PROCEEDINGS of the23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

The relationship between activities and human perception in urban
area
Andini HAPSARI1; Helga SALIM2; Anugrah Sabdono SUDARSONO3; Sugeng Joko SARWONO4
1,2,3,4

Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia

ABSTRACTOne of the factors that affect human activity in the urban open public is the acousticenvironment. The acoustic environment consists of many aspects such as sound sources, noise
condition, and perceptions. This study tries to analyze the relationship between human activity andthe perceived expectation of public spaces in the urban area. The experiment was conducted using
an acoustic environment simulator. In this study, the participants were requested to compose several
soundscape compositions of the urban area which is suitable to do some activities. The composition
must represent the environment for doing individual activities (e.g. reading and relaxation) andsocial activities (e.g. talking and playing with children). After that, the participants were asked torate their compositions according to the perception of comfort, dynamics, and communication. Theresult shows that the perception’s rating from two different activities is significantly different. The
participants need to have a comfortable soundscape for doing both individual and social activities.
However, they need more comfortable soundscape for individual activity. Regarding the perceptionof dynamics and communication, the participants prefer more varied and commun al soundscape fordoing social activities while individual activity needs to have a simple and private sonic soundscape .
Keywords: Activity, Human Perception, Urban Area, Soundscape

1INTRODUCTION

Humans who lived in an urban environment are at higher risk of mental stress (1) (2). Urban
open public spaces are vital for citizens as the facilitator of physical activities and socialengagement. These are important to maintain the mental health of citizens (3). Citizens can utilize
open public spaces to do various activities. Some humans came to public spaces to do individualactivities (e.g. reading and relaxation) and social activities (e.g. talking and playing with kids) (4).
An optimal public space can enhance citizens' experience when performing previously mentionedactivities. The optimal condition of urban open public spaces for certain activity will be different
One of the factors that affect open public space condition is the acoustic environment, which wasresulted by sounds. This factor is in the form of sound sources, environmental noise, and humanperception. Acoustic environment assessments are generally conducted through the identification ofnoise sources and sound pressure levels. Identification results are processed for further control.
However, previous researches have shown that the reduction of sound pressure levels does notalways increase human comfort (5). This conclusion implies that it is necessary to use a different
approach which incorporates human perception.
The International Organization of Standardization defined soundscape as the acousticenvironment as perceived or experienced or understood by a person or people (6). This definition
includes hearing sensations, interpretation to a sensation, and human response to the acousticenvironment (7). Accordingly, soundscapes are closely related to the interaction of acoustic
environments and human perception. Human perception of soundscapes is affected by location,
personal and emotional experience, demography, time, and the type of activity (8) (9) (10).
12andinihapsari1@gmail.com
helgasalim12@gmail.com

2515

Soundwalk, interview, questionnaire, focus group discussions, and laboratory simulations areseveral commonly used methods in soundscape research (7). Several methods are in-situ whileothers are ex-situ. Ex-situ methods include laboratory simulations. This method will generate an
acoustic environment in a controlled laboratory. The acoustic environment is created by combining
and manipulating sound recordings from the site (11).
Laboratory simulations are utilized to gain knowledge on urban open public spaces. Acoustics
environment simulator can be used to help in comprehending the relationship between sound objects
and soundscape. The downside of in-situ methods is that researchers have no control over soundsources in the environment. Moreover, researches cannot measure the parameters for each soundobject. These drawbacks are facilitated by the simulation method (12). Soundscape components inurban open public spaces are related to the human perception within it. Bruce (11)discovers that user
expectations affect the resulting description of public space soundscape. In soundscape urban open
public spaces, there are 3 dimensions of human perception such as calmness/relaxation,dynamic/vibrancy, and communication (12).
The relation between activities and human perception on urban open public spaces will beanalyzed in this research by the method of simulation. Activities studied will include both individualand social. Acoustics environment simulator is used to recreate sound compositions from soundsource recordings on urban open public spaces. Simulation results will be analyzed to find theperception difference shaped by these 2 types of activities.

2 EXPERIMENT2.1 Simulation
Participants composed sonic environments that are suitable to do individual and social activities
and rated their perception through semantic scales differential. Besides that, they could adjust thesound level and position. The experiment was conducted using an acoustic environment simulator ina listening room in Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia. Figure 1 shows the simulation by the user
who is also one of the authors of this paper. The user in this simulator manipulated the soundscapecompositions by using a control panel on the interface (13), as it is seen in figure 2. They could add
or remove the twenty-six sound sources and adjust the sound level and position. Twenty-six soundsources were clustered into three groups that are natural, mechanical, dan human activities soundsources (figure 2). For instance, the natural sound sources are rain and birds chirping. Conversationand footsteps are in the human activity group. Vehicle and train are mechanical sound sources.
Semantic differential scales were rated in this interface after soundscape compositions were made.
Calibration had been done before the simulator was used by the respondents.
Equipment that was used in this simulation was eight speakers which surround the respondents.
Three software, such as PureData, Reaper, and LoopMIDI, are used. PureData is used as aninterface. Reaper is used as the digital audio workstation. PureData and Reaper in connected byLoopMIDI. (14).

2516

Figure 1 - Simulator set up

Figure 2 - Urban soundscape simulator interface
2.2 Subjects
Fifty-one participants (twenty-seven females and twenty-four males) joined the experiments. All
participants were students (18 to 25-year-old) with varied backgrounds. The soundscapecompositions were done for half to one hour for each respondent.
2.3 Procedures
The participants were requested to compose four soundscape compositions of the urban area
which is suitable to do certain activities. The composition must represent the environment for doing
individual activities (e.g. reading and relaxation) and social activities (e.g. talking and playing withchildren). Afterward, they were asked to rate their compositions according to the dimension ofperception that are comfort (uncomfortable-comfortable), dynamics (varied-simple), andcommunication (communal-private) based on the two-dimensional ambisonic system (6).

2517

3RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The data are analyzed by T-test analysis and Freeviz analysis using Orange. T-test analysis isused to see the relationship between activities and human perception. To see the most influential
human perception based on activities, Freeviz analysis is used. Firstly, T-test analysis is conducted.
Table 1 and the chart in Figure 3 show the respondents’ perception of individual and socialactivities. Generally, all the activities have a positive rating for comfort dimension and in terms ofdynamics and communication dimension, individual activities such as reading and relaxation, have apositive rating on one hand. On the other hand, social activities which are talking and playing withchildren tend to have a negative rating.
The participants need to have a comfortable soundscape for doing all the activities. The
difference is that individual activities’ rate which is 3.85 tend to have more comfortable soundscapethan social activities’ rate that is 1.94. The focus on doing social activities such as talking andplaying with children activities is the relationship with other people. Participants do not really careabout the high level of comfortableness when having an interaction with one another.
In terms of dynamics, individual activities show a positive rating which means it shows apreference to experience simple sonic soundscape. In contrast, the varied sonic soundscape ispreferred by social activities at -1.31. The attention is located on how they do the activities.
Individual activities, for instance, reading and relaxation are the activities that require a simple
sonic soundscape. However, social activities need a varied sonic soundscape which is suitable tointeract with each other.
Communication dimension shows a similar result as the dynamics dimension, but it has a higher
rating compared to dynamics dimension. Although social activities’ rate at -2.54 would rather have acommunal sonic soundscape than private, the rating of individual activities’ preferences shows thatthey prefer a private sonic soundscape. People do activities such as reading and relaxation privately.
By contrast, social activities are done by doing socialization, for instance, talking and playing withchildren. People’s preferences on the dimension of communication depend on the relation andinteraction with other people. When they do individual activities, they tend to have a private sonicsoundscape.
Table 1 - Respondents' perception on social and individual activities
COMFORT
Perception
Error
1.94
0.43
3.85
0.24

53

3.85

1

SOCIALINDIVIDUAL-3-5

ACTIVITIES-1

SOCIAL-3-1.31-5

COMMUNICATION
Perception
Error
-2.54
0.47
2.50
0.54

COMMUNICATION
1.93

3

1.94

1-1

DYNAMICS
5SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES(Varied-Simple)

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES(Uncomfortable-Comfortable)

COMFORT

INDIVIDUAL

ACTIVITIESSEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES(Communal-Private)

SOCIALINDIVIDUAL

DYNAMICS
Perception
Error
-1.31
0.58
1.93
0.55

52,531-1-3-5

SOCIALINDIVIDUAL-2.54

ACTIVITIESFigure 3 – Dimension of perception on social and individual activities
Secondly, the analysis to see the most influential perception based on activities is done by using
Freeviz analysis. Based on Figure 4, the circular anchor shows that the dimension of dynamics has
the least influential. Comfort dimension and communication dimension have an influence on how
people percepts on individual and social activities. Comfort and private sonic soundscape influence
the human perception on how they do the individual activities. Simple dynamic dimension does notreally influence the perception. Otherwise, comfort and communal sonic soundscape influence the2518

perception on doing social activities.

Figure 4 – The influence of perceptions to individual (0.0) and social activities (1.0)

4CONCLUSION

The relationship between human perception and activities is that individual activities require
comfort, simple, and private dimension of perception while social activities need comfort, varied,and communal sonic soundscape. The most influential perception to individual and social activities
is comfort and communication dimension. The dimension of dynamics is the least influential
perception to individual and social activities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is funded by Insitut Teknologi Bandung under the scheme of Program Penelitian,Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat dan Inovasi (P3MI).

REFERENCES
1. Srivastava K. Urbanization and mental health. Industrial Psychiatry Journal. 2009; 18(2): p. 76-76.
2. Yang T, Rockett IRH, Lv , Cottrel RR. Stress Status and Related Characteristics among UrbanResidents: A Six-Province Capital Cities Study in China. PLOS ONE. 2012; 7(1): e30521.
3. City Future Research Centre University of New South Wales. Healthy Build Environments: A Reviewof Literature. In. Sidney; 2011.
4. Rachman OF, Putra YA. Studi Soundscape Taman Tematik Kota Bandung Bandung; 2016.
5. Deng L, Kang J. A Comparative Study on the Soundscape of Public Spaces in Coastal and Inland Cities
in Northern China International. 22nd International Congress on Acoustics. 2016;: p. 1-11.
6. ISO. ISO 3382-1 Acoustics- Measurement of roon acoustic parameters Part 1 : Performance spaces
Switzerland: ISO; 2009.
7. Kang J, Aletta F, Gjestland , Brown. Ten Questions on The Soundscapes of The Built Environment.
Building and Environment. 2016; 108: p. 284-294.

2519

8. Yu L, Kang J. Effects of social, demographical and behavioral factors on the sound level. The Journalof the Acoustical Society of America 123. 2008 Maret; 2.
9. Miller N. Understanding Soundscapes. MDPI. 2013 Oktober;(Buildings).
10. Jennings P, Cain R. A framework for improving urban soundscapes. Elsevier. 2012 Januari;(AppliedAcoustics).
11. Bruce NS, Davies WJ. The effects of expectation on the perception of soundscapes. Elsevier. 2014
Maret;(Applied Acoustics).
12. Sudarsono AS, Lam YW, Davies J. The Validation of Acoustics Environment Simulator to Determine
the Relationship between Sound Object and Soundscape. ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH
ACUSTICA. 2017; 103.
13. Bruce NS, Davies WJ. Development of a soundscape simulator tool. Internoise innovations in practicalnoise control. 2009;: p. 23-26.
14. Sudarsono AS, Lam YW, Davies WJ. Soundscape Simulator as A Tool to Predict the Perception ofAcoustic Environment. Inter Noise. 2017;: p. 1073-1078.
15. Sudarsono AS, Lam YW, Davies J. The effect of sound level on perception of reproduced soundscapes.
Applied Acoustics. 2016;: p. 53-60.

2520