Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Review of the data reporting cycle for the Environmental Noise Directive Núria Blanes and Jaume Fons ETCLUSI / UAB Eionet National Reference Centres for.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Review of the data reporting cycle for the Environmental Noise Directive Núria Blanes and Jaume Fons ETCLUSI / UAB Eionet National Reference Centres for."— Presentation transcript:

1 Review of the data reporting cycle for the Environmental Noise Directive Núria Blanes and Jaume Fons ETCLUSI / UAB Eionet National Reference Centres for Noise – Copenhagen, 7th – 8th October

2 NOISE – Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe

3 Directive 2002/49/EC on environmental noise To the MS…... designate the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing this Directive apply the noise indicators Lden and Lnight for the preparation and revision of strategic noise mapping ensure that strategic noise maps have been made for ensure that competent authorities have drawn up action plans......ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans is delivered to the Commission Where it is requested… To the Commission…... establish common assessment methods set up a database of information on strategic noise maps... publish a summary report of data from strategic noise maps and action plans every five years submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive...

4 So… what do you do, then? Transpose the Environmental Noise Directive to national law Start to produce noise data: –Source identification and localisation –Determine competent authorities –Establish noise limit values –Develop strategic noise maps –Drawn up Noise Action plans Send this data to the European Commission

5 And… what do we do, then? Comparison of the different calculation methods (JRC) Proposal to establish common calculation methods (DG ENV and JRC) Proposal to harmonise the way to report noise data (EEA) Quality check of the data delivered (ETCLUSI) Compilation into the European noise database (ETCLUSI) Provide a content management system to report the data (EEA) Dissemination (EEA and ETCLUSI) Compliance with the law (DG ENV)

6 So… putting a timeline … END MS Reporting Obligations Noise sources – 1st round, competent authorities and limit values (DF1, DF2, DF3) Strategic noise maps (DF4) Noise sources – 2nd round, control programmes and action plans (DF5, DF6, DF7) Noise sources – 1st round update (DF1) END Reporting Mechanism (Relational database) Reportnet - DF5, DF6, DF7 (Common Repository + Automatic QC rules) Improvements in Reportnet – DF1 + Adaptation to C-NOSSOS outcomes Microsoft Excel template to report data (not longer applicable) Reporting System improvements

7 Data harmonisation 2003 – 2005 period First spreadsheet templates where provided to the MS MS send them to the EC and EC uploaded into CIRCA, communicating the delivery by to EEA and to ETCLUSI

8 Data delivered in December 2005: –Dataflow 1: Major noise sources –Dataflow 2: Competent Authorities –Dataflow 3: Noise limit values Repository: –CIRCA Which data has been sent? 2003 – 2005 period Which is the status of these dataflows?

9 Major noise sources – 2005

10 Competent authorities

11 Noise limit values

12 Basic quality check consisting on: –Timeliness –Adoption of the template provided –Completeness of the data delivered Outcome of the quality check: –QC Report –Detailed list of areas where noise strategic maps will be developed Which quality check has been done? 2003 – 2005 period

13 Main problems encountered: –Data sent to the Commission with different formats (modification of templates) and through different means ( , fax, CD/DVD,…) –Difficulties in establishing the control of the data delivered and of the data updates in CIRCA –Impossibility to collect the data in a systematic way –Language –Data quality (empty cells, completeness of the data) –GIS data nearly not delivered Problems / advantages encountered 2003 – 2005 period

14 Timeline … END MS Reporting Obligations Noise sources – 1st round, competent authorities and limit values (DF1, DF2, DF3) Strategic noise maps (DF4) Noise sources – 2nd round, control programmes and action plans (DF5, DF6, DF7) Noise sources – 1st round update (DF1) END Reporting Mechanism (Relational database) Reportnet - DF5, DF6, DF7 (Common Repository + Automatic QC rules) Improvements in Reportnet – DF1 + Adaptation to C-NOSSOS outcomes Microsoft Excel template to report data (not longer applicable) Reporting System improvements

15 Data harmonisation 2006 – 2007 period EC and EEA establish a reporting mechanism based on a database model (ENDRM) + spreadsheet templates MS send spreadsheets to the EC and EC uploaded into CIRCA

16 Data delivered in December 2007: –Dataflow 4: Strategic noise maps Noise exposure data Noise contour maps Repository: –CIRCA Which data has been sent? 2006 – 2007 period Which is the status of this dataflow? Deliveries up to 30 June 2010

17 Strategic noise maps of agglomerations

18 Strategic noise maps of Major Roads

19 Strategic noise maps of Major Railways

20 Strategic noise maps for Major Airports

21 Noise contour maps delivered… and included in NOISE

22 Which quality check has been done? 2006 – 2007 period Excel Shapefiles Access application Data model Data base Quality check 2 Georeferenced database Reference layer / Statistical analysis Quality check 1 INPUT OUTPUT Zero values Empty cells Completness Coherence Zero values Empty cells Completness Coherence Metadata Spatial reference Correctness SD DF1 vs DF4: data coincidence Metadata Spatial reference Correctness SD DF1 vs DF4: data coincidence Unique ID 1 to 1 relationship Unique ID 1 to 1 relationship COUNTRY Quality check 1 (1) TIMELINESS of the delivery & (2) Use of the TEMPLATES provided & (3) Manual QC and Manual processing

23 Outcomes of the quality check: –QC Report –European Noise Database –Noise Reference Layer Which quality check has been done? 2006 – 2007 period

24 Main advantages: –Data to be delivered standardized in a data model –Establishment of a codification system –Data can be collected in a systematic way if no modifications are done in the spreadsheet templates Main problems encountered: –Modification of the spreadhseet templates no systematic collection of the data –Difficulties in establishing the control of the data delivered and of the data updates in CIRCA –Language –Data quality (empty cells, completeness of the data, meaningless values, hundreds,…) –ENDRM recommended but not obligatory Problems / advantages encountered 2006 – 2007 period

25 Timeline … END MS Reporting Obligations Noise sources – 1st round, competent authorities and limit values (DF1, DF2, DF3) Strategic noise maps (DF4) Noise sources – 2nd round, control programmes and action plans (DF5, DF6, DF7) Noise sources – 1st round update (DF1) END Reporting Mechanism (Relational database) Reportnet - DF5, DF6, DF7 (Common Repository + Automatic QC rules) Improvements in Reportnet – DF1 + Adaptation to C-NOSSOS outcomes Microsoft Excel template to report data (not longer applicable) Reporting System improvements

26 Data harmonisation 2008 – 2010 period The ENDRM is implemented in Reportnet (content management system of the EEA) MS download the templates, fill in with the data, upload the templates and run an automatic quality check the delivery of the corresponding data is done.

27 Data delivered in December 2008 / January 2009 / June 2010: –Dataflow 5: All noise sources –Dataflow 6: Noise control programmes –Dataflow 7: Noise Action Plans –Dataflow 1 update: Major noise sources Repository: –Reportnet –CIRCA Which data has been sent? 2008 – 2010 period Which is the status of these dataflows? Deliveries up to 30 September 2010

28 All noise sources (30/09/2010)

29 Noise control programmes (30/09/2010)

30 Noise Action Plans (30/09/2010)

31 Automatic quality check done in Reportnet Manual quality check: –Timeliness –Adoption of the template provided –Unique codes between different dataflows or updates –Deliveries Manual processing –Spatial information Outcome of the quality check: –QC Reports –Noise Reference Layer version 2 (containing all sources) Which quality check has been done? 2008 – 2010 period

32 Problems / advantages encountered 2008 – 2010 period Main advantages: –Standardized format to report the data –Data dictionary and automatic QC (immediate preliminary feedback) –Reportnet allows for an adequate control of the data delivered –Data can be collected and QC in a systematic way if no modifications are done in the spreadsheet templates Main problems encountered: –Spatial data delivery and process –Duplication of reports (Reportnet /CIRCA) –ENDRM and Reportnet recommended but not obligatory

33 Timeline… next steps! … END MS Reporting Obligations Noise sources – 1st round, competent authorities and limit values (DF1, DF2, DF3) Strategic noise maps (DF4) Noise sources – 2nd round, control programmes and action plans (DF5, DF6, DF7) Noise sources – 1st round update (DF1) END Reporting Mechanism (Relational database) Reportnet - DF5, DF6, DF7 (Common Repository + Automatic QC rules) Improvements in Reportnet – DF1 + Adaptation to C-NOSSOS outcomes Microsoft Excel template to report data (not longer applicable) Reporting System improvements

34 Muchas gracias Moltes gràcies Eskerrik Asko Muitas gracias * * * * * Dziekuje Merci beaucoup Mного Благодаря Obrigado Paldies Ευχαριστώ Tack Thank you very much Dank u Hvala Köszönöm Dekuj Multumesc Dakujem Danke Takk Aitäh Grazzi Kiitos Grazie Dêkuji Cпаси́бо شُكْرًا For further information, please contact: ETCLUSI Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Facultat de Ciències, Edifici C-5, 4ª Planta E BELLATERRA (Barcelona) Spain, EU P: F: Or visit our website at:


Download ppt "Review of the data reporting cycle for the Environmental Noise Directive Núria Blanes and Jaume Fons ETCLUSI / UAB Eionet National Reference Centres for."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google