Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

A framework for rating environmental value of urban parks Jan Jabben a,⁎, Miriam Weber b, Edwin Verheijen c a b c

RIVM, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands DCMR, Environmental Protection Agency, Parallelweg 1, 3112 NA Schiedam, The Netherlands dBvision, Groenmarktstraat 39, 3521 AV Utrecht, The Netherlands

H I G H L I G H T S • • • • •

A model has been been developed for rating the restorative value of urban parks. Surveys were conducted into the appreciation of parks in the city of Rotterdam. Urban value of parks depends on intrinsic qualities and distance to surroundings. The model can be useful to epidemiologists in studies into health effects. The methodology supports urban planning aimed at good environmental quality.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 13 August 2014 Received in revised form 12 November 2014 Accepted 3 December 2014 Available online xxxx Editor: P. Kassomenos Keywords: Noise Environment Soundscape Restoration Parks

a b s t r a c t In this study, indicators are proposed to characterize the intrinsic environmental properties and external value of urban parks. The intrinsic properties involve both acoustic factors and non-acoustic factors, such as visual aspects and size. To assess external value, the restoration level is defined, which measures the nearby presence of a quiet, ‘green’ area at residential areas outside parks. The restoration levels of green areas are based on intrinsic properties and the distances of each dwelling to urban park areas. The overall environmental value of a park, the group restoration level, is defined as a logarithmic summation of the restoration levels over its surrounding residential areas. Restoration levels were determined for sixteen public parks in the city of Rotterdam and compared with survey data from questionnaires. Results show that the investigated parks display a large variation in the group restoration level levels, mainly due to differences in size and average noise levels. To validate the proposed method, survey data from questionnaires are investigated as to correlation with restoration levels. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Since the 1970s, many industrialized countries have established environmental noise policies. In most cases national noise policies aim at reduction or limitation of noise levels from traffic and industrial activities at the façade of dwellings, such as homes, hospitals or schools. The noise levels are usually quantified by standardized indicators, that rate the average noise exposure during the day, evening and/or night. For example, in Europe the noise indicators Lden and Lnight are widely in use. As a result, in many countries, noise barriers are placed along busy motorways and railways and noise insulation of dwellings is applied in situations where barriers are not feasible. Notwithstanding

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Jabben), [email protected] (M. Weber), [email protected] (E. Verheijen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.007 0048-9697/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

intensive noise abatement efforts that have been undertaken in the past decades, noise is still a problem. As the WHO recently illustrated, over 40% of the European population is regularly exposed to noise levels from traffic that is considered to have harmful effects (WHO 2011/JRC, 2011). Environmental noise from road and railway traffic, industrial activities and airport traffic, is associated with a wide range of health effects, such as annoyance, sleep disturbance, elevated hormone levels, physiological stress reactions, cardiovascular disorders, mental health problems and even premature deaths (Babisch, 2002). These adverse health effects particularly occur in those situations in which concentration and sleep are disturbed. Various studies today therefore recommend 50–55 dB LAeq,16 h as health based threshold (Miedema, 2007, WHO, 2000; WHO/JRC, 2011; EEA, 2010). In addition, noise exposure can interfere with sleep (quality and quantity). The WHO therefore suggested target limits of 40 dB Lnight and an interim target of 55 dB Lnight (WHO, 2009). However, in dense urban agglomerations, noise abatement measures such as barriers and silent road pavements are not only expensive

396

J. Jabben et al. / Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

but in many cases also impractical. Appropriate measures for residential areas are often infeasible, so that many inhabited dwellings are and remain above WHO target noise levels. For instance, for The Netherlands we estimate that 4–5% of all dwellings are exposed to noise levels above 65 dB Lden. Despite several billion euros spent on noise abatement since the 1980s, noise annoyance over the past decades has not decreased, due to growth of mobility and population (Bijsterveld 2008, Weber, 2013; Van Kempen and Houthuijs, 2008). Although without any noise legislation, the situation would probably have been worse, the costs of measures to reduce all noise levels below 55 dB LAeq,16 h, would turn out to be unacceptable for society. This raises the question whether alternative, more cost effective noise policy instruments are available to protect or improve the urban environment. A promising alternative is to strengthen the traditional approach by creating and protecting public outdoor spaces in urban areas with a high acoustic quality. While it is infeasible to realize low noise levels in the direct vicinity of all dwellings, it may be possible to create quiet nature areas that are within acceptable travel range for the majority of the citizens and offer compensation from environmental stressors in their direct neighborhood. Studies suggest that spending time in ‘green’ areas with relatively low levels of environmental noise is beneficial to our health and well-being (HCN, 2006, Alvarsson 2010, Kaplan, 1995). Noise policy to protect quiet areas is also mentioned in article 8 (Action Plans) of the European Noise Directive (END 2002), which states: “Action plans for agglomerations with more than 250,000 inhabitants shall also aim to protect quiet areas against an increase in noise” (p. 15). But as we look at noise regulations for nature areas, city parks or other outdoor public spaces, there is no general agreement as to what should be an acceptable noise level nor what exactly is meant by a ‘quiet area’. According to the END (p. 3): “A quiet area in an agglomeration shall mean an area delimited by the competent authority, for instance which is not exposed to a value of Lden, or another appropriate noise indicator, greater than a certain value set by the Member State, from any noise source”. This definition still leaves open the choice of an indicator and its preferable limit and does not tell us how these can be related to effects on the urban population. The main deficit is that merely setting a noise limit in a public outdoor area is of limited use without considering the presence of the populated surroundings. Quiet areas that are located too far away from a residential area will have less environmental value for inhabitants. In addition, not only noise levels are important, but also non-acoustical aspects, such as the nature esthetics and a harmonious blending with the urban environment. The natural soundscape of a park in relation to environmental noise plays an important role in human perception (De Coensel and Botteldooren, 2006; Chau et al., 2010). In this paper we present a framework model for an indicator of the restorative value of urban parks, based on its intrinsic acoustical and non-acoustical features. It is a framework in the sense that the model does not specify methods generally acknowledged for the determination of all relevant intrinsic environmental features of urban areas and restorative effects. This topic is still subject to ongoing research and debate. Nevertheless, we have applied the model to a concrete case involving sixteen parks in the city of Rotterdam. Also, the paper contains results of surveys into the perception of visitors of these parks which were used for validation. The study is part of TASTE (Towards Acoustic SusTainable Environments) and funded by the research program of RIVM.

2. Framework and methodology In this paper we will use the word ‘park’ as a synonym of ‘public green’ or ‘quiet area’ with the restriction that we only consider relatively large city areas that are open to the public. As outlined in the introduction, an indicator for the environmental value of a quiet area should be able to incorporate multiple environmental aspects.

a) Average noise levels caused by environmental noise sources (cars, trains, airplanes et cetera); b) the adjacency of the area for inhabitants of the city; c) the presence of pleasant sounds that could enhance the perceived acoustic quality, such as birds, trees, water. These aspects are related to soundscape theory; d) non-acoustical factors, both positive and negative: nature, beauty of the area, safety, sufficient lighting, cleanliness, visual variety, fit of context et cetera.

From (a) to (d), rating these factors will become increasingly subjective, but merely considering (a), average noise levels, seems inadequate for the overall assessment of environmental value. One would like to take all of these factors somehow into account. As outlined in the introduction, a rating method should take into account the parks location in relation to the built up surroundings. To this aim we assume that outside their boundary parks offer citizens a ‘potential for restoration’. The restoration level should increase with good intrinsic soundscape and nature and decrease with distance. To be able to quantify the (local) restoration level we define the indicator Lr:

Lr;i

0 1 X Q j  s j Lref −Lden; j 10 A ¼ 10 log@ 10 rbij j

ð1Þ

in which, Lr,i Lref j sj Lden,j rij b Qj

restoration level [dB] at dwelling (i) reference level [dB(A)] summation index over al sub regions of a public outdoor area surface of the area (i) [m2] noise level inside the sub area (j) [dBA] distance from the outdoor area (j) to dwelling receiving benefits (i) [m] power of decreasing restoration level with increasing distance quality factor (0–100), taking into account soundscape and non-acoustical aspects [−]

The restoration level (Lr) outside a park is a measure of the presence of nearby ‘green’ areas with good soundscape and nature. The restoration level is based on both acoustic and non-acoustical aspects. The latter can be taken into account by a quality factor (Q), For example, Q can be based on the nature richness or the ‘green quality’ of the considered area. The reference level (Lref) represents the natural sound level as caused by birds, trees, wind, crickets et cetera. In this study the reference level is set at a constant value for all parks, but using insights from soundscape theory (Adams et al., 2006) the reference level could be varied, depending on the presence of natural sound levels and their occurrence in the absence of mechanical noise. Although the quality factor and the reference level introduce a considerable degree of ambiguity and subjectivity into our model, they seem necessary elements, as studies show that for the perception and appreciation of green areas, non-acoustical factors and the natural soundscape play an important role (Brown 2010). The ‘source strength’ in Eq. (1) depends on the product of the non-acoustical quality factor Q times the ‘emitting’ area (sj ) and the natural sound quality in the park expressed by Lref–Lden. Research has shown that the appreciation of the soundscape in parks increases with decreasing level of non-natural sounds (Brambilla and Luigi, 2006). Finally, we define the group restoration level (Gr) of a park as the accumulation of restoration levels Lr at all dwellings surrounding the park

J. Jabben et al. / Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

3. Assessment of intrinsic features

according to: Gr ¼ 10 log

397

X

Lr;i

!

10 10 :

ð2Þ

i

Eq. (1) describes the accumulation of the contributions from all parts of the park area (summation index j) to the restoration level at a location outside the park. Eq. (2) is the accumulation of restoration levels over all surrounding dwellings (summation index i). This results in a single number Gr, which represents the total (potential) restoration offered by the park to surrounding residential areas. Although the restoration level Lr and the group restoration level Gr are rather abstract indicators, this methodology of rating public urban areas has a number of advantages: - Lr and Gr contain most of the factors that are known to influence the perceived green quality of parks; - Setting an urban policy to increase Lr and Gr will steer in the right direction (as far as environmental value is the issue), in the sense that urban policymakers are urged to improve one or several noncontradictory factors (i.e. improving nature, lowering environmental noise, improving natural soundscapes, increasing the size or the number of parks and realizing accessibility); - With the definition of Gr, both acoustic and non-acoustic factors are incorporated in such a way that an ‘acoustic summation’ of the group restoration level from different parks is allowed. For example: 10 parks each with Gr = 100 dB, will give a total of 100 + 10log(10) = 110 dB. In realizing a policy to improve the total (joint) restorative value of urban parks, this may offer local policymakers more flexibility to fit design and targets within other interests.

In order to evaluate the described methodology and indicators, we applied the rating to sixteen public green areas in the city of Rotterdam. For each of these parks restoration levels have been determined in the surroundings using intrinsic features of each park. The intrinsic features were estimated as follows: – Environmental noise (Lden) Noise maps specifying Lden levels from environmental noise sources (i.e. road traffic, railways and industry) were determined using the STAMINA model, developed at RIVM (Schreurs et al., 2010a). Airport noise was also included using noise maps developed by the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR). The accumulated Lden noise levels from these sources were mapped onto a grid with a spatial resolution of 10 m, covering the entire urban region of Rotterdam. In this study, we use Lden as the noise indicator for rating the intrinsic environmental noise within the parks. The Lden is currently the standard, harmonized European noise indicator. Alternatively, also other noise indicators can be used, although there is no consensus as to which noise measures (LAeq, L10, L95, LAmax) are most suitable for rating the perceived acoustic quality. – Quality factor (Q) The attractiveness of a park is an important factor that influences how often people will visit the park and how long they will stay relaxing, recovering from daily stress, chatting, playing and so on. This aspect is subjective and therefore difficult to assess objectively. Van Herzele and Wiedemann (2003) provide a list of features that influence the attractiveness of parks. Key elements are spatial design, nature, culture and history, soundscape and facilities. A full objective assessment of all these features is beyond the purpose and

Fig. 1. Map of the city of Rotterdam showing the parks that were investigated in this study. The dots indicate respondent and are shown in the same color of their favorite park.(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

398

J. Jabben et al. / Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

scope of this study. It may be possible to develop objective, standardized methods or questionnaires to determine these factors, but at present these are not available. We relied on maps and aerial photos to tentatively assess visual variation, possibilities for recreation, degree of fragmentation and the fraction of green area within each park. Cultural and historical aspects as well as facilities could not be assessed in the study and were not taken into account. Optimum rating for each considered feature was set at 100% and worst rating at 50% The non-acoustical quality factor Q (range 0–100) was defined as the multiplication of the ratings of the above features. It should be noted that in the restoration level defined in Eq. (2), the logarithm of the Q-factor is used and different assessments do influence restoration levels, but not to a dominating high degree. – Assessment of (natural) soundscapes In this study the natural soundscape properties of the parks were not (yet) incorporated into the reference level (Lref) in Eq. (1). Research indicates that the (natural) soundscape of a park has a large influence on perception and the feeling of enjoying nature (Brown 2010). However, indicators and objective tools for assessing natural soundscapes are still undeveloped. Perhaps the most promising method consists of well-designed questionnaires in which visitors are specifically asked for their perception of natural sounds. Apart from the lack of objective tools for rating soundscapes, it can be expected that perception and possible environmental benefits are highly related to the time behavior of noise exposure from mechanical non-natural sources. For rating environmental noise in the case in this study we have relied upon Lden noise levels, but possibly background noise levels could provide an important alternative (Schreurs et al., 2010b). High background noise levels will continuously mask natural soundscapes and do not allow for alternating periods in which the natural soundscape of a park can be observed and enjoyed. The background noise level has been found to be an important index in evaluating soundscapes of urban open public spaces — a lower background level tends to make people feel quieter (Yang and Kang, 2005). This topic still needs further research. 4. Surveys To get an impression of the value that inhabitants of Rotterdam attribute to the parks, in 2011 and 2013 two surveys were carried out by the Centre for Research and Statistics of the city of Rotterdam (COS). In both surveys, approximately 1300 people were questioned. The questionnaire had a broad environmental focus and was not limited to noise perception only. Regarding the perception of noise, nature and recreation the questions are given in Appendix 1. In the most recent survey of

2013, nature, quietness and recreation were regarded as ‘highly important aspects’ by respectively 55%, 47% and 31% of the respondents (Weber, 2014). For 42% of the inhabitants, environmental noise poses problems at home of which approximately 57% indicated that visiting a park helps them to cope with noise. In question 1 of the surveys, people were asked to mention their favorite park, which they most frequently visit. A total of 65% responded that they regularly visit a park in order to relax and enjoy nature. Fig. 1 is derived from the 2011 survey and shows a dot for each response in the same color of the corresponding favorite park. In Fig. 1, only the locations (501) of the participants are shown, who checked one park only (as was intended). In Fig. 2a–c shows the result of question 1 for the Kralingse bos, Zuiderpark and Schiebroekse park and also shows the locations of participants who checked multiple parks. The color in Fig. 2 denotes the score on question 2. In Table 1 the percentages found in the COS-surveys are given for all sixteen parks. The results obtained in 2011 and 2013 were quite consistent. The general picture is that there are considerable differences in the number of participants that mention a park as the park that they visit most frequently. Larger parks seem to attract more visitors even at larger distances. Fig. 2 also indicates that people living nearby visit a park more often. The Kralingse Bos is the park that the majority of respondents visits most frequently. 5. Analysis 5.1. Restoration levels The restoration levels Lr were determined using Eq. (1), with Lden noise maps and the estimated quality factor Q shown in Table 1 as main input. The reference level in Eq. (1) was set constant, Lref = 60 dB and as such is arbitrary. A lower value of 50 dB would result in 10 dB lower values of all restoration levels Lr. This is not critical as only the relative differences between the parks and the correlation with perception is relevant in this study. For simplicity we assumed b = 1 in Eq. (1), which means a 10log(r) attenuation of restoration levels. A map of the resulting restoration levels from all parks is shown in Fig. 3. 5.2. Group restoration level levels The group restoration level level Gr of each park was determined by combining maps of the restoration level Lr of each park separately with GIS population data in according with Eq. (2). The resulting values of Gr for each park are given in Table 1.

Fig. 2. a–c: Results of question 1, selected for the Kralingse Bos (11), Zuiderpark(6) and Schiebroekse park(7). Colors indicate the visit frequency: red once a week, orange a few times a month, blue less than once a month. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

J. Jabben et al. / Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

399

Table 1 Model parameters and Gr for the parks in Fig. 1. Nr.

11 2 6 10 14 7 12 9 5 8 13 4 3 16 1 15

Park

Kralingse Bos Prinsenpark Zuiderpark Zestienhoven Twee Heuvels Schiebroek Het Park Berg&Broek Rozenburg Melanchton Oude Plantage Vroesenpark Museumpark Zuid. Randpark Roel Langerak Prinsenmolen Total all parks

Area [104 m2]

Quality factor Q[−]

190 24 100 42 25 53 26 19 4 7 6 10 5 92 9 14 626

90 56 63 80 56 45 80 44 80 49 49 90 39 80 63 24

Av. noise Lden level [dBA] STAMINA

Meas⁎

56 51 55 54 54 58 57 55 54 53 60 61 52 65 63 60

51 55 55 54 – 54 59 – – – – 58 – 65 – 57

Group restoration level level Gr [dB]

Most visits [%] 2011

2013

96 95 95 92 90 86 86 85 85 85 84 83 81 80 78 76 102

25 1 11 1 2 3 8 1 1 1 1 6 4 1 1 1 65%

25 2 10 2 2 3 8 1 1 1 0 4 3 1 1 1 65%

⁎ In November 2013, a crude validation of calculated Lden levels was obtained by short 5 minute interval measurements in several parks.

In general, the larger parks in the city center, such as the ‘Kralingse Bos’ and the ‘Zuiderpark’ tend to have a high group restoration level. This is because for larger parks in the summation in Eq. (1) more subareas will contribute to the restoration levels Lr. Also, as the area of a park increases, an increasing area free of traffic noise sources is formed,

which lowers environmental noise, particularly at the center. As these parks are surrounded by dense built up areas, relatively many inhabitants are offered restoration which adds to the group restoration level of the park. Exceptions are parks that are exposed to relatively high noise levels from roads, railways or airports. For example, this is the

Fig. 3. Map of restoration levels Lr in dB due to sixteen parks in Rotterdam. Small parks and/or parks with high environmental noise from roads, trains or airports hardly contribute to the total restoration level.

400

J. Jabben et al. / Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

difference between this park's restoration level Lr,j and the total restoration level of all parks, according to: P j ¼ 10

Lr;i −Lr 10



cðL −L Þ

e r TH : 1 þ ecðLr −LTH Þ

ð3Þ

The second term is the ‘S-curve’ and describes the probability that a respondent will visit any park, given the joint restoration level Lr. The first term is the probability that it will be park no j. With this assumption, the expectation of the number of the respondents that checks a particular park in question 1 is given by summation of Pj over all the locations of respondents. The constants (c = 0.2, LTH = 50) were based on a least squares minimization of the differences between the predicted and observed answers. Fig. 5 gives the results. Fig. 4. Self-reported park preference (%) versus group restoration level (Gr in dB). The correlation is about 57%.

case for the ‘Zuidelijke Randpark’, which is located relatively close to the A15 motorway. 5.3. Correlation between group restoration level and survey scores We assumed that the number of times that a specific park is mentioned as favorite park, can be considered as an indicator (score) for its perceived attractiveness, including both acoustical and nonacoustical aspects. In Fig. 4 the score for each park is plotted against the group restoration level level Gr. Park nos. 3, 4, 6, 11, 12 tend to show a higher score, with increasing Gr but the overall correlation (57%) is rather poor. Parks no. 2, 10 and 14 do not seem to show any correlation at all. 5.4. Correlation with local restoration levels (Lr) and survey As explained in the previous section, the group restoration level Gr does not show a direct good correlation with the answers of question 1 of the survey. This question only allows the respondents to check one favorite park and does not measure the respondent's appreciation of other nearby parks. It means that the restoration values of other parks are not well represented in the total response on question 1, which makes it difficult to find clear relations with the group restoration level. To improve on the explanation of the survey results, the vicinity and influence of several ‘attracting’ parks have to be considered. To this aim it was assumed that at each respondent's address, the incentive or probability (Pj) to visit a particular park (j) can be estimated from the

6. Discussion Although in Fig. 5 the predicted numbers for the parks no. 3 (Museum) and no. 4 (Vroesen) are still deviating considerably, the overall prediction is much better than a prediction merely based on Gr as shown in Fig. 4. Taking into account the relative contribution to the total restoration level helps to explain why some parks can yield a low score on question 1, despite having a relatively high individual group restoration level. Other parks may be more attractive to visit. This is most likely the reason that parks no. 2 (Prinsenpark), no. 10 (Zestienhoven) and no. 14 scored much lower than no 11 (Kralingse Bos) and no. 6 (Zuiderpark). No. 12 (Het Park) attracts considerably more visitors than predicted by restoration levels. This park is located beautifully on the Meuse, an extra bonus particularly during summer. In general, parks where people can relax near a waterfront (nos. 11, 12) are likely to be more attractive. This also holds for the ‘Oude Plantage’ (No. 13) but this park is probably too noisy and too small and is also located nearby the ‘Kralingse bos’. In the proposed methodology, by definition, separation of acoustic, non-acoustic and geographical factors is not well possible. As for environmental noise, we do see that the parks with Lden levels at and above 60 dB seem to become less attractive (No. 13, 16, 15) with the ‘Vroesenpark’ as only exception. 7. Refinement and further research Despite the still limited validation that could be obtained from the COS-survey, the concept of a restoration level for an environmental rating of urban parks seems useful. This concept provides a good starting point for a further exploration and better understanding of intrinsic features that determine the attraction and restorative value of urban green areas. In order to further validate and improve the methodology, more extensive survey data regarding the perception and visit frequency of urban parks are needed. Furthermore, to rate environmental noise in this study the restoration levels were based on Lden noise levels, but possibly statistical noise levels (percentile levels L95, L50) could provide an important alternative. So far this has not been investigated further. Another aspect that not yet been studied is the presence of natural soundscapes. These possibly could be incorporated into the reference level Lref in Eq. (1) that would characterize the ‘natural noise’ level, but so far methods for the determination of such levels objectively are not known. Finally in this study, we have incorporated a quality factor into the intrinsic features of parks to characterize non-acoustical factors. 8. Conclusion

Fig. 5. Observed and predicted numbers of respondents (Eq. (3)) that indicate a park as favorite, based on the park restoration level in relation to the total level of all parks.

As discussed in this paper, indicators and methods regarding the objective valuation of the environmental quality of green, public urban areas with specific (acoustic and other) features are paramount for new, complementary policy approaches. This challenge is currently addressed in several research projects at international level.

J. Jabben et al. / Science of the Total Environment 508 (2015) 395–401

401

Appendix 1. COS questionnaire urban parks Rotterdam 2011 Q1. Which city park do you visit most frequently? □ Roel Langerakpark □ Berg-en Broekpark □ Prinsenpark □ Park Zestienhoven □ Museumpark □ Kralingse Bos □ Vroesenpark □ Het Park (bij de Euromast) □ Park Rozenburg □ Oude Plantage en Watertoren □ Zuiderpark □ Park De Twee Heuvels □ Schiebroekse Park □ Prinsenmolenpark □ Melanchtonpark □ Zuiderlijk Randpark □ none of these parks Q2. The following questions are about the park that you have chosen in the previous question. How often you visit this park? □ At least once a week □ A few times a month □ Once an month or less Q3. Why do you visit the park? (Multiple answers allowed) □ To entertain my children □ To let the dog out □ To walk or jog I □ To meet other people □ To enjoy nature □ To the rest and to relax □ I walk through it just because it's the shortest way (eg for work) □ Other reason Q4. What do you think of the quality of nature of the park? □ Good □ Moderate □ Poor Q5. What do you think of the sound quality of the park? □ It is nice and quiet □ There is some traffic noise, but I do not really mind □ There is too much noise Q6. Do you come to rest in the park? In other words, do you feel in the park more relaxed than at other times? □ Yes □ No Q7. Can you indicate with a score between 1 (low) and 10 (high) how you appreciate the park?

Multidisciplinary approaches are needed, as humans perceive their environment in a complex, multi sensorial and experience-based way. Thus, new assessment methods are called for that should comprise a wide range of explanatory factors, both acoustic and non-acoustic. This paper aims to contribute to the establishment of objective and accountable indicators, that involve a broader view on environmental quality. The proposed model in this paper for rating the restoration potential of public urban areas takes into account both acoustic and non-acoustic factors. The definition of local and groups restoration levels, enables to relate the restorative value of a public outdoor area to the number of residents in surrounding areas and the accessibility to the area. Although there is still much to be improved, it could be a useful tool for epidemiologists in geographical studies into health effects. The methodology may also help local policymakers in urban planning aimed at preservation or improvement of the outdoor urban environmental quality. References Adams, et al., 2006. Sustainable soundscapes: noise policy and the urban experience. Urban Stud. 43, 2385. Alvarsson, J.J., Wiens, S., Nilsson, M.E., 2010. Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 7, 1036–1046. Babisch, W., 2002. The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise Health 4 (16), 1–11. Brambilla, G., Luigi, M., 2006. Responses to noise in urban parks and in rural quiet areas. Acta Acust. U. Acust. 92 (6), 881–886. Bijsterveld, K., 2008. Mechanical sound technology, culture and public problems of noise in the twentieth century. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Brown, A.L., 2010. Soundscapes and environmental noise management. Noise Control Eng. J. 58 (5), 493–500.

Chau, K., et al., 2010. Visitors response to extraneous noise in countryside recreation areas. Noise Control Eng. J. 58 (5), 484–492 (9). De Coensel, B., Botteldooren, D., 2006. The quiet rural soundscape and how to characterize it. Acta Acust. U. Acust. 92 (6), 887–897 (11). European Environmental Agency (EEA), 2010. Good Practice Guide on Noise Exposure and Potential Health Effects (Copenhagen). Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN), 2006. Quiet Areas and Health. , p. 12 (The Hague; publication). Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182. Miedema, H.M.E., 2007. annoyance caused by environmental noise: elements for evidence-based noise policies. J. Soc. Issues 63 (1), 41–57. Schreurs, E.M., 2010a. Standard Model Instrumentation for Noise Assessments — STAMINA Model Description. Report 680740003RIVM, Bilthoven. Schreurs, E.M., et al., 2010b. Background noise: an increasing environmental problem? Acta Acust. U. Acust. 96 (6), 1125–1133 (9). Van Herzele, A., Wiedemann, T., 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 63, 109–126. Van Kempen, E.E.M., Houthuijs, D.J.M., 2008. The burden on health and well-being of road and rail traffic noise exposure in The Netherlands. Report 630180001RIVM, Bilthoven. Weber, M., 2013. Noise Policy: Sound Policy? A Meta Level Analysis and Evaluation of Noise Policy in The Netherlands. PhD dissertation. Utrecht University. Weber, M., 2014. TASTE: Search for new indicators for acoustic and environmental quality of urban areas. Proceedings of ICBEN Conference organiser ICBEN.org, Nara. World Health Organisation (WHO), 2000. Guidelines for Community Noise. WHO, Geneva. World Health Organisation (WHO), 2009. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. 978 92 890 4173 7. World Health Organisation (WHO), 2011. Joint Research Centre (JRC)Burden of Disease From Environmental Noise. Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in EuropeWHO, Copenhagen. Yang, W., Kang, J., 2005. Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. Appl. Acoust. 66 (2), 211–229.

A framework for rating environmental value of urban parks.

In this study, indicators are proposed to characterize the intrinsic environmental properties and external value of urban parks. The intrinsic propert...
2MB Sizes 2 Downloads 4 Views