Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study 2008 Final Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report3.2.5 Weighting CalculationTotal number of responses for a given Likert value inthe given typologyTotal number of responses for the given typologyX Coding of responseon Likert Scale(See table 4 above)Worked example for Civic Mixed SurfaceSpace (CMSS) which contains 3 sites:(1+4+0)13X 2 = 0.77Where:1 + 4 + 0 = Number of respondents from the 3 sites in this typology who ‘strongly like’ ‘AGreen Landscape’13 = Total number of respondents in the three CMSS sites2 = Code given to the opinion “strongly like3.2.6 The formula is repeated for each Likert value (strong dislike, dislike, neutral, like andstrongly like) for a given experiential factor (e.g. hearing birds, feeling water, seeingcrowds). These values are then added together to produce a weighted tranquillity score foreach of the 60+ experiential factors (see Appendix E).3.3 Use of Weighting3.3.1 At the core of the toolkit method and the division of sites into typologies is theunderstanding that in different types of spaces, i.e. four distinct typologies, the experienceof tranquillity is ‘different’, not ‘more’ or ‘less’. It may therefore be counter-productive to tryand arrive at a single tranquillity score for each typology in order to compare between themand inadvertently rule out a particular type of space, (e.g. Civic Paved Spaces) because itscores poorly against other typologies. For example, the qualitative responses in TrafalgarSquare suggested that a user can gain an element of tranquillity, by being a spectator inone of the world’s most famous squares where one can also pause for reflection and watchthe world go by.3.3.2 It is only with the toolkit weighting that comparison between tranquillity scores can be maderegardless of typology. For instance, to make a decision between investment in either SohoSquare (Civic Mixed Surface Space) and Westbourne Gardens (Local Mixed SurfaceSpace), the Council needn’t take into account the qualitative differences in the type ofspace since the Toolkit already addresses those differences by means of the weighting.3.3.3 The weighting attached to each experiential factor also enables the Council to see, at aglance the relative value of each factor within its typology. For example whether seeingbirds contributes more to a sense of tranquillity than seeing trees.D121316/R1/0212Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009
Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy 2008: Final Report3.3.4 The assessment of sites using the toolkit method is explained below as a step-by-stepprocess in ‘3 Using the toolkit’. Poorly performing spaces i.e., those that achieve a lowscore in the assessment described below, can be improved by implementing suitablemeasures to eliminate negative scores or to gain positive scores depending on costs, timeetc.3.4 Limitations of the Method3.4.1 Several experiential indicators listed separately in the questionnaire are quite similar toeach other. For the purposes of the research, they were kept distinct in order to tease outfine differences of perception. For less busy open spaces, it may be helpful to combineindicators in the list for analysis and to reserve the questionnaire (Appendix B) for siteswhere high response volumes are anticipated. For example, the factors ‘green landscape’and ‘grassy surfaces’ can be combined.3.4.2 Using the Likert scale, some sites may achieve relatively neutral scores, i.e., tendingtowards neither positive nor negative, even though some individual indicators may havehigh positives or negatives. In such cases, individual factors need investigation, and tohighlight this, total positive and negative scores have been kept, as well as the netTranquillity Score.3.4.3 The Civic Paved Space typology has only one site within it and may, therefore be lessrobust in its toolkit weighting than the other typologies. Further surveying at TrafalgarSquare, or assessment of additional similar sites, is required in order to ensure thedependability of this particular weighting.3.4.4 This methodology does not account for:• The ‘culture’ of place to any great extent, except to consider ‘high profile’ Londonspaces – this needs more time and space for a finer analysis;• Changes in usage patterns due to weather conditions, except to exclude interviewsessions and noise measurements carried out in bad weather; and• Personal mood – the toolkit has not been able to assess scores over time againstusers’ mood. Although this is outside the scope of this study, a quantitative measureof ‘happiness’, such as measuring users’ blood pressure changes would beparticularly significant from a health and well-being perspective.D121316/R1/0213Scott Wilson LtdMarch 2009
Page 1 and 2: Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study
Page 3 and 4: Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy
Page 17: Westminster Open Spaces NoiseStudy

Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study 2008 Final Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?