The Quiet City Project
Social Survey Report – Assessing general attitudes to noise and
tranquillity in City of London
City of London Department of Environmental Services
Document Details
Report prepared by the City of London Department of Environmental Services as part
of the Quiet City Project.
Date: 13th August 2010
Authors:
William Cook, BSc Hons, MSc, DIC, AIEMA
Edward Haythornthwaite, BAgrSc Hons, MSc, DIC, MILI
Acknowledgements:
Joanne Hill, City of London
Daniel McKee, City of London
Joseph Blake, City of London
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1
Quiet City Project..............................................................................................1
1.2
City of London ..................................................................................................2
2
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................4
2.1
Concepts of Noise and Tranquillity ..................................................................4
2.2
Tranquillity........................................................................................................4
2.3
Social Surveys & Methodology ........................................................................6
3
AIM, SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................7
4
METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................8
4.1
Study Design .....................................................................................................8
4.2
General Attitudes to Noise Survey....................................................................9
4.3
Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey ...............................................................12
5
RESULTS .................................................................................................................15
5.1
General Attitudes to Noise Survey..................................................................15
5.2
Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey ...............................................................38
6
DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................50
6.1
General Attitudes to Noise Survey..................................................................50
6.2
Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey ...............................................................53
6.3
Aim and Objectives .........................................................................................54
7
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................56
8
RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................57
9
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................58
10
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................59
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Quiet City Project
The Quiet City Project is a piece of work being undertaken by the City of
London. The main aim is to investigate options for the development of a management
plan to ‘protect and enhance quiet areas in the City of London’. The project was
preceded by a scoping study carried out by consultants Bureau Veritas, which explored
options available to develop the concept of quiet zones in the square mile (Bureau
Veritas, 2008).
In order to develop effective noise policy, it is essential to establish an evidence base.
This commenced with a detailed noise survey which was undertaken by an acoustic
consultancy STATS (STATS 2009). This consisted of both weekday and weekend 24hour noise surveys characterising the acoustic environment of both busy and quiet areas.
The study by STATS highlighted a large difference in sound level between the busier
areas of the City and the various open spaces assessed. Some particular open spaces
were also far quieter than others, giving an initial indication of the acoustic
environments that would be worth protecting.
Acoustic management, however, should not solely focus on measured sound levels.
This is because it is a very subjective area with people responding to noise in variable
and individual ways, often influenced by other sensory factors such as visual aspects of
their immediate environment and sense of ‘atmosphere’. Indeed, in discussing the
results of the STATS study, the final report stated:
‘Although this survey presents objective noise levels measured at a selection of sites, the
subjective public perception of the noise levels and the degree of tranquillity
experienced at these locations may not correlate directly with the numerical noise levels
for a variety of reasons’
This highlights that it is necessary to complement the physical acoustic surveys with
social surveys which determine how noise impacts people in the City, and how best to
1
proceed with acoustic management to reflect the wishes and needs of the City
population.
This study aims to assess if there is an appetite amongst the general City population for
the protection of relatively quiet areas and to further protect other areas in the City from
excessive noise. It also evaluates how tranquillity is perceived, addressing the following
key questions:
What opinions exist in the key City of London populations of residents, workers
and tourists towards the acoustic environment?
Do people feel strongly enough about this issue for further work to be carried
out?
Where do the main issues relating to acoustic management in the City of London
lie?
Is acoustic protection of existing quiet areas in the City of London something
that is wanted or needed by the population?
Do people perceive open spaces in the City of London as tranquil, and how
could specific areas be managed to increase feelings of tranquillity?
1.2 City of London
The City of London Corporation provides local government services for the financial
and commercial heart of Britain – the square mile. It is committed to maintaining and
enhancing the status of the region as the world’s leading financial and business centre.
There are approximately 8,000 residents in the City of London, with an additional
340,000 workers commuting into the region each day. The many iconic tourist
attractions such as St. Paul’s Cathedral draw an average of 10,000 tourists each day.
The City of London is a busy and vibrant urban centre, covering a small geographical
area, and as such has few areas of respite from the noisy, bustling activity which
characterises the City atmosphere.
2
This study forms part of a long-term approach to the management of the acoustic
environment in the City, part of which involves investigating the potential for the
protection of existing pockets of tranquillity as areas of escape from the bustling City
atmosphere.
As highlighted by the STATS study, individual open spaces in the City can be far
quieter than the busier areas. The City of London manages over 200 gardens,
churchyards, parks and plazas across the square mile alone. These are managed
according to the City of London Open Space Strategy (City of London, 2008).
3
2
BACKGROUND
2.1 Concepts of Noise and Tranquillity
Noise, defined as “undesireable sound” (Jarup et al 2008) is a complex topic.
When looking at noise in the environment, both subjective and objective factors
come in to play, and the relative importance of these depends on the effect which is
being assessed.
With Environmental Noise, there are generally two effects of particular concern:
damage to hearing, and annoyance. Annoyance is the factor which is most relevant
to this study, and this has led to the consideration of more subjective factors.
Tranquillity is more subjective, and relates to a person’s state of mind, and
perception of space. It is a concept, and is not directly physically measurable.
Whether a person perceives a place to be tranquil or not will depend on a range of
factors, both physical and psychological. Levels of noise, types of noise, and the
absence of noise, are very important elements in the consideration of tranquillity.
Chapter 2.2 defines the concept of tranquillity further, and how it informs this study.
2.2 Tranquillity
Research has shown that acoustic design of urban areas cannot only focus on
objective physical sound-based aspects, but must also consider more subjective
social, psychological and physiological aspects (Kang, 2005).
In the acoustic management of an area, the aim is not simply to reach the lowest
possible level of recorded sound, but to ensure that the sound environment
enhances feelings of tranquillity for those people using the area.
Social research informing the Quiet City Project should consider noise, but must
also seek to understand the role of the acoustic environment within the wider theme
of tranquillity. This begs the question – what do we mean by tranquillity?
4
One attempt to define tranquillity in this context comes from the Campaign for
Protection of Rural England in their report Saving Tranquil Spaces (CPRE, 2005),
which states ‘tranquillity is the quality of calm experienced with mainly natural
features and activities, free from disturbance from man-made ones’.
While this definition is not directly applicable to an urban context such as the City,
it is a useful starting point for discussion, suggesting that tranquillity reflects the
way in which people experience their immediate environment.
Factors contributing to tranquillity in an urban context were defined in the
Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study (Scott Wilson, 2008) by the use of ‘five
pillars of urban tranquillity’ – sounds, the presence of nature, sense of personal
safety, visual aesthetics and the culture and freedom of the place.
Each of the pillars contributes to the sense of tranquillity experienced in a place.
Sounds play a significant role in the perception of tranquillity, and this study will
look very carefully at this pillar in particular.
The presence of nature is thought to give a break from the man-made world and
bring a psychological association with other more natural, non-urban places.
A sense of personal safety is essential, as in its absence a person cannot feel calm,
and a place is unlikely to be perceived to be tranquil.
Visual aesthetics play a key role in the perception of tranquillity. Whilst this pillar
is somewhat subjective, finding an area aesthetically pleasing is fundamental to the
perception of tranquillity.
The culture of an area adds context, and has a large influence on how people feel
about a place. This was suggested in the Westminster study to be the primary use of
a space, and how much ‘an individual user is allowed to feel ownership and a sense
of freedom’ (Scott Wilson, 2008).
Proper acoustic management for tranquillity should continually refer to and consider
these definitions and pillars of tranquillity. If the goal of “enhance[ing] quiet areas”
is to be achieved, it will rely on an understanding of these aspects, their relative
importance and interactions with one another.
5
2.3 Social Surveys & Methodology
As outlined in earlier paragraphs, there are two important considerations for this study:
Firstly, the City of London is a unique area with a unique population profile; and
secondly, the perception of noise and tranquillity relies heavily on subjective
considerations.
With these two considerations in mind, it was decided that social surveys would be an
appropriate and useful tool to use.
Chapter 4.1 gives further information on how this study has employed social surveys,
and the methodology which was developed for the project.
6
3
AIM, SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to investigate the perception of noise and tranquillity within
the City of London, with a view to informing the management of quiet areas.
The study examined how the City of London’s population perceive noise and
tranquillity within the City of London. The main tool was social surveys. Further details
on the study population and survey methodology are outlined in Chapter 4.
In order to achieve the study aim, the following objectives were met:

Analyse the opinions of the City population towards the acoustic
environment, by conducting social surveys.

Highlight a number of key acoustic issues in the City of London, as
perceived by its population.

Provide evidence to help gauge whether the City population are
sufficiently concerned with these issues to justify or target further work.

Assess perceived tranquillity of open spaces in the City of London, with
a view to informing any future site improvements.

Develop a methodology to measure and compare perceived tranquillity
and constituent factors of tranquillity in open spaces in the City of
London.
7
4
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the methodology used in conducting the study. Section 4.1
discusses study design. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 describe the design, administration and
analysis of the general attitudes to noise survey, and the tranquillity in open spaces
survey, respectively.
4.1 Study Design
As discussed in the introduction, the aim of the study was to investigate the perception
of noise and tranquillity within the City of London, with a view to informing practical
improvements, such as the introduction of designated ‘quiet areas’.
This informed the study objectives, including:

Analyse the opinions of the City population towards the acoustic
environment, by conducting social surveys.

Assess perceived tranquillity of open spaces in the City of London, with
a view to informing any future site improvements
These two objectives in particular have informed the design of the study, which was
based on two social surveys: one was assessing attitudes to noise; the other assessing
perceived tranquillity in City open spaces.
Section 4.2 discusses the methodology behind the general attitudes to noise survey.
Section 4.3 discusses the methodology behind the tranquillity in open spaces survey.
8
4.2 General Attitudes to Noise Survey
The purpose of the general attitudes to noise survey was to analyse the opinions and
perceptions of the City population towards noise in the City.
Scoping
A scoping exercise was undertaken, which examined the purpose of the survey, in
addition to the available time and resources. A complete list of potential survey
populations was compiled, which included residents, workers and tourists.
Each of these populations was assessed in terms of anticipated resources which would
be needed to obtain a suitable quantity and quality of response. This exercise led to the
selection of residents and workers, and omission of tourist populations.
Survey Design
The survey was designed to elicit useful and representative responses in the most cost
effective manner. A range of survey options were considered, including: face to face
interviews, telephone interviews and mailed paper questionnaires. In the end, online
questionnaires were chosen. Two questionnaires were developed in tandem, one tailored
to residents and the other to workers. These were designed to each be relevant to target
respondents, and to be comparable to one another.
The number of questions was capped at 15, to optimise survey capture by minimising
the likelihood of respondents giving up before completion. Both questionnaires were
then written to deliver the required information comprehensively (See Question Design
below).
Quality Assurance & Quality Control
Four main quality assurance measures were incorporated into the survey: questionnaire
design; survey pre-testing; analysis of non-response rates and automated data
processing.
Questionnaire design was informed by the survey aim, and is described in detail below.
Survey pre-testing was conducted. A prototype worker survey was sent to City of
London employees, and received a high level of response. Responses were deemed
adequate, and both questionnaires were released unchanged.
9
Of the surveyed population, the non-response rate for each question was quantified.
Overall effectiveness of the response elicitation effort was not analysed.
Data was processed with the use of SNAP survey software (discussed further in Survey
Administration, below).
Two main quality control measures were applied to the survey responses: statistical
analysis, and comparative analysis.
Statistical analysis was run on a question-by-question basis, where applicable. It was
applied to all questions with at least semi-quantitative responses. Results of these
analyses are described in section 5.1.
Comparative analysis was undertaken in two ways: Firstly, the demographic profile of
respondents was compared to the known profile of City residents, to validate residential
results only. Secondly, responses to more than one question were compared to one
another, in order to inform more detailed conclusions and recommendations. The results
of this analysis are described in section 5.1, subsections: Question 11 – Are you male or
female?; Question 12 – How old are you?; and Further analysis.
Survey responses were not subjected to verification of any kind. The survey was
voluntary, and so sample populations were assumed to be somewhat biased. In an
attempt to increase the sample population and reduce this bias, all participants were
offered the incentive of entry into a draw for a £30 Marks & Spencer voucher.
Questionnaire Design
Questionnaires were designed to address the purpose of the general attitudes to noise
survey, and looked at five key study questions:
1. Perception of noise: how noisy the City is perceived to be; whether noise is noticed
by respondents on a day-to-day basis; and which noise sources are noticed most
predominantly.
2. Whether respondents thought action to reduce noise levels was required.
3. Whether respondents thought a loud acoustic environment was a part of the vibrancy
of the City.
4. The respondents’ perceptions of ‘iconic sounds’
5. General information about the profile of respondents.
To facilitate the comprehensive delivery of the required information, a range of question
types were employed, including yes/no, multiple choice, and open-ended comment.
10
Survey Administration
Having designed the survey and questionnaire, an in-house consultation was held to
choose a software package which was both readily available and would facilitate the
swift collation of responses. SNAP survey software was chosen.
The survey was publicised through newsletters, flyers and the City of London website,
and a number of stakeholders were contacted directly.
Data Collection
Upon completion of a questionnaire, responses were collected online through SNAP.
Data Collation
Prior to data collation, online questionnaires were closed, to prevent more responses
from being logged. Data was collated in two ways: Firstly, responses were collated for
each question and a survey report was prepared (Appendix B). Secondly, responses
were collated in a way which allowed question responses to be compared to one another
(Section 5.1, Further analysis).
Data Analysis
All quantitative and semi-quantitative response data was analysed. Non-response rates
were quantified. Graphs were prepared for all suitable questions. Where appropriate,
data was subjected to significance testing. Where questions from worker and resident
questionnaires were designed to be comparable, responses were compared to one
another. These measures are described on a question-by-question basis in section 5.1.
No analysis was undertaken on open-ended questions, although an attempt was made to
classify responses to Question 8a.
Data was also subjected to statistical and comparative analysis for quality control
purposes (5.1, Question 11 – Are you male or female?; Question 12 – How old are
you?; and Further analysis).
Communication of Results
Results were reviewed and analysed, and have informed a number of conclusions and
recommendations, which are outlined in chapters 7 and 8.
11
4.3 Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey
The purpose of the tranquillity in open spaces survey was to gauge how tranquillity
was perceived in open spaces in the City, and the factors which contributed to these
perceptions.
Scoping
A scoping exercise was undertaken, which examined the purpose of the survey, relative
to time and resources which were available. Coherence with other elements of the quiet
city project was decided to be an important factor. Anticipated quantity and quality of
responses were also decided to be an important factor.
These considerations informed the survey in two ways: Firstly, open spaces which had
already been the subject of acoustic monitoring were selected, to ensure that the social
survey would complement that work. Secondly, when allocating resources, it was
decided that a small number of responses would be sought from a large number of sites,
in order to obtain responses from a wide range of spaces.
Survey Design
The survey was designed to elicit useful and representative responses in the most cost
effective manner. Two survey methods were considered; online and face to face.
Face to face interviews were chosen. Although relatively costly, face to face interviews
had the benefit of being more effective at gauging respondents’ perceptions on-site, and
reduced bias by permitting a more random and representative sample population to be
surveyed. Online surveys were deemed unreliable, as there was no simple way for the
questionnaires to be completed on site.
The number of questions was capped at 10 to optimise survey capture, by minimising
the likelihood of respondents giving up before completion. The questionnaire was then
written to deliver the required information comprehensively (see Question Design,
below.)
Quality Assurance & Quality Control
Three main quality assurance measures were incorporated into the survey: questionnaire
design; expert review of questionnaires, and sample selection.
12
Questionnaire design was informed by the survey aim, and is described in detail below.
A draft questionnaire was produced, and subjected to expert review by acoustic
consultants. This led to the redesign of questionnaires, including the questions which
were included, and the order in which they were included.
At each site, questionnaires were completed by 15 randomly selected individuals.
Statistical analysis was applied to the survey responses as a quality control measure.
Statistical analysis was run on the entire dataset. Indicator results (eg. site Likert totals
and tranquillity scales, see section 5.2 -Results) were prepared and compared, and
subjected to a Spearman’s Rank test.
Questionnaire Design
Questionnaires were designed to address the aim of the tranquillity in open spaces
survey, and included: multiple choice; open-ended; and extended, ranking question
types.
The final question was an extended question, included with the intention of developing
a ‘tranquillity index’ of all the open spaces surveyed. This question included a list of
tranquillity factors, which was produced in consultation between the City of London
and Bureau Veritas. Factors were grouped by sense (to encourage more accurate,
targeted responses), and ranked according to how they influenced the respondent’s
enjoyment of the survey space at that time.
Survey Administration
Having designed the survey and questionnaire, a method of administration was
developed. A random sample of open space users was selected at each site. The same
number of responses was collected at each site. The questionnaires were administered
by face-to-face interview. The interviewer asked the questions, and filled in the answer.
The survey was conducted at times chosen by the interviewer, and was not publicised,
but rather undertaken by directly approaching respondents on site.
Data Collection
Data was collected on site, on a number of hard copy questionnaire forms which were
completed on site by the interviewer. Each respondent was referred to by a reference
number between 1 and 15.
13
Data Collation
Responses were collated for each question, at each site, and for each respondent. Likert
scale averages were calculated. This involves turning qualitative responses (eg.
disagree, no opinion or agree) into quantitative scores (eg. -1, 0, or 1) which are then
totalled and compared. Results were collated into summary tables for each site. A
survey report was prepared, and is included in Appendix D.
Data Analysis
All quantitative and semi quantitative response data was analysed. Non-response rates
were quantified. Graphs were prepared for all suitable questions. Where appropriate,
data was subjected to significance testing. Indices of tranquillity and further results were
analysed, and are described for each site in section 5.2.
Communication of Results
Results were reviewed and analysed, and have informed a number of conclusions and
recommendations, which are outlined in chapters 7 and 8.
14
5
RESULTS
Results from both surveys are discussed below.
Section 5.1 discusses the results to the general attitudes to noise survey, according to
question number. Further detail is provided in Appendix B.
Section 5.2 discusses the results of the tranquillity in open spaces survey, and further
detail is provided in Appendix D.
5.1 General Attitudes to Noise Survey
This section considers the results of both residents and workers surveys.
The City Residents Noise Attitude Survey received a total of 173 responses.
The City Worker Noise Attitude Survey received a total of 283 responses.
Question 1 – Do you notice noise levels in the City?
This question was designed to examine study question 1, perception of noise.
Most respondents noticed noise levels in the City, with 98% of residents and
87% of workers responding ‘yes’.
Do you notice noise levels in the City?
120
Percentage (%)
100
80
Workers
60
Residents
40
20
0
Yes
No
Response
Figure 1 – Percentage of respondents who notice noise levels in the City
15
Question2 – How noisy do you think the City is?
This question was designed to examine study question 1, perception of noise.
Responses are graphed in Figure 3. Most respondents perceived the City to
be a loud place. 57% of workers, and 60% of residents felt the City was
either ‘loud’ or ‘very loud’. 6% of workers and 11% of residents felt the City
was either ‘quiet’ or ‘very quiet’.
This result was subjected to statistical analysis (chi square test). It can be
concluded with greater than 99.9% confidence that the proportion of
respondents who considered the City to be a loud place was significant.
How Noisy Do You Think The City Is?
50
45
Percentage of Respondents
40
35
30
Workers
25
Residents
20
15
10
5
0
Very Quiet
Quiet
Average
Loud
Very Loud
Response
Figure 3 – How noisy residents and workers think the City is.
Question 3 – Would you like to see action taken to reduce noise levels in
the City?
This yes/no question was designed to examine study question 2 - whether
respondents thought action to reduce noise levels was required.
The survey results are demonstrated in Figure 4.
17
Would You Like To See Action Taken To Reduce Noise Levels In The City?
100
90
80
Percentage of Response
70
60
Yes
50
No
40
30
20
10
0
Workers
Residents
Respondents
Figure 4 – The percentage of workers and residents who would like to see action taken to reduce noise
levels in the City.
94% of residents responded that they would like action to be taken. 69% of
workers responded that they would like action to be taken.
Question 3a – For those who answered ‘yes’ to Question 3 – What do you
think could be done to achieve a reduction?
This open-ended question was designed to examine study question 2 –
whether respondents thought action to reduce noise levels was required.
A range of responses were received. These comments and suggestions are
outlined in full in appendix B.
18
The vast majority of responses (81%) requested enforcement activities, such
as ‘decrease total traffic’ or ‘enforce quiet hours’.
The Quiet City Project aims to go beyond enforcement duties, and a range of
responses had suggestions which could inform proactive measures. For
example, 8.5% of people suggested methods for blocking or absorbing noise,
which is certainly something that could be considered in acoustic
management of areas of the City. Another example was the creation of
pedestrianised areas, suggested by 8% of respondents. The introduction of
‘quiet zones’ was suggested by 4% of respondents.
Responses given by the residents
Although there were some similarities, responses given by the residents,
(demonstrated in figure 6) were notably different from those of the workers.
The most common theme in the resident’s responses related to the
imposition/ enforcement of licensing restrictions (suggested by 29% of
respondents). This was considered by 8% of the workers, ‘limit/control onstreet drinking’. Some responses could be considered to tie in with this,
including ‘prevent noise from people on the street late at night’ (7%) and
‘increase police presence’ (5%).
The majority of residents indicated that they would like more enforcement
activities to be taken against specific noise sources.
A smaller proportion of residents had proactive suggestions. The most
common one was ‘sound buffering/absorption’ (8.5% of respondents). This
was also suggested by the workers.
20
Responses given by the workers
The response rate to this question was 100%, with 283 responses from 283 survey
questionnaires.
Overall, 94% of those surveyed responded that their office/ main place of work was
within the City of London, 6% responded that their office/ main place of work was
outside the City.
Question 5 – By which method do you travel to work (workers only)?
This question was included for quality control purposes, and to examine study question
5 (general information about the profile of respondents). As described in section 4.2,
this question was also included to enable comparison with other questions.
A large proportion of workers spent a significant proportion of their commute on foot or
by bicycle. This could be a factor in how aware the workers are of noise in the City.
Responses to Question 5 are shown in Figure 9.
By which method do you travel to work?
Percentage of Respondents
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Tube
Bus
Cycle
On foot
Mode of transport
Figure 9 – Responses from workers to Question 5
24
Car
Train
Question 6 – What proportion of your time is spent outside in the City?
This question was designed to examine study question 5 (general
information about the profile of respondents), and for comparison with other
questions. All responses to question 6 are shown in figure 10.
On a scale of 1-5, what proportion of your time in the City is spent
outside/ on the city streets?
Number of respondents
60
50
40
Workers
30
Residents
20
10
0
1 (Very Little)
2
3
4
5 (Almost All)
Proportion of time
Figure 10 – Responses from both workers and residents to Question 6
Most workers responded that they spent little or very little of their time outside,
and most residents responded that they spent either average or little time
outdoors. This could potentially be a factor in the responses to questions 1, 2 and
3, which indicated that residents might feel more strongly about noise issues
than workers.
Question 7 – Do you actively seek out quiet areas in the City?
This question aimed to determine the demand for quiet areas in the City. The
results for the workers and residents were similar, with ‘yes’ responses from
57% of workers and 58% of residents who responded. Responses to
Question 7 are shown in Figure 11.
25
Do you actively seek out (new) quiet areas in the city?
120
Precentage responses
100
80
No
60
Yes
40
20
0
Workers
Residents
Respondents
Figure 11 – Responses from both workers and residents to Question 7
Question 7a – If the answer to Question 7 was ‘No’, do you prefer the
busier, noisier areas of the City?
This question was designed to supplement the previous questions. Responses
to Question 7a are shown in Figure 12. Most residents here (64%) answered
‘No’. Most workers answered ‘no preference’ (52%), or ‘no’ (43%).
Very few respondents preferred the busier noisier areas of the city. 1% of
residents and 5% of workers answered yes.
26
Do you prefer the busier, noisier areas of the City?
70
Percentage of Respondents
60
50
40
Workers
Residents
30
20
10
0
Yes
No preference
No
Response
Figure 12 – Responses from both workers and residents to Question 7 a)
Question 8 – Would you like more to be done to protect the quieter, more
tranquil areas of the City?
This question was designed to examine study question 2 (whether
respondents thought action to reduce noise levels was required). Responses
are shown in figure 13.
Where question 3 showed that most respondents would like to see action
taken to reduce noise levels, question 8 showed clear support for the
protection of quiet areas in the City.
70% of workers and 78% of residents responded that they would like to see
more done to protect existing tranquil areas in the City.
27
Would you like more to be done to protect the quieter, more tranquil
areas of the City?
90
Percentage of Responses
80
70
60
50
Workers
40
Residents
30
20
10
0
Yes
No preference
No
Response
Figure 13 – Responses from both workers and residents to Question 8
Question 8a – For those who answered ‘yes’ to Question 8 – Do you have
any specific suggestions?
This open-ended question was designed to supplement the responses from
question 8. The comments and suggestions are outlined in full in appendix
B.
A range of suggestions were made by respondents. These ranged from Citywide, policy measures (such as traffic management) to smaller scale,
specific interventions (such as no-mobile-phone areas). Although responses
were varied, it was possible to group them thematically, to give an
indication of overall trend. These groups are shown in figures 14 and 15.
Responses given by the residents
Figure 14 shows grouped residents responses. The top three responses were
traffic-based measures (22% of responses), restrictions on licensing/outside
28
Question 9 – Would you like such areas to be more accessible and better
advertised?
This yes/no question was designed to gauge whether respondents felt
existing quiet areas should be promoted, and follows on from question 8.
The results are shown in table 1.
Table 1 – Responses from workers and residents to Question 9
Workers
Yes
No
No preference
Residents
61.5%
34%
17%
30%
21.5%
36%
Residents and workers responded differently to this question. Most workers
wanted to see open spaces advertised better and more accessible. Residents
responses were less conclusive.
Question 10 – Which of the following sounds would you say are iconic?
This multiple choice question was designed to examine study question 4, the
respondents’ perceptions of ‘iconic sounds’. Results are shown in Figure 16.
A list of sounds which could be considered as emblematic of City life was
compiled, and respondents selected as many as they felt appropriate. There was
also an option to select ‘other’, and provide an open-ended response. These
responses are included in Appendix B.
31
Which of the following sounds would you say are iconic?
90
80
Percentage of responses
70
60
50
Workers
Residents
40
30
20
10
0
St Paul's
bells
Open cry
trading
Boats on the Other church
river
bells
Buzz' from
coffee
houses/ pubs
Evening
standard
traders
General
bustle of
activity
Other
Suggested sounds
Figure 16 – Responses of both residents and workers to Question 10.
The spread of responses was reasonably similar. ‘St. Paul’s Bells’ was the
sound most frequently selected. 53% of workers and 82% of residents
considered them to be iconic. ‘Church bells’ was the second most frequently
selected, with 49% of workers and 72% of residents responses. ‘General
bustle of activity’ was the third most selected sound source, with 39% of
workers and 38% of residents deeming it iconic.
Question 10a – Specification of ‘other’ iconic sounds
Those respondents who selected ‘Other’ in question 10 gave a range of answers,
and these are included in Appendix B.
Question 10b – Do you like to be able to hear iconic sounds associated
with the City?
This question was designed to examine study questions 3 (whether respondents thought
a loud acoustic environment was a part of the vibrancy of the City) and 4 (the
respondents’ perceptions of iconic sounds).
Responses are shown in figure 17.
32
How Old Are You?
Percentage of responses
50
45
40
35
30
Workers
25
Residents
20
15
10
5
0
Under 25
25-30
31-40
41-60
60+
No
Response
Age
Figure 20 – Responses from workers and residents to question 12.
Residents who responded had a normal age distribution, with less responses
than might be expected from the under-30’s. Workers also had a fairly
normal distribution, with relatively few respondents over-60.
Question 13 – Do you have any further comments?
This open-ended question provided a wide range of responses, which are
included in Appendix B.
Further analysis
An attempt was made to compare age profile with National Statistice Office
estimates (NSO, 2009). There was a mis-match in the datasets, as age categories
were defined differently by the census and the survey questions. This
comparison was not made, as there was too much uncertainty in the data for it to
be a useful exercise.
Responses to individual questions were compared to one another, for further
analysis. This showed that certain noise sources were noticed more or less
depending on the amount of time respondents spent in the City.
Figures 21 and 22 show the results of this comparison.
36
5.2 Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey
In this section, the results of all surveys carried out at each open space will be presented
in turn. This will include the basic data, and the index of tranquillity for that site.
Further analysis of the indices of tranquillity will take place in section 4.4.
Raw data, and calculation of likert scales for all sites are included in Appendix D.
Combined results
The overall combined results are given below in Figure 23. This graph demonstrates
that the site deemed to be the most tranquil was the Barbican, by some distance. This
was followed by the two riverside sites, Dark Horse and Fish Wharf, suggesting that the
river Thames is influential in enhancing feelings of tranquillity. Interestingly, the
Barbican also has a large area of flowing water in the centre of the site.
The two lowest-scoring sites are Devonshire Square and Monument. These two sites are
somewhat similar in that they are both fully paved, fairly concrete and have little or no
green space/plants.
Likert totals for each site
1.20
1.00
Likert total
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Barbican
Dark horse
Wharf
Fish Wharf
St Pauls
Finsbury
Circus
St Botolph- st Dunstan in Devonshire
Without
the East
Square
Bishopsgate
Monument
Site
Figure 23 – Likert totals for each site assessed in the surveys.
The breakdown of the total scores by sense is given below in Figure 24. This
demonstrates that the sense which received the highest average score (using the likert
scale outlined in Section 4.3, data collation) was touch, with the lowest one almost
38
Fish Wharf
Fish Wharf is a small garden space on the Thames Path. The space overlooks the
Thames to the South, and abuts Adelaide House to the North, a commercial office
building. London Bridge forms the Western edge.
Index of tranquillity
This site scored positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Smell received the lowest likert average.
The characteristics of Fish Wharf which contributed the most to positive scores were
related to the river, such as hearing boats and seeing natural water. As a result, the
Thames was assumed to be a major contributor to feelings of tranquillity.
Working to reduce the negative impacts of traffic (smell and visual), non-natural noise
and the smell of rubbish bins would help to improve the tranquillity rating for this site.
Further survey results
Most comments were very positive, e.g. ‘It’s really tranquil here, I love it’, and this is
reflected in the high average tranquillity scale score of 4.3. The only negative comments
relating to the tranquillity scores were relating to noise from site works, reflected in the
index of tranquillity by the strongly negative score for ‘non-natural noise’. Shielding
this site better from such work could help improve tranquillity.
Five respondents independently suggested that some sort of furniture would add to their
enjoyment of the site. Noise from construction/road works was once again brought up.
Acoustically, this appeared to be a major issue with the site.
Appendix D.1 includes comparison of Likert totals with weather, age of respondent and
regularity of visit.
40
Finsbury Circus
Finsbury Circus is a large, enclosed open space adjacent to London Wall. A bowling
green is located in the centre of the space, and is surrounded by lawns, seating and
mixed planting. There is also a small bar by the bowling green, and a paved seating area
to the west the bowling green contains a bandstand. The site is known to be popular,
especially at lunch times on warm or sunny days.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Smell received the lowest likert average.
Natural characteristics of the space were shown to contribute most to feelings of
tranquillity – demonstrated by high scores for seeing wide open spaces and flowers,
hearing birdsong and natural noise, and smelling flowers.
Working to reduce the negative impacts of non-natural noise (roadworks in particular),
traffic related impacts, and the smell of rubbish bins would help to improve the
tranquillity rating for this site.
Further Results
Tranquillity scale scores were high, with an average of 4.7 out of 5. This is reflected in
the reasons for the tranquillity scores, only one of which was negative (referencing
traffic noise) and contained examples such as ‘it’s uniquely tranquil’ and ‘it’s a well
looked after park’.
While users thought highly of the site, 6 out of 15 had specific suggestions for
improvements. Addition of seating was mentioned, as was the addition of a water
feature. Addition of such a feature on the basis of tranquillity would need to be carefully
assessed, and this is discussed in the recommendations.
Appendix D.2 includes comparison of Likert totals with weather, age of respondent and
regularity of visit.
41
St. Dunstan in the East
St Dunstan in the East is a semi-open space within and surrounding the bombed ruins of
a medieval church set beside the Wren Tower. There is a small seating area and a path
to the north; an enclosed garden within the ruin, which contains mixed planting, seating
and a water feature; and a garden with seating to the south. The City of London
Architects and Parks Department designed the scheme in 1971, and the site won a
Landscape Heritage Award in 1976.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Smell received the lowest likert average.
The water feature contributed most to feelings of tranquillity at the site. 14 out of 15
respondents said that they ‘strongly liked’ this feature in both visual and acoustic terms.
A sense of fresh air at the site also contributed to the score.
Traffic factors were responsible for much of the negatively-scored factors at this site, in
the senses sight, hearing, and smell. The site is elevated from the nearest busy road, and
only lorries and buses were significantly negatively weighted. Screening views of these
vehicles in a way which would reduce noise would reduce the negative impact of traffic,
and could help improve tranquillity rating for the site.
Further Results
Tranquillity scale scores were high, with an average of 4.67 out of 5. This is reflected in
the reasons given for the tranquillity scores, including ‘can’t find a more tranquil place
in London’ and ‘it’s wonderful here’.
5 out of 14 respondents mentioned the impact of traffic noise. 4 out of 14 respondents
suggested another water feature, and 3 suggested additional seating.
Appendix D.3 includes comparison of Likert totals with weather, age of respondent and
regularity of visit.
42
Monument
The monument site is a paved space surrounding London’s historic Monument, which
commemorates the great fire of London. A timber insert to the Northeast corner of the
site has some seating.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses except smell, with touch receiving the highest
likert average. Smell received the lowest likert average.
In common with most other sites, smell factors received the lowest mean score.
However, this site was unique in that it received a negative mean score for smell,
suggesting that, on average, it detracts from a sense of tranquillity in the site.
Feelings of tranquillity at the site could be improved by addressing smell factors.
Buses and taxis contributed positively to the mean likert scores for sight. It is suggested
that these factors are considered iconic, and add to the experience for tourists visiting
this site.
Further Results
Tranquillity scale scores were more mixed than for most other sites, with some low
scores. The site achieved an average of 3.4.
5 of the 15 respondents suggested that introducing plants/grass would improve the site.
Appendix D.4 includes comparison of Likert totals with weather, age of respondent and
regularity of visit.
43
Barbican
Built between 1965 and 1976, the Barbican is a large mixed-use complex containing
residential, office, education and cultural buildings.
Questionnaires were completed in a large, paved space at the centre of the complex. The
space is adjacent to St. Giles Church and the City of London School for Girls, and
overlooks the lake and water features. The site has some tree planting and raised
planters, and is overlooked by residential apartments with a number of window boxes.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Smell received the lowest likert average. This site received the highest site score of all
the sites surveyed, and on average each factor rated higher than ‘like’ on the likert scale
of its contribution to tranquillity.
Individually, a number of high scoring factors are worth noting. The presence of water
rated very highly for sight. The sound of the fountains in the lake (man-made water
features) were given a maximum likert rating of +2, meaning that every person
surveyed stated that they strongly liked the contribution of this factor to tranquillity.
The presence of birdsong also rated very highly acoustically.
Acoustically, only traffic and construction factors detracted from feelings of tranquillity.
In common with other sites, traffic fumes and rubbish bins were strongly negatively
weighted for smell.
Further results
Tranquillity scale scores were very high, with an average of 4.9 out of 5.
Appendix D.5 includes comparison of Likert totals with weather, age of respondent and
regularity of visit.
44
Dark House Wharf
Dark House Wharf is a small garden space on the Thames Path. The space overlooks the
Thames to the South, and abuts a large building to the North, also named Dark House
Wharf. The space has some trees and planter boxes, and a number of benches set into
hedge planting.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Smell received the lowest likert average.
High scores for sight and sound factors relating to the river contributed to this site
achieving the second highest score overall. Other natural factors rated highly. The
Thames was assumed to be a major contributor to feelings of tranquillity.
In terms of sight, traffic scores for the site were mostly positive. Traffic is less
immediate at this site than at other sites, being only visible on the south bank of the
Thames, and on bridges. Traffic sounds and non-natural noise received some of the
most negative scores. The strongest negative smell scores were for traffic fumes and
rubbish bins.
Further Results
Tranquillity scale scores varied greatly, with a high average of 4.1.
The reasons given for the tranquillity scale scores were fairly complimentary.
Appendix D.6 includes respondent suggestions and comparison of Likert totals with
weather, age of respondent and regularity of visit.
45
St. Botolph Without Bishopsgate
This site is a long, thin church garden which runs along the southwestern edge of St.
Botolph Without Bishopsgate Church. The garden contains a raised seating area, and
overlooks a regularly used netball court. The garden contains lawns and missed planting
in a linear arrangement, with trees at the perimeter. The garden contains a water feature,
which was inactive when the survey was conducted.
Index of tranquillity
. This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert
average. Smell received the lowest likert average.
A number of natural factors contributed to a high score for the site. The strongest score
was for the touch factor grass/plants/flowers. Hearing birdsong rated highly. The church
itself also contributes to the sense of tranquillity in the garden; one of the highest scores
was given for hearing the church bells. Seeing aspects related to the nearby road (roads,
cars, buses, lorries, taxis) all received mildly negative scores.
Two of the most negatively weighted factors for hearing were traffic and railway noise.
Traffic fumes and rubbish bins received negative scores.
Further results
Tranquillity scale scores varied, with an average of 3.9.
The reasons given for these scores were generally positive in nature, and some
highlighted issues with the site. Comments such as ‘it’s lovely here but the
traffic/building noise is really bad’ typify this trend.
Comments indicated that traffic noise at this site could be more of an issue for site users
than was initially indicated by the index of tranquillity.
Appendix D.7 includes respondent suggestions and comparison of likert totals with
weather, age of respondent and regularity of visit.
46
St. Paul’s Churchyard
This site includes the gardens which encircle the East end of St Paul’s Cathedral. The
gardens are maintained by the City of London. The site is bounded to the East by the
Cathedral School, and roads to the North and South.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Smell received the lowest likert average.
The presence of the Cathedral influenced a number of key contributors to the positive
score received by this site. ‘man-made artistic features’, ‘appearance of buildings’ and
‘church bells’ were all amongst the highest rated factors.
Hearing non-natural noise (including building works), and smelling rubbish bins and
traffic fumes had the largest negative impact on tranquillity.
Further Results
The scores given on the tranquillity scale were all high, with an average score of 4.7.
The Cathedral is clearly the dominant feature of the site, which was supported in the
open-ended responses.
Appendix D.8 includes respondent suggestions, and comparison of likert totals with
weather, age of respondent and regularity of visit.
47
Devonshire Square
This is a small, enclosed paved space near to Liverpool Street. A small cluster of trees
are positioned to the centre of the space, and the area beneath them is enclosed with
bollards. The Square has shared surface paving for both vehicular and pedestrian use.
Index of tranquillity
This site scores positively for all senses, with touch receiving the highest likert average.
Seeing received the lowest likert average.
This site received one of the lowest overall site scores, but still received a positive
score, indicating that it is perceived by users to be an area of tranquillity.
Hearing birdsong rated very highly, and there was a positive score for touching
grass/plants/flowers. Smell received two highly positive scores – for fresh air and
food/drink outlets.
Most sight-related traffic factors received only mildly negative scores, but lorries were
found to detract strongly from perception of tranquillity. Non-natural noise received a
low score. Large negative scores were received for smelling traffic fumes and rubbish
bins.
Further Results
The scores given on the tranquillity scale varied greatly, and there was an average score
of 3.1. This was roughly in line with the index of tranquillity, which ranked this site
second lowest.
The reasons given for the tranquillity scores varied greatly. Comments ranged from ‘it
is far from tranquil’ to ‘it’s perfectly placed amongst the hustle and bustle’.
Appendix D.9 includes respondent suggestions and comparison of likert totals with
weather, age of respondent and regularity of visit.
48
Further analysis – Assessment of the indices of tranquillity
In the questions covered by the preceding sub-sections, residents were asked to rank the
tranquillity of each site on a scale of 1-5. The responses were then averaged to give a
simple site score for tranquillity between 1 and 5. This was then used to check whether
the final outcomes gave a fair reflection of how tranquil people considered a site to be.
A Spearman’s rank test was carried out, and the indices of tranquillity were found to
accurately represent the levels of tranquillity experienced by the sample respondents.
A summary of the results of this assessment is included in Appendix D.10.
49
6
DISCUSSION
This chapter includes a discussion of both surveys undertaken, and how they have
addressed/ satisfied the stated aims and objectives.
Sections 6.1 and 6.2 discuss how the results fit together, key emergent theme or themes,
a discussion of what the results indicate in the broader context, and any limitations or
problems which were encountered.
6.1 General Attitudes to Noise Survey
The purpose of the general attitudes to noise survey was to understand both the
perception of noise by the City population, and the degree of tranquillity they
experienced in the City.
The questionnaire was designed with five key study questions in mind (See
Methodology), the way in which the results have informed each question is discussed
below.
1. Perception of noise – Questionnaire questions number 1, 1a and 2 were designed to
address this study question.
The results clearly illustrate that most of the surveyed population notice noise in the
City, and highlighted a number of noise sources which are noticed by different groups
within that population. Traffic and building works were the predominant sources
noticed by both workers and residents. Worker responses highlighted these two sources
only, but resident responses also highlighted people and pubs as noticeable sources.
The City was perceived by the surveyed population to be louder than average, which
was shown to be a significant trend.
2. Whether the City population thought action to reduce noise was required.
Question 3, 3a and 3b were designed to address this study question.
The majority of people surveyed would like to see action taken to reduce noise levels in
the city. This response was more marked in the resident than the worker group. The
suggestions received for achieving this reduction were many and varied.
3. Seeking out Quiet areas, and opinions on future actions. Questions 7, 7a, 8, 8a
and 9 were designed to address this study question.
57% of respondants actively seek out quiet areas in the City. Of those who didn’t seek
out quiet areas, a very small proportion (5%) preferred busier, noisier parts of the city.
50
Most respondents stated that they would like more done to protect existing quiet/
tranquil areas in the City. Specific suggestions for how to achieve this were varied.
Once these suggestions were classified, three main categories were highlighted: Traffic
control measures; Licensing/ outdoor drinking control measures; and Building/ street
work control measures. These suggestions align with the predominant noise sources
noticed in the City.
Most workers responded that they would like quiet areas to be more accessible and
better advertised, while responses from the residents were inconclusive. This could help
to target any efforts to promote the existing open spaces in the City.
4. Perception of iconic sounds. Questions 10, 10a, 10b and 10c were designed to
address this study question.
Noise in the City is extremely heterogeneous, and given the fundamentally urban
character of the City of London, it is unreasonable to suggest that all noise is negative
(please see background section). These questions explored the concept of iconic sounds
in the City, and the results are particularly interesting.
Church bells, particularly those of St. Paul’s were perceived to be iconic, as well as
general bustle of activity and boats on the river. Over 80% of respondents liked being
able to hear these sounds. When asked if they sought places to gain respite from these
sounds, over half of the workers responded that they did not, while over half of the
residents responded that they did seek respite areas.
The response to question 10c illustrates that although many sounds are perceived to be
iconic, the way in which they are experienced plays a part. Site specificity no doubt
plays a part in this, and this is a topic which the tranquillity in open spaces survey
explores further.
5. Profile of respondents
Over 90% of respondents were either living or ordinarily working in the City of
London.
A large proportion of workers spent a part of their commute on foot, and little time
outside. Residents responded that they spent an average amount of time outside. The
disparity between time spent outdoors by both groups could be a reason for residents
feeling more strongly about noise issues.
Of the workers surveyed, about half were male and half were female. Residents
surveyed were 60% male. Residents had a normal age distribution, workers followed a
51
similar distribution, with a greater number of people aged 25 -40, and a low number of
respondents over 60.
These results clearly show that for the population surveyed, noise is a factor, and they
would like to see actions taken to reduce noise. There is no clear consensus for which of
those actions would be most readily accepted/ supported, but there is a clear consensus
for which noise sources are most noticeable. This can inform further work and study,
and will be discussed further in Chapter 8.
Quiet areas were shown to be valued and sought out by the City population, and the
workers surveyed expressed a clear desire for these areas to be more accessible and
better advertised.
A number of iconic sounds were highlighted, and the perception of iconic sounds was
shown to be a complex issue, going beyond the sound itself, and requiring consideration
of the manner and circumstances in which those sounds were heard.
In the broader context of noise management and management of open spaces, these
results indicate that noise from traffic, construction and licensed premises sources could
be prioritised if proactive measures were to be undertaken.
The results also indicate that iconic sounds are a relevant factor in the City, and merit
consideration in any future proposals.
Any measures to promote quieter open spaces in the City could be most effective when
targeted at the worker population.
Problems were encountered when assessing how representative the sample population
was of the City population as a whole. Two main study biases were recognised which
were difficult to avoid – one as a result of conducting the survey on an elective basis,
and another as a result of omitting the tourist population from the study. However, key
demographic questions, particularly age profile, could have been better designed. The
suggested age categories on the questionnaire did not match up with recorded census
categories, and this hindered statistical analysis.
Although there were clear benefits to the use of automated survey software, some
information was lost, where respondents gave answers such as “please see previous
answer”.
52
6.2 Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey
The purpose of the Tranquillity in open spaces survey was to gauge how tranquillity
was perceived in a range of open spaces in the City, and the factors which contributed to
these perceptions.
The overall combined results show that the site which was deemed to be the most
tranquil was the Barbican. The second and third ranked sites were Dark Horse Wharf
and Fish Wharf. The presence of water at all three sites was shown to be a contributing
factor.
Sites were assessed individually, and the results were reported on and characterised.
Certain parameter types were consistently observed to have a substantial influence on
site likert score. Hearing and touch were observed to have consistently high scores, and
the largest impact on how tranquil the sites were perceived to be. This is shown in
Figure 24. Smell was observed to have a consistently low score.
The key emergent theme is that tranquillity, as perceived in the City of London’s open
spaces is a concept which is affected by a range of different sensory factors, and that
some of those factors are more sensitive than others.
In the broader context of open spaces management for tranquillity, these results indicate
that measures which change the way in which a space is perceived specifically in terms
of hearing and touch, will have the greatest potential influence on how tranquil that
space is perceived to be.
The results also indicate that the presence of water at the sites surveyed had a positive
influence on perception of tranquillity.
Few problems were encountered, but there were two main limitations which should be
noted.
The face to face method of interview was relatively costly when compared to alternative
survey methods. This was recognised at the scoping stage, and face to face interviews
were selected on the basis that they were more effective.
It was difficult to ensure that the survey respondents would be a representative sample.
This was due to considerable variation in the type and number of people using the
space, in terms of their demographic, and also in terms of their patterns of open space
use at each site.
53
6.3 Were the Aim and Objectives met?
The aim of this study has been to investigate the perception of noise and tranquillity
within the City of London, with a view to informing noise policy.
In order to achieve the study aim, the objectives described in Chapter 3 were met. This
section describes each objective, discusses both surveys and how their results have
informed the suite of recommendations described in Chapter 8.
Analyse the opinions of the City population towards the acoustic environment, by
conducting social surveys:
This was satisfied by the general attitudes survey. This survey showed that the City
population were aware of a range of factors in the acoustic environment, and
highlighted key sources of noise, and which groups noticed those sources the most. This
can directly inform future plans and policies, enabling decision-makers to target
problem areas more effectively.
Highlight a number of key acoustic issues in the City of London, as perceived by its
population:
This was satisfied by both surveys. A range of key acoustic issues were highlighted
(see preceding sections 6.1 and 6.2), and these have the potential to support a range of
plans and policies. The issues highlighted have also informed the recommendations for
further research.
Provide evidence to help gauge whether the City population are sufficiently concerned
with these issues to justify or target further work.
Both surveys included questions which were designed to address this objective.
The surveyed population were clearly interested in the issues identified, and most would
like to see further work done.
Assess perceived tranquillity of open spaces in the City of London, with a view to
informing any future site improvements.
This was satisfied by the tranquillity in open spaces survey. The survey and subsequent
analysis has highlighted a range of factors which can be considered when making future
improvements. These results led to the recommendation that measures should be
considered on a site specific basis. A range of open ended responses have been included
in Appendix D, which may be useful when site improvements are being considered.
54
Develop a methodology to measure and compare perceived tranquillity and constituent
factors of tranquillity in open spaces in the City of London.
The methodology described in chapter 4 was developed following an extensive
literature review and a number of stakeholder and expert review meetings. This has
informed the recommendations for further research.
55
7 CONCLUSIONS
The results from the general attitude to noise surveys have demonstrated: that noise is a
noticeable feature of the City; that building works and traffic are the main sources; that
the noise noticed is perceived to be loud; and that people would like action taken to
address this issue. These trends have been apparent in both the resident and worker
populations, however the residents appear to feel more strongly about the issue.
There is a clear desire for acoustic management of particular areas in the City of
London.
Relatively quiet areas have been shown to be valued by both the resident and working
populations of the City. There is therefore strong justification for protecting specific
quiet areas of the City. This will help the City of London maintain its status as a worldclass centre for business and finance.
For meaningful improvements to open spaces to be made – the focus must be on
tranquillity, and not just noise. The indices of tranquillity developed in this study are an
effective tool for the consideration of measures to improve open spaces.
Several sites in the City have been shown to be tranquil. The most tranquil of those
surveyed was the Barbican. This is also the quietest site in the City in terms of measured
decibel level.
The index of tranquillity is a useful decision-making tool, which can inform and
improve the consideration of measures to enhance tranquillity in open spaces.
56
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
The social surveys described in this report have informed the development of a number
of recommendations. Most of these inform future decision-making.

Action should be taken to address noise levels in the City of London. This could
take the form of introducing, enhancing and protecting relatively quiet areas, in
addition to reduction of noise at source.

Measures to enhance tranquillity in quiet areas in the City of London should be
considered on a site specific basis, and should consider the aspects highlighted
by the results of the tranquillity in open spaces survey.

Measures to enhance tranquillity should consider both worker and residential
populations, as study indicates that both groups have closely aligned but
different priorities.

Iconic sounds are a feature of the City, and should be considered in plans with
the potential to influence or make use of the acoustic environment. These
include City sound walks and open space projects.

A range of actions were proposed by respondents, which could be considered in
future decision-making. The most popular were:
o Introduction of traffic control measures
o Creation of pedestrian areas
o Installation of noise buffering measures

Further research could be undertaken, to examine the following:
o compare indices of tranquillity with concurrently recorded noise
measurements.
o Identify key areas of tranquillity and quiet zones, and propose policy
measures which will ensure that they are protected and maintained.
o The costs and benefits of using traffic management, and the use of
electric vehicles and alternative modes, in the City to achieve acoustic
management objectives.

Future studies would be improved by a consideration of QA/QC in the early
stages. In particular, questions could be designed to enable comparison of
respondent profile with relevant national and regional statistical datasets.
57
9 REFERENCES
Bureau Veritas, 2008. City of London – Quiet Zones Scoping Study. Proj. No. 1347665.
City
of
London
Open
Spaces
Department,
2008
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/corporation/lgnl_services/environment_and_planning/p
arks_and_open_spaces/city_gardens
CPRE, 2005. Northumbria University and The University of Newcastle for the
Campaign to Protect Rural England. Mapping Tranquillity: Defining and Assessing a
Valuable Resource. www.northumbria.ac.uk/tranquillity and
www.countryside-qualitycounts.org.uk
Lars Jarup, Alexandros S. Haralabidis, Konstantina Dimakopoulou, Frederica VignaTaglianti, Matteo Giampaolo, Alessandro Borgini, Marie-Louise Dudley, Göran
Pershagen, Gösta Bluhm, Danny Houthuijs, Wolfgang Babisch, Manolis Velonakis,
Klea Katsouyanni. Acute effects of night-time noise exposure on blood pressure in
populations living near airports. European Heart Journal (2008) 29, 658-664.
Kang J., Yang W. 2005. Soundscape and Sound Preferences in Urban Squares: A Case
Study in Sheffield. Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 10. No. 1, 61–80
National Statistics Office, Mid-2007 Population Estimates for 2009 Wards in England
and Wales by Quinary Age and Sex, and Working Age. www.statistics.gov.uk
Northumbria University for the Campaign to Protect Rural England. 2004. Tranquillity
mapping.
http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity/national-and-regionaltranquillity-maps
Scott Wilson, 2008. Westminster Open Spaces Noise Study 2008.
STATS Limited, 2009. Noise Survey of the City. Report Number 36799 – 001
58
10 APPENDICES
Appendix A: General Attitudes Questionnaire
Appendix B: General Attitudes Survey Reports
Appendix C: Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey Questionnaire
Appendix D: Tranquillity in Open Spaces Survey Results
59