Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 5.7 Types of sounds
investigated in a park in Hong
Kong by Tse et al. ( 2012 )
Natural sounds
Insects
Fountain
Tree murmur
Twittering of birds
Sea wave
Running water
Calling crows
Barking dogs
Waterfall
Wind
Rain
Thunder
Anthropogenic and mechanical sounds
Car horn Car reverse horn Heavy vehicles
Bicycle ring Ship siren Talking
Siren from ambulance/fire Train Screaming
engine/police vehicles Airplane Footsteps
Music Light vehicles Cell phone ring
Source: Reproduced with permission from Tse et al. ( 2012 )
anthropogenic and mechanical sounds (Table 5.7 ). The interviews were carried out
contemporarily to the measurement of the sound pressure level and at A-weighted
percentile level. Personal information were also collected during the interview:
Gender (male: female); age (years) (
60); purpose
of visiting the park (resting, undertaking physical activities, raising kids, other
purposes); duration of stay (min) (
<
15, 16-25, 26-40, 41-60,
>
120); local
resident (yes, no); self-rated auditory capability (very poor, poor, average, good,
very good).
Specific statistics were presented to characterize the acoustic comfort (very
uncomfortable, uncomfortable, neutral, comfortable, very comfortable), acceptabil-
ity of the environment (very unacceptable, unacceptable, neutral, acceptable, very
acceptable), preference to stay because of soundscape quality (leave right away,
considering leaving, neutral, considering staying, continue to stay). From a multi-
variate analysis resulted an interrelationship among acoustic comfort evaluation,
acceptability of environment, and preference to stay in a park. The acoustic-related
factors, park environmental factors, and individual receptor characteristics contrib-
ute to the acoustic comfort of urban parks. The comfort factor is influenced not only
by the sound pressure level ( L eq ) and by subjective sound evaluation but also by
specific types of sounds such as breezes, bikes, or heavy vehicles.
The natural sounds are more preferred than anthropogenic and mechanical ones.
Natural sounds (birds and falling water), although preferred, do not contribute to
individual acoustic comfort. Breeze and bikes increase the comfort score but heavy
vehicles depress such a score. The visual quality of a park contributes to formatting
a positive rating of acoustic comfort. High visual comfort attracts 2.2 times more
acoustic comfort than a low subjectively evaluated sound level and 7.6 times a
reduction of 1 dB(A) of sound pressure. This finding confirms the results of other
investigations for which annoyance is affected by visual quality of the surround-
ings. This effect is the result of a spatiality of the cognitive maps that we have in our
brain and that we associate with an expected sonic environment. The motivation to
visit a specific park seems to not influence the final acoustic comfort rating. Also,
the cultural component of the subject has not a clear trend. Acoustic comfort
evaluation represents a better proxy of individual preferences to stay in a park
<
30, 30-59, 60-89, 90-119,
>
Search WWH ::




Custom Search