Noise is an ever-growing problem in cities. Conventional noise mitigation approaches may not necessarily control noise pollution, since whether a sound is perceived as noise is largely influenced by its specific contexts. Based on an activity-centric framework, this study examines the effects of activity-related contexts and measured sound levels based on individuals’ sound evaluations as they undertake daily activities at different geographic locations and times. Data for the study were collected from 33 participants in Chicago (USA) using Global Positioning System-equipped mobile phones, portable sound sensors, and activity diaries. Multilevel logistic modeling was used to examine the relationships among measured sound levels, sound evaluations, and activity-related contexts for each recorded activity of the participants. The results indicate that activity-related contexts significantly influence individuals’ sound evaluations as they perform their daily activities. When activity-related contexts are taken into account, the measured sound levels that individuals experienced when performing an activity are no longer significant in influencing their sound evaluations. These results support the notion that sound is not only a physical feature but also a socio-psychological construct. It is crucial to adopt a human-centric and context-aware approach in urban planning through understanding the circumstances in which a sound is perceived as noise. Such an approach would help improve sound-related urban environments and construct livable and healthy cities.
AlettaFKangJAxelssonO (2016)
Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning149: 65–74.
2.
ANSI S1.4:1983 (1983) American national standard specification for sound level meters. New York, USA.
3.
BasnerMBabischWDavisA, et al. (2014)
Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet383: 1325–1332.
4.
BildEColerMPfefferK, et al. (2016)
Considering sound in planning and designing public spaces: A review of theory and applications and a proposed framework for integrating research and practice. Journal of Planning Literature31(4): 419–434.
5.
BildEPfefferKColerM, et al. (2018)
Public space users’ soundscape evaluations in relation to their activities: An Amsterdam-based study. Frontiers in Psychology9: 1–16.
6.
BotteldoorenDAndringaTAspuruI, et al. (2016) From sonic environment to soundscape. In: KangJSchulte-FortkampB (eds) Soundscape and the Built Environment.
Boca Raton:
CRC Press, pp.17–42.
7.
BrownALGjestlandTDuboisD (2016) Acoustic environments and soundscapes. In: KangJSchulte-FortkampB (eds) Soundscape and the Built Environment.
Boca Raton:
CRC Press, pp.1–17.
8.
ChenJShawSLYuH, et al. (2011)
Exploratory data analysis of activity diary data: A space–time GIS approach. Journal of Transport Geography19(3): 394–404.
9.
EllegårdK (1999)
A time–geographical approach to the study of everyday life of individuals: A challenge of complexity. GeoJournal48(3): 167–175.
10.
EllegårdK (2018) Thinking Time Geography: Concepts, Methods and Applications.
New York:
Routledge.
11.
EvansGWKantrowitzE (2002)
Socioeconomic status and health: The potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annual Review of Public Health23(1): 303–331.
12.
GeJLuJMorotomiK, et al. (2009)
Developing soundscapegraphy for the notation of urban soundscape: Its concept, method, analysis and application. Acta Acustica United with Acustica95(1): 65–75.
13.
Herranz-PascualKAspuruIGarciaI (2010)
Proposed conceptual model of environmental experience as framework to study the soundscape. Proceedings of InterNoise6: 1–9.
14.
Herranz-PascualKGarciaIAspuruI, et al. (2016)
Progress in the understanding of soundscape: Objective variables and objectifiable criteria that predict acoustic comfort in urban places. Noise Mapping3(1): 247–263.
15.
Herranz-PascualKGarciaIDiezI, et al. (2017)
Analysis of field data to describe the effect of context (acoustic and non-acoustic factors) on urban soundscapes. Applied Sciences7(2): 173 (1–18).
16.
HongAKimBWidenerM (2020)
Noise and the city: Leveraging crowdsourced big data to examine the spatio-temporal relationship between urban development and noise annoyance. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science47(7): 1201–1218.
ISO 12913-1:2014 (2014) Acoustics-soundscape-part1: Definition and conceptual framework.
Geneva:
ISO.
19.
JenningsPCainR (2013)
A framework for improving urban soundscapes. Applied Acoustics74(2): 293–299.
20.
JeonYJikLPHongJ, et al. (2011)
Non-auditory factors affecting urban soundscape evaluation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America130(6): 3761–3770.
21.
KangJAlettaFGjestlandT, et al. (2016)
Ten questions on the soundscapes of the built environment. Building and Environment108: 284–294.
22.
KwanMP (1998)
Space–time and integral measures of individual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis30(3): 191–216.
23.
KwanMP (1999)
Gender, the home-work link, and space–time patterns of non-employment activities. Economic Geography75(4): 370–394.
24.
KwanMP (2012)
The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102(5): 958–968.
25.
KwanMP (2018)
The limits of the neighborhood effect: Contextual uncertainties in geographic, environmental health, and social science research. Annals of the American Association of Geographers108(6): 1482–1490.
26.
LercherP (1996)
Environmental noise and health: An integrated research perspective. Environment International22(1): 117–129.
27.
LercherPSchulte-FortkampB (2003) The relevance of soundscape research to the assessment of noise annoyance at the community level. In: Proceedings of the eighth international congress on noise as a public health problem, Rotterdam. pp.225–231. Institute of Acoustics.
28.
MaJLiCJKwanMP, et al. (2020)
Assessing personal noise exposure and its relationship with mental health in Beijing based on individuals’ space–time behavior. Environment International139: 105737.
29.
Marquis-FavreCPrematEAubreeD (2005)
Noise and its effects: A review on qualitative aspects of sound. Part II: Noise and annoyance. Acta Acustica United with Acustica91: 626–642.
30.
MiedemaHMVosH (1998)
Exposure–response relationships for transportation noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America104(6): 3432–3445.
31.
MiedemaHMVosH (1999)
Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America105(6): 3336–3344.
32.
MorelloRPastorMSaddJ (2001)
Environmental justice and Southern California’s “riskscape”: The distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among diverse communities. Urban Affairs Review36(4): 551–578.
33.
NeitzelRSeixasNOlsonJ, et al. (2004)
Nonoccupational noise: Exposures associated with routine activities. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America115(1): 237–245.
34.
OuisD (2001)
Annoyance from road traffic noise: A review. Journal of Environmental Psychology21(1): 101–120.
35.
Passchier-VermeerWPasschierF (2000)
Noise exposure and public health. Environmental Health Perspectives108 (6): 123–131.
36.
RaimbaultMDuboisD (2005)
Urban soundscapes: Experiences and knowledge. Cities22(5): 339–350.
37.
SchaferRM (1977) The Tuning of the World.
New York:
Alfred Knopf.
38.
Schulte-FortkampBFiebigA (2006)
Soundscape analysis in a residential area: An evaluation of noise and people’s mind. Acta Acustica United with Acustica92(6): 875–880.
39.
SchweizerCEdwardsRDBayer-OglesbyL, et al. (2007)
Indoor time microenvironment activity patterns in seven regions of Europe. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology17(2): 1–12.
40.
SteeleDSteffensJGuastavinoC (2015)
The role of activity in urban soundscape evaluation. Proceedings of the InterNoise, Maastricht, 2015: 1507–1512.
41.
SteffensJSteeleDGuastavinoC (2017)
Situational and person-related factors influencing momentary and retrospective soundscape evaluations in day-to-day life. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America141(3): 1414–1425.
42.
StewartTMoudonVFesinmeyerM, et al. (2016)
The association between park visitation and physical activity measured with accelerometer, GPS, and travel diary. Health & Place38: 82–88.
43.
Van KampIDaviesH (2013)
Noise and health in vulnerable groups: A review. Noise & Health15(64): 153–159.
44.
World Health Organization (1999) Guidelines for Community Noise.
Geneva:
World Health Organization.
45.
World Health Organization (2011) Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise: Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in Europe.
Geneva:
World Health Organization.
46.
YuLKangJ (2008)
Effects of social, demographical and behavioral factors on the sound level evaluation in urban open spaces. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America123(2): 772–783.
47.
ZhangMKangJ (2007)
Towards the evaluation, description, and creation of soundscapes in urban open spaces. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design34(1): 68–86.
