Perceived Restorative Potential of Urban Parks by Citizens—A Case Study from Wrocław, Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Case Study Area
- Old Town Park (Park Staromiejski), located in the old town, is a very well-maintained small park located by the puppet theater (2.75 ha).
- Mal Island Park (Wyspa Słodowa) is located on an island in the Odra River (about 2.5 ha).
- Stanisław Tołpa’s Park (Park Stanisława Tołpy), located in the Ołbin district, has a small reservoir, playground for children, and a dog park (8.96 ha).
- Centennial Hall (Hala Stulecia) has green scenery, multimedia fountains, and pergolas (about 6.5 ha of green area).
- Juliusz Słowacki’s Park (Park Juliusza Słowackiego) is located in the very center of the city, accompanied by high-traffic roads and the museum of the Battle of Racławice.
- Szczytnicki Park (Park Szczytnicki) is located to the east of Plac Grunwaldzki and the old Oder River (5.74 ha).
- The Boulevard of Rector Kulczyński (Bulwar im. Rektora Stanisława Kulczyńskiego) is located by the Odra River, and is a recreational place with a beach (about 300 m long).
- Southern Park (Park Południowy) is a big park with many attractions, including a playground, cafes, a dog park, and reservoir (25 ha).
2.2. Sound Recordings
2.3. Panoramas
2.4. Survey
- People/anthropogenic: conversations (talking), walking (footsteps), music, and children (playing).
- Traffic: car engines, tram sounds (vehicles), braking, and horns.
- Natural: sounds of birds, insects, wind, and water.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Variance Explainability Screening
- All questions (Var. 1)—attained consistency (explainability of variation in the two main dimensions of around 11%; full explainability requires 68 dimensions).
- Visual (view) assessment-based questions, such as “How would you rate the place?” (Var. 2)—attained consistency of about 30%; full explainability requires 12 dimensions.
- Questions based on sound assessment (Var. 3)—attained consistency of approximately 11%; 56 dimensions are required to reach full explainability.
- “What are you hearing?”—a question used in sound examination (Var. 4)—attained a consistency of approximately 12% of the variation accounted for by the two leading dimensions; 44 dimensions are required to account for all of the variance.
- “How would you rank the location?” is a good evaluation question (possible target value for modelling). Var. 5—attained consistency of around 32%; full explainability requires 12 dimensions.
- Create a consistent, resultant opinion indicator which would act as a target variable for the feature selection process.
- Encode the responses to the questions in version 3 into bit encoders so that correlation analysis can be carried out for individual responses.
- Perform a principal component analysis for the encoded results to check the similarity between the answers and their scree plot on the vector map.
- Perform a feature selection procedure to identify responses relating to sound impressions (variant 3) that significantly influence the resultant opinion indicator.
2.6. 3D Matrix for Landscape Restorative Potential
2.7. Variables Encoding and Correlation Analysis
2.8. Dimensionality Reduction
2.9. Feature Selection (Boruta Algorithm)—Performed on Categories
- Sound category: different sound categories that were analyzed using the Boruta algorithm.
- MeanImp: the mean importance score of the features in each sound category. Higher scores indicate greater importance.
- MedianImp: the median importance score of the features in each sound category.
- MinImp: the minimum importance score of the features in each sound category.
- MaxImp: the maximum importance score of the features in each sound category.
- NormHits: the normalized number of times that each feature was identified as important in the iterations of the Boruta algorithm. Higher scores indicate greater importance.
- Decision: the final decision for each sound category based on the Boruta algorithm’s analysis. The options are “Confirmed” if the sound category is important, and “Rejected” if it is not.
3. Results
3.1. Landscape Restorative Potential of Visual and Sound Stimuli
3.2. The Impact of Different Types of Sound in Overall Perception of Parks in Wrocław
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Landscape Restorative Potential of Visual and Sound Stimuli
4.2. The Impact of Different Types of Sound in Overall Perception of Parks in Wrocław
4.3. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
4.4. Recommendations for Urban Planning
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kazak, J.K.; Hodor, K.; Wilkosz-Mamcarczyk, M. Climate Change and Current Challenges for Landscapes and Cultural Heritage. Land 2022, 11, 2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Wang, Y.; Wang, T.; He, X.; Kazak, J.K. Scenario Analysis for Resilient Urban Green Infrastructure. Land 2022, 11, 1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perwenis, P.; Szewrański, S. Spatial planning for reducing the epidemic risk—The state of knowledge and practice from the perspective of the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Water Land Dev. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Świąder, M.; Szewrański, S.; Kazak, J.K. Environmental Carrying Capacity Assessment—The Policy Instrument and Tool for Sustainable Spatial Management. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 579838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, B.-J.; Ouyang, X.; Yang, L.; Yao, W. Usage Behavior and Health Benefit Perception of Youth in Urban Parks: A Case Study from Qingdao, China. Front. Public Health 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamińska, J.A.; Turek, T.; Van Poppel, M.; Peters, J.; Hofman, J.; Kazak, J.K. Whether cycling around the city is in fact healthy in the light of air quality—Results of black carbon. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 337, 117694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, J. Soundscape in city and built environment: Current developments and design potentials. City Built Environ. 2023, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Axelsson, Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 149, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carles, J.; Bernáldez, F.; De Lucio, J. Audio-visual interactions and soundscape preferences. Landsc. Res. 1992, 17, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, X.; Kang, J.; Zhu, P.; Wang, S. Effects of soundscape on rural landscape evaluations. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 70, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities. Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, J.Y.; Jeon, J.Y. Relationship between spatiotemporal variability of soundscape and urban morphology in a multifunctional urban area: A case study in Seoul, Korea. Build. Environ. 2017, 126, 382–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Kang, J. Sensitivity analysis of changes in human physiological indicators observed in soundscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 190, 103593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sztubecka, M.; Skiba, M.; Mrówczyńska, M.; Mathias, M. Noise as a Factor of Green Areas Soundscape Creation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lercher, P. Noise in cities: Urban and transport planning determinants and health in cities. In Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning: A Framework; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 443–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, S.R. The production of a Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale. Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apanowicz, J. Metodologia Ogólna; Wydawnictwo Diecezji IVlplińskiej Bernardinum: Gdynia, Poland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, A.; Oberman, T.; Aletta, F.; Erfanian, M.; Kachlicka, M.; Lionello, M.; Kang, J. The Soundscape Indices (SSID) Protocol: A Method for Urban Soundscape Surveys—Questionnaires with Acoustical and Contextual Information. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Cao, X.; Meng, Q. Effects of a human sound-based index on the soundscapes of urban open spaces. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 802, 149869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, J.Y.; Hong, J.Y. Classification of urban park soundscapes through perceptions of the acoustical environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 141, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzano, J.V.; Pastor, J.A.A.; Quesada, R.G. The importance of changing urban scenery in the assessment of citizens’ soundscape perception. On the need for different time-related points of view. Noise Mapp. 2021, 8, 138–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiaohong, L.; Jinxiao, W.; Hongxuan, Z. Research on Interactive Soundscape Design for Urban Landscape. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 236, 03033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.-R.; Co, L.S.E.; Jee, Y. A Study on the Precise Debris-flow Risk Assessment Techniques Using 3D Risk Matrix Concept in Urban Area. J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 2017, 17, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gozalo, G.R.; Morillas, J.M.B.; González, D.M.; Moraga, P.A. Relationships among satisfaction, noise perception, and use of urban green spaces. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 624, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nożyński, S. Środowiska Audialne. Kilka Uwag na Temat Otoczenia Dźwiękowego; Walter, N., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza: Poznaniu, Poland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, W.; Li, H.; Zhu, X.; Ge, T. Effect of Birdsong Soundscape on Perceived Restorativeness in an Urban Park. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stobbe, E.; Sundermann, J.; Ascone, L.; Kühn, S. Birdsongs alleviate anxiety and paranoia in healthy participants. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, Y.; Dai, P.; Zhao, Z.; Hao, C.; Wen, Y. The Influence of Urban Green Space Soundscape on the Changes of Citizens’ Emotion: A Case Study of Beijing Urban Parks. Forests 2022, 13, 1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaszczak, A.; Małkowska, N.; Kristianova, K.; Bernat, S.; Pochodyła, E. Evaluation of Soundscapes in Urban Parks in Olsztyn (Poland) for Improvement of Landscape Design and Management. Land 2021, 10, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rewers, E. Miejski soundscape z wodą w roli głównej. AVANT. J. Philos. Vanguard 2020, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romanowska, M. Urban soundscape preferences in relation to the function of a place: Case studies in Warsaw. Misc. Geogr. Reg. Stud. Dev. 2018, 22, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polko, P.; Kimic, K. Gender as a factor differentiating the perceptions of safety in urban parks. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 13, 101608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoof, J.; Marston, H.R.; Kazak, J.K.; Buffel, T. Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Build. Environ. 2021, 199, 107922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Brown, G.; Liu, Y. The physical and non-physical factors that influence perceived access to urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 133, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewicka, M.; Rowiński, K.; Iwańczak, B.; Bałaj, B.; Kula, A.M.; Oleksy, T.; Prusik, M.; Toruńczyk-Ruiz, S.; Wnuk, A. On the essentialism of places: Between conservative and progressive meanings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruce, N.S.; Davies, W.J. The effects of expectation on the perception of soundscapes. Appl. Acoust. 2014, 85, 827–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szopińska, K. Hałas drogowy jako czynnik wpływający na atrakcyjność miejskich terenów rekreacyjno-wypoczynkowych. Logistyka 2015, 3, 4740–4749. [Google Scholar]
- Miterska, M.; Kompała, J. Soundscapes of Urban parks in cities with populations of over 100,000 in the Silesian Voivodeship. Arch. Acoust. 2021, 46, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maksymiuk, G. Rozwój terenów rekreacyjnych-wspomaganie czy ograniczenie w przyrodniczej rewitalizacji miast. Teka Kom. Archit. Urban. I Stud. Kraj. 2005, 1, 149–156. [Google Scholar]
- Soares, A.C.L.; Coelho, J.L.B. Urban park soundscape in distinct sociocultural and geographical contexts. Noise Mapp. 2016, 3, 232–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solecka, I.; Rinne, T.; Caracciolo, R.; Kytta, M.; Albert, C. Important places in landscape—Investigating the determinants of perceived landscape value in the suburban area of Wroc ł aw, Poland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 218, 104289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiełkowska, J.; Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K.; Kazak, J.; Szewranski, S.; Van Hoof, J. Urban Adaptation to Climate Change Plans and Policies–The Conceptual Framework of a Methodological Approach. J. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 19, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K.; Kazak, J.K.; Anna, H.; Szewrański, S.; Świąder, M. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Poland. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2019, 37, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category and Fixed Value | Cat. 5— 1 Point | Cat. 4— 2 Points | Cat. 3— 3 Points | Cat. 2— 4 Points | Cat. 1— 5 Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Numerical range for assessment | <0–43) | <43–86) | <86–129) | <129–172) | <172–215> |
Evaluation | Annoying | Slightly irritating | Acceptable | Partly pleasant | Pleasant |
Chaotic | Slightly chaotic | Moderate | Partly calm | Calm | |
Monotonous | Slightly monotonous | Average | Partly varied | Varied |
Q-Num | Question | Var. 1 | Var. 2 | Var. 3 | Var. 4 | Var. 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Do you know this place? | |||||
Q2 | What theorem allows you to evaluate the view of this place? [Annoying (1)—Pleasant (5)] | ~11% | ~30% | |||
Q3 | What theorem allows you to evaluate the view of this place? [Chaotic (1)—Calm (5)] | |||||
Q4 | What theorem allows you to evaluate the view of this place? [Monotonous (1)—Varied (5)] | |||||
Q5 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Talks] | ~11% | ~12% | |||
Q6 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Footsteps] | |||||
Q7 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Music] | |||||
Q8 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Children (playing)] | |||||
Q9 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Birds] | |||||
Q10 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Insect sounds] | |||||
Q11 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Water] | |||||
Q12 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Wind] | |||||
Q13 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Vehicles] | |||||
Q14 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Braking] | |||||
Q15 | What sounds and in what scale did you manage to hear on the recording? [Horns] | |||||
Q16 | What theorem allows you to evaluate the sounds of this place? [Annoying (1)—Pleasant (5)] | ~32% | ||||
Q17 | What theorem allows you to evaluate the sounds of this place? [Chaotic (1)—Calm (5)] | |||||
Q18 | What theorem allows you to evaluate the sounds of this place? [Monotonous (1)—Varied (5)] | |||||
Q19 | Would you like to visit this place? | |||||
Q20 | Please enter your gender | |||||
Q21 | Which age group do you belong to? | |||||
Q22 | What is your education level? | |||||
~11% | the percentage of variance explained by the first two dimensions | |||||
questions used in a given variant | ||||||
questions not used in this variant |
Variants | Dim1 | Dim2 | Dim3 | Dim4 | Dim5 | Dims Needed for 100% | Decision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Var. 1 | 6.324 | 4.822 | 3.969 | 3.339 | 3.212 | 68 | noise |
Var. 2 | 16.781 | 13.362 | 11.7 | 10.236 | 8.582 | 12 | potential target dependent |
Var. 3 | 7.099 | 4.926 | 4.666 | 3.814 | 3.451 | 56 | noise |
Var. 4 | 6.613 | 5.671 | 4.569 | 4.43 | 4.075 | 44 | potential target independent |
Var. 5 | 16.532 | 15.971 | 12.233 | 11.237 | 8.476 | 12 | potential target dependent |
Type of Sound | Intensity | Imporance (1-Most Important) |
---|---|---|
Talking | No significant | 6 |
Footsteps | Definitely loud | 4 |
Music | Moderately audible | 1 |
Children | Completly inaudible | 5 |
Birds | Quiet | 3 |
Vehicles | Completly inaudible | 2 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Szkopiecka, A.; Wyrwa, J.P.; Chrobak, G.; Kołodyńska, I.; Szewrański, S. Perceived Restorative Potential of Urban Parks by Citizens—A Case Study from Wrocław, Poland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107912
Szkopiecka A, Wyrwa JP, Chrobak G, Kołodyńska I, Szewrański S. Perceived Restorative Potential of Urban Parks by Citizens—A Case Study from Wrocław, Poland. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107912
Chicago/Turabian StyleSzkopiecka, Aleksandra, Joanna Patrycja Wyrwa, Grzegorz Chrobak, Iga Kołodyńska, and Szymon Szewrański. 2023. "Perceived Restorative Potential of Urban Parks by Citizens—A Case Study from Wrocław, Poland" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107912
APA StyleSzkopiecka, A., Wyrwa, J. P., Chrobak, G., Kołodyńska, I., & Szewrański, S. (2023). Perceived Restorative Potential of Urban Parks by Citizens—A Case Study from Wrocław, Poland. Sustainability, 15(10), 7912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107912