A A A The Effects of User Experience on the Questionnaire to Detection of the Soundscape of Historical Areas - Example of Eskisehir Factories Region Özlem Gök Tokgöz 1 Institute of Acoustics and Speech Communication, TU Dresden, Germany, TU Dresden Helmholtzstraße 18, 01062 Dresden ABSTRACT Soundscape studies carried out in historical areas need extensive research and analysis in the processes from the past to the present. It is determined by taking into account many variables such as historical process, the character of area, events and people. In this study, it is aimed to investigate the past experiences of the people carried out in historical areas affect the evaluation of the present data. Eskisehir was chosen as the study area. Eskisehir is an Anatolian city in the Central Anatolia region, on the trade routes and at the intersection of railway transportation. Due to its proximity to railway transportation, many factories established. Nowadays it is under protection as an industrial heritage. In the study, a questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the soundscape of the region with people living in the region for a long time, and people newly settled in Eskisehir. In the survey, the sounds in the region, the pleasantness of the people and the adjective pairs to describe the acoustic environment were asked. As a result of the study, the importance of the user's experience was investigated and evaluated for the survey studies carried out in the evaluation of the soundscape of historical areas. 1. INTRODUCTION Historical soundscape studies need a wide-ranging research and analysis in the processes from the past to the present. The soundscapes in historical areas is determined by taking into account many variables such as the changes that have occurred in the historical process, the character of the area, places, events and people. It is also expectedly complex due to its focus on the abstract past and lost sensory conditions.[1] For this reason, the changes in the sounds in the field from the past to the present, the sounds that come to the present or the elements that affect the sound environment should be meticulously determined and evaluated. Preserving the sounds of the past and determining today's soundscapes of these areas is an important issue at the stage of taking new decisions on historical areas. The soundscape was defined by the ISO 12913-1 standard in 2014, and after that data collection and evaluation methods were also explained in the 2nd and 3rd parts.[2]–[4] Standardized and suggested terms, approaches, data acquisition and evaluation methods for soundscape research are not sufficient to evaluate the contextual impact and soundscape designs of historical sites. Ear witnesses are the most important source referenced in the soundscape determination stage of regions 1 oezlem_goek.tokgoez@mailbox.tu-dresden.de that have experienced significant changes in the historical process.[5] With this method, change and acoustic environment data from past to present were determined. [6] In these studies, which we can describe as oral history studies, data about the past of the region studied are obtained from the individuals. Although it is important for people who witnessed the past of the regions to make an evaluation between the past and the present, it is unclear how much these people are a reference to be consulted in the determination of current data. In today's soundscape determination of areas that have undergone radical changes from the past to the present, such as historical areas, people's previous experiences and thoughts on the region constitute a bias. User expectation and perception significantly affect soundscape evaluations.[7], [8] It is also possible to attribute meanings to the lost or changing sounds in the process and to be found nostalgic and remembered with longing.[9] For this reason, these areas are more difficult to detect and evaluate the historical soundscape. The study aims to investigate the changing perception of the citizens, especially on historical sites. It will be investigated how effective the perception from the past is in the evaluation of today's soundscape. For this purpose, a survey was applied to the citizens. For the survey, three groups were determined. First group, who have lived in Eskişehir for 20 years or more after the 2000, second one, who have lived in Eskişehir for less than 20 years and more than 5 years, have witnessed some minor changes, and last group who have lived in Eskişehir for less than 5 years and have no assumptions about the region. As a result of the study, an evaluation will be made on the user factor and user perception in the soundscape evaluation of especially historical areas. In the study, first, the historical transformation of his field briefly explained, the focus will be on the changes in the region in 2000 and after, and then the previous field study and today's study explained. 1.1. History of The Field Area The field area is the Eskisehir factories region, which is considered as an industrial heritage today. Eskişehir is a Central Anatolian city in an area where trade routes intersect. The first settlement in this region started with the construction of the Baghdad-Berlin Railway in 1896. After that, nearly twenty factories were established connected to railway transportation. With the establishment of the factories, the region has become an industrial region, has received immigrants from the surrounding provinces and has developed.[10] The development of the region and how the factory area is surrounded by the city can be seen. (see Fig. 1) (a) (b) (c) Figure 1: Maps of the region at different time intervals (a) Eskisehir map dated 1896-(b) Map dated 1925-1950, (c) Map dated 1980 This area played a key role in the development of the city with its improvement between 1923 and 1950. The rapid continuation of the development of the region has caused the empty spaces necessary for the establishment of new industrial facilities or the development of existing facilities to turn into residential areas. For this reason, there has been a search for an alternative industrial zone and in 1978, the new industrial zone was established. In 80s, factories moved the region. The area remained derelict and empty in the 1990s. After 2000, the area is defined as an industrial heritage site, the buildings in the region were restored one by one and started to be used for different purposes. After the change that started in the 2000s, the region has become an entertainment and shopping center, and has become a region preferred by the young population, especially because it is close to the university. Figure 2: The present photos of the area (August 2019- by the author) The present states of the area are given in Figure 2. It is observed that the surrounding area is subject to heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic. (see Fig. 2) 1.2. Acoustic Environment of the Field-Previous Studies This dramatic change of the region has completely changed the acoustic environment of this area. It is completely in the middle of vehicle traffic with the development of the city. Due to the heavy traffic in the region, the railway was taken underground in 2014. It is an important change in the region is taking its current form. In the urban scale noise map that includes the region in 2015, the region is the noisiest area of the city. In addition, on this map that the main noise source in the region is vehicle traffic.[11] In 2019, the study was conducted in which the changes that the region has undergone and how the sound environment of the region has changed from the past to the present. In the study, in which the main goal is to determine the sounds of the past, data about the present were also obtained.[12] In that study, limitations such as the age of the people, their areas of residence, and their residence in the same region in the past and present in this study were determined. The people surveyed were factory workers of the time, people living around the factories, and experts who studied the changes. i In the study, subjects were asked which sound sources they heard and which sounds they defined as soundmarks. In addition, 30 adjective pairs that they will use to define the field are given, and the cases of ´agree´ or ´disagree` with these adjective pairs are measured with a 5-point scale. [13] Table 1: Sound sources identified by participants Type of sound sources Sound sources Pleasantness and the state of defining the place( soundmarks ) Traffic Noise (e.g. cars, buses, trains, air planes Car sounds Soundmarks / Not pleasant sound Bus sounds Not soundmarks Horn sounds Soundmarks / Not pleasant sound Tram sounds Not soundmarks Motorcycle sounds Not soundmarks Other noise (e.g. sirens, construction, loading of goods) The sound of construction Not soundmarks Sounds from Human Beings(e.g. conversation, laughter, children at play, footstep) Speech Soundmarks / Not pleasant sound Children's voices Not soundmarks Azan sounds Not soundmarks The sound sources identified in the area in the study are shown in Table 1. In the study, the survey about the current data was applied only to the people who ear witnessed the past of the region. These participants, whose ages were between 45 and 85, stated that they had never heard the sounds of nature. (Table 1) In the soundwalk carried out within the scope of this research, different participants and experts stated that the sounds of nature are heard in the region. The differentiation of the data in the survey and the soundwalk led to the conclusion that the experiences of the participants on the region may be important in evaluating the area’s soundscape. For this reason, it planned to carry out a study in which only the past experiences of people will change, completely in accordance with the ISO 12913-2 standard. 2. FIELD STUDY 2.1. Materials and Method In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effect of the user factor in historical areas. The study was planned as a quantitative study. It was carried out with the adjective pairs defined in ISO 12913- 2 [3] and the questions defined. Soundmarks, which were focused in the previous study, were not focused in this study. It was seen that the sounds defined as soundmarks did not differ. For this reason, the users were not asked questions about the soundmarks. The preferred 30 adjective pairs in the previous study were not used. The survey was aimed to be as short and understandable as possible. The survey was conducted in April 2022. The survey consists of two parts, one on personal information and one on acoustic environment. There are four questions in the section on acoustic environment. The first is about how much the sound sources are heard. The second question is how loud the area is, and the third question is how unpleasant it is. The fourth question is about describing the sound environment and the last question is related to perceived acoustic quality. The survey was grouped according to the age of the participants and evaluated comparatively. 2.2. Survey Results The survey results were analyzed in three groups as participants who have lived in Eskişehir for 20 years or more, less than 20 years more than 5 years, and participants who have lived for less than 5 years. There are 41 survey participants living in Eskisehir for 20 years or more. The number of participants living in Eskisehir for less than 20 years and more than 5 years is 29 , and less than 5 years are 19 people. The information of the survey participants is summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Personal information of the participation Age Range Gender Mean Age Standard Deviation 20 years and more 28-64 M:16 / F:25 45.80 10.98 Less than 20 years more than 5 years 23-54 M:9 / F:20 28.93 7.19 Less than 5 years 20-35 M:11 / F:8 23.26 4,03 The questions asked about the acoustic environment were evaluated according to the answers given by the three determined groups. In the first question of the acoustic environment, is related to sound source identification. In this part, sound sources are grouped as traffic noise, sounds from human beings, natural sounds and, other noise. [3] Each group has been examined separately for all age groups. Traffic Noise (e.g. cars,buses, trains, air planes) [a] 46% 34% 20% [b] 51% 35% 14% [c] 26% 37% 26% 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dominates Completely A lot Moderately A little Not at all Figure 3: Survey results to the traffic noise (a) people who lives 20 years and more, (b) less than 20 years more than 5 years and (c) less than 5 years For traffic noise similar responses were received from all age groups. All the three groups thought that the traffic noise is the is dominated the sound environment. (see Fig. 3) Participants who have stayed in Eskişehir for less than 5 years have a less rate of “dominates completely”. In addition, these participants gave the answer “A little”. Other noise (e.g.sirens, construction, loading of goods) [a] 10% 27% 39% 22% 2% [b] 16% 68% 11% 5% [c] 11% 24% 46% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dominates Completely A lot Moderately A little Not at all Figure 4: Survey results to the other noise (a) 20 years and more, (b) less than 20 years more than 5 years and (c) less than 5 years For the other noise (e.g. sirens, construction, loading of goods) , most of the participants said "moderately". The answers given are close to each other in terms of other noise. (see Fig. 4) Sounds from human being It is the most heard sound after the traffic noise in the area. The answers given in human being sounds are close to each other. (see Fig. 5) Sounds from Human Beings(e.g. conversation, laughter, children at play, footstep) [a] 12% 22% 37% 24% 5% [b] 21% 25% 25% 25% 4% [c] 11% 21% 37% 26% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dominates Completely A lot Moderately A little Not at all Figure 5: Survey results to the sounds from human being (a) 20 years and more, (b) less than 20 years more than 5 years and (c) Less than 5 years In nature sounds , the answers given by the participants differ from each other. Participants living in the Eskisehir for less than 5 years stated that they heard more natural sounds. Due to the spring season in which the survey was applied, bird sounds are heard more in the area than in other seasons. In the previous survey conducted in the summer, the participants declared that they did not hear the nature in this area. For this reason, seasonal effects should be taken into account in the sounds of nature. (see Fig. 6) Natural sounds (e.g. singing birds, flowing water, wild in vegetation) [a] 5% 29% 22% 42% [b] 18% 41% 41% [c] 16% 31% 37% 16% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dominates Completely A lot Moderately A little Not at all Figure 6: Survey results to the sounds from human being (a) 20 years and more, (b) less than 20 years more than 5 years and (c) less than 5 years The second question was about how this place loud was. “Moderately" and “A lot” answers were given more of how loud the area was. Participants living in Eskisehir for more than 20 years gave the answer “Extremely” more than the other participants. (see Fig. 7) "How loud is there" 50% 31% 37% 40% 31% 31% 22% 25% 29% 30% 17% 16% 16% 20% 11% 11% 7% 11% 10% 0% 0% Extremely A lot Moderately Slightly Not at all [a] [b] [c] Figure 7: Survey results to the “how loud is there” participants 20 years and more(a), less than 20 years more than 5 years and (b) and less than 5 years(c) The third questıon was about how unpleasant it here, the answer "moderately" was given more. Among the participants, those who lived in Eskisehir for 5 years or less preferred the answer "Slightly" more than the other participants. It has also been seen that those who have lived in Eskisehir for more than 20 years find the area more unpleasant. (see Fig. 8) How unpleasant is it here 60% 48% 50% 42% 42% 40% 30% 27% 30% 21% 17% 14% 15% 20% 7% 11% 11% 5% 5% 5% 10% 0% Extremely A lot Moderately Slightly Not at all [a] [b] [c] Figure 8: Survey results to “how unpleasant is it here” the participants 20 years and more(a), less than 20 years more than 5 years and (b) and less than 5 years(c) The fourth questıon was about describing the sound environment, participants described the sound environment as “Bad”. The area is acoustically problematic. There is no one who defines it as “very good”, those who have lived in Eskisehir for 20 years more have defined it as very bad. (see Fig. 9) Describe the present surrounding sound enviroment 60% 52% 46% 50% 42% 42% 38% 40% 27% 30% 20% 16% 20% 10% 7% 10% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Very good Good Neither good nor Bad Very Bad bad [a] [b] [c] Figure 9: Survey results to describing the sound environment the participants 20 years and more(a), less than 20 years more than 5 years and (b) and less than 5 years(c) The last question is about perceived affective quality. This part was given eight adjective pairs and a 5-point scale.[3] For each adjective, it is asked to what extent you agree or disagrees that describing the sound environment. On the scale that changes as “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree”, the value given is between one and five. In this study five is given to the strongly agree option, the value of 1 to the strongly disagree option, and the arithmetic average of the answers of the participants is taken over these values. Average values are shown in Figure 10 (see Fig. 10) .According to these results, participants found this environment annoying, eventful, vibrant and chaotic. In the light of the answers given, pleasantness and eventfulness values were calculated for each group and placed in the two-dimensional model. [a] [b] [c] 5 Eventful 4 Vibrant Chaotic 3 2 1 Pleasent Annoying 0 Calm Monotonous Uneventful Figure 10: Survey results about perceived affective quality to the participants 20 years and more(a), less than 20 years more than 5 years and (b) and less than 5 years(c) The pleasantness value as defined in the ISO/ TS 12913-3 was found for people who lives Eskisehir more than 20 years to be 𝑝= −1.08 and the eventfulness value as 𝑒= 3.41 . People who lives less than 20 years more than 5 years to be 𝑝= −0.48 and the eventfulness value 𝑒= 3.46 . In addition, people who lives less than 5 years to be 𝑝= 0.03 and the eventfulness value 𝑒= 1.82 . It is shown in a two-dimensional model in Figure 11. (see Fig. 11) Figure 11: Survey results to the affective quality, two-dimensional model the participants 20 years and more less than 20 years more than 5 years and less than 5 years It shows that the place is perceived as annoying and eventful as a combination of pleasantness and eventfulness value. In the two-dimensional model, the value of the participants living in Eskişehir for EVENTFUL, cnaonic 7 RANT No ANNOYING ~ Se = Purasanr ¥ Monoroxous ‘cam UNEVENTFUL less than 5 years is on the pleasantness axis, the other participants are on the annoying axis. (see Fig. 11) Obviously, this place is perceived as an eventful environment, busy with human activity. Traffic noise and human being sounds are dominated. 3. CONCLUSIONS It is important to create the desired sound environments in today's cities. Pleasing sound environments achieved by determining the past and the present correctly. It is difficult to determine the historical soundscape especially in areas undergoing significant change. In historical areas, especially ear witnesses are important sources. However, be careful with the bias of these people. Emotional attachment can make it difficult for people to evaluate the current situation. For this reason, the participation and evaluation of all citizens of the city is important in determining the soundscape in many areas, especially in historical areas. In quantitative survey studies on soundscape, it is important to learn how long the citizens have lived there. For this reason, in order to avoid potential problems, questions such as "How many years have you been living in this city?" or "How long have you known this field?" should be asked. In addition, the history of the study area, the profiles of the people living (tourist, local, student, etc.) should be researched, and be stated in the determinations and evaluations. For this reason, it is necessary to raise awareness about soundscape and to carry out the studies meticulously. It is important for the research and preservation of the sounds that made an impression in the memory of the city and form the phonic identity, and for a sustainable acoustic quality. 4. REFERENCES 1. Jordan, P. “Historic Approaches to Sonic Encounter at the Berlin Wall Memorial,” pp. 517– 537, (2019). 2. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/TS 12913-1:2014 Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 1: Definition and conceptual framework . (2014). 3. International Organization for Standardization, “ISO / TS 12913 ‑ 2 : 2018 Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 2: Data collection and reporting requirements,” https://www.iso.org/standard/75267.html, Geneva, Switzerland, (2018). 4. International Organization for Standardization, “ISO12913 ‑ 3 : 2019 Part 3: Data analysis,” Geneva, Switzerland, (2019). 5. Schafer, M. R. The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World . Rochester: Destiny Books, (1994). 6. Gök Tokgöz, Ö. and Özçevik Bilen, A. Kaybolan Sesler: Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Eskişehir Fabrikalar Bölgesi İşitsel Peyzajı . 13. Ulusal Akustik Kongresi Ve Sergisi,17-18 Ekim Dicle Üniversitesi, Diyarbakır, (2019). 7. Bruce, N. S. and Davies, W. J. “The effects of expectation on the perception of soundscapes,” Appl. Acoust. , vol. 85, pp. 1–11, (2014), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2014.03.016. 8. Fang, X. et al. , “Soundscape Perceptions and Preferences for Different Groups of Users in Urban Recreational Forest Parks,” Forests , vol. 12, no. 4, (2021), doi: 10.3390/f12040468. 9. Truax, B. Acoustic Communication . Ablex Publishing Corporation, (1984). 10. Ertin, G. Eskişehir’de Yerleşmenin Tarihi . Eskişehir: Anadolu Universitesi, (1994). 11. TUBİTAK MAM, “Eskişehir Yerleşim Alanlarının Stratejik Gürültü Haritaları,” Gebze, Kocaeli, (2016). 12. Gök Tokgöz, Ö. “Eskişehir Sanayi Mirasının Kentin İşitsel Peyzajındaki Yeri, Dönüşümü ve Etkileri,” Anadolu Üniversitesi, Master Thesis (2019). 13. Ozcevik Bilen, A. and Yuksel Can, Z. “An applied soundscape approach for acoustic evaluation – compatibility with ISO 12913,” Appl. Acoust. , vol. 180, p. 108112, (2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108112. Previous Paper 125 of 769 Next