IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i9p5721-d810883.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of National Park Soundscape and Its Effects on Visual Aesthetics

Author

Listed:
  • Peng Wang

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Chaoqun Zhang

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Hesheng Xie

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Wenjuan Yang

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

  • Youjun He

    (Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China)

Abstract

Soundscape perception is a very weak link in the national park landscape evaluation system in China. A thorough understanding of soundscapes and their effects on visual aesthetics is important for the management of national park landscapes. In this study, features of soundscapes (e.g., loudness, frequency, preference, and auditory satisfaction) were investigated based on 394 valid questionnaires of residents in the Qianjiangyuan National Park Pilot Area. The effects of soundscape on visual aesthetics were analyzed using the PLS-SEM. The results demonstrated that: (1) Peddling voice and insect sound were the loudest components in the soundscape, running water and birdsong were the most commonly heard and most preferred, religious sound was the quietest and least frequently heard, and horn was the least preferred. Residents in the Pilot Area were generally satisfied with the auditory environment. (2) Both sound frequency and preference have significant effects on auditory satisfaction, but preference (path coefficient = 0.426) has a larger effect than does frequency (path coefficient = 0.228). (3) Loudness has negligible effects on visual aesthetics, but other soundscape characteristics did influence visual aesthetics. Soundscape preference had the most significant effect (path coefficient = 0.305), followed by auditory satisfaction (path coefficient = 0.174), and sound frequency (path coefficient = 0.165). Among them, effects of perception frequency are the indirect utilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Peng Wang & Chaoqun Zhang & Hesheng Xie & Wenjuan Yang & Youjun He, 2022. "Perception of National Park Soundscape and Its Effects on Visual Aesthetics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5721-:d:810883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5721/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5721/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fabrizio Minichilli & Francesca Gorini & Elena Ascari & Fabrizio Bianchi & Alessio Coi & Luca Fredianelli & Gaetano Licitra & Federica Manzoli & Lorena Mezzasalma & Liliana Cori, 2018. "Annoyance Judgment and Measurements of Environmental Noise: A Focus on Italian Secondary Schools," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Molnarova, Kristina & Sklenicka, Petr & Stiborek, Jiri & Svobodova, Kamila & Salek, Miroslav & Brabec, Elizabeth, 2012. "Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 269-278.
    3. Wei Zhao & Hongyu Li & Xun Zhu & Tianji Ge, 2020. "Effect of Birdsong Soundscape on Perceived Restorativeness in an Urban Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Luka Vukić & Vice Mihanović & Luca Fredianelli & Veljko Plazibat, 2021. "Seafarers’ Perception and Attitudes towards Noise Emission on Board Ships," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Lin Zuo & Jie Zhang & Ronda J Zhang & Yingying Zhang & Meng Hu & Min Zhuang & Wei Liu, 2020. "The Transition of Soundscapes in Tourist Destinations from the Perspective of Residents’ Perceptions: A Case Study of the Lugu Lake Scenic Spot, Southwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Davide Petri & Gaetano Licitra & Maria Angela Vigotti & Luca Fredianelli, 2021. "Effects of Exposure to Road, Railway, Airport and Recreational Noise on Blood Pressure and Hypertension," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-15, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanlong Guo & Xuemei Jiang & Linfu Zhang & Han Zhang & Zuoqing Jiang, 2022. "Effects of Sound Source Landscape in Urban Forest Park on Alleviating Mental Stress of Visitors: Evidence from Huolu Mountain Forest Park, Guangzhou," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Bonet-Solà & Ester Vidaña-Vila & Rosa Ma Alsina-Pagès, 2023. "Analysis and Acoustic Event Classification of Environmental Data Collected in a Citizen Science Project," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Meng Ma & Wenqian Ran & Jinping Wu & Minghang Li & Xiangyu Qu, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Metro Interior Noise on Passenger Annoyance: An Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Ravinder Thaper & Richard Sesek & Richard Garnett & Yadrianna Acosta-Sojo & Gregory T. Purdy, 2023. "The Combined Impact of Hand-Arm Vibration and Noise Exposure on Hearing Sensitivity of Agricultural/Forestry Workers—A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Yifei Niu & Xi Wang & Ciyun Lin, 2022. "A Study on the Impact of Organizing Environmental Awareness and Education on the Performance of Environmental Governance in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Chao Pan & Yunfa Wu & Sarula Chen & Yang Yang, 2023. "Indoor Environmental Comfort Assessment of Traditional Folk Houses: A Case Study in Southern Anhui, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-23, February.
    6. Luca Fredianelli & Peter Lercher & Gaetano Licitra, 2022. "New Indicators for the Assessment and Prevention of Noise Nuisance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-5, October.
    7. Jäger, Tobias & McKenna, Russell & Fichtner, Wolf, 2015. "Onshore wind energy in Baden-Württemberg: a bottom-up economic assessment of the socio-technical potential," Working Paper Series in Production and Energy 7, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Industrial Production (IIP).
    8. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    9. Gardt Manuel & Broekel Tom & Gareis Philipp & Litmeyer Marie-Louise, 2018. "Einfluss von Windenergieanlagen auf die Entwicklung des Tourismus in Hessen," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 62(1), pages 46-64, March.
    10. Ricardo Moreno & Francesco Bianco & Stefano Carpita & Alessandro Monticelli & Luca Fredianelli & Gaetano Licitra, 2023. "Adjusted Controlled Pass-By (CPB) Method for Urban Road Traffic Noise Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Michail Evangelos Terzakis & Maud Dohmen & Irene van Kamp & Maarten Hornikx, 2022. "Noise Indicators Relating to Non-Auditory Health Effects in Children—A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    13. Krekel, Christian & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Does the presence of wind turbines have negative externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 221-238.
    14. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    16. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    17. Leon Müller & Jens Forssén & Wolfgang Kropp, 2023. "Traffic Noise at Moderate Levels Affects Cognitive Performance: Do Distance-Induced Temporal Changes Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Uros Pantelic & Petar Lilic & Aleksandar Cvjetic & Nikola Lilic, 2023. "Environmental Noise Impact Assessment for Large-Scale Surface Mining Operations in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, January.
    19. Yang, Jinshui & Peng, Chaoyi & Xiao, Jiayu & Zeng, Jingcheng & Yuan, Yun, 2012. "Application of videometric technique to deformation measurement for large-scale composite wind turbine blade," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 292-300.
    20. Davide Petri & Gaetano Licitra & Maria Angela Vigotti & Luca Fredianelli, 2021. "Effects of Exposure to Road, Railway, Airport and Recreational Noise on Blood Pressure and Hypertension," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-15, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5721-:d:810883. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.