# Towards Urban Sustainability: Developing Noise Prediction Model in an Informal Setting
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Unstandardized**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standardized**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sig.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(r^{2}\)} \\  & & **Coefficients** & & & & \\  & **B** & **S. Error** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Moming} & (Constant) & 52.927 & 5.543 & & 9.549 & **0.000** & 0.268 \\  & Distance from Road & 5.582 & 3.246 & 0.155 & 1.72 & 0.088 & \\  & Land Use & 109.583 & 52.514 & 0.193 & 2.087 & **0.039** & \\  & Land Cover & 63.107 & -26.404 & 11.118 & \(-2.374\) & **0.019** & \\  & Population Density & 10.1 & 6.121 & 0.16 & 1.65 & 0.102 & \\  & Residential Subdivision & 2.241 & 5.219 & 0.038 & 0.429 & 0.668 & \\  & Traffic Volume & \(-0.001\) & 0.001 & \(-0.109\) & \(-1.2\) & 0.232 & \\  & (Constant) & 63.394 & 7.231 & & 8.767 & **0.000** & 0.163 \\  & Distance from Road & 0.558 & 4.202 & 0.012 & 0.133 & 0.895 & \\  & Land Use & 5.625 & 68.505 & 0.008 & 0.082 & 0.935 & \\ Afternoon & Land Cover & 66.092 & \(-35.267\) & 15.060 & \(-2.342\) & **0.021** & \\  & Population Density & 26.351 & 8.016 & 0.323 & 3.287 & **0.001** & \\  & Residential Subdivision & 7.122 & 6.766 & 0.095 & 1.053 & 0.295 & \\  & Traffic Volume & \(-0.001\) & 0.001 & \(-0.134\) & \(-1.445\) & 0.151 & \\  & (Constant) & 56.237 & 6.77 & & 8.307 & **0.000** & 0.227 \\  & Distance from Road & 8.583 & 3.964 & 0.197 & 2.165 & **0.032** & \\  & Land Use & 95.238 & 64.138 & 0.139 & 1.485 & 0.140 & \\ Evening & Land Cover & 65.386 & \(-22.060\) & 13.818 & \(-1.596\) & 0.113 & \\  & Population Density & 11.316 & 7.475 & 0.148 & 1.514 & **0.033** & \\  & Residential Subdivision & \(-4.52\) & 6.374 & \(-0.064\) & \(-0.709\) & 0.48 & \\  & Traffic Volume & \(-0.001\) & 0.001 & \(-0.083\) & \(-0.904\) & 0.368 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} All bold are significant at 0.05 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Factor Determining the Noise Level. The descriptive statistics revealed a close relationship between observed and predicted noise level with mean values of 62.19 and 62.21, respectively (Table 7). Standard error and standard deviation are higher in observed areas indicating more variability than expected. This can be linked to extraneous factors that influence noise pollution outside ones considered by the study including ceremonial activities, wedding, as well as the type of building and road construction material, culture, and societal values. The maps for and quartile plots of mean observed and predicted noise levels are presented in Figure 1a,b, respectively, and Figure 2a,b, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Unstandardized**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Standardized**} & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Coefficients**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Coefficients**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**T**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sig.**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **B** & **Std. Error** & **Beta** & **Std. Error** & \\ \hline (Constant) & 64.061 & 4.578 & & 13.993 & 0.000 \\ Land cover (ndvi) & \(-\)19.599 & 10.610 & \(-\)0.195 & 0.106 & \(-\)1.847 & 0.068 \\ Dist. Road & \(-\)0.259 & 2.457 & \(-\)0.010 & 0.093 & \(-\)0.105 & 0.916 \\ Pop. Density & 4.017 & 4.611 & 0.088 & 0.101 & 0.871 & 0.386 \\ Housing Density & 3.210 & 3.832 & 0.077 & 0.091 & 0.838 & 0.404 \\ Land use & 1.652 & 0.499 & 0.327 & 0.099 & 3.315 & 0.001 \\ Traffic Volume & \(-\)0.002 & 0.001 & \(-\)0.253 & 0.093 & \(-\)2.730 & 0.007 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Coefficients of Regressions. Figure 1: (**a**) observed noise and (**b**) predicted noise of Kano Metropolis. Figure 1a shows observed noise and Figure 1b predicted noise of Kano Metropolis. Looking at Figure 2a,b, one can see some semblance between observed and predicted noise maps. From the figure, the extreme values were adjusted in the predicted level. The two maps had an almost similar pattern, except that most high and most low values were found in the measured map.