Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 817–831 | Cite as

Spatiotemporal analysis of an acoustic environment: interactions between landscape features and sounds

  • Antonios D. Mazaris
  • Athanasios S. Kallimanis
  • George Chatzigianidis
  • Kimonas Papadimitriou
  • John D. Pantis
Research Article

Abstract

So far landscape analysis meant analysis of the spatial pattern of land cover or land use. However, biological organisms do not perceive the landscape only as land cover or land use, but they use all their senses, in order to become familiar with and react to their surroundings. We analyzed the acoustic environment as an additional layer of spatial information in landscape analysis, shortening the monopoly of visual patterns as landscape descriptors. We recorded sounds from a rural protected area into seven categories based on their origin, and examined their spatiotemporal variability and their correlation with landscape characteristics. The sounds were distinguished as Foreground or Background sounds. Foreground sounds correspond to sharp sounds originating near the observer and usually are understood as signals of urgent information, triggering reactions; while background sounds carry information over longer distances and may be used as landmarks to help individuals find their bearing even in the absence of visual signs. We found that the acoustic environment varies both temporally and spatially reflecting anthropogenic, geophysical and biological activities. The spatial pattern of the background sounds correlates, to an extent, with the visually perceived landscape features, but it does not correlate with the spatial pattern of the foreground sounds, which do not correlate strongly with the landscape pattern. This spatial pattern mismatch between acoustic environment and landscape, along with the highly dynamic nature of the acoustic environment compared to the relatively static nature of the land cover and land use spatial pattern highlight a limitation of the classical landscape analysis, and expands our understanding of the cognitive landscape.

Keywords

Soundscape Background sounds Foreground sounds Local scale variables Ecological modeling Acoustic similarity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the researchers who have participated to the field work: (in alphabetical order) Dionysis Batzakis, Ioanna Etmektsogolou, Giorgos Frangiskos, Iordanis Houvardas, Nikos Kefalogiannis, Evagelia Drakou, Eleni Kotali, Hristos Koutsodimakis, Theodoros Lotis, Apostolos Loufopoulos, Filippos Theoharidis, Andreas Mniestis, Katerina Tzedaki and Nikos Valsamakis. This research is supported by the PYTHAGORAS project of the Operational Program for Education and Initial Vocational Training (EPEAEK) of the Hellenic Ministry of Education under the 3rd European Community Support Framework for Greece.

References

  1. Bonaiuto M, Fornara F, Bonnes M (2003) Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: a confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landsc Urban Plan 65:43–54. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00236-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Botteldooren D, De Coensel B, De Muer T (2006) The temporal structure of urban sounds capes. J Sound Vib 292:105–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.07.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349. doi: 10.2307/1942268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown AL, Muhar A (2004) An approach to the acoustic design of outdoor space. J Environ Plann Manage 47:827–842. doi: 10.1080/0964056042000284857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brumm H, Todt D (2002) Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Anim Behav 63:891–897. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1968 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carles JL, Barrio IL, de Lucio JV (1999) Sound influence on landscape values. Landsc Urban Plan 43:191–200. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00112-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke DS (1987) Principles of semiotic. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Natural Environment Council, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins AM, Quillian MR (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 8:240–248. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbin A (1998) Village bells. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Deely J (2005) Basics of semiotics, 4th edn. Tartu University Press, TartuGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang C, Ling D (2005) Guidence for noise reduction provided by tree belts. Landsc Urban Plan 71:29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farina A, Belgrano A (2004) The eco-field: a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecol Res 19:107–110. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1703.2003.00613.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farina A, Belgrano A (2006) The eco-field hypothesis: toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecol 21:5–17. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-7755-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farina A, Bogaert J, Schipania I (2005) Cognitive landscape and information: new perspectives to investigate the ecological complexity. Biosystems 79:235–240. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2004.09.018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaver WW (1993a) How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecol Psychol 5:285–313. doi: 10.1207/s15326969eco0504_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaver WW (1993b) What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecol Psychol 5:1–29. doi: 10.1207/s15326969eco0501_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedfors P, Grahn P (1998) Soundscapes in urban and rural planning and design. Yearb Soundscape Stud 1:67–82Google Scholar
  19. Kallimanis SA, Mazaris DA, Tzanopoulos J, Halley MJ, Pantis DJ, Sgardelis PS (2008) How does habitat diversity and area affect species diversity? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:532–538. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00393.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klæboe R, Engelien E, Steinnes M (2006) Context sensitive noise impact mapping. Appl Acoust 67:620–642. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2005.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep PNW-351Google Scholar
  22. Miller PN (2008) US National Parks and management of park soundscapes: a review. Appl Acoust 69:77–92. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielson HR, Nielson F (1995) Semantics with applications, a formal introduction, 1st edn. Wiley, ChicesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Öhrström E, Skånberg A, Svensson H et al (2006) Effects of road traffic noise and the benefit of access to quietness. J Sound Vibrat 295:40–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2005.11.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papadimitriou K, Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Pantis JD (2009) Cartographic representation of the sonic environment. Cartographic J (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Pheasant R, Horoshenkov K, Watts G (2008) The acoustic and visual factors influencing the construction of tranquil space in urban and rural environments tranquil spaces-quiet places? J Acoust Soc Am 123:1446–1457. doi: 10.1121/1.2831735 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quinn PG, Keough JM (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosch E (1978) Principles of categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd BB (eds) Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Schafer RM (1969) The new soundscape: a handbook for the modern music. Teacher, BMI, Don Mills, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  30. Schafer RM (1977) The tuning of the world. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Simpson SD, Jeffs A, Montgomery JC et al (2008) Nocturnal relocation of adult and juvenile coral reef fishes in response to reef noise. Coral Reefs 27:97–104. doi: 10.1007/s00338-007-0294-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taft OW, Haig SM (2006) Importance of wetland landscape structure to shorebirds wintering in an agricultural valley. Landscape Ecol 21:169–184. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-0146-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tardieu J, Susini P, Poisson F et al (2008) Perceptual study of soundscapes in train stations. Appl Acoust 69:1224–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Truax B (1984) Acoustic communication. Ablex, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  36. Truax B (1999) Handbook of acoustic ecology, 2nd edn. Street Publishing, (CD-ROM version). Burnaby, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. van Poll R (1997) The perceived quality of the urban residential environment–a multi-attribute evaluation. Roermund, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  38. Viollon S, Lavandier C, Drake C (2002) Influence of visual settings on sound ratings in an urban environment. Appl Acoust 63:493–511. doi: 10.1016/S0003-682X(01)00053-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vuilleumier S, Metzger R (2005) Animal dispersal modelling: Handling landscape features and related animal choices. Ecol Modell 190:159–170. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Watts G, Chinn L, Godfrey N (1999) The effects of vegetation on the perception of traffic noise. Appl Acoust 56:39–56. doi: 10.1016/S0003-682X(98)00019-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watts G, Morgan P, Abbott A (2006) A proposal for identifying quiet areas in accordance with the Environmental Noise Directive (END) In: Proceedings of IOA autumn conference 8, pp 7Google Scholar
  42. Wg A EN–European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise (2003) Good practice guide for strategic noise mapping and the production of associated data on noise exposure. Assessment of Exposure to Noise Brussel: European Commission’s Working Group. pp 63Google Scholar
  43. Wiens JA (1999) Toward a unified landscape ecology. In: Wiens JA, Moss MR (eds) Issues in landscape ecology. International Association for Landscape Ecology, Snowmass Village, Colorado, USA, pp 148–151Google Scholar
  44. Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, Van Horne B et al (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380. doi: 10.2307/3544931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol 21:1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-7195-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365. doi: 10.1023/A:1020561630963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) (2006) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu J, Hobbs R (2007) Landscape ecology: the state-of-the-science. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 271–287Google Scholar
  49. Zhang M, Kan J (2007) Towards the evaluation, description, and creation of soundscapes in urban open spaces. Environ Plann B Plann Des 34:68–86. doi: 10.1068/b31162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonios D. Mazaris
    • 1
  • Athanasios S. Kallimanis
    • 2
  • George Chatzigianidis
    • 1
  • Kimonas Papadimitriou
    • 1
  • John D. Pantis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, School of BiologyAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Natural Resources ManagementUniversity of IoanninaAgrinioGreece

Personalised recommendations