Abstract
An index of sound recognition of an area, i.e. LSRC5/2, has recently been developed through reanalyzing a matrix composed of the results of 1240 respondents placed in rows, and responses to 39 sounds in columns. This was done by arranging the answers to questions in a questionnaire survey carried out by random sampling at Yokohama city in 1991. The index is a reproduction from a trail of sound environments in daily lives based not on measured acoustic data but on the recognition of the long-term memories of respondents. It indicates the level of ambiguity to our total sound environments. The index will become a useful target for land use planning, travel demand management, life enjoyment, and so on. Keywords: sound; recognition; environment; attitude; behaviors Introduction to them. But the ambiguous sounds environments are When addressing the sound environments of our the result of our daily behaviors after all. So knowl- residential areas, there is a tendency to concern us only edge of the environments will lead to us thinking about with unfavorable sounds (better known as noise) our daily behaviors. Significant improvements to the through noise control, noise prevention, noise environment come from behavioral changes. Dwyer, annoyance evaluation, noise effects and other Porter, Leeming & Oliver (1997) pointed out that it anti-noise activities (Schultz, 1978; Porter, Berry & goes without saying that the degradation of the earth’s Frindell, 1998; Staples, Cornelius & Gibbs, 1999). environment is caused largely by behavior, and the Brown & Rutherford (1994) suggested the use of solution to the problems of environmental quality must waterfalls to mask city noises. Tamura (1997) proved come primarily from behavioral change. the effects of landscaping on the feeling of annoyance There are important indices for rating outputs of by experiments and surveys. Such an understanding of behavioral change to solve the problems of environ- sound is to a certain extent influenced by the fact that mental quality, for example air temperature, bio- many outstanding problems concerning noise are a chemical oxygen demand, industrial waste and so forth. result of the development of industry, increases in The sound condition in residential areas is an traffic, concentrated populations in large cities, and a important index too. Noise prevention is, in all senses, lack of awareness of our community. About 30 % of important for developing and for maintaining the environmental disputes in Japan are caused by noise region. Sounds from the viewpoint of familiarity may (The Ministry of the Environment, 2001, February). not be ignored. It is necessary to understand these two By listening a little more carefully, however, one characteristics of sound environments by thoroughly can realize that our life is full of sounds of various analyzing these quantitative and qualitative aspects, natures (Schafer, 1977, 1993). The sound of voices of both for the sake of us and for the future generations to children playing outside, the chirping of sparrows and come. crickets, the sound of water, the sound of a bell in the Can we understand the ambiguous sound environ- temple, and the voices of sellers tend to be missed in ments from analyzing acoustic data? This is possible if our everyday lives. However, these sounds form, and the physical measurements will result in acoustic data will continue to do so in the future, our regional sound that reproduces the environments sufficiently well. But environments (Shima & Tamura, 1994; Sasaki, 1994). physical measurements can be used to analyze only Sounds in residential areas have ambiguous aspects part of the noise environment. This is because of restrictions in measuring time, difficulties associated with sound source discrimination, and confusion with Contact Author: Akihiro Tamura, Prof., Graduate School of rating familiarity. The acoustic data tends to consist Engineering, Yokohama National University, of quantitative aspects of the environment. 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama, 240-8501 Japan Trails of ambiguous sounds environments in resi- Tel: +81-45-339-4064 Fax: +81-45-331-1730 e-mail: tamura@arc.ynu.ac.jp dential areas are stored in the long-term memory of inhabitants while they are living in their houses and (Received May 8, 2002; accepted September 10, 2002 ) Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/November 2002/48 41 surroundings. It is expected that the recognition The question asked in the survey was “Are the (Koyaizu, 1981) of their long-term memories will following 39 sounds coming from outdoors audible in make quantitative and qualitative reproduction of the your house? Please check for each particular sound”. environments in their total region. People were asked to respond to one of 4 categories, This study investigates 1240 respondents’ answers i.e. “1. Inaudible”, “2. Favorable”, “3. Neither to a question in a survey based on random sampling favorable nor annoying”, and “4. Annoying” for each that was carried out 10 years ago. Results of the survey sound. These answers are named (I), (F), (N), and (A), were previously analyzed and presented in a final respectively. Responses to this question were report and through some oral papers (Kashima, Tamura, aggregated based on each sound and assessed using the Shima & Sawada, 1994, 1995). In this survey, people following equations: were asked to rate 39 specified sounds originating from outdoors, heard while they were inside their Po (observed rate in %) = 100(O/T), houses. Sounds were rated in one of the following 4 Pf (favorable rate in %)=100(F/O), categories: inaudible, favorable, neither favorable nor Pn (neither favorable nor annoyed rate annoying, or annoying. Based on these results, a in %)=100(N/O), and matrix that consisted of the 1240 respondents placed in Pa (annoyed rate in %)=100(A/O). rows and the responses to the 39 sounds in columns was prepared for reanalyzing. T: the total number of valid participants, O: the number of respondents who heard a particular Outline of the Survey sound (= F+N+A), This survey, conducted from October to early F: the number of respondents who heard a particular December 1991, should be taken into account when sound and found it favorable, studying the structure of the consciousness of sounds N: the number of respondents who heard a particular familiar to the people of Yokohama City (Japan). In sound and felt it neither favorable nor were an- this survey, 1600 people of both sexes aged 12 years noyed by it, and old or above were randomly chosen at a rate of 100 A: the number of respondents who heard a particular people per ward from the computerized resident sound and felt annoyed by the sound. register. This was carried out following the permission of the Personal Information Protect Agency. The The variable Po is the rate of respondents who chose questionnaire was developed with reference to a report any one of (F), (N), and (A) relative to the total (Nanba, Igarashi, Kuwano, et al., 1992) of the respondents of 1240, classified as “observed rate” of a Committee of Social Survey on Noise in the Acousti- sound that they heard in their surroundings, and cal Society of Japan and research (Shima & Tamura, predicts a quantitative component of the recognition of 1994) concerning sounds representing areas. It was the sound. Pf, Pn, and Pa are indices of favorable designed to include not only negative features but also feelings, feelings that are classed as neither favorable positive features of sound environments in living areas, nor annoying, and annoying feelings, for the sound, though the report of the Committee addressed only the respectively. The set of three variables, i.e. (Pf, Pn, Pa), negative aspects. represent the inhabitant’s attitude towards the sound, The mailing method was used to carry out the whether favorable or not favorable, and represents a distribution and collection of the questionnaires. qualitative component of sound recognition. Requests for replies were issued a total of three times. A total of 39 values for Po and 39 sets of (Pf, Pn, In the end, 1240 people finally responded, yielding a Pa) in Yokohama city area indicate the quantity and 77.5% valid response rate. Female respondents quality of the recognition of the ambiguous sound accounted for 55% of the total, which was larger than environments in the area, respectively. the 49% of females in the general population of Using these three variables representing the qualita- Yokohama. The age distribution of the respondents tive features of sounds, the 39 sounds were classified was similar to that of people in Yokohama. The into three groups through hierarchical cluster analysis respondents living in two exclusive residential districts (cluster method: Ward’s method, similarity measure: class 1, 2 or residential districts accounted for Euclidean distance). Table 1 shows the types of sounds above 80% of the total respondents, while the listed in descending order of Po by the three groups percentage of those living in neighborhood commer- recently defined. The 9 sounds of group1 represent cial districts, commercial districts or quasi-industrial mainly natural sounds, such as 33) the twittering of districts was about 15%. birds or 36) the murmurs of water streams, which people rated as (F) or (N). The 18 sounds of group2 Classification of 39 Sounds represent miscellaneous sounds heard by residents, Thirty-nine sounds were selected from various the so-called daily life sounds, indicated mostly by outdoor sounds heard in daily lives and they represent (N), with a ratio of 10 - 20% annoying. The 12 sounds the ambiguous sound environments in residential of group3 relate to 1) large automobiles, 17) stores, areas. 42 JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura Table 1. Outdoor Sounds Observed in Respondents’ Houses and the Attitude of the Inhabitants Towards the Sounds Whether Favorable or Not Favorable (Yokohama-city, 1991) Group Types of Sounds Po Pf Pn Pa G1 33 Twittering 75.5 72.6 26.4 1.0 G1 32 Chirping of insects in autumn, Croaking of frogs and droning of cicadas 72.9 59.6 37.8 2.6 G1 30 Festivals, fireworks and Bon festival dance 52.6 29.4 63.1 7.5 G1 35 Whispers of leaves of trees and grasses 41.3 43.6 55.6 0.8 G1 31 Wind-bells 29.9 55.0 41.2 3.8 G1 39 Bells of temples and churches 17.7 49.4 45.3 5.3 G1 38 Whistles of ships 12.1 47.3 48.7 4.0 G1 36 Murmurs of water streams 10.9 62.9 36.5 0.6 G1 37 Sea waves 6.9 57.0 39.5 3.5 G2 6 Sirens of patrol cars and ambulances 83.1 1.0 81.8 17.2 G2 2 Passenger cars 81.9 1.1 79.1 19.8 G2 16 Collecting garbage 70.2 6.4 89.9 3.7 G2 34 Cawing of crows 59.7 5.7 68.3 26.0 G2 20 Voices of children 58.4 5.7 79.9 14.4 G2 19 Chats at standing 42.8 0.9 82.9 16.2 G2 29 Parking lots 35.8 0.0 80.6 19.4 G2 25 Water supply and drainage in bathrooms 35.2 0.9 83.5 15.6 G2 23 Musical instruments such as pianos 34.8 9.3 79.9 11.6 G2 21 Cries of babies 32.0 4.3 84.8 10.9 G2 26 Upper floors 29.8 0.5 73.7 25.8 G2 13 Schools and kindergartens 28.5 6.8 82.2 11.0 G2 24 TV and stereos 25.7 6.3 75.8 17.9 G2 8 Railroads 21.9 4.4 76.1 19.5 G2 22 Air-conditioners and boilers 21.6 0.4 80.9 18.7 G2 7 New inter-city trains 8.3 3.9 78.6 17.5 G2 9 Alarm signals of railroad crossings 6.9 2.3 85.1 12.6 G2 14 Alarm signals of pedestrian crossings 6.6 3.7 91.4 4.9 G3 3 Motorcycles 90.9 1.2 32.9 65.9 G3 1 Large automobiles 66.0 0.6 65.3 34.1 G3 10 Airplanes and helicopters 62.0 0.8 61.9 37.3 G3 5 Horns of passenger cars and motorcycles 61.8 0.4 54.8 44.8 G3 15 Loud speakers of advertising cars 55.6 0.6 50.0 49.4 G3 4 Horns of large automobiles 51.9 0.3 57.9 41.8 G3 28 Idling engines 40.6 0.4 37.9 61.7 G3 27 Cries of pets 39.4 1.6 65.4 33.0 G3 12 Constructions and public works 22.3 0.4 42.2 57.4 G3 17 Loud speakers of stores 15.2 2.1 66.5 31.4 G3 11 Factories and workshops 12.9 1.9 57.4 40.7 G3 18 Karaoke restaurants 8.2 1.0 51.9 47.1 Po (observed rate in %) = 100(O/T), Pf (favorable rate in %)=100(F/O), Pn (neither favorable nor annoyed rate in %)=100(N/O), and Pa (annoyed rate in %)=100(A/O). T: total number of valid respondents, O: the number of respondents, who heard a particular sound, F: the number of respondents, who heard a particular sound and felt favorable, N: the number of respondents who heard a particular sound and felt neither favorable nor annoyed, and A: the number of respondents who heard a particular sound and felt annoyed. JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura 43 11) factories and 12) construction work, indicated the 18 sounds of group2 as (F), and the 12 sounds of by (N) or (A). group3 as (F). That is to say that the response level of (N) was closer to (A) than to (F) in the case of group1, Large cars, motorbikes, and car horns had a high and the response level of (N) was closer to response observation rate and showed the highest annoyance (F) than to (A) in the case of group2 and 3. So the rate. Moreover, respondents rated favorably the perceptions of group1 sounds were recategorized into twittering of birds, the sounds of sea waves, and the (F) and (N + A), and perceptions of group2 sounds sounds of brooks. Although the observed rates of daily and group3 sounds were recategorized into (F + N) life sounds were not so high, neither favorable nor and (A). annoying rates were high, and most of those favorable By using the 6 variables 1f, 1na, 2fn, 2a, 3fn, and rates fell below the rates observed for annoying. The 3a, the 1240 respondents were classified into 5 sound increased rate of complaints for these sounds suggests recognition clusters, i.e. SRC1, SRC2, SRC3, SRC4, to us an understanding of the meaning of complaints and SRC5, through k-means cluster analysis that can and the need for improving the sound environments of handle large numbers of cases (see Fig. 1). The mean cities. perception, i.e. mean values of 1f, 1n, 2n, 2a, 3n, and A similar survey was carried out at Muscat city 3a, and the rate of respondents belonging to each (Oman) in April 1996 (Al-harthy & Tamura, 1999). In cluster are shown as follows. this survey, the Azan sound, i.e. the prayer religious call, had the highest observed and favorable rates. In Yokohama, 39) bells of temples and churches as religious calling devices were rarely heard, due to the fact that they are not frequently used. Religious sounds differ from one culture to another. The observed rate and the favorable rate minus the 40 annoyance rate for water supply engines were 84.3% 1f and -44.1%, respectively, in Muscat. As a water 1na supply network has yet to be installed in Muscat, the use of cistern trucks to carry drinking water is still the 2fn preferred delivery system. About 50-85% of the 2a people in Yokohama but only about 30% of the people in Muscat heard the sounds of 6) sirens of patrol cars 3fn and ambulances and 15) the loudspeakers of 0 3a advertising cars. Sirens of patrol cars and ambulances SRC1 SRC2 SRC3 SRC4 SRC5 are widely used in Yokohama. Although they do exist in Muscat, they are rarely heard. Loudspeaker cars Sound recognition clusters for advertising purposes are commonly used in Yokohama but are not used at all in Muscat. Fig.1. Mean Values of 1f, 1na, 2fn, 2a, 3fn, and 3a of 5 Sound Recognition Clusters Classification of 1240 Respondents The classification reflects the feelings of respon- SRC1 (34%): low recognition level for every sound, dents to their individual sound environment in terms SRC2 (22%): recognized group1 sounds favorably of how they perceive the three sound groups. For this purpose, 6 variables, i.e. 1f, 1na, 2fn, 2a, 3fn, and 3a, and has a high ratio of feeling neither good nor are introduced as follows: annoyed by group2 and 3 sounds, SRC3 (14%): recognized every sound well but feels neither good nor annoyed, 1f: the ratio of the number of sounds rated (F) to SRC4 (13%): feels neither good nor annoyed if the 9 sounds of group1 in %, 1na: the ratio of the number of sounds rated (N) or recognizing group1 and2 sounds, but feels (A) to the 9 sounds of group1 in %, annoyed by group3 sounds at a high level, 2fn: the ratio of the sounds rated (F) or (N) to the and SRC5 (18%): rarely recognizes group1 and 2 18 sounds of group2 in %, sounds, but feels annoyed by group 3 sounds at 2a: the ratio of sounds rated (A) to the 18 sounds of group2 in %, an extremely high level. 3fn: the ratio of sounds rated (F) or (N) to the 12 sounds of group3 in %, and Sound recognition clusters, i.e. SRCs, perceived by the inhabitants together indicate the quantitative and 3a: the ratio of sounds rated (A) to the 12 sounds qualitative recognition level of them towards the of group3 in %. sound conditions in their surroundings. Their People rarely rated the 9 sounds of group1 as (A), perceptions to their sound environments are well 44 JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura Recognition level toward sound groups (%) reflected by SRCs. dissatisfied with convenience, The distribution of SRCs of the inhabitants in an EAC4 (20%): dissatisfied with natural environment area shows the reproduction of the sound environment but satisfied with indoor environ- made by the recognition of their long-term memories ments and convenience, and and the summary of the sound environment in the EAC5 (9%): dissatisfied with both natural and area. indoor environments but satisfied SRC1 has a low recognition ratio for every sound. with convenience. SRC2, SRC3, and SRC4 recognize group1, 2, and 3 sounds well but have different attitudes toward sounds. Group EAC1, which was fully satisfied with all Those in the SRC5 category cannot recognize group1 items, occupies 26%. As the number of clusters and 2 sounds well, but are annoyed by group3 sounds increases starting from 2, the dissatisfaction with the at an extremely high rate. While SRC2 recognizes the natural environment increases while the satisfaction natural sounds of group1 well occupying 22%, SRC4 with convenience increases. and SRC5 who are annoyed by group3 sounds generated by automobiles or construction work, make Demographic variables (hours in the home, compo- up a higher rate of 31%. sition of the family, building type of residence, length of residence) were coded from the answers to the By using the responses for other questions related questionnaires. Land use zoning, the distance from to the satisfaction of the 10 environmental issues main roads (national highway, express way, or major except quietness, the respondents were classified into local road) and that from the nearest station were 5 environmental attitude clusters, i.e. EAC1, EAC2, decided upon based on the locations of the residences EAC3, EAC4, and EAC5, through k-means cluster where the respondents were dwelling. The whole analysis (see Fig. 2). A total of 10 issues were population, the number of whole employees, and the identified as "walking ability areas", "clean air", ratio of employees to the population per mesh where "amount of greenery", "collecting garbage", "conven- each respondent was dwelling were coded from the ience of shopping", "convenience of transportation", mesh data of 250m x 250m. This was carried out "relation between your neighborhood", "the safety of based on the results of the national census taken in surrounding roads", "sunshine in your house", and 1990. The 3 variables that indicate the main features, "ventilation in your house". i.e. land use, road condition, and population, of the locations of the dwelling residences, are listed as 4.0 follows. Land use zoning (at the time) 3.5 z1 (5%): restricted urbanization district, Cle an air z2 (39%): exclusive residential district classes 1, 3.0 z3 (20%): exclusive residential district classes 2, Gre enary z4 (21%): residential district, Convenien ce of 2.5 z5 (6%): neighborhood commercial district, shopping z6 (5%): commercial district, and 2.0 z7 (4%): quasi-industrial district. convenien ce of transportation The distance from main roads (national highway, 1.5 Sunshine in h ouse express way, or major local road) d1 (5%): less than 10m, 1.0 Ve ntilation in h ouse EAC1 EAC2 EAC3 EAC4 EAC5 d2 (6%): 10m-30m, d3 (6%): 30m-50m, Environment attitude clusters d4 (15%): 50m-100m, d5 (19%): 100m-200m, and Fig.2. Mean Dissatisfaction Scores of “clean air”, “amount of d6 (49%): more than 200m. greenery”, “convenience of shopping”, “convenience of transportation”, “sunshine in your house”, and “ventilation in your house” of the 5 Environmental Attitude Clusters The ratio of employees to population per mesh (250m x 250m) EAC1 (26%): satisfied with both natural, indoor jr1 (28%): less than 0.05, environments and convenience, jr2 (18%): 0.05-0.1, EAC2 (22%): satisfied with both natural and indoor jr3 (20%): 0.1-0.2, environments but dissatisfied with jr4 (16%): 0.2-0.4, convenience, jr5 (11%): 0.4-0.8, and EAC3 (23%):slightly satisfied with natural and jr6 (7%): more than 0.8 indoor environments but slightly JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura 45 Satisfy Dissa tisfy Discussion In the restricted urbanization district, exclusive By using χ tests of independence in cross tables, residential district classes 1 and 2 and residential distributions of SRCs were either not significant or of districts, the LSRC5/2 count for less than 0.0. In the low significance for gender, age, hours in home, neighborhood commercial district and the composition of the family, building type of residence, quasi-industrial district, it counts for more than 0.0. In length of residence, distance from the nearest station, the commercial district, it counts for 0.9 or more; and whole population per mesh, but were highly where the ratio of the SRC5 to the SRC2 is larger than significant (p<0.001) for land use zoning, distance 8 to 1 (see Fig. 3). from main roads, the number of whole employees per mesh, and the ratio of employees to the population per 1.2 mesh (employee: people who work and live in an area or work in the area but live in other area, population: number of people who live in the area). As a whole, the relationship is weak between the perceptions of the sound environment, namely sound recognition, and personal attributes, but is strong between perception and the conditions of the 0.0 residential locations. Based on the balance of the evidence from 464 findings drawn from 136 surveys, -.3 Fields (1993) summarized the same conclusions that -.6 annoyance is not affected to a significant extent by z1 z2 z3 z4 z5 z6 z7 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 jr1 jr2 jr3 jr4 jr5 jr6 ambient noise levels, the amount of time residents are Land use zoning D ist. from main road Ratio of emplo yee at home, the type of interviewing method, or any of the nine demographic variables (age, sex, social status, Fig.3. Log-10 Transformation of Ratios of Subjects Belonging income, education, home ownership, type of dwelling, to the SRC5 to Subjects Belonging to the SRC2 in Cases of length of residence, or the receipt of benefits from the Land Use Zoning, Distance from Main Roads, and the noise source). Employees to the Population per Mesh. The rate of respondents belonging to the SRC2 group decreases in the order of the land use zoning In the close vicinity of major roads, it counts for 0.5, clusters from restricted urbanization district, exclusive within 100m of the major road it counts for 0.0 or residential district classes 1 and 2, residential district, more, while for distances over 100m, it counts for neighborhood commercial district, commercial district, -0.3. while the rate of SRC5 increases. The rate of SRC1 When the employees per mesh stays below 40% of shows no difference between districts. The rate of the residential population, it counts for around -0.3, SRC3, i.e. those that recognize every sound well but but when it exceeds 40%, it counts for more than 0.3. feel neither good nor annoyed by the sounds, The relationship between the values of the decreases in commercial and semi-industrial districts LSRC5/2 in areas having various features and the having scarce daily living. ratios of both the EAC4 and EAC5, whose attitude to As the distance to major roads increases, the rate of the natural environment is dissatisfied, relative to the SRC5 decreases, while the rate of SRC2 and 3 total number of subjects of the same areas are increases. The rate of SRC4, i.e. those that feel neither indicated in Fig. 4. good nor annoyed by the sounds if recognizing group1 The correlation coefficient exceeds 0.85, showing a and 2 sounds, but feel annoyed by group3 sounds to a good relationship. At the LSRC5/2 of -0.3, namely at high level, generally live in the narrow 30~50m the group where participants of the SRC5 is half that distance from the road zone. of the SRC2, about 1/4 of the respondents of the area As the numbers of employees per mesh increases, belong to EAC4 or EAC5, i.e. clusters dissatisfied the rate of SRC5 increases while the rate of SRC2 with the natural environment in their residential areas. decreases. The rate of SRC3 increases when the At the LSRC5/2 of 0.0, namely at the area where the number of employees counted is 51~100 per- SRC2 mostly equals the SRC5, about 1/3 of the sons/mesh, i.e. in the middle of the range. respondents of the area belong to the clusters, and at As can be seen above, the increases and decreases the LSRC5/2 of 0.3, namely at the area where the in the rates of SRC5 and SRC2, respectively, depend SRC5 is twice the SRC2, about 1/2 of the respondents strongly on the characteristics of the residential area. of the area belong to the clusters. Hence, a log-10 transformation of the ratio of the The index of sound recognition, i.e. LSRC5/2, subjects belonging to SRC5 to the subjects belonging which is calculated from the distribution of SRCs of to SRC2 was developed as an index of sound the inhabitants in an area, reflects the living area recognition, represented by LSRC5/2. The index features of the area and closely relates to the attitude reflects the combined recognition to the ambiguous of the inhabitants to their natural environment. sound environment. 46 JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura Inhabitants' recognitio n of soun ds, LSRC5/2 2) 6 new variables, i.e.1f, 1na, f2n, 2a, 3fn and 3a, were presented as indicators of individual recogni- EAC(4+5)=49.4*LSRC5/2 + 36.7 tion to the levels of the 3 sound groups, and 1240 r=0.857 se=8.73 90 respondents were classified into 5 sound recogni- 80 tion clusters, i.e. SRC1, SRC2, SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5, using 6 variables. The increases and de- creases in the rates of SRC5 and SRC2, respectively, are strongly related to the characteristics of the living area. 3) A newly developed index of sound recognition for various areas, i.e. LSRC5/2, was developed, which consisted of a log-10 transformation of the ratio of subjects belonging to SRC5 in each area to subjects -.6 -.3 0.0 .3 .6 .9 1.2 belonging to SRC2. The index reflects the living Index of inhabita nts' recognition of sounds, LSRC 5/2 area features of the area and closely relates to the attitude of the inhabitants in the area to their natural Fig.4. Relationship between the Values of the LSRC5/2 in the environment. Groups of People and the Ratios of Both the EAC4 and EAC5, 4) The index indicates the level of the total sound Whose Attitude to the Natural Environment are Dissatisfied, to environment. The index will become a useful target the Total Subjects of the Same Groups. for land use planning, travel demand management, living enjoyment, and so on. As said in the introduction, the sound condition in residential areas is an important index for rating Acknowledgments outputs of behavioral change to solve the problems of This paper was prepared while the author was a environmental quality. The acoustic data tend to Visiting Professor at the School of Environmental consist of quantitative aspects of the environment. The Planning at Griffith University. The author is grateful index of sound recognition, i.e. LSRC5/2, is a to Professor Lex Brown for his kindness. reproduction from the trail of ambiguous sound The author also thanks Noriaki Kashima at Yoko- environments in residential areas based not on hama Environmental Research Institute and Rieko physical measurements but on the recognition of the Shima and Junya Samada at Yokohama National long-term memories of residents. It indicates University (at the time) for their help with conducting quantitative and qualitative levels of the total sound the study. environment. By further accumulating knowledge of the relationships between the index and living area References features, the index will become a useful target for land 1) Al-harthy, I. & Tamura, A. (1999). Sound environment evaluation use planning, travel demand management, living and categorization of audible sounds - The first survey of the enjoyment, and so on. human response to the sound environment in Muscat city (Oman) -. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan (E), 20, 353-364. 2) Brawn, A. L. & Rutherford, S. (1994). Using the sound of water in Conclusions the city. Landscape Australia, 2, 103-107. A matrix that consisted of 1240 respondents placed 3) Dwyer, W. O., Porter, B. E., Leeming, F. C., & Oliver, D. P. (1997). in rows and the responses to the 39 sounds in columns Environmental social psychology. In S. W. Sadava, D. R. Wccreary was arranged based on a question asked in a survey (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp.228-247). New Jersey: carried out in Yokohama city that was reinvestigated. Prentice Hall, Inc. This reanalyzing showed the following: 4) Fields, J. M. (1993). Effects of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. Journal of the Acoustical 1) 4 variables, i.e. Po, Pf, Pn and Pa, were intro- Society of America, 93, 2753-2763. duced as predictors of quantitative and qualitative 5) Kashima, N., Tamura, A., Shima, R. & Sawada, J (1994). Social components of each sound, and 39 sounds were survey of public opinion on sound environment in Yokohama. classified into 3 groups using Pf, Pn and Pa. The 9 Proceedings of International Congress on Noise Control Engi- sounds of group1 represent mainly natural sounds, neering: inter-noise 94, Vol. 2, 1157-1160. 6) Kashima, N., Tamura, A., Shima, R. & Sawada, J. (1995). A such as the twittering of birds or the murmurs of Survey of consciousness of Yokohama citizens on sound and living water streams, which people rate as “Favorable”, or environment. Yokohama Environmental Research Institute Report “Neither favorable nor annoying”. The 18 sounds No.115 (In Japanese). of group2 represent miscellaneous sounds heard by 7) Koyaizu, T. (1981). Recoginition. In Fujinaga, T, et all (Eds.), New residents, the so-called daily life sounds, indicated Edition Dictionary of Psychology (pp.264-265). Tokyo: Heibonsya. mostly by “Neither favorable nor annoying”, with a 8) Nanba, S., et al. (1992). Report of the Committee of Social Survey on Noise in the Acoustical Society of Japan, Journal of the ratio of 10 - 20% “Annoying”. The 12 sounds of Acoustical Society of Japan (J), 48, 109-113. group3 relate to automobiles, stores, factories and 9) Porter, N. D., Berry, B. F. & Frindell, I. H. (1998). Health construction work, indicated by “Neither favorable effect-based noise assessment method: A review and feasibility nor annoying” or “Annoying”. study. National Physics Laboratory Report CMAM 16. JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura 47 Ratio of the EAC4,5 t o the number of a group (%) 10) Sasaki, M. (1993). The preference of the various sounds in environment and the discussion about the concept of the sound- scape design. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan (E), 14, 189-196. 11) Schafer, R. M. (1977). The tuning of the world. New York: Knopf. 12) Schafer, R. M. (1993). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. (Originally published: The tuning of the world.). Rochester, Vt: United States Destiny Books; Distrib- uted to the book trade in the United States by American Interna- tional Distribution Corp. 13) Schultz, T. J. (1978). Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 377-405. 14) Shima, R., & Tamura, A. (1992). Survey on sound environment of the central part of Odawara. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Japan (E), 14, 181-187. 15) Staples, S. L., Cornelius, R. R. & Gibbs, M. S. (1999). Noise disturbance from a developing airport - Perceived risk or general annoyance? -. Environment and Behavior, 31, 692-710. 16) Tamura, A. (1997). Effects of landscaping on the feeling of annoyance of a space. In A. Schick & M. Klatte (Eds.), Contribu- tions to psychological acoustics: Results of the seventh Oldenburg symposium on psychological acoustics, 135-161. Bibliotheks- und Information’s system der Universität Oldenbulg. 17) The Ministry of the Environment (2001, February). Environmental Reporting (Fiscal Year 2000 Version), Fig.3-1-18 48 JAABE vol.1 no.2 November 2002 Akihiro Tamura
Journal
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering
– Taylor & Francis
Published: Nov 1, 2002
Keywords: sound; recognition; environment; attitude; behaviors
