Role of community engagement in soundscape design of rural areas Julija Smyrnowa 1 Environment Agency Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Ave, Sheffield S9 4WF. UK Gillian Brown 2 Environment Agency Tyneside House, Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 7AR. UK

ABSTRACT This paper presents results of questionnaires, adapted from ISO 12913-2, that were distributed among the residents of a rural area following numerous noise complaints about a recently built waste transfer station in the UK. Based on acoustic measurements, specific sound levels from the industrial site were predicted at each of the respondents’ assessment locations. Participants of the question- naire included those who lived as close to the site as 200m, where the sound from the site was +10dB above background sound level (BGL), and as far as 800m away, where the sound from site was - 10dB below BGL. Surprisingly, all the respondents indicated that they could hear the sounds from the industrial site to a higher or lower extent, they were all extremely stressed and annoyed by it and they all desired it to be suppressed. The outcomes of the study demonstrate that (1) soundscape is a multidisciplinary approach, (2) soundscape assessment processes in rural areas may vary from those designed for urban areas, and (3) early engagement with local residents in shaping soundscape when introducing a new industrial sound in a rural area may result in higher approval, particularly for a site that may bring economic benefits for the community.

1. INTRODUCTION

Community engagement and the involvement of local residents has been identified as a key element in successful soundscape design, with environmental and economic benefits for communities [1-4]. Dickinson [1] has shown that through engaging local residents in the decision making process on the colour and height of a noise barrier between a residential estate and a National Grid substation, it was possible to find a successful solution leading to a reduction of noise and the creation of an acceptable soundscape in the community. It was also emphasised in the study that before engaging the residents, neither adding absorbing panels to the enclosure containing the transformers nor the erection of a barrier had been successful because the residents kept complaining. In Brighton, ap- plying a soundscape concept and engaging local residents in the city’s busiest clubbing and enter- tainment district, it was possible in decision making to mitigate crowd behaviour leading to less anti-social behaviour and violence [2,3]. This was achieved by introducing various musical sounds

1 Julija.smyrnowa@environment-agency.gov.uk

2 Gillian.Brown@environment-agency.gov.uk

worm 2022

and creating zoning in the area. The sensation of being in control of what sounds and when to ex- pect them has been proven to be an important factor in designing appropriate and acceptable sound- scapes [3].

Most of the studies on soundscape design have been carried out in urban environments. There are no known studies that have applied the soundscape approach for the design or retrospective de- sign of rural acoustic environments, particularly when introducing new industrial plant with atypical sound sources into generally tranquil rural environments. Atypical sound sources associated with industrial processes may not necessarily have higher sound levels than sources already present in the rural environments such as agricultural activities, but their character and peaks in sound spec- trum are often considered very intrusive and annoying by the residents. This is particularly the case with new waste transfer stations (WTS) being built in suburban and urban environments. While WTSs are a crucial part of waste infrastructure, local residents are hardly ever consulted when deci- sions are made on location, visual appearance, and acceptable sound levels of the WSTs being in- troduced into existing communities. Moreover, noise should not be assessed in isolation as it is em- phasised in the Noise Policy Statement for England [5].

This paper presents the outcomes of acoustic and soundscape surveys carried out in the vicinity of a new waste transfer station located in a rural community and regulated by the Environment Agency.

The study was carried out following complaints from the residents about noise from the indus- trial sources on the site and from traffic movements to the site. 2. CASE STUDY

The case study is a rural village of approximately 5km 2 , bounded by busy A roads. There is also a busy B road going through the village and lies under a frequent flightpath. An industrial estate hous- ing a waste transfer station is situated in the village. The most dominant sounds sources associated with the waste transfer site are the trommels on site and from traffic delivering waste to the site, including chains slapping against skip wagons. The nearest noise sensitive receptors (NSR) are lo- cated some 150m from the industrial site and approximately 30m from the delivery road to the site. The area can be considered as of a high noise sensitivity because (1) it is predominantly populated with residential houses, it also has a few recreational parks and schools and (2) in the absence of the industrial sounds, the place features rather a tranquil environment with traffic, occasional aircraft and domestic sounds the most dominant sound sources.

The study was carried out following complaints from the residents about noise from the indus- trial sources and track movements to the industrial site. At the time of the study, the industrial estate had been in operation for just over a year.

The industrial site is active only during the day time, namely 08:00 -17:00 on a weekday and 08:00 -13:00 on Saturdays, although deliveries to the site as early as 06:00 were reported by the res- idents. 3. METHODOLOGY

The study consisted of acoustic measurements, noise modelling and soundscape assessment. This approach can be considered as appropriate following the recently published UK Guidance Noise and vibration management: environmental permits [6]. The guidance has been produced by the four UK environment agencies, namely the Environment Agency (England), Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

worm 2022

3.1. Acoustic measurements and modelling Attended and unattended acoustic monitoring was carried out at the garden of the NSR facing the industrial site. Attended monitoring was carried out for one hour during the daytime, while unattended monitoring lasted over a week. During the unattended monitoring, the industrial site was voluntarily shut down for half a day which allowed the measurement of background and residual sound levels. Additionally, attended acoustic measurements were carried out at the industrial site with various ma- chines and operations on and off.

Data from the acoustic measurements (see Section 4.1) collected at the NSR and at the site were further used to calibrate an acoustic model that was built with SoundPlan (V 8.2) modelling soft- ware. A calculated noise map demonstrating specific sound levels across the area is shown in Fig- ure 1.

Specie sound level in ca) 40< ae age sae soe ote 92< 0 0.1.02 0.4 Kilometers Losatiiis

Figure 1: Noise map of the specific sound level from the site.

worm 2022

3.2. Soundscape assessment Soundscape assessment was carried out following the methodology described in ISO 12913-2 stand- ard [7] (ISO 12913-2, Method C). Residents were contacted by email and invited to complete a ques- tionnaire on the website or via scanning a QR-code. The questionnaire consisted of a consent form, a pre-survey part and the main soundscape questionnaire. The redacted version of the questionnaire can be viewed via the QR-code below:

Figure 2: The QR-code used in the Soundscape Questionnaires (redacted version).

17 responses were collected, and the respondents’ locations are shown as numbers – those were given arbitrarily – in Figure 1. 4. RESULTS

4.1. Noise impact assessment at the respondents’ locations The Environment Agency requires the application of BS 4142 [8] in order to assess the impact of industrial sound sources on residential receptors. In accordance with BS 4142:2014, the noise pollu- tion from the site has to be compared against the Residual and Background sound levels when the site is inactive.

The sound from the site is the Specific sound level. A variable correction for tonal noise, and an additional variable penalty for impulsive noise (and/or a single +3dB penalty for a characteristic that is neither tonal nor impulsive) may be added to the Specific sound level to obtain the Rating Level at the residential receptor. A difference in level between the Rating and Background levels of greater than 5dB is likely to indicate an adverse impact, while a difference of greater than 10dB is likely to indicate a significant adverse impact. Table 1 shows the Specific and Rating sound levels estimated from the combination of attended and unattended measurements, the measured typical Background level and the identified impact. Table 1: Procedure of identification of Impact at the NSR.

Steps Level, dBA Specific, L eq, T 51 Impulsivity +6 Tonality +2 Rated level, L eq, T 59 Background, L 90, T 41 Rating over Background (Impact) +18 (significant adverse)

worm 2022

From Figure 1, it can be predicted that the respondents at locations 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17 are within the same 5dB noise band and thus would be exposed to similar sound levels from the site, although the Rating level might vary between the locations. Table 2 shows noise impact at all 17 receptor locations considering only the Specific sound level and assuming the same background level at all locations. Since the corrections for specific acoustic features should only be added to when they are subjectively or objectively perceived/measured at the receptors, noise impact has been assessed using the Specific sound level only. Table 2: Specific sound levels at the soundscape assessment locations and predicted impact.

Location no. Specific level, L Aeq,T Noise impact, dBA 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17 48-52 +7 +11 1, 4, 5, 6 and 12 44-48 +3 +7 8, 11, 14 and 15- 40-44 -1 +3

It can equally be assumed that background sound levels in some locations may be much lower than that measured at the NSR and could be as low as 35dB L A90,T , which is a typical daytime back- ground sound level in many rural areas. Thus, noise impact could be as high as +10dB above back- ground, particularly at the locations exposed to a Specific level of 44 - 48dBA and which are also further away from the major roads.

4.2. Results of the soundscape assessment The soundscape assessment took the form of a pre-survey and main soundscape questionnaire, com- pleted at each of the 17 residences. The pre-survey results showed that there were 10 male and 7 female respondents; 1 respondent was in the 26 – 35 age category, 3 in the 36 – 45 age category, 5 in the 46 – 55 age category, and there were 9 respondents who were 56+ years old. At the time of the survey, they had lived in the area for various durations of time, from 18 months and to over 40 years.

The results of the main part of the questionnaire have been analysed by clustering similar an- swers into categories in such a way that similar answers were clustered in one category of the re- sponses. Due to limitations of the paper, responses to the most crucial questions of the soundscape questionnaire are shown here – see Table 3.

It can be seen from Table 3 that the subjective responses are very similar across the receptor lo- cations. Most of the respondents like living in the area and feel personal attachment to it, which is either due to the community feeling, access to green spaces or because of a good school. Sound in context seem to be important to all of them; many would accept the fact that some noise is unavoid- able in the community. Saying that, the sound from the new WTS has been unwelcome and unac- ceptable to the respondents, regardless of its Specific sound level and noise impact estimated from the acoustic measurements (see Table 2). Sounds from the WTS seem to cause anger, stress and frustration to most of the residents and they all want the site to cease activity. Most of the respond- ents also expressed their frustration with the authorities for not acting on their behalf.

worm 2022

Table 3: Responses to the most crucial questions of the soundscape survey

from or avoid unwanted sounds? (e.g.

How much do you like living in this

How do you feel about the overall

What kind of sounds are you aware

ing/daytime (do not include evenings

What kind of sounds are you aware

of in this environment in the evening

What is pleasant/unpleasant about

What kind of activities the unwanted

sounds prevent you from or force you

wanted sounds contribute to tensions

posure could lead to health problems

Do you incur financial disadvantages

Which actions are you taking to hide

don't use your garden, keep windows

Why do you like/not like living here?

for you personally? Please give de-

Do you feel that unwanted sound ex-

What kind of emotions do you expe-

How important is sound in this con-

Could it be possible that the un-

of in this environment in the morn-

and conflicts with your co-inhabit-

rience when hearing these sounds?

physical environment in this area?

house and in this neighborhood?

through this sound exposure?

Location no.

ants and/or neighbors?

these sounds?

and nights)?

tails if yes.

and night?

to do?

shut)

text?

shut, play

that some

noise will

from the

Wake me

up, force

to close

Lack of

Keep the

and frus-

industrial

windows

windows

music/

Accept

Noises

People

tration

Anger

1

Quite

None

sleep

radio

plant

N/A

Bad

No

No

dows shut and

Noises from

the industrial

Force to close

cannot use the

the value of

not able to use

Mental health

Traffic, Con-

Keep win-

tinuous In-

Deteriorating

Decreases

the house

the garden

Emotional

windows,

Schools

2

dustrial

garden

None

drain

plant

Like

N/A

Yes

shut, not able to

Noise from the

industrial plant,

donment by the

Wake me up,

force to close

Keep windows

use the garden,

birdsong, traffic

failed my fam-

Unpleasant ve-

Occasional traf-

Sense of aban-

leave the house

Mental health

Industrial site

Deteriorating

Deteriorating

authorities;

fic noise

windows

3

hicles

Very

Yes

ily

Open space,

dustrial plant,

Anger, anxiety,

Racing traffic

noise, air traffic

Wake me up,

force to close

A multitude of

Keep windows

shut and not

able to use the

Quiet, Birdsong

garden, report-

Noise from in-

ing to the au-

Nothing pleas-

Deteriorating

health issues

annoyance

windows

4

thorities

Green

traffic

Good

noise

No

ant

No

dustrial plant, the

occasional airplanes,

lawnmower, tv,

Occasional traffic,

Don’ t think about

Wake me up, force

to close windows,

Keep the windows

cannot use the gar-

Noise from the in-

Anger, anxiety, an-

Open space, Green

Stress & anxiety

Deteriorating

5

birdsong.

airplanes.

noyance

Good

Very

them

shut

Yes

den

Keep the

Wake me

Lack of

sleep &

windows

Very lit-

tle noise

trial site

Anger

stress

Indus-

Good

stress

6

Very

Like

shut

Yes

and

No

up

and not able to use

Accept that some

dustrial plant, skip

sional noise from

Sleep disturbance;

trol on noise and

Occasional traffic

noise, foxes and

Children playing

and wildlife are

Wake me up, force

to close windows,

den, make it difficult

A multitude of

Keep windows shut

the garden, reporting

dust from the indus-

lorries; the occa-

Noises from the in-

Sense of lack of con-

cannot use the gar-

to work from home

to the authorities

noise will occur

health issues

7

gardens

pleasant

trial site

Schools

Good

owls

Like

Yes

No

worm 2022

Open space,

tion; Sense of

abandonment by

ing with deliberate

Force to close

No action - waste

Noise from the in-

Occasional party-

dustrial plant, traf-

Anger and frustra-

sound amplifica-

tion, fireworks

the authorities

Deteriorating

8

windows

of time

Green

Very

Like

No

No

No

fic

to use the garden,

Open space,

Accept that some

Noises from the

industrial plant,

ance; Anger and

Quietness is

Wake me up,

force to close

windows, cannot

Decreases the

value of the

Keep windows

shut and not able

reporting to the

Occasional traf-

Sleep disturb-

noise will occur

use the garden

Mental health

Deteriorating

Deteriorating

skip lorries

authorities

frustration

9

fic noise

pleasant

Green

house

Yes

shut, not able to

Open space,

Protective of

dustrial plant,

Depression and

rage; sense of

abandonment by

Occasional traffic

Decreases the

value of the house

Keep windows

use the garden,

traffic and the air-

Noise from the in-

leave the house

the authorities

Mental health

Deteriorating

Green Belt

craft noise

10

Green

noise

Very

Yes

shut, not able to

Accept that

some noise will

Noise from the

industrial plant,

birdsong, skip

tration; fear of

Quietness is

Force to close

Stress & anxiety

Keep windows

use the garden,

Anger and frus-

Occasional traf-

fic noise, speed-

leave the house

ing motor bike

Deteriorating

Deteriorating

future cancer

windows

11

pleasant

Garden

lorries

occur

Yes

No

Protective of

Noises from

Anger and

Quietness is

Wake me up,

force to close

cannot use the

Lack of sleep

dows shut,

not able to

use the gar-

Keep win-

den, play mu-

Green Belt

frustration

windows,

industrial

sic/radio

pleasant

& stress

12

People

garden

Very

plant

Like

No

Noises from the

industrial plant,

sionally traffic

Wake me up,

dows, cannot use

Decreases the

value of the house

force to close win-

skip lorries, occa-

Anger and stress

Very little noise

Quiet, Birdsong

and birdsongs

Mental health

Noise, dust

the garden

13

Good

Like

Yes

dustrial plant, skip

ally traffic and

Irritation and

Occasional traffic

noise, occasional

Reporting to the

Noises from in-

lorries, occasion-

Quiet, Birdsong

your children

authorities

14

People

voices

stress

Good

None

Like

Yes

No

No

Noises from the

industrial plant

and aircraft

Unpleasant -

Not able to use

Stress & anxi-

wake you up

the garden

15

Despair

Garden

Good

None

noise

Very

Like

Yes

ety

No

HGVs, Skip

Noises from

the industrial

Force to

dows, cannot

Stress &

dows shut

and not able

to use the

porting to the

close win-

Keep win-

garden, re-

use the gar-

authorities

Deteriorat-

Horrible

anxiety

16

HGVs

drops

None

plant

N/A

Yes

den

ing

den, reporting

Accept that

some noise

Noises from

the industrial

Anger and

Unpleasant -

Wake me up,

force to close

cannot use

the garden,

dows shut

and not able

Mental health

to use the gar-

Keep win-

to the authori-

Deteriorating

wake you up

Peace, Quiet

k i diffi

frustration

will occur

windows,

17

None

plant

Like

N/A

ties

No

worm 2022

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

As mentioned in the introduction section, several studies have shown that users’ perceptions and community engagement are crucial to soundscape practice that needs to be considered during both planning and restoration processes of urban spaces to produce an effective, acceptable and economi- cally viable outcome. Soundscape assessment has also been considered as an important and useful tool for the assessment of context and the assessment of noise impacts from Environment Agency permitted sites. This is emphasised in the recently published UK guidance Noise and vibration man- agement: environmental permits. As a consequence, the soundscape approach is expected to be ap- plied for the assessment of impact from permitted sites, either during the application process, varia- tion of the permit or following noise complaints.

This paper presented results of the acoustic and soundscape surveys carried out in a rural resi- dential environment following numerous noise complaints from local residents about a waste trans- fer station recently built in the area. 17 responses from residents who lived as close as 200 metres and as far as 800 metres from the site have been collected in the soundscape survey. As part of the acoustic survey, a noise map was produced to indicate the Specific sound level from the industrial plant at each of the respondents’ locations. The noise map showed a variation between +11dB (Sig- nificant Adverse Impact) and -1dB (indication of no impact) of the Specific level above the back- ground level. The responses to the soundscape questionnaire have, however, been very similar re- gardless of the sound level from the site and associated BS 4142 impact category at the location of each respondent. This might be due to already established negative predisposition among the com- munity members towards the industrial site. This may also indicate that soundscape assessment in rural areas may need to differentiate from the soundscape design practices established for urban ar- eas, and other methods of assessment may need to be developed. Perhaps prior engagement with the community and gathering their opinion on possible acceptable sound levels from the industrial site, would have resulted in more positive outcomes for the residents and much better attitudes towards the new site. The only possible solution for the site owner or operator now is to “go the extra mile” and establish a collaboration with the local community in order to minimise sound emissions to an acceptable level, as it has been done by the National Grid [1].

This paper has demonstrated that when introducing a new industrial site with atypical sound sources to a rural community, it is paramount to engage the community in the decision-making pro- cess with regards to the acceptable sound emissions, location and operating hours of the site. It has also shown that sound in context seem to be very important for rural communities and therefore lo- cal residents should be also involved in decisions on what sounds from new and atypical sources, and what sound characteristics, they will be willing to accept. 6. REFERENCES

1. Dickenson J., Almond Avenue Substation, London Borough of Ealing. Soundscape in Practice

Overcoming Traditional Acoustic Challenges To Urban Planning and Development One Day Workshop Tuesday, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, London, UK , 25 June 2019. 2. Lavia, L., Easteal, M., Close, D., Witchel, H., Axelsson, Ö., Ware, M. & Dixon, M., Sounding

Brighton: practical approaches towards better soundscapes. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 2012 , New York, USA, August 2012. 3. Lavia, L., Xio, J., Eastea, M., & Bannister, S., Developing an applied soundscape approach: map-

ping the stakeholder engagement process in the City of Brighton and Hove, UK. Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 2015 , San Francisco, California, USA, August 2015.

worm 2022

4. Xiao, J., Lavia, L. & Kang, J. Towards an agile participatory urban soundscape planning frame-

work. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 61(4) , 677–698 (2018). 5. National Policy Statement for England. DEFRA , UK, 15 March 2010. 6. Guidance: Noise and vibration management: environmental permits. Environment Agency . UK,

July 2022. 7. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2016. Acoustics – Soundscape – Part 2:

Data Collection and Reporting Requirements. ISO/CD 12913-2:2016(E). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. 8. BS 4142:2014+A1:2019, Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound. Brit-

ish Standards Institute, UK, 2019. 9. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2014. Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 1:

Definition and Conceptual Framework. ISO/FDIS 12913-1:2014. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

worm 2022