How can the public safeguard their "right to quiet"? This story of Judge Dong reducing noise demonstrates the power of public intervention.

A New Approach to Urban Noise Governance under the Rule of Law and Collaborative Governance: A Case Study of Noise Dispute Mediation in Haizhu District, Guangzhou

When noise becomes an "invisible killer"

In the process of urbanization, the "right to quiet" has become a core demand of citizens' environmental rights. In April 2025, the Haizhu District Court of Guangzhou successfully mediated a case of "low-frequency noise pollution from a drum set training class." Although the noise level was within acceptable limits, Judge Dong Guangxu facilitated a settlement between the two parties through flexible mediation, providing a judicial model for resolving noise disputes based on "non-excessive noise infringement." This case reflects the awakening of public awareness of their rights and the upgrading of government governance capabilities.

I. How can the public scientifically safeguard their "right to quiet"?

1. Clarify the legal basis and anchor the foundation for rights protection.

• Legal recourse : According to Article 86 of the Noise Pollution Prevention and Control Law, even if the noise level does not exceed the standard, if it actually affects the lives of others, tort liability can still be claimed. In this case, although Zhang's test results met the standards, the court still ruled that he was infringing because he was sensitive to low-frequency noise during his recovery period, reflecting the law's protection of special groups.
• Evidence chain construction : Residents can preserve evidence by recording audio with their mobile phones, monitoring with decibel meters, and conducting tests by third-party institutions (such as the professional institution commissioned in this case), and record the noise time, frequency, and health impact.

2. Make good use of diverse mediation methods to avoid ending up in court.

• Preliminary consultation : First, communicate with the main party responsible for the noise and propose rectification suggestions (such as installing soundproofing facilities or adjusting business hours). In this case, Ms. Li had installed soundproofing cotton, but due to technical limitations, the problem was not completely solved.
• Administrative complaints : These complaints are reported to departments such as environmental protection, urban management, and street offices, triggering joint enforcement actions. Guangzhou's Haizhu District utilizes a multi-party collaborative model involving the court, street offices, neighborhood committees, and testing agencies to quickly pinpoint the core of the conflict.

3. Judicial Remedies: From "Passive Tolerance" to "Proactive Action"

• Litigation strategy : If negotiations fail, a lawsuit for "noise pollution liability dispute" can be filed, demanding cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. In this case, Mr. Zhang promoted rectification through litigation, ultimately achieving a "win-win" situation.
• Innovative precedent : Guangzhou courts have established the principle of "actual impact takes precedence over numerical standards" in their rulings, providing a reference for similar cases and compelling noise source owners to take responsibility.

II. How can the government weave a tight "co-governance network" for noise control?

1. Policy Upgrade: From "One-Size-Fits-All" to "Refined" Approach

• Standard iteration : The "Residential Project Specification" implemented in May 2025 will reduce the floor sound insulation standard from 75 decibels to 65 decibels and add a low-frequency noise limit to reduce disputes from the source of construction.
• Categorized management : Designate noise-sensitive areas (such as around hospitals and schools) and restrict the entry of high-noise businesses; promote "quiet community" certification and require property management companies to establish noise complaint response mechanisms.

2. Technology Empowerment: Building a Closed Loop for "Monitoring-Early Warning-Response"

• Intelligent monitoring : Pilot automatic noise monitoring stations in Hangzhou, Xi'an and other places generate "noise heat maps" in real time to accurately locate pollution sources.
• Data sharing : Break down data barriers between environmental protection, public security, housing and construction departments, establish a one-stop online platform for noise complaints, and improve the efficiency of handling such complaints.

3. Flexible governance: Resolving grassroots conflicts using the "Fengqiao Experience"

• Risk warning in advance : For example, Judge Dong issued a "Legal Risk Warning Letter" to the training course, giving a 15-day rectification period to resolve disputes before litigation.
• A mechanism for balancing interests : Through "micro-modifications" such as adjusting business areas and staggering operating hours, the needs of the people and the survival of businesses are taken into account. In this case, the training center continued to operate after relocating its classrooms, thus preserving both employment and public safety.

III. Lessons Learned from the Case: Noise Control Requires a Two-Way Approach

1. The public: Finding a balance between rational rights protection and inclusiveness

• Awareness of rights : Proactively learn about noise regulations and avoid excessive rights protection (such as demanding the closure of compliant companies);
• Community involvement : Join the "noise monitoring volunteer" team and promote neighborhood self-discipline agreements.

2. Government: Integrating Rigid Enforcement with Humanized Services

• Enforcement innovation : Exploring flexible measures such as "no penalty for first-time offenders" and "credit repair" to guide enterprises to proactively rectify their violations. For example, Yongzhou City exempts enterprises that have committed their first violation from punishment if they have rectified the situation.
• Public services : Promote technologies that benefit the people, such as "ventilated and soundproof windows," and subsidize the soundproofing renovation of old residential areas to reduce the cost of rights protection for the public.

Conclusion: Let "tranquility" become the foundation of urban civilization.

Judge Dong's "noise reduction" practice is not only a manifestation of judicial wisdom but also a microcosm of the governance concept of co-construction, co-governance, and shared benefits. When the public makes good use of legal weapons and the government weaves a tight institutional network, noise disputes are no longer "unsolvable problems" but rather catalysts for the upgrading of urban civilization. In the future, we look forward to more cases protecting the "right to quiet," ensuring that every demand is heard and every home can be a place of peaceful living.

(Note: The case in this article is cited from a publicly mediated case by the Haizhu District People's Court of Guangzhou City.)