PERCEIVED SOUNDSCAPES in relation to annoyance, context and personal characteristics. Psychometric Analysis and APPLICATIONS

Transcription

1 PERCEIVED SOUNDSCAPES in relation to annoyance, context and personal characteristics Psychometric Analysis and APPLICATIONS Irene van Kamp, Elise van Kempen, Wim Swart 1 TENOR, December 8 Berlin DEGA

2 Points of Departure and Key Question Most studies into perceived soundscapes performed in parks, recreational area s and city squares; Studies into the effects of transport related noise seldom incorporate perceived soundscape; and are typically focused on negative effects, such as annoyance. BUT how do people actually describe their sound environment in areas with varying levels of road-, air or rail noise? 2

3 Method Secundary analysis on two Schiphol surveys in 2002 and 2005; Psychometric Analysis on the soundscape questions; Intercorrelations between dimensions of perceived soundscapes, annoyance, arousal as well as several measures at the contextual, social and psychological level; Comparison and Regression Analysis. 3

4 Schiphol Monitor Aim: baseline and monitoring health effects before and after expansion airport (5 th runway) Study area: radius of 25 km around the airport 4

5 Where? Design: Longitudinal Method: Questionnaire 6000 persons Panel: 600 Focusgroups: 131 persons in 6 groups 5

6 Soundscape Questions (translated from Berglund et al) Please indicate to what extent the following words describe the sounds in your living environment when you are outdoors : Not at all Very much so 1. Loud 2. Thrilling 3. Sharp 4. Light 5. Noisy 6. dull 7. Exciting 8. Intruding 9. Pleasant 10.Stressful 11.Disturbing 12.Calming 6

7 Factor Analysis Item Loading I Loading II Loading I Loading II Loud Aggravating Sharp Noisy Dull Intruding Stressful Disturbing Light Exciting Calming Pleasant

8 2002 Mean Sd Variance Negative ,21 Positive Negative Positive Internal Consistency moderate for Positive scale (.68) and high for Negative scale (.88) Lden cat Negative Positive Negative Positive , , > F value ** ** F=40.49** F= 14.68** 8

9 Schiphol outcomes: 2002 Before opening 5 th runway Outcome Perception acoustics qol Severe annoyance Road traffic Stressfull OR (95% CI) Restoring OR (95% CI) 2.6 ( ).28 ( ) Vitality (Rand) ns 1.39 ( ) GHQ 1.9 ( ).74 ( ) Need for quiet 1.9 ( ).46 ( ) Visit quiet.68 ( ) 1.3 ( ) Dissatisfied access to quiet 2.9 ( ).41 ( ) 9

10 Schiphol outcomes: 2005 After opening 5 th runway Item Severe annoyance Road traffic Perception acoustics qol Sressfull OR (95%Bthi) Restoring OR (95%Bthi) 2.6 ( ).28 ( ) Vitality (Rand) Ns 1.4 ( ) GHQ 1.9 ( ).75 ( ) Need for quiet 2.3 ( ).44 ( ) Nr Visits quiet ns 1.2 ( ) area Dissatisfied access to quiet 3.0 ( ).51 ( ) 10

11 Determinants Negative Appraisal 2002 (N=4255) R2=.28 SEVERE ANNOYANCE TOTAL LDEN (AIRCRAFT) DUST, SOOTH NOISE SENSITIVITY EXPECTATIONS NOISE ROAD DISTANCE TO THE AIRPORT SOCIAL SAFETY GENDER ODOUR 2005 (N=4560) R2=.27 SEVERE ANNOYANCE TOTAL LDEN(AIRCRAFT) DUST, SOOTH NOISE SENSITIVITY EXPECTATIONS NOISE ROAD DISTANCE TO THE AIRPORT SOCIAL SAFETY URBANISATION Not significant: Age, Ethnicity, education, income, expectations green, maintenance, demographic composition, garbage, neigbours, vandalism, amenities Not significant: Age, ethnicity, education, gender, income, expectations green, maintenance, demographic composition, garbage, vandalism, amenities, 11

12 Determinants Positive Appraisal 2002 (N=4650) R2 =.08 NOISE SENSITIVITY (-) TOTAL ANNOYANCE (-) EDUCATION (+) LDEN_CAT,(-) DISTANCE (+) AGE (+) EXPECTATIONS: AMENITIES,NOISE DUE TO AIRTRAFFIC, NEIGHBOURS AND ROADTRAFFIC 2005 (N=4581) R2=.07 NOISE SENSITIVITY (-) TOTAL ANNOYANCE (-) EDUCATION (+) LDEN_CAT (-) DISTANCE (+) EXPECTATIONS:NOISE DUE TO AIRTRAFFIC, NEIGHBOURS AND ROADTRAFFIC, EXPECTATION GREEN AREAS Not significant: gender urbanisation, expectations green area, maintenance, composition, garbage, neigbours, vandalism, Not significant: age, gender, urbanisation, expectations, maintenance, composition, garbage, neighbours, vandalism, 12

13 SOUNDSCAPE GROUPS (DISTRIBUTION) Positive High, Negative Low: N= 1497/1495 Positive High, Negative High: N= 636/ 664 Positive Low, Negative Low: N= 1418/1253 Postive Low, Negative High: N= 1337/

14 14

15 Conclusions on Psychometrics Structure of soundscape scales remarkably robust; Negative soundscape scale: highly dominated by aircraft noise and distance to source and other traffic related aspects; Other factors: noise sensitivity and social safety. Positive part of soundscape index: some influence by aircraft noise and distance to the airport, but much less, in addition:noise sensitivty (low!) and negative expectations about other neighbourhood characteristics: noise different sources, access to green area, & other amenities. 15

16 It is the distribution of positives and negatives which is of importance: but harder around a main airport; BUT variation stronger than one would expect. 16

17 APPLICATIONS (Examples) TWO PROJECTS: Towards A Sustainable acoustical Environment (TASTE) Positive health effects on the natural outdoor environment in typical populations of different regions in Europe. (PHENOTYPE) FURTHER STUDY INTO: Indicators Acoustic Quality Personal and contextual aspect in relation to soundscape Evaluation role neighbourhood characteristics ; Registry data, Surveyers data and Residents & Bringing these together. 17

18 TASTE: Participants Cities: Amsterdam, Arnhem, Rotterdam Population: Persons (18 years and older) living in 31 neighbourhoods; Neighbourhoods selected on - Level of urbanization, - Level and variation in noise levels, - Lay-out, and - Neighbourhood indicator of SES 18

19 Combinations of perceived characteristics 19 I AREA PERCEIVED AS: NOT GREEN, NO PLEASANT COLORS HIGH NOISE LEVELS NOT QUIET NOT INTIMATE III AREA PERCEIVED AS: GREEN, PLEASANT COLORS HIGH NOISE LEVELS NOT QUIET NOT INTIMATE II AREA PERCEIVED AS: NOT GREEN, NO PLEASANT COLORS LOW NOISE LEVELS QUIET INTIMATE IV AREA PERCEIVED AS: GREEN, PLEASANT COLORS LOW NOISE LEVELS QUIET INTIMATE

20 Sound quality and restoration experience 20

21 PHENOTYPE Where? Design: Crossectional Method: Questionnaire 4000 persons cities N= Approx Per city 21

22 Restoration Model PREDICTORS: Availability green space Frequency and duration visits favorite area Importance 22 POTENTIAL effect modifiers or confounders : gender, age, level of education, ethnicity, perceived quality, Soundscape Perceptions OUTCOMES: Restoration General Health Symptoms Mental health Mental Fatigue Soundscape Outcomes Green Indicators

23 PHENOTYPE OUTCOMES Multilevel analysis All cities N= Unadjusted model with a random intercept (neighbourhood) 2 Adjusted for age, gender, education level, ethnicity, availability, use and importance of green, Quality Green, with data for all four cities pooled also adjusted for city.mental Health and Symptoms: also adjusted for ROS and social Cohesion) POSITIVE NEGATIVE ROS Crude model 1.98 ( )*** 0.10 ( )** Adjusted Model 2.72 ( )*** 0.18 ( )** SYMPTOMS Crude model ( )** 0.11 ( )*** Adjusted model 2.00 (ns) 0.11 ( )*** MENTAL Crude model ( )** 0.20 ( )*** HEALTH Adjusted model 2.00 ns 0.18 ( *** p<0.01 -<0.05;**p<0.001*** Outcome per city in broad line comparable (some fluctuations) 23

24 Overall Conclusions Conclusions Perceived soundscapes (positive and negative) are strong predictors of restoration at favorite green areas Pattern also found for other (subjective) health outcomes, but only significant for restoration Perceived characteristics: green and water was mentioned most often as important; nice colours and nice sounds scored also very high as did cleanliness and relative quietness and social safety/cohesion BOTH papers published soon CAVE: Limitation: cross sectional data. >>> Potential Value for planning around Airports 24

25 More Focus on Positive Aspects STRESSrestoration To pleasant sound 25

26 Thank you for your attention! 26