Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒ Preliminary results of the EIONET survey EIONET noise workshop 2016, Copenhagen by Bert Peeters (M+P)

Balancing costs and benefits Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒ EPA Network interest group on traffic noise abatement (IGNA) since 2010 M+P wrote four input reports on State-of-the-Art traffic noise abatement IGNA now has a common understanding: road, rail and air traffic noise seriously impact public health many succesful noise abatement measures exist But: noise measures cost money budgets are limited How to balance costs and benefits? fifth report on cost/benefit and decision methods This research has been performed for the IGNA, part of the EPA network. We have been working for IGNA since 2011. Series of reports on road, rail and air traffic noise abatement measures Now writing a report on cost-benefit analysis and other decision methods.

Decision methods report Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒ Literature study: decision criteria and decision methods how to quantify the benefits? Examples and experiences from practice in Europe: which methods are implemented in (national) legislation or ‘common practice’? Conclusions: comparison of methods, criteria, pros / cons Recommendations for ‘best practice’

EIONET survey Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒

Survey response (July 2016) Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒ Open from June 14th to July 1st 17 responses Ireland: NRA, EPA Bulgaria: 3 municipalities, NRA Switzerland: seperate road, rail others: see map Some (partial) public info added by M+P: Netherlands Germany UK Belgium (Flanders) Thank you!

Cost/benefit methods in national legislation Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒ What method is used to determine whether or not a noise abatement measure is financially justified? Different stages / levels can be distinguished: Legislation only CH and NL have implemented cost/benefit methods in national legislation Italian legislation is under development Common practice several other countries indicate ‘common practice’ methods: DK, SE, IE, PL, FI, BG, BE Ad-hoc considerations some basic ‘rules-of-thumb’, e.g. “a 0,5 m increase in barrier height must give > 1dB extra reduction” CZ: “The intuitive approach prevails”

Example: Cost effectiveness in NL Internoise 2016 - The role of monetarization in decision methods for noise abatement measures ‒‒ For road & rail traffic noise abatement measures Both costs and noise reduction are translated to “points” Budget per building depends on noise level Noise measures maximized by total budget for buildings in project area Cost effectiveness rule: if a cheaper measure exists with nearly equal noise reduction, this is sufficient Danish system is similar, based on noise exposure number (SBT) Dutch regulation is an example of Cost Effectiveness Analysis Last rule is what makes this a Cost Effectiveness method: if the last 0,5 dB costs a lot of extra money, we’re not going to do it. Better to spend it somewhere else.

The cost argument Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures To what extent is the cost effectiveness of a noise abatement measure accepted as a reason not to meet the legally required or desired noise limits? We have no legal noise limits, or only desired target values costs are generally the main argument “Budget is too low anyway, we are doing all we can!” We have noise limits, but no cost effectiveness argument current situation in IT, PL: may lead to high costs Low cost effectiveness is legally accepted as a ‘no-go’ ‘passive’ noise measures are offered if needed

Costs Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures

Monetarization of health benefits Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures Monetarization: public health benefits (annoyance, sleep disturbance, disease) are expressed in money units 8 out of 15 countries use monetarization (somehow) Values usually based on Hedonic Pricing method: effect on real estate pricing or general (EU) values: 25 €/dB/household/year (WG-HSEA) HEATCO values Quite big differences  need to look at this Alternative approach: calculate burden of disease in DALY monetarize DALY’s with VOLY / VSL

Cost benefit: example from Switzerland Internoise 2016 - The role of monetarization in decision methods for noise abatement measures ‒‒ Effectivity: percentage of target levels achieved (immissions below legal limit) Effectiveness: benefit / cost ratio costs are LCC over 40 years; standard values exist for common noise measures benefits are monetarized using Hedonic Pricing (house prices, rents) Wirtschaftlichen Tragbarheitsindex: WTI = effectivity * effectiveness / 25 Noise measures with WTI ≥ 1.0 are considered further 2nd step includes other criteria

Other criteria Usually added “ad-hoc”, or seperate rules Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures Usually added “ad-hoc”, or seperate rules Example: German / Swiss decision process cost/benefit, followed by other criteria

Conclusions (1) Main common elements: Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures Main common elements: costs for noise abatement measures are an important factor other criteria are often considered monetarization is quite common (… but values are different) Main differences: decision making and cost/benefit methods are quite different cost/benefit implementation at different levels/stages “ad hoc”  common practice  regulated

Conclusions (2) Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures Survey asks for respondant’s personal opinion: what could be improved? more budget needed for noise abatement more education on noise abatement cost/benefit considerations should be included, improved or regulated For countries looking for improvement: good examples exist within Europe “Best practice” will be described in our report

Survey is re-opened! A new chance to contribute! Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures A new chance to contribute! survey open until mid October instructions will be sent out We invite you to participate: France Spain Portugal UK Norway Austria Slovakia remaining Balkan countries Baltic states

Thank you! bertpeeters@mp.nl www.mplusp.eu +31 73 6589050 Decision making and cost/benefit methods for traffic noise abatement measures ‒‒ bertpeeters@mp.nl www.mplusp.eu +31 73 6589050 http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-noise/library/survey-decision-methods-and-cost-benefit-noise-abatement-measures