Soun So und d te techn hnolog logies: ies: Topo pograp aphy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

URBA BAN N SOU OUND ND SYMPO POSI SIUM UM April ril 3-5, , 2019 19 in Ghen ent, t, Belgi lgium Ghent ent Uni niver versi sity ty Soun So und d te techn hnolog logies: ies: Topo pograp aphy hy for r qu quie iet t ar areas as an and qu d quie iet t sid ides 4 April 2019 Jin Yong Jeon Hanyang University, SEOUL, KOREA

Typical approach Soundscape undscape de desc scriptor riptors • Pleasantness-Eventfulness model 활동적인 Eventful 활기찬 혼란스러운 Chaotic Exciting Vibrant city life 불쾌한 쾌적한 Pleasant Unpleasant Nature appreciation Soundscape Design and Tranquility Calm Boring 정온한 단조로운 Uneventful 비활동적인 Ö. Axelsson , M.E. Nilsson, and B. Berglund, “A principal components model of soundscape perception.”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,128(5),2836 – 2846,2010.

Previous studies From om no noise ise contr ntrol ol to so soundsc undscape ape • Soundscape concepts • ISO 12913-1 “acoustic environment as perceived or experienced and/or understood by a person or people, in context” • Correlation between acoustic indicators and soundscape descriptors (Yang & Kang, 2005; Yu & Kang, 2009; Kang & Zhang, 2010; Hong & Jeon, 2013; Meng, Sun, & Kang, 2017) • Relationship between soundscape and context (Jeon, Lee, Hong & Cabrera, 2011; Galbrun & Calarco, 2014) • Soundscape perception model • Correlation between soundscape and landscape (Southworth, 1969; Pheasant, Horoshenkov & Watts, 2008; Joynt and Kang, 2010; Liu, Kang, Behm, Luo & Tao, 2014) • Urban environment (soundscape & landscape) interpretation model (Liu et al., 2013; 2014; Yu, Behm, Bill & Kang, 2017) • Audio-visual interaction • Relationship between landscape spatial patterns (e.g., urban morphology) and soundscapes for entire cities (Ge, Lu, Morotomi & Hokao, 2009; ; Mazaris, Kallimanis, Chatzigianidis, Papadimitiou & Pantis, 2009; Liu, Kang, Behm & Coppack, 2013; Hong & Jeon, 2017) • Audio-visual interaction on soundscape perception (traditional 2D photographs, collage, or photoshop) (Stamps, 1993; Lange, 2001; Daniel, 2001; de Val, Atauri, & de Lucio, 2006; Hong & Jeon, 2013)

Rel Related ated audio io-visual visual studies udies (2 (2013 13-20 2018) 18)

Progressive evolvement Audi udio-visual visual in inter teraction action (H (Hong ong & Je Jeon on, , 2013) 13) • Laboratory experiment • Preference • Photomontage method • Natural elements increase the aesthetic preference J.Y. Hong and J. Y. Jeon, “Designing sound and visual components for enhancement of urban soundscapes” The Journal of the Aco ustical Society of America,134(3),2026 – 2036,2013.

Progressive evolvement Audi udio-visual visual in inter teraction action (H (Hong ong & Je Jeon on, , 2014) 4) • Different types of noise barrier • Preference • Vegetated (Ve) > concrete (Co) > wood (Ti) > translucent acrylic (Tr) > aluminum (Al) Hong, J. Y. and Jeon, J. Y. “The effects of audio–visual factors on perceptions of environmental noise barrier performance,” Landsc. Urban Plan., 125, 28 – 37, 2014.

More expanded recognition model Inf nfluence luence of ur f urban ban mo morphology phology (H (Hong ong & Je Jeon on, , 2017) 7) • Urban morphological indices Indicators Definition Formula Range 𝐨 Bldg (A) Sum of building area 0.00-144543.70 ෍ 𝐂𝐣𝐞𝐡 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐨 Bldg (P) Sum of building perimeter 0.00-4819.35 ෍ 𝐂𝐣𝐞𝐡 𝐪𝐟𝐬𝐣𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐬 𝐣 𝐨 Bldsf (A) Sum of building surface area 0.00-10387198 ෍ 𝐂𝐣𝐞𝐡 𝐭𝐯𝐬𝐠𝐛𝐝𝐟 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐂𝐣𝐞𝐡(𝐁) BPAF The ratio of the plan area of buildings to the total surface area 0.00-0.64 𝐇𝐬𝐣𝐞(𝐁) 𝐂𝐣𝐞𝐭𝐠(𝐁) CAR The summed area of roughness elements and exposed ground divided by the total surface area of the study region 0.22-4.82 𝐇𝐬𝐣𝐞(𝐁) 𝐨 Gr (A) Sum of green area 0.00-1575.57 ෍ 𝐇𝐬𝐟𝐟𝐨 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐨 Gr (P) Sum of green perimeter 0.00-557.03 ෍ 𝐐𝐟𝐬𝐣𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐟𝐬 𝐩𝐠 𝐡𝐬𝐟𝐟𝐨 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐨 Op (A) Sum of open public area including urban squares, green and water areas 0.00-15754.57 ෍ 𝐏𝐪𝐟𝐨 𝐪𝐯𝐜𝐦𝐣𝐝 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐨 Op (P) Sum of open perimeter including urban squares, green and water feature areas 0.00-686.20 ෍ 𝐐𝐟𝐬𝐣𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐟𝐬 𝐩𝐠 𝐩𝐪𝐟𝐨 𝐪𝐯𝐜𝐦𝐣𝐝 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐏𝐪(𝐁) OSR The ratio of the open area divided by the total surface area of the study region 0.00-0.70 𝐇𝐬𝐣𝐞(𝐁) 𝐨 Grd (A) Sum of exposed ground area 630.29-174169.47 ෍ 𝐅𝐲𝐪𝐩𝐭𝐟𝐞 𝐡𝐬𝐩𝐯𝐨𝐞 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐨 Rd (A) Sum of road area 32.07-14765.52 ෍ 𝐒𝐩𝐛𝐞 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐇𝐬𝐞(𝐁) EGR The ratio of the exposed ground area divided by the total surface area of the study region 0.03-0.77 𝐇𝐬𝐣𝐞(𝐁) 𝐒𝐞(𝐁) RAF The ratio of the road area to the study region 0.00-0.66 𝐇𝐬𝐣𝐞(𝐁) 𝐨 Wt (A) Sum of water feature area 0.00-2106.92 ෍ 𝐗𝐛𝐮𝐟𝐬 𝐠𝐟𝐛𝐮𝐯𝐬𝐟 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 𝐨 Wt (P) Sum of water feature perimeter 0.00-342.11 ෍ 𝐐𝐟𝐬𝐣𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐟𝐬 𝐩𝐠 𝐱𝐛𝐮𝐟𝐬 𝐠𝐟𝐛𝐮𝐯𝐬𝐟 𝐛𝐬𝐟𝐛 𝐣 J. Y. Hong and J. Y. Jeon, “Relationship between spatiotemporal variability of soundscape and urban morphology in a multifunc tio nal urban area: A case study in Seoul, Korea” Build Environ 2017;126:382– 95.

More expanded recognition model Inf nfluence luence of ur f urban ban mo morphology phology (H (Hong ong & Je Jeon on, , 2017) 7) • Morphological factors • Main space functions Component 1 (41.29%) 2 (19.44%) 3 (16.81%) 4 (10.54%) Open space Gr (A) 0.89 - 0.11 - 0.04 - 0.09 Gr (P) 0.84 - 0.16 - 0.10 - 0.09 Op (A) 0.90 - 0.29 0.10 0.04 Op (P) - 0.40 0.08 0.31 0.77 OSR 0.89 - 0.32 0.11 0.17 Building Bldg (A) - 0.18 0.91 - 0.10 - 0.19 Bldsf (A) - 0.30 0.87 0.06 - 0.09 Bldg (P) - 0.09 0.75 0.06 - 0.14 BRAF - 0.18 0.94 - 0.11 - 0.13 CAR - 0.36 0.81 - 0.06 - 0.01 Water feature Wt (A) 0.04 - 0.20 0.10 0.96 Wt (P) 0.02 - 0.21 0.09 0.96 Road Rd (A) - 0.23 - 0.18 0.90 - 0.16 Grd (A) - 0.39 - 0.17 - 0.79 - 0.30 RAF - 0.22 - 0.27 0.92 0.12 EGR - 0.42 - 0.25 - 0.85 - 0.14 J. Y. Hong and J. Y. Jeon, “Relationship between spatiotemporal variability of soundscape and urban morphology in a multifunc tio nal urban area: A case study in Seoul, Korea” Build Environ 2017;126:382– 95.

More expanded recognition model Inf nfluence luence of ur f urban ban mo morphology phology (H (Hong ong & Je Jeon on, , 2017) 7) • Perceived affective model • Pleasantness model was developed using L Aeq , open space and water feature components • Pleasantness model show higher R 2 than eventfulness model P1 (09:00 – 11:00), P2 (13:00 – 15:00) and P3 (18:00 – 20:00) Pleasantness Eventfulness Total P1 P2 P3 Total P1 P2 P3 R2 0.49 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.21 Acoustic L aeq - 0.67** - 0.45** - 0.65** - 0.81** 0.22** 0.02 0.32** 0.17 - 0.05 0.13 - 0.10 - 0.11 - 0.04 L Ceq-Aeq - 0.17** - 0.30* - 0.24* L 10-90 0.12** 0.16 0.06 0.13 - 0.11 - 0.09 - 0.15 - 0.09 - 0.03 0.27 - 0.07 - 0.13 - 0.06 - 0.09 - 0.05 - 0.04 Sharpness Morphological Open space 0.12** 0.12 0.14* - 0.01 0.05 - 0.01 0.17* - 0.01 Building 0.00 0.04 - 0.06 0.09 0.11* - 0.06 0.11 0.25** Road 0.00 -0.02 - 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.23* Water feature 0.26** 0.24** 0.27** 0.25** 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.14 J. Y. Hong and J. Y. Jeon, “Relationship between spatiotemporal variability of soundscape and urban morphology in a multifunc tio nal urban area: A case study in Seoul, Korea” Build Environ 2017;126:382– 95.

Visualization Soundscape undscape ma mapp pping ing (H (Hong ong & Je Jeon, on, 2017) 7) • Soundscape perception • Temporal variation: pleasantness > eventfulness J. Y. Hong and J. Y. Jeon, “Relationship between spatiotemporal variability of soundscape and urban morphology in a multifunc tio nal urban area: A case study in Seoul, Korea” Build Environ 2017;126:382– 95.

De Development velopment of VR f VR tool ol