## 4 Results and Discussion
### Reported Park Purpose in Relation to Derived Tranquility Viewpoints  
Rather than identifying tranquility viewpoints from the 13 questions, as explained in Section 3.5, one could attempt to deduct this viewpoint from a more direct question about the belief on the purpose of a park. Figure 3 compares the tranquility viewpoint between groups of people reporting different purposes of a park. On the direct question on park purpose, most respondents answer that a park is a place for appreciation of nature. Membership of tranquility viewpoint groups was compared with a one-way ANOVA within park purpose groups. Results for the answer for park as a place for appreciating nature were not statistically significant (\(F\)(2,1320) = 1.089, \(p\) = 0.337). However, for park as a place for appreciating silence, the analysis shows statistically significant difference between groups (\(F\)(2,396) = 21.541, \(p<0.001\)). A [PERSON] post hoc test unveiled that the difference was statistically significant for all comparisons. In particular, statistical significance of \(p\) less than 0.001 was identified between \"Natural sound sources\" (\(H\) = 1.049, \(SD\) = 0.040) and \"Silence\" (\(H\) = 1.269, \(SD\) = 0.048) tranquility viewpoint groups as well as \"Social relationships\" (\(H\) = 0.893, \(SD\) = 0.034) and \"Silence\". In brackets, \(H\) represents the relative \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Park**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Tranquility Viewpoint**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Matching Expectations (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(L_{A50}\), (\(d\)BA)**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-6}  & **Social Relationships** & & & & \\ \hline Bisschoppenhof & 0.929\(\downarrow\) & 0.905\(\downarrow\) & 0.969 & 88 & 49.7 \(\pm\) 3.6 \\ Domein Hertoghe & 0.991 & 1.004 & 1.079\(\uparrow\) & 86 & 52.9 \(\pm\) 5.2 \\ Nachtegelapark & 1.001 & 1.055\(\uparrow\) & 0.921\(\downarrow\) & 69 & 53.6 \(\pm\) 5.1 \\ Park Den Brandt & 1.002 & 1.094\(\uparrow\) & 1.093\(\uparrow\) & 79 & 47.9 \(\pm\) 4.0 \\ Park Sorbylieidt & 1.006 & 0.933\(\downarrow\) & 0.948\(\downarrow\) & 93 & 51.9 \(\pm\) 4.8 \\ Rivierenhof & 1.002 & 0.993 & 1.048 & 71 & 55.9 \(\pm\) 5.4 \\ Stadspark & 0.996 & 0.984 & 0.946\(\downarrow\) & 73 & 56.2 \(\pm\) 4.1 \\ Te Boelzerpark & 1.070\(\uparrow\) & 1.030 & 0.997 & 66 & 53.9 \(\pm\) 4.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Membership of the tranquility viewpoint groups normalized to indicate in which parks persons adhering to these viewpoints are found more often than average (arrows point to difference of more than 5% to overall average). Matching expectations are shown with the percentage of the visitors that stated “agree” or “completely agree” on the questionnaire statement “the sounds in this park are the sounds that one expects to hear in a park” (Section 3.4). The last column presents the average and standard deviation of the 50-percentile A-weighted sound pressure level from data aggregated over the whole park (Section 3.3). membership to the stated tranquility viewpoint group (Equation (4)) and \(SD\) represents the standard deviation of the dataset used to calculate this relative membership (Section 3.6). Additionally, relative membership to \"Natural sound sources\" (\(H\) = 1.049, \(SD\) = 0.040, \(p\) = 0.019) was found to be statistically significantly higher than to \"Social relationships\" (\(H\) = 0.893, \(SD\) = 0.034). For persons that identify a park as a place for meeting other people, statistically significant difference between the groups of people belonging to different tranquility groups was found (\(F\)(2,255) = 8.611, \(p\) < 0.001). However, results from a Tukey test suggest that the statistical significance is only between people associating tranquility to silence (\(H\) = 0.691, \(SD\) = 0.073, \(p\) < 0.001) and those associating it to social relationships (\(H\) = 1.033, \(SD\) = 0.034).