Evaluation on Urban Residents' Perception of Greenway Soundscape

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2021.01.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on a questionnaire survey of 512 respondents interviewed within the urban area of Shanghai in 2020,the study takes the Lujiazui section of the Huangpu riverside in Shanghai as an example,trying to evaluate the residents' perception of the urban greenway soundscape and discuss their preferences and potential influential factors.The study area involves three typical greenway types:natural,built and mixed type.The results show that residents' preferences for urban greenways will reflect a trade-off relation between the natural environment and man-made environment,and will be affected by many factors,which include not only differences in citizen perception caused by greenway soundscape differences,but also selective difference caused by individual heterogeneity of residents.The results of this study will provide reference and basis for the construction of urban greenways with more practical value and natural ecological benefits.

Key words: urban greenway, soundscape, resident preference, IPA model, multinomial logit model, Shanghai

CLC Number:

X827

BIAN Jiayu, LENG Jiahui, ZHAO Zheng, WANG Yanbin. Evaluation on Urban Residents' Perception of Greenway Soundscape[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2021, (1): 111-120.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

Tab.3

Logit analysis results of residents' greenway type preference based on individual differences

指标	第一组ln(P1/P3)			第二组ln(P2/P3)			最优偏好
指标	B	Wald	Exp(B)	B	Wald	Exp(B)	最优偏好
截距项	-0.54	0.19	-	-0.88	0.42	-	-
性别
男	-0.16	0.42	0.85	0.50^**	3.80	1.64	方案2
年龄
17岁及以下	-1.92	1.97	0.15	-2.50^*	3.52	0.08	方案3
18-29岁	0.64	0.60	1.89	-0.63	0.78	0.53	方案1
40-49岁	0.74	0.79	2.09	-0.94	1.77	0.39	方案1
60岁及以上	0.32	0.15	1.38	-0.35	0.25	0.70	方案1
学历
小学及以下	-1.26	1.67	3.53	-0.32	0.13	0.72	方案3
初中	-0.10	0.03	0.90	-0.69	1.51	0.50	方案3
高中	1.76^***	16.23	5.84	1.10^***	6.92	2.99	方案1
本科	1.32^***	13.65	3.75	0.29	0.74	1.33	方案1
婚姻状况
未婚	0.26	0.48	1.29	-0.52	1.75	0.60	方案1
家庭人口数
1人	-1.21^**	5.40	0.30	-0.77	1.87	0.46	方案3
2人	-0.19	0.16	0.83	-0.71	1.83	0.49	方案3
3人	-0.58	2.02	0.56	-0.52	1.45	0.59	方案3
4人	-0.74^*	3.37	0.48	-0.38	0.84	0.68	方案3
家庭老人数量
1人及以下	-0.87^**	5.09	0.42	-0.45	1.25	0.64	方案3
2人	-1.01^***	6.41	0.37	-1.01^**	5.63	0.36	方案3
家庭孩子数量
1人及以下	0.85^*	3.43	2.34	0.99^**	4.14	2.68	方案2
2人	0.37	0.46	1.45	0.24	0.17	1.27	方案1
每月可支配收入
4000元及以下	0.93^*	2.94	2.54	0.85^*	2.43	2.33	方案1
4001-8000元	0.41	0.58	1.51	0.27	0.26	1.31	方案1
8001-12000元	-0.15	0.08	0.86	0.43	0.71	1.54	方案2
12001-16000元	0.99^*	2.66	2.68	0.80	1.75	2.23	方案1
居住区域
内环以内	-0.93	1.51	0.39	2.34^***	5.99	10.43	方案2
内环-中环	-0.41	0.36	0.66	2.74^***	8.74	15.45	方案2
中环-外环	-1.36^**	5.28	0.26	0.84	0.89	2.31	方案2
外环-绕城高速	-0.89^*	2.35	0.41	0.47	0.28	1.60	方案2
绕城高速-市区边界	-0.56	0.91	0.57	0.59	0.42	1.81	方案2

Tab.3

References 24

[1]	Little C E. Greenways for America[M]. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
[2]	龙芳婷. 城市绿道景观使用状况评价研究[D]. 武汉:华中科技大学, 2015.
[3]	朱慧. 基于视觉景观质量的城市绿道评价[D]. 安徽:合肥工业大学, 2016.
[4]	杨洋. 基于层次分析法的绿道景观评价模型的构建与应用[D]. 广州:华南农业大学, 2016.
[5]	Grano J G. Reine geographie[J]. Acta Geogra, 1929,2(2):1-202.
[6]	Schafer R M. The soundscape:our sonic environment and the tuning of the world[M]. New York:Alfred Knopf, 1996.
[7]	Farina A, Pieretti N. The soundscape ecology:A new frontier of landscape research and its applicationto islands and coastal systems[J]. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, 2012,1(1):21-26.
[8]	Merchan C, Diaz-Balteiro L, Solino M. Noise pollution in national parks:Soundscape and economic valuation[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014,123:1-9.
[9]	Zhong Linsheng, Deng Jinyang, Song Zengwen, et al. Research on environmental impacts of tourism in China:Progress and prospect[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2011,92(11):2972-2983. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.011 pmid: 21821344
[10]	Lynch K. The image of the city[M]. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press. 1960.
[11]	Seams R M. The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape form[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995,33:65-80.
[12]	Beatley T. Handbook of biophilic city planning & design[M]. New York: Island Press, 2016.
[13]	O'Leary J F, Tuan Y F. Topophilia:a study of environmental perception,attitudes,and values[J]. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1976,34(1):99.
[14]	Lewis J F. American green:the obsessive quest for the perfect Lawn[J]. 2007,40(1):177-178.
[15]	Pachuta E A. Study of Bicycle Commuting in Minneapolis:How Much Do Bicycle oriented Paths Increase Ridership and What Can Be Done to Further Use?[D]. Eugene:University of Oregon, 2010.
[16]	Lindsey G, Wilson J, Yang J A, et al. Urban greenways,trail characteristics and trail use:implications for design[J]. Jounal of Urban Des., 2008,13(1):53-79.
[17]	Abello R P, Bernáldez F G. Landscape preference and personality[J]. Landscape and urban planning, 1986,13:19-28.
[18]	Maloney M P, Ward M P. Ecology:Let's hear from the people:An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge[J]. American Psychologist, 1973,28(7):583-586.
[19]	Arcury T A, Scollay S J, Johnson T P. Public Environmental Knowledge:A Statewide Survey[J]. Journal of Environmental Education, 1987,18(4):31-37.
[20]	Wall G. General versus specific environmental concern:A Western Canadian case[J]. Environment and Behavior, 1995,27(3):294-316.
[21]	Ewert A, Baker D. Standing for where you sit:An exploratory analysis of the relationship between academic major and environment beliefs[J]. Environment and behavior, 2001,33(5):687-707.
[22]	Fisher, R.F. Forests and Landscapes-Linking Ecology,Sustainability and Aesthetics[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2002,164, 307-308.
[23]	Watt Jr J H, Van Den Berg S A. Time series analysis of alternative media effects theories[J]. Annals of the International Communication Association, 1978,2(1):215-224.
[24]	Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action[J]. Englewood Cliffs,NJ, 1986: 23-28.

变量	自然型绿道 /%	建成型绿道 /%	混合型绿道 /%
Y城市绿道类型(备选方案)
样本数量	33.59	33.20	33.20
X1性别
男	40.70	51.76	48.24
女	59.30	48.24	51.76
X2年龄
1=17岁及以下	0.58	0.59	2.94
2=18~29岁	55.23	32.94	37.06
3=30~39岁	21.51	24.12	35.29
4=40~49岁	12.79	15.29	11.76
5=50~59岁	6.40	15.29	7.06
6=60岁及以上	3.49	11.76	5.88
X3学历
1=小学及以下	2.33	3.53	3.53
变量	自然型绿道 /%	建成型绿道 /%	混合型绿道 /%
2=初中	5.23	7.65	12.35
3=高中	25.58	27.06	13.53
4=本科	56.98	39.41	44.12
5=硕士及以上	9.88	22.35	26.47
X4婚姻状况
1=未婚	56.40	33.53	44.12
2=已婚	43.60	66.47	55.88
X5家庭人口数
1=1人	7.56	8.82	10.59
2=2人	15.12	10.59	13.53
3=3人	34.30	40.00	34.12
4=4人	22.67	27.06	27.06
5=5人及以上	20.35	13.53	14.71
X6老人数量(60周岁以上且与您一起生活)
1=1人及以下	47.67	58.24	52.94
2=2人	32.60	27.10	35.90
3=3人及以上	19.77	14.71	11.18
X7孩子数量(14周岁以下且与您一起生活)
1=1人及以下	80.23	82.35	74.12
2=2人	12.21	11.18	15.29
3=3人及以上	7.56	6.47	10.59
X8每月可支配收入
1=4000元及以下	36.63	30.59	24.12
2=4001—8000元	27.91	25.88	25.80
3=8001—12000元	14.53	21.18	22.94
4=12001—16000元	11.05	9.41	8.82
5=16001—20000元	5.23	5.88	8.82
6=20000元以上	4.65	7.06	9.41
X9居住区域
1=内环以内	3.49	14.71	5.29
2=内环—中环	8.72	33.53	8.82
3=中环—外环	16.90	21.80	27.60
4=外环—绕城高速	33.14	16.47	30.00
5=绕城高速—城市边界	27.91	12.35	24.71
6=市区之外	9.88	1.18	3.53

声音类型	好感度评价			主观响度评价			协调度评价
声音类型	(1)	(2)	(3)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(1)	(2)	(3)
自然声
风声	3.74	2.18	3.59	3.35	2.52	2.47	3.90	2.14	2.48
鸟鸣声	4.36	2.94	3.78	4.09	2.79	3.42	4.35	2.03	2.46
树叶声	4.43	3.93	4.21	3.86	2.08	2.23	4.24	1.81	1.99
水声	4.44	2.6	3.35	3.65	1.78	2.01	4.39	1.68	1.96
平均值	4.24	2.91	3.73	3.74	2.29	2.53	4.22	1.92	2.22
生活声
娱乐活动声	3.31	2.19	2.78	2.34	4.84	4.99	3.25	2.90	3.48
嬉闹声	3.26	3.37	3.92	2.52	3.64	3.68	3.32	2.55	3.06
叫卖声	3.65	2.94	2.71	2.37	4.73	4.40	2.50	2.70	2.96
谈话声	3.48	2.69	2.48	2.33	4.47	4.51	3.44	2.36	2.80
平均值	3.42	2.80	2.97	2.39	4.42	4.40	3.13	2.63	3.08
人工声
交通声	1.79	1.34	1.74	3.64	4.83	4.41	2.16	2.35	2.90
娱乐器械声	1.73	2.19	2.75	2.11	4.58	4.34	3.71	2.83	3.41
音乐声	2.30	2.61	3.63	2.68	4.81	4.59	4.08	3.19	3.78
施工声	1.89	2.02	1.88	3.34	4.86	4.61	1.78	1.97	1.48
平均值	1.93	2.04	2.50	2.94	4.77	4.49	2.93	2.58	2.89