(b)(left);
L-shape (right);
(b) L-shape (c) (c)
(right); T-shape;
T-shape;
(d) cylindrical; (e) roof (d)
edge; (f) curved
cylindrical; (e) roofcantilever (left);
edge; (f) curved (g) curved
cantilever (left); (g)cantilever (right).
curved cantilever (right).

In addition, areas with sound pressure levels (SPLs) lower than 60 and 50 dBA in the
daytime and nighttime, respectively, were analyzed in order to compare the noise attenua-
tion performance of different noise barriers, as shown in Table 3. It was noted that the noise
reduction effects of T-shaped, cylindrical, and roof-edge noise barriers were slightly better
than those of L-shaped and curved cantilever noise barriers in daytime. However, during
the nighttime, the noise reduction effects of L-shaped and curved cantilever noise barriers
were slightly better than those of T-shaped, cylindrical, and roof-edge noise barriers. This
study focuses more on noise reduction in the nighttime because the noise compliance rate
in the nighttime is much lower than that in the daytime (see the previous work of the
authors [36] for more details). Thus, L-shaped noise barriers were selected in the present
study to mitigate urban traffic noise.

Table 3. Area of the University Town that was covered by different sound pressure levels in the
daytime (<60 dBA) and nighttime (<50 dBA) for the cases with and without noise barriers. Note that
Areaday or Areanight
the percentage is defined as 0.785 ×100%.

Geometry Areaday (km2 , %) Areanight (km2 , %)

Without 0.1226 (15.6%) 0.0081 (1.0%)
L-shaped 0.2131 (27.1%) 0.0160 (2.0%)
T-shaped 0.2150 (27.4%) 0.0153 (1.9%)
Cylindrical 0.2151 (27.4%) 0.0153 (1.9%)
Roof edge 0.2151 (27.4%) 0.0153 (1.9%)
Curved cantilever 0.2131 (27.1%) 0.0160 (2.0%)
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 8 of 21
Figure 3. Geometries of different noise barriers. (a) L-shape (left); (b) L-shape (right); (c) T-shape;
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(d) cylindrical; (e) roof edge; (f) curved cantilever (left); (g) curved cantilever (right). 8 of 22

Figure 4. A noise map of a small area of Guangzhou University. (a) Daytime without a noise barrier;
(b) daytime with an L-shaped noise barrier; (c) nighttime without a noise barrier; (d) nighttime with
an L-shaped noise barrier. Note that only a noise map with an L-shaped noise barrier is shown for
brevity.

In addition, areas with sound pressure levels (SPLs) lower than 60 and 50 dBA in the
daytime and nighttime, respectively, were analyzed in order to compare the noise atten-
uation performance of different noise barriers, as shown in Table 3. It was noted that the
noise reduction effects of T-shaped, cylindrical, and roof-edge noise barriers were slightly
better than those of L-shaped and curved cantilever noise barriers in daytime. However,
during the nighttime, the noise reduction effects of L-shaped and curved cantilever noise
barriers were slightly better than those of T-shaped, cylindrical, and roof-edge noise bar-
riers. This study focuses more on noise reduction in the nighttime because the noise com-
pliance rate in the nighttime is much lower than that in the daytime (see the previous
work of the authors [36] for more details). Thus, L-shaped noise barriers were selected in
the present study to mitigate urban traffic noise.

Table 3. Area of the University Town that was covered by different sound pressure levels in the
daytime (<60 dBA) and nighttime (<50 dBA) for the cases with and without noise barriers. Note that
Areaday or Areanight
the percentage is defined as × 100%.
0.785

Geometry Areaday (km2 , %) Areanight (km2 , %)

Without 0.1226 (15.6%) 0.0081 (1.0%)
L-shaped 0.2131 (27.1%) 0.0160 (2.0%)
T-shaped 0.2150 (27.4%) 0.0153 (1.9%)
Figure 4. A noise map of a small area of Guangzhou University. (a) Daytime without a noise barrier;
Cylindrical 0.2151 (27.4%) 0.0153 (1.9%)
(b) daytime with an L-shaped noise barrier; (c) nighttime without a noise barrier; (d) nighttime with
Roof edge 0.2151 (27.4%) 0.0153 (1.9%)
an L-shaped noise barrier. Note that only a noise map with an L-shaped noise barrier is shown
Curved cantilever 0.2131 (27.1%) 0.0160 (2.0%)
for brevity.

2.5.Position
2.5. Positionand
andHeight
HeightofofNoise
NoiseBarriers
Barriers
Thelocation
The locationofofnoise
noisebarriers
barriers
waswas determined
determined based
based on on
twotwo rules:
rules: (1) The
(1) The noisenoise bar-
barriers
riers should
should be close
be close to thetonoise
the noise source
source orpoint
or the the point of receiver
of the the receiver
[36];[36]; (2) the
(2) the installation
installation of
of noise barriers should not affect the daily life of the public. Hence, in the
noise barriers should not affect the daily life of the public. Hence, in the present study,present study,
thelocation
the locationofofnoise
noisebarriers
barriers was
wasarranged
arranged close
close to
tothe
theroad
roadboundary
boundaryline, line,as
asshown
shownin in
Figure5a.
Figure 5a.The
Thesituation
situationwithout
withoutnoise
noisebarriers
barriersisisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure5b5bforforcomparison.
comparison.

Figure5.5.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofofthree-dimensional
three-dimensionalnoise
noise maps
maps of of
thethe small
small area
area near
near Guangzhou
Guangzhou Univer-
University
sity
in theinUniversity
the University
Town.Town. (a) With
(a) With noisenoise barriers;
barriers; (b) without
(b) without noisenoise barriers.
barriers.

According
Accordingtotothe
thepreliminary
preliminarysimulation
simulationresults, thethe
results, traffic noise
traffic could
noise be reduced
could by
be reduced
3–5 dBA when the defined height of the noise barriers was less than 6 m. When
by 3–5 dBA when the defined height of the noise barriers was less than 6 m. When the the height
of the noise
height barriers
of the was larger
noise barriers wasthan 6 m,
larger the6reduction
than of trafficof
m, the reduction noise was
traffic predicted
noise to
was pre-
be more than 5 dBA. Since the noise over-limit values in Panyu District fall in
dicted to be more than 5 dBA. Since the noise over-limit values in Panyu District fall in different
ranges, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, specific heights of the noise barriers are proposed to
different ranges, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, specific heights of the noise barriers are
meet the noise reduction requirements over different ranges. According to the “Standard
proposed to meet the noise reduction requirements over different ranges. According to
the “Standard requirement of acoustic design and measurement for noise barrier”
 Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2022,
2022,12,
12,6027
x FOR PEER REVIEW 99 of
of 21
22

(HJ/T90-2004)
requirement [37], the design
of acoustic height and
of noise barriers on
measurement forboth sides
noise of roads
barrier” should be less
(HJ/T90-2004) [37],than
the
6 m. Hence, in the present study, the proposed height of the noise barriers
height of noise barriers on both sides of roads should be less than 6 m. Hence, in the present was set to 6 m
when the
study, the proposed
noise over-limit
heightvalue
of theofnoise
the specific
barriersareas wastogreater
was set 6 m whenthanthe
5 dBA.
noiseHowever,
over-limitin
the areas
value where
of the the areas
specific noise wasover-limit
greatervalues
than 5were
dBA.less than 5 dBA,
However, in thethe heights
areas where ofthe
thenoise
noise
barriers were
over-limit selected
values wereaccording
less than to a computation
5 dBA, the heights by of
thethe
software. Finally, were
noise barriers the simulation
selected
model was
according to rebuilt with noise
a computation barriers
by the installed
software. along
Finally, both sidesmodel
the simulation of the was
main roadswith
rebuilt and
then recomputed. In the new simulation model, the total length
noise barriers installed along both sides of the main roads and then recomputed. In the of noise barriers applied
in Panyu
new Districtmodel,
simulation was calculated
the total to be 169.3
length km. barriers applied in Panyu District was
of noise
calculated to be 169.3 km.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Distribution of Traffic Noise Levels with Noise Barriers
3.1. Distribution of Traffic Noise Levels with Noise Barriers
The urban traffic noise maps of Panyu District in daytime, nighttime, and day–night
withThe urban
noise trafficare
barriers noise
shownmaps in of Panyu6–8,
Figures District in daytime,
respectively. Bynighttime,
comparingand day–night
Figures 6 and
with
A1 (see Appendix A), it is obvious that the area covered by high noise levels in the6 daytime
noise barriers are shown in Figures 6–8, respectively. By comparing Figures and A1
(see Appendix A), it is obvious that the area covered by high noise levels in the daytime was
was significantly reduced after the installation of the noise barriers. In particular, the total
significantly reduced after the installation of the noise barriers. In particular, the total area2
area exposed to the high noise levels (>65 dBA) was significantly reduced by 24.5 km ,
exposed to the high noise levels (>65 dBA) was significantly reduced by 24.5 km2 ,2 while
while the total area that complied with the noise limit was increased by 97.4 km in the
the total area that complied with the noise limit was increased by 97.4 km2 in the daytime.
daytime. Among all of the classes of acoustic functional areas, the installation of noise
Among all of the classes of acoustic functional areas, the installation of noise barriers
barriers contributed the most to the class 2 functional area, which had an increment in the
contributed the most to the class 2 functional area, which had2 an increment in the total area
total area complying with the noise limit of up to 61.6 km . By comparing Figures 7 and
complying with the noise limit of up to 61.6 km2 . By comparing Figures 7 and A2, it can
A2, it can be found that, with the noise barriers implemented, the traffic noise level was
be found that, with the noise barriers implemented, the traffic noise level was obviously
obviously reduced in the nighttime as well. Similar findings were also observed in the
reduced in the nighttime as well. Similar findings were also observed in the day–night
day–night traffic noise maps, as shown in Figures 8 and A3. By applying the noise barriers,
traffic noise maps, as shown in Figures 8 and A3. By applying the noise barriers, the range
the range of SPLs in most areas decreased from 65–70 to 60–65 dBA, while a few areas
of SPLs in most areas decreased from 65–70 to 60–65 dBA, while a few areas decreased
decreased
from 60–65 tofrom 60–65
55–60 dBA. toNonetheless,
55–60 dBA. the Nonetheless,
range of SPLsthe in
range
veryof SPLs
few in decreased
areas very few from
areas
decreased from 55–60 to 50–55 dBA. This implies that the functions
55–60 to 50–55 dBA. This implies that the functions of the noise barriers were more efficientof the noise barriers
were
in more efficient
mitigating the noise in in
mitigating
areas with thea noise
higherinnoise
areaslevel.
with a higher noise level.

Figure6.6.Daytime
Figure Daytimeurban
urbantraffic
traffic noise
noise map
map of Panyu
of Panyu District,
District, Guangzhou
Guangzhou City the
City with with the existence
existence of
of noise
noise barriers. Lday is the A-weighted equivalent noise level over the 16 h period of daytime (6:00
barriers. Lday is the A-weighted equivalent noise level over the 16 h period of daytime (6:00 to 22:00).
to 22:00).
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 10 of 21

Figure 7. Nighttime urban traffic noise map of Panyu District, Guangzhou City with the existence
Figure
Figure 7.7.Nighttime
of noise Nighttime
barriers. urban
Lurban
night is
traffic
the
traffic noise
mapmap
A-weighted
noise of Panyu
of equivalent
Panyu District,
noise
District, Guangzhou
level
Guangzhouover 8City
thewith
City with
h the
period the existence
of nighttime
existence of noise
of noise barriers.
(22:00 toL6:00). L night is the A-weighted equivalent noise level over the 8 h period of nighttime
barriers. night is the A-weighted equivalent noise level over the 8 h period of nighttime (22:00 to 6:00).
(22:00 to 6:00).

Figure8.8.Day–night
Figure Day–nighturban
urbantraffic
trafficnoise
noise map
map ofof Panyu
Panyu District,
District, Guangzhou
Guangzhou City
City with
with thethe existence
existence of
Figure
of noise8.barriers.
Day–nightLdnurban
is thetraffic noise map
A-weighted of Panyu
equivalent District,
noise Guangzhou
level over City with the existence
a 24 h period.
noise barriers. Ldn is the A-weighted equivalent noise level over a 24 h period.
of noise barriers. Ldn is the A-weighted equivalent noise level over a 24 h period.
Asshown
As showninin Table
Table 4, the
4, the minimum
minimum and and maximum
maximum noisenoise
levelslevels
in the in the daytime,
daytime, night-
time, As
andshown
nighttime, in Table
day–night
and day–night 4,
in Panyu the minimum
District
in Panyu andwithout
with and
District with maximum
and noisenoise
without levels
barriers
noise in were
were
barriers the daytime,
summarized.
summa-
nighttime,
As can As
rized. andbe
be seen,
can day–night
the effect
seen, ineffect
theof Panyuof District
the noise with
thebarriers
noise onand
thewithout
barriers the noise
maximum
on barriers
noise
maximum were
levels
noise wassumma-
more
levels was
rized. As can
significant be nighttime,
in the seen, the effect of the
and the noise barriers
maximum on of
reduction thenoise
maximum
(∆SPL)noise
couldlevels
reachwas
up
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 11 of 21

to 6.1 dBA. Nevertheless, it is suggested that the noise barrier has little influence on the
minimum noise level according to the noise mapping.

Table 4. Minimum (min) and maximum (max) noise levels of Panyu District in Guangzhou City with
the existence of noise barriers. ∆SPL = SPLwo −SPLw , where wo and w stand for without and with
noise barriers, respectively. All units are in dBA.

Noise Indicator SPLmin SPLmax ∆SPLmin ∆SPLmax

Lday 39.8 80.1 0.1 5.2
Lnight 39.2 72.0 0.2 6.1
Ldn 42.3 83.5 0.3 5.6

As shown in Table 5, the minimum and maximum noise levels of the different func-
tional areas were tabulated. It can be seen that the maximum noise levels in the residential
and industrial areas were reduced the most in the nighttime (up to 5.5 dBA). This was
due to the fact that higher noise barriers were purposely arranged along the roads near
the residential and industrial areas. However, in the forest and warehousing areas, the
reduction of noise levels was the smallest, as no noise barriers were installed along the
roads near these areas.
Table 5. Minimum and maximum noise levels of different functional areas in Panyu District of
Guangzhou City with the existence of noise barriers. The numbers 1 and 2 stand for minimum and
maximum, respectively. All units are in dBA.

Functional Area Lday1 Lnight1 Lday2 Lnight2 ∆Lday1 ∆Lnight1 ∆Lday2 ∆Lnight2
Forest area 39.8 39.2 61.3 61.1 3.0 2.9 1.9 2.0
Residential area 42.8 42.6 65.4 63.6 0.6 0.5 5.1 5.5
Cultural education area 49.0 48.5 63.9 63.5 0.4 0.5 4.9 5.0
Administrative area 52.4 51.9 60.5 60.1 0.6 0.7 2.7 2.5
Medical service area 48.1 47.6 60.3 60.0 0.6 0.7 3.1 2.5
Trade area 52.1 51.5 64.2 63.4 1.5 1.5 2.8 2.9
Industrial area 53.1 53.3 65.2 65.1 1.8 0.3 5.8 5.5
Warehousing area 53.6 52.3 67.9 67.3 0.7 2.2 0.5 0.5

3.2. Noise Quality Levels with Noise Barriers

In order to further analyze the noise reduction effect of the noise barriers, Figure 9
compares the areas covered by traffic noise with different levels of quality between the
cases with and without noise barriers. The definitions of the noise quality levels are given
in Table A2 in Appendix A. It is noteworthy that, by applying noise barriers, the areas with
a good noise quality level during the daytime and nighttime increased by about 4.68% and
5.65%, respectively. The areas with a quite good noise quality level increased by about
1.57% and 1.35%, respectively. The areas with slightly polluted noise quality level increased
by about 1.72% and 0.7%, respectively. Correspondingly, the areas with moderate and
heavy noise pollution were remarkably reduced by using noise barriers. Hence, it can be
concluded that the overall noise quality level of Panyu District could be greatly improved
by installing noise barriers along the traffic arteries in critical areas.
 Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Appl.Sci. 2022, 12,
2022,12,
Sci.2022, x
x FOR
FOR PEER
12,6027 PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 12 of
12 of
12 22
of 21
22

Figure
Figure9.9. Comparison
9.Comparison
Comparisonofof the
ofthe areas
theareas covered
areascovered
coveredby by different
bydifferent noise
differentnoise quality
noisequality levels
qualitylevels between
levelsbetween the
betweenthe cases
thecases with
caseswith
with
Figure
and
and without
without noise
noise barriers:
barriers: (a)
(a) daytime;
daytime; (b)
(b) nighttime.
nighttime.
and without noise barriers: (a) daytime; (b) nighttime.
3.3.
3.3. Noise
3.3.Noise Compliance
NoiseCompliance
ComplianceMap Map
Mapwithwith Noise
withNoise Barriers
NoiseBarriers
Barriers
In
In addition to the normal traffic
In addition to the normal trafficnoise
addition to the normal traffic noise maps
noisemaps presented
mapspresented
presentedin in Figures
inFigures 6–8,
Figures6–8, daytime
6–8,daytime
daytimeand and
and
nighttime
nighttime noise compliance maps of Panyu District were also developed, and they are
nighttime noise
noise compliance
compliance maps
maps of
of Panyu
Panyu District
District were
were also
also developed,
developed, and
and they
they are
are
shown
shown
shownin in Figures
inFigures
Figures10 10
10andand
and11,11, respectively.
11,respectively.
respectively.By By comparing
Bycomparing
comparingthem them
themwithwith the
withthe compliance
thecompliance
compliancemaps maps
maps
without
without
withoutnoisenoise barriers
noisebarriers
barriersfromfrom
fromLee Lee
Leeet et al.
etal. [36],
[36],itit
al.[36], can
itcan
canbe be noted
benoted that
notedthat
thatbyby building
bybuilding noise
buildingnoise barriers,
noisebarriers,
barriers,
the
the number
thenumber
numberof of qualified
ofqualified areas
qualifiedareas
areasin in both
inboth
boththethe daytime
thedaytime
daytimeand and nighttime
andnighttime along
nighttimealong
alongthethe traffic
thetraffic arteries
trafficarteries
arteries
increases.
increases. Among them, the residential areas along the traffic arteries
increases. Among them, the residential areas along the traffic arteries increase the most.
Among them, the residential areas along the traffic arteries increase
increase the
the most.
most.
Thus,
Thus, it
it can
can be
be concluded
concluded that
that the
the implementation
implementation of
of noise
noise barriers
barriers is
is an
an
Thus, it can be concluded that the implementation of noise barriers is an efficient approach efficient
efficient approach
approach
to
to the
tothe reduction
reductionofof
thereduction the
ofthe impact
impactofof
theimpact traffic
oftraffic noise
trafficnoise
noiseonon
on the
the
the residents
residents
residents living
living along
along
living thethe
along traffic
traffic
the arter-
arteries.
traffic arter-
ies.
From From
FiguresFigures
10 and10 and
11, it11,
can itbecan be calculated
calculated that, that,
with with
noisenoise barriers,
barriers, the
ies. From Figures 10 and 11, it can be calculated that, with noise barriers, the total compli- the
total total compli-
compliance
ance
rates rates
ance of of
of Panyu
Panyu
rates District
Panyu District in
in daytime
in daytime
District and
and nighttime
and nighttime
daytime are
are 80.00%
are 80.00%
nighttime and
and 29.08%,
and 29.08%,
80.00% respectively.
respectively.
29.08%, respectively.

Figure
Figure 10. Daytime
10.Daytime
Figure10. noise
Daytimenoise level
noiselevel compliance
levelcompliance map
compliancemap in
mapin Panyu
inPanyu District
Districtofof
PanyuDistrict Guangzhou
ofGuangzhou City.
GuangzhouCity.
City.
 Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2022,12,
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
22
2022, 12,6027
Appl. Sci.2022, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of
13 of 22

Figure 11. Nighttime noise level compliance map in Panyu District of Guangzhou City.
Figure11.
Figure 11.Nighttime
Nighttimenoise
noiselevel
levelcompliance
compliancemap
mapin
inPanyu
PanyuDistrict
Districtof
ofGuangzhou
GuangzhouCity.
City.

Figure12
Figure 12 showsthethe comparisonof of the compliance
compliance rates of of various acoustic
acoustic environ-
Figure 12shows
shows thecomparison
comparison of the the compliance rates rates of various
various acoustic environ-
environ-
ment
ment functional
functional areas
areas between
between the
the cases
cases with
with and
and without
without noise
noise barriers.
barriers. Itcould
It couldbebefound
found
ment functional areas between the cases with and without noise barriers. It could be found
that,
that, with noise barriers, the compliance rates of all acoustic environmental functional ar-
that, with
with noise barriers, the
noise barriers, thecompliance
compliancerates ratesofofallallacoustic
acoustic environmental
environmental functional
functional ar-
eas
areas obviously increased
obviouslyincreased in both
increasedininboth daytime
bothdaytime
daytimeandand nighttime.
andnighttime.
nighttime.The The compliance
Thecompliance rates
compliancerates of class
class4
ratesofofclass
eas obviously 4
4acoustic
acousticenvironment
acoustic environmentfunctional
environment functionalareas
functional areas were
areas were increased
were increased most
increased
significantly by
most significantly
most
by 33.21%and
significantly by 33.21%
33.21% and
and
16.54%,respectively,
16.54%, respectively, indaytime
daytime andnighttime.
nighttime. However,the the complianceratesrates ofclass
class 1
16.54%, respectively,in in daytimeand and nighttime.However,
However, thecompliance
compliance ratesof of class 11
acoustic
acoustic environment functional areas increased the least, with 7.63% and 6.19% in day-
acousticenvironment
environmentfunctional
functionalareas
areasincreased
increased thethe
least, with
least, 7.63%
with andand
7.63% 6.19% in daytime
6.19% in day-
time
and and nighttime, respectively. Overall, it can be calculated that, with the application of
timenighttime, respectively.
and nighttime, Overall,
respectively. it can be
Overall, calculated
it can that, with
be calculated that,the application
with of noise
the application of
noise barriers,
barriers, the
the total total compliance rates of Panyu District in daytime and nighttime could
noise barriers, thecompliance rates rates
total compliance of Panyu District
of Panyu in daytime
District and and
in daytime nighttime could
nighttime be
could
be increased
increased by 18.38%
by 18.38% andand 12.62%,
12.62%, respectively.
respectively.
be increased by 18.38% and 12.62%, respectively.

Figure12.
12. Comparison ofof the compliance
compliance rates of
of variousacoustic
acoustic environmentfunctional
functional areas
Figure 12. Comparison
Figure Comparison of the
the compliance rates
rates ofvarious
various acousticenvironment
environment functional areas
areas
betweenthe
between thecases
caseswith
withand
andwithout
withoutnoise
noisebarriers.
barriers.(a)
(a)Daytime;
Daytime;(b)
(b)nighttime.
nighttime.
between the cases with and without noise barriers. (a) Daytime; (b) nighttime.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 14 of 21

3.4. Effects of Noise Barriers on the Populations Exposed to Traffic Noise

3.4. Effects of Noise Barriers on the Populations Exposed to Traffic Noise
As discussed above, it is obvious that the application of noise barriers has significant
As discussed above, it is obvious that the application of noise barriers has significant
impacts on the quality of the sound environment. To be more precise, it will be of interest
impacts on the quality of the sound environment. To be more precise, it will be of interest
to evaluate the effects of noise barriers on the populations exposed to traffic noise. As the
to evaluate the effects of noise barriers on the populations exposed to traffic noise. As the
area of Panyu District (about 530 km2) is too large, the computational cost of accounting
area of Panyu District (about 530 km2 ) is too large, the computational cost of accounting
for the exposed populations in Panyu District is tremendous. Therefore, as an alternative,
for the exposed populations in Panyu District is tremendous. Therefore, as an alternative,
the University Town, which is an isolated island in the north of Panyu District, was taken
the University Town, which is an isolated island in the north of Panyu District, was taken
as the studied area to investigate the influence of noise barriers on the exposed population.
asAsthe studied
shown area to13,
in Figure investigate
the locationtheandinfluence of noise
geographic barriers on
information ofthe
theexposed
University population.
Town
Asin shown in Figure
Panyu district are 13, the location
illustrated. and geographic
According to data from information
the seventhof the University
census of Panyu Dis-Town
intrict
Panyu district are illustrated. According to data from the seventh
[45], the permanent population of the University Town was 142,550 by 2021. To real- census of Panyu Dis-
trict [45], the permanent population of the University Town was 142,550
ize the population distribution in the numerical model, the total population was assigned by 2021. To realize
the population
to each residentialdistribution
building in the University
in the numerical Townmodel,following
the total the
population
guidelines was
of assigned
[46], and to
each residential building in the University Town following the guidelines
then the populations exposed to different noise quality levels were calculated according of [46], and then
the
to the developed noise map, as shown in Table 6. The final results of the populations to
populations exposed to different noise quality levels were calculated according ex-the
developed noise map, as shown in Table 6. The final results of the
posed to different noise quality levels are summarized in Table 7. Therein, the classifica- populations exposed
totions
different
of noisenoise quality
quality levels
levels are summarized
follow in Table [47],
the national standard 7. Therein,
as shown the inclassifications
Table A2 in of
noise quality
Appendix A.levels
It couldfollow the national
be found that thestandard
existence[47], as shown
of noise in Table
barriers could A2 in Appendix
significantly re- A.
Itduce
couldthebepopulations
found that living
the existence
in “lightofpollution”,
noise barriers could significantly
“moderate pollution”, and reduce
“heavythepollu-
popula-
tions
tion”living
areas in “lightthe
during pollution”,
daytime by “moderate pollution”,
14.40%, 25.76%, andand “heavy
26.42%, pollution”As
respectively. areas during
a result,
the daytime by 14.40%, 25.76%, and 26.42%, respectively. As
the populations living in areas that were under the noise quality rating of “good” were a result, the populations
living in areas
increased that were
by 59.59%. under the noise
Furthermore, quality rating
the number of “good”
of people living were
in the increased
areas thatby were
59.59%.
Furthermore,
“heavily polluted” in the nighttime could be significantly decreased by up to 22.32% in
the number of people living in the areas that were “heavily polluted” bythe
nighttime could be significantly decreased by up to 22.32% by applying
applying noise barriers, while the number of people living in the “quite good” areas could noise barriers,
while the number
be increased by asofmuch
people asliving
85.07%.in the “quite
Hence, it isgood” areas that
suggested couldthebeinstallation
increased by of as much
noise
as 85.07%.
barriers Hence,
is quite it is suggested
effective in improvingthat the sound
installation of noisequality
environment barriers of is quite effective
residential areas, in
improving
and thus, the thedetrimental
sound environment
impact of quality of residential
traffic noise on the healthareas,
ofand thus, can
residents the detrimental
be allevi-
impact
ated. of traffic noise on the health of residents can be alleviated.

Figure13.
Figure 13. Location
Location and
and geographic
geographic information
informationofofthe
theUniversity
UniversityTown
TownininPanyu
PanyuDistrict.
District.

Table6.6.Populations
Table Populations under
under different
different noise
noise exposure
exposurelevels
levelsininthe
theUniversity
UniversityTown.
Town.
Noise Exposure Level (dBA) <40 40~45 45~50 50~55 55~60 60~65 65~70 70~75 >75
Noise Exposure Level (dBA) <40 40~45 45~50 50~55 55~60 60~65 65~70 70~75 >75
Lday 105 1005 17,107 36,916 36,553 28,647 19,974 2231 11
L day 105 1005 17,107 36,916 36,553 28,647 19,974 2231 11
Without noise barrier Lnight 141 1862 20,310 37,951 35,713 27,640 17,077 1855 2
Without noise barrier Lnight 141 1862 20,310 37,951 35,713 27,640 17,077 1855 2
L dn
Ldn 0
0 26
26 335
335
8632
8632
31,124
31,124
39,916
39,916
30,097
30,097
25,688
25,688
67316731
Lday 116 1893 27,063 44,574 31,289 21,267 14,506 1842 0
Lday 116 1893 27,063 44,574 31,289 21,267 14,506 1842 0
With noise barrier Lnight 160 3446 30,466 44,557 29,442 21,152 11,788 1540 0
With noise barrier Lnight 160 3446 30,466 44,557 29,442 21,152 11,788 1540 0
L
L dn 00 9292 1171
1171 23,553
23,553 44,117
44,117 33,749
33,749 21,452
21,452 16,002
16,002 24142414
dn
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 15 of 21

Table 7. Population under different noise quality levels (“−” indicates a decrease).

Noise Quality Level Good Quite Good Slightly Polluted Moderately Polluted Heavy Polluted
Without noise barrier 18,217 36,916 36,553 28,647 22,217
Day With noise barrier 29,072 44,574 31,289 21,267 16,347
Variation rate (%) 59.59% 20.74% −14.40% −25.76% −26.42%
Without noise barrier 141 1862 20,311 37,951 82,286
Night With noise barrier 160 3446 30,466 44,557 63,921
Variation rate (%) 13.48% 85.07% 50.00% 17.41% −22.32%

3.5. Effects of Noise Barriers on the Populations of Highly Annoyed and Sleep-Disturbed Citizens
According to the practice of Licitra et al. [48] and Fredianelli et al. [49], the present
study calculated two group noise indicators, “Gdn ” and “Gnight ” (dBA), for the exposed
population in the University Town. These two group population noise indices, respectively,
represent the nominal noise energy exposed to the population during day–night and
nighttime. By combining the noise index in the present study, the group noise indices can,
therefore, be calculated as follows:
 
1 n
Ntot ∑i
0.1· Ldn,i
Gdn = 10· log10 ni ·10 (1)

 
1 n
Ntot ∑i
0.1· Lnight,i
Gnight = 10· log10 ni ·10 (2)

where Ntot is the total population, ni is the population exposed to the i-th noise exposure
level, Ldn,i is the representative value of the i-th noise exposure level in day–night, and
Lnight,i is the representative value of the i-th noise exposure level in nighttime. Referring
to [48], the representative values corresponding to different noise exposure levels are
presented in Table 8.

Table 8. The representative values corresponding to different noise exposure levels.

Noise Exposure Level Ldn,i (dBA)/Lnight,i (dBA)

40–45 43.5
45–50 47.5
50–55 53.5
55–60 57.5
60–65 63.5
65–70 67.5
>75 77.5

Additionally, in order to assess the highly annoyed (PHA ) and highly sleep-disturbed
(PHSD ) populations under the conditions with and without noise barriers, the methodolo-
gies proposed in [49–51] were applied. The calculation of PHA is in reference to [50], and
the formula is shown below.
n  
PHA = ∑ Pi · 9.994·10−4 ·( Ldn,i − 42)3 − 1.523·10−2 ·( Ldn,i − 42)2 +0.538·( Ldn,i − 42) /100 (3)
i

where PHA is the total number of highly troubled people, and Pi is the population exposed
to the i-th noise exposure level. The calculation of PHSD is in reference to [49,51], and the
formula can be written as
  2 
n
PHSD = ∑i Pi · 19.4312 − 0.9336· Lnight,i +0.0126· Lnight,i /100 (4)

where PHSD is the population whose sleep is severely disturbed by traffic noises.
The results of the highly annoyed and sleep-disturbed populations are summarized
in Table 9. With the application of noise barriers, Gdn and Gnight were reduced by 2.5 and
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 16 of 21

1.2 dBA, respectively. The smaller reduction of Gnight could be due to the fact that the
traffic flow in nighttime was relatively lighter and, hence, the effects of the noise barriers
were not as significant as those in the daytime in reducing the noise energy to which the
population was exposed. Table 9 also shows that the highly annoyed population was
reduced from 26,605 to 20,709, corresponded to a significant reduction of 22.16%. However,
for the highly sleep-disturbed population, which was assessed only in the nighttime, the
reduction is relatively smaller. The same reason as that explained above can be applied to
this phenomenon as well.

Table 9. Gdn , Gnight , PHA , and PHSD for the University Town.

Gdn (dBA) Gnight (dBA) PHA PHSD

Without noise barrier 69.6 62.1 26,605 10,559
With noise barrier 67.1 60.9 20,709 10,052
Difference 2.5 1.2 5896 507

4. Conclusions
Based on a traffic noise map of Panyu District (including road and railway traffic
noise), noise barriers were proposed for implementation in areas that suffer from high traffic
noise levels. The effects of noise barriers on the spatial noise distributions, noise quality
levels, populations exposed to traffic noise, and populations of highly annoyed and sleep-
disturbed people were analyzed. Noise compliance maps with and without noise barriers
were compared. The results showed that, with the application of noise barriers, the coverage
of areas with better traffic noise quality levels (good, quite good, and slight pollution)
increased, while the coverage of areas with worse traffic noise quality levels (moderate and
heavy pollution) decreased. Furthermore, the total noise level compliance rates during
the daytime and nighttime were increased by about 18.38% and 12.62%, respectively. It
was found that noise barriers were quite effective in improving the quality of the sound
environment of residential areas, and thus, the populations exposed to detrimental traffic
noise were significantly reduced. The group noise indicators Gdn and Gnight showed that the
application of noise barriers could reduce the average noise energy to which the population
was exposed, and thus, the population of highly annoyed people was significantly reduced.
However, Gnight , which represented the population of sleep-disturbed people, indicated
that the effect of noise barriers on the population of sleep-disturbed people was not as
significant as that of the population under high annoyance. Nonetheless, noise barriers can
still be considered as an effective noise reduction measure that can be applied in critical
urban areas under high traffic noise exposure.
In the present study, the noise barriers studied were traditional ones that were built
in commercial software for noise mapping. In fact, these types of noise barriers cannot
reflect the performance of the latest concepts of noise barriers in real applications. In the
future, with the collection of the design and performance parameters of newly optimized
noise barriers, such as sonic crystal noise barriers [52], sonic crystal barriers with resonator
holes [53], and metamaterial noise barriers [54,55], the methodologies proposed in this
study can be applied to evaluate the effects of new types of noise barriers on the qualities
of the sound environments of large cities with dense populations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.M.L.; methodology, H.M.L.; software, W.L. and H.P.L.;
validation, W.L.; formal analysis, W.L.; investigation, W.L.; resources, H.M.L. and J.X.; data curation,
W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.M.L.; writing—review and editing, H.M.L.; visualization,
H.P.L.; supervision, H.M.L. and J.X.; project administration, H.M.L.; funding acquisition, H.M.L. and
J.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51908142],
Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2019A1515012223, 2021A1515012269], and
Guangzhou Basic Research Program—City School (College) Joint Funding Project [202102010384,
202102010410].
 H.P.L.; validation, W.L.; formal analysis, W.L.; investigation, W.L.; resources, H.M.L. and J.X.; data
curation, W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.M.L.; writing—review and editing, H.M.L.;
visualization, H.P.L.; supervision, H.M.L. and J.X.; project administration, H.M.L.; funding acquisi-
tion, H.M.L. and J.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 17 of 21
[51908142], Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2019A1515012223,
2021A1515012269], and Guangzhou Basic Research Program—City School (College) Joint Funding
Project [202102010384, 202102010410].
Institutional ReviewBoard
Institutional Review BoardStatement:
Statement: Not
Not applicable.
applicable.
Informed
Informed Consent Not
Statement:Not
Consent Statement: applicable.
applicable.
Data Availability
Data Availability Statement:
Statement:Data
Dataare available
are from
available thethe
from corresponding author
corresponding on request.
author on request.
Conflicts of
Conflicts of Interest:
Interest: The
Theauthors
authorsdeclare
declarenono
conflict of interest.
conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

Figure A1.
Figure A1. Daytime
Daytimeurban
urbantraffic
trafficnoise
noisemap
mapof of
Panyu District,
Panyu Guangzhou
District, City City
Guangzhou [36]. [36].

Figure A2.
Figure A2. Nighttime
Nighttimeurban traffic
urban noise
traffic mapmap
noise of Panyu District,
of Panyu Guangzhou
District, City [36].City [36].
Guangzhou
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 18 of 21

Figure A2. Nighttime urban traffic noise map of Panyu District, Guangzhou City [36].

Figure A3. Day–night urban traffic noise map of Panyu District, Guangzhou City [36].
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22
Figure A3. Day–night urban traffic noise map of Panyu District, Guangzhou City [36].

Table A1. Area, coverage, and noise limits of acoustic environment functional areas in Panyu District
of Guangzhou
Table A1. Area,City [50]. and noise limits of acoustic environment functional areas in Panyu Dis-
coverage,
trict of Guangzhou City [50].
Class Coverage Area (km2 )2 Limit (dBA) Limitnight (dBA)
Class Coverage Area (km ) Limitdayday
(dBA) Limitnight (dBA)
Nature
Natureconservation
conservationarea, cultural
area, education
cultural area,
education area,
1 1 69.5
69.5 5555 45 45
administrative area, and medical service
administrative area, and medical service areaarea
2 Residential area and trade area 331.5 60 50
2 Residential area and trade area 331.5 60 50
3 Warehouse and logistics area and industrial area 49.1 65 55
4a, 4b 3 Warehouse
Areas onand logistics
both area
sides of and industrial
a traffic artery area 49.1
79.8 6570 55 55, 60
4a, 4b Areas on both sides of a traffic artery 79.8 70 55, 60

Figure A4.
Figure A4. Acoustic
Acousticenvironment
environmentfunctional areasareas
functional in Panyu District
in Panyu of Guangzhou
District City [56].City [56].
of Guangzhou
Table A2. Classification of environmental noise quality levels in urban areas [47].

Quality Level 𝑳𝒅𝒂𝒚 (dBA) 𝑳𝒏𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 (dBA)

Good ≤50 ≤ 40
Quite good 50.1–55.0 40.1–45.0
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 19 of 21

Table A2. Classification of environmental noise quality levels in urban areas [47].

Quality Level Lday (dBA) Lnight (dBA)

Good ≤50 ≤40
Quite good 50.1–55.0 40.1–45.0
Slightly polluted 55.1–60.0 45.1–50.0
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Moderately polluted 60.1–65.0 50.1–55.0 20 of 22
Heavily polluted >65 >55

FigureA5.
Figure A5. Distribution
Distribution of
offunctional
functionalareas
areasand
andtraffic arteries
traffic in Panyu
arteries District
in Panyu of Guangzhou
District City
of Guangzhou
[36].
City [36].

References
References
1.1. Guski,R.;
Guski, R.;Schreckenberg,
Schreckenberg,D.; D.;Schuemer,
Schuemer,R.R.WHO WHOenvironmental
environmentalnoise noiseguidelines
guidelinesfor forthe
theEuropean
Europeanregion:
region:AAsystematic
systematicreview
review
on environmental noise and annoyance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14,
on environmental noise and annoyance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1539. [CrossRef] [PubMed]1539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080873.
2.2. European
European Commission.
Commission. Report ReportfromfromthetheCommission
Commissiontotothethe European
European Parliament
Parliament andand
thethe
Council. On the
Council. On Implementation of theofEnvi-
the Implementation the
ronmental Noise
Environmental Directive
Noise in accordance
Directive in Accordancewithwith
Article 11 of11
Article Directive 2002/49/EC;
of Directive COM/2017/0151
2002/49/EC; COM/2017/0151 Final;Final;
European Commission:
European Commission: Brus-
sels, Belgium,
Brussels, 2017.
Belgium, 2017.
3.3. Titu,
Titu,A.M.;
A.M.; Boroiu,
Boroiu, A.A.; Mihailescu,
Mihailescu, S.; S.; Pop,
Pop,A.B.;
A.B.;Boroiu,
Boroiu,A.A.Assessment
Assessment of of
Road
RoadNoise
Noise Pollution in Urban
Pollution in Urban Residential
Residential Ar-
eas&mdash;A
Areas—A Case Case
StudyStudy in Pite¸
in Pite¸sti, sti, Romania.
Romania. Appl. Appl. Sci. 2022,
Sci. 2022, 12, 4053.
12, 4053. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12084053.
[CrossRef]
4.4. Araújo
AraújoAlves,
Alves,J.;J.;Neto
Neto Paiva,
Paiva, F.; F.; Torres
Torres Silva,
Silva, L.; Remoaldo,
L.; Remoaldo, P. Low-frequency
P. Low-frequency noise noise
and itsand
mainitseffects
main effects
on humanon human
health—A health—A
review
review
of of the literature
the literature betweenbetween
2016 and2016 2019.and 2019.
Appl. Sci.Appl.
2020,Sci.
10,2020,
5205.10, 5205. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155205.
[CrossRef]
5.5. Peris,
Peris,E.E.Environmental
Environmentalnoise noiseininEurope:
Europe:2020.
2020.Eur.
Eur.Environ.
Environ.Agency
Agency2020,
2020,1,1,104.
104.[CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.2800/686249.
6.6. World
WorldHealth
HealthOrganization.
Organization.Burden Burdenof ofDisease
DiseasefromfromEnvironmental
EnvironmentalNoise. Noise. InIn Quantification
Quantification of of Healthy
Healthy Life
Life Years
YearsLost
Lost in
in Europe;
Europe;
WHO:Bonn,
WHO: Bonn,Germany,
Germany,2011. 2011.
7.7. Muzet,
Muzet,A. A.Environmental
Environmentalnoise, noise,sleep
sleepand
andhealth.
health.Sleep
SleepMed.
Med.Rev.
Rev.2007,
2007,11,
11,135–142.
135–142.[CrossRef]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2006.09.001.
8.8. Babisch,
Babisch,W.;W.;Beule,
Beule, B.;B.; Schust,
Schust, M.;M.; Kersten,
Kersten, N.;N.; Ising,
Ising, H. Traffic
H. Traffic noisenoise and of
and risk risk of myocardial
myocardial infarction.
infarction. Epidemiology
Epidemiology 2005,
2005, 16, 16,
33–40.
33–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000147104.84424.24.
[CrossRef]
9.9. Dratva,
Dratva,J.;J.;Phuleria,
Phuleria, H.C.;
H.C.; Foraster,
Foraster,M.; M.;Gaspoz,
Gaspoz, J.-M.;
J.-M.; Keidel,
Keidel, D.;
D.; Künzli,
Künzli, N.;
N.; Liu,
Liu, L.-J.S.;
L.-J.S.; Pons,
Pons, M.;
M.; Zemp,
Zemp, E.;E.; Gerbase,
Gerbase, M.W.M.W.
Transportationnoise
Transportation noiseand
andblood
bloodpressure
pressureinina apopulation-based
population-basedsample sampleofofadults.
adults.Environ.
Environ. Health
HealthPerspect.
Perspect. 2012,
2012, 120,
120, 50–55.
50–55.
https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103448.
[CrossRef]
10. Petri, D.; Licitra, G.; Vigotti, M.A.; Fredianelli, L. Effects of exposure to road, railway, airport and recreational noise on blood
pressure and hypertension. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9145. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179145.
11. Miedema, H.; Oudshoorn, C. Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and
their confidence intervals. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109, 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.01109409.
12. Licitra, G.; Fredianelli, L.; Petri, D.; Vigotti, M.A. Annoyance evaluation due to overall railway noise and vibration in Pisa urban
areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.071.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 20 of 21

10. Petri, D.; Licitra, G.; Vigotti, M.A.; Fredianelli, L. Effects of exposure to road, railway, airport and recreational noise on blood
pressure and hypertension. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9145. [CrossRef]
11. Miedema, H.; Oudshoorn, C. Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and
their confidence intervals. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109, 409–416. [CrossRef]
12. Licitra, G.; Fredianelli, L.; Petri, D.; Vigotti, M.A. Annoyance evaluation due to overall railway noise and vibration in Pisa urban
areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 1315–1325. [CrossRef]
13. Rossi, L.; Prato, A.; Lesina, L.; Schiavi, A. Effects of low-frequency noise on human cognitive performances in laboratory. Build.
Acoust. 2018, 25, 17–33. [CrossRef]
14. Erickson, L.C.; Newman, R.S. Influences of background noise on infants and children. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 26, 451–457.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Zacarías, F.F.; Molina, R.H.; Ancela, J.L.C.; López, S.L.; Ojembarrena, A.A. Noise exposure in preterm infants treated with
respiratory support using neonatal helmets. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2013, 99, 590–597. [CrossRef]
16. Minichilli, F.; Gorini, F.; Ascari, E.; Bianchi, F.; Coi, A.; Fredianelli, L.; Licitra, G.; Manzoli, F.; Mezzasalma, L.; Cori, L. Annoyance
judgment and measurements of environmental noise: A focus on Italian secondary schools. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018,
15, 208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Wilhelmsson, M. The impact of traffic noise on the values of single-family houses. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2000, 43, 799–815.
[CrossRef]
18. Theebe, M.A. Planes, trains, and automobiles: The impact of traffic noise on house prices. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 2004, 28, 209–234.
[CrossRef]
19. Cohen, J.P.; Coughlin, C.C. Spatial hedonic models of airport noise, proximity, and housing prices. J. Reg. Sci. 2008, 48, 859–878.
[CrossRef]
20. Andersson, H.; Jonsson, L.; Ögren, M. Property prices and exposure to multiple noise sources: Hedonic regression with road and
railway noise. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 45, 73–89. [CrossRef]
21. Mense, A.; Kholodilin, K.A. Noise expectations and house prices: The reaction of property prices to an airport expansion. Ann.
Reg. Sci. 2014, 52, 763–797. [CrossRef]
22. Swoboda, A.; Nega, T.; Timm, M. Hedonic analysis over time and space: The case of house prices and traffic noise. J. Reg. Sci.
2015, 55, 644–670. [CrossRef]
23. Trojanek, R.; Tanas, J.; Raslanas, S.; Banaitis, A. The impact of aircraft noise on housing prices in Poznan. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2088.
[CrossRef]
24. Vogiatzis, K.; Remy, N. Soundscape design guidelines through noise mapping methodologies: An application to medium urban
agglomerations. Noise Mapp. 2017, 4, 1–19. [CrossRef]
25. Ramesh, B.R.; Bhaven, N.T. Urban road traffic noise monitoring, mapping, modelling, and mitigation: A thematic review. Noise
Mapp. 2022, 9, 48–66. [CrossRef]
26. Paschalidou, A.K.; Kassomenos, P.; Chonianaki, F. Strategic Noise Maps and Action Plans for the reduction of population
exposure in a Mediterranean port city. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 144–153. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Lan, Z.; He, C.; Cai, M. Urban road traffic noise spatiotemporal distribution mapping using multisource data. Transp. Res. Part D
Transp. Environ. 2020, 82, 102323. [CrossRef]
28. do Nascimento, E.O.; de Oliveira, F.L.; de Oliveira, L.N.; Zannin, P.H.T. Noise prediction based on acoustic maps and vehicle fleet
composition. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 174, 107803. [CrossRef]
29. Zhao, W.J.; Liu, E.X.; Poh, H.J.; Wang, B.; Gao, S.P.; Png, C.E.; Li, K.W.; Chong, S.H. 3D traffic noise mapping using unstruc-tured
surface mesh representation of buildings and roads. Appl. Acoust. 2017, 127, 297–304. [CrossRef]
30. Bostanci, B. Accuracy assessment of noise mapping on the main street. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 4. [CrossRef]
31. Paschalidou, A.K.; Kassomenos, P.; Chonianaki, F.; Valkouma, T. 3-year noise monitoring and strategic noise mapping in an
extended motorway. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 15608–15616. [CrossRef]
32. Sonaviya, D.R.; Tandel, B.N. Integrated road traffic noise mapping in urban Indian context. Noise Mapp. 2020, 7, 99–113. [CrossRef]
33. Alam, P.; Ahmad, K.; Khan, A.H.; Khan, N.A.; Dehghani, M.H. 2D and 3D mapping of traffic induced noise near major roads
passing through densely populated residential area of South Delhi, India. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248939. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Wosniacki, G.G.; Zannin, P.H.T. Framework to manage railway noise exposure in Brazil based on field measurements and
strategic noise mapping at the local level. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 757, 143721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Laxmi, V.; Thakre, C.; Vijay, R. Evaluation of noise barriers based on geometries and materials: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2022, 29, 1729–1745. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Lee, H.M.; Luo, W.; Xie, J.; Lee, H.P. Urban Traffic Noise Mapping Using Building Simplification in the Panyu District of
Guangzhou City, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4465. [CrossRef]
37. Standard Requirement of Acoustic Design and Measurement for Noise Barrier; Technical Report HJ/T 90-2004; Ministry of Environmen-
tal Protection of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2004.
38. Jiang, K. Optimization Study of Road Noise Barrier. Master’s Thesis, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, 2008.
39. Song, S. Analysis on noise reduction effect of expressway noise barrier and study on its applicability. Master’s thesis, Chang’an
University, Xi’an, China, 2014.
40. Wang, X. Design of noise barrier for expressway near urban area. Constr. Des. Proj. 2019, 7. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6027 21 of 21

41. Wu, X.; Lu, Z.; Wu, X.; Yu, X.; Huang, X.; Shi, G. Effect analysis of noise barrier design on traffic noise in residential road. Urban.
Archit. 2019, 11. [CrossRef]
42. Chen, L.; Ye, Y.; Tang, Y.; Shi, Y. Analysis of the influence of expressway traffic noise on the acoustic environment of resi-dential
area. Guangdong Highw. Commun. 2019, 45, 189–191.
43. Sun, H. Study on the Characteristics of Noise Barriers with Different Structures. Master’s Thesis, Dalian Jiaotong University,
Dalian, China, 2008.
44. Zheng, Z. Study on Influence of Noise from Main Road on Campus and Design of Noise Barrier. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University,
Changchun, China, 2008.
45. Guangzhou Panyu District Statistics Bureau, Bulletin of the Seventh National Census of Panyu District, Guangzhou. Available
online: http://www.panyu.gov.cn/gzpytj/gkmlpt/content/7/7325/post_7325645.html#1582 (accessed on 28 May 2022).
46. Vorläufige Berechnungsmethode zur Ermittlung der Belastetenzahlen durch Umgebungslärm (VBEB); Technical Report; Bundesanzeiger:
Dortmund, Germany, 2007.
47. Technical Specification for Acoustic Environment Quality Evaluation; Technical Report; Ministry of Environmental Protection of the
People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
48. Licitra, G.; Ascari, E. Gden: An indicator for European noise maps comparison and to support action plans. Sci. Total Environ.
2014, 482, 411–419. [CrossRef]
49. Fredianelli, L.; Carpita, S.; Bernardini, M.; Del Pizzo, L.G.; Brocchi, F.; Bianco, F.; Licitra, G. Traffic Flow Detection Using Camera
Images and Machine Learning Methods in ITS for Noise Map and Action Plan Optimization. Sensors 2022, 22, 1929. [CrossRef]
50. Position Paper on Dose Response Relationships between Transportation Noise and Annoyance; Technical Report; European Commission:
Luxembourg, 2002.
51. Basner, M.; McGuire, S. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental
Noise and Effects on Sleep. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 519. [CrossRef]
52. Fredianelli, L.; Del Pizzo, A.; Licitra, G. Recent Developments in Sonic Crystals as Barriers for Road Traffic Noise Mitigation.
Environments 2019, 6, 14. [CrossRef]
53. Lee, H.M.; Hua, Y.; Xie, J.; Lee, H.P. Parametric Optimization of Local Resonant Sonic Crystals Window on Noise Attenuation by
Using Taguchi Method and ANOVA Analysis. Crystals 2022, 12, 160. [CrossRef]
54. Kumar, S.; Lee, H.P. The Present and Future Role of Acoustic Metamaterials for Architectural and Urban Noise Mitigations.
Acoustics 2019, 1, 590–607. [CrossRef]
55. Iannace, G.; Ciaburro, G.; Trematerra, A. Metamaterials acoustic barrier. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 181, 108172. [CrossRef]
56. Division of Acoustic Environment Functional Area in Guangzhou; Technical Report; Environmental Protection Bureau of Guangzhou:
Guangzhou, China, 2018.