## 3 Results
### Acoustic and Non-Acoustic Correlations  
Correlations show the degree of association between the variables addressed in this study. When they are very high, they provide information on the level of redundancy between variables, which can thus be reduced. The Pearson correlation between acoustic variables is shown in Table 5. The LAeq,10 min and percentile (LA10, LA50 and LA90) parameters correlate well (\(r\) = 0.99). There is also a high degree of correlation between LAeq,10 min and LAmin,1 sec parameters (\(r\) = 0.82), and between the acoustic index and the percentiles. This indicates a high level of redundancy between these variables in the acoustic environments analysed. The relationship between acoustic indicators and acoustic events is low. It should be considered that the average number of sound events detected per unit of time was low. The closest relationships are observed between the total number of events (N total events), LAmax and LA10-LA90. This latter variable is also strongly associated with negative and neutral events, and has an inverse relationship with the balance of events. The total number of events mainly depends on neutral events, the most frequent ones, whereas its balance depends inversely on the negative events and directly, but to a lesser extent, on the positive ones. When the relationship between acoustic indicators and pleasantness indices is analysed (Table 6), it can be concluded that in most cases there is very little, generally non-significant correlation between them. Few (in the order of 0.10) but positive correlations of acoustic parameters with landscape pleasantness (LSC_Pleasant) are found, indicating that pleasantness increases along with noise levels. Moreover, the closest correlations are found between acoustic parameters and the total number of sound sources identified (No. total sources). These correlations are negative, meaning that the higher the noise level, the lower the sound diversity of the places analysed. In contrast, there are almost no significant relationships between the different indices of events and the subjective pleasantness indicators. Neither are there any statistically significant correlations between acoustic parameters and the number of positive sound sources (No. pleasant source). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Acoustic** & **LAeq,10 min** & **LAmin,1s** & **LAmax,1s** & **LA10** & **LAS0** & **LA00** & **LA10-LA90** & **No.** & **No.** & **No.** & **No.** \\
**Variables** & **LAeq,10 min** & **LAeq,10 min** & **LAeq,10 min** & **LA50** & **LA90** & **LA10-LA90** & **Positive** & **Negative** & **Neutral** \\  & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline LAeq,10 min & 1 & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline LAmin,1s & 0.82 & 1 & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline LAmax,1s & 0.68 & 0.42 & 1 & & & & & & & & \\ \hline LA10 & 0.99 & 0.80 & 0.73 & 1 & & & & & & & \\ \hline LA50 & 0.99 & 0.83 & 0.65 & 0.98 & 1 & & & & & & \\ \hline LA90 & 0.98 & 0.82 & 0.58 & 0.94 & 0.99 & 1 & & & & & \\ \hline LA10–LA90 & 0.45 & 0.29 & 0.67 & 0.57 & 0.40 & 0.26 & 1 & & & & \\ \hline No. total & 0.18 & - & 0.46 & 0.26 & 0.15 & - & 0.61 & 1 & & & \\ \hline No. positive & \(-\)0.11 & \(-\)0.20 & 0.10 & \(-\)0.12 & \(-\)0.11 & \(-\)0.11 & - & 0.31 & 1 & & \\ \hline No. negative & \(-\) & - & - & - & - & \(-\)0.15 & 0.40 & 0.49 & - & 1 & \\ \hline No. neutral & 0.25 & 0.23 & 0.33 & 0.30 & 0.23 & 0.17 & 0.45 & 0.71 & \(-\)0.11 & \(-\)0.12 & 1 \\ \hline Event & \(-\) & - & - & - & - & - & \(-\)0.35 & \(-\)0.22 & 0.57 & \(-\)0.81 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{(1)}\)\(r\) \(>\) 0.10 (\(p\) \(<\) 0.05); \(r\) \(>\) 0.17 (\(p\) \(<\) 0.01).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Pearson correlations \({}^{(1)}\) between acoustic variables (\(t\) = 406). Soundscape pleasantness (SSC_Pleasant) is only associated to LAmin,1s and events balance; and this is a positive but weak relationship. It implies that the greater the number of positive events (an increase in the balance), the greater the pleasantness.